Sitting of 4 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time. Cotton Factories: Augmentation of Benefices. Read a second time; Special Constables.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, for a Copy of the Report of the Commissioners of the Holyhead Road for the improvement thereof:—On the Motion of Mr. LAMB, for Comparative Accounts of the Population of Great Britain in 1801, 1811, 1821, and 1851, with the Annual Value of Real Property, in the year 1815; also a statement of Progress in the Inquiry regarding the Occupation of Families and Persons, and the Duration of Life, as required by the Population Act of 1830:—On the Motion of Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, for a return of the Constabulary Police in Ireland during the last year, their Force and all the expenses attending them.
Petitions presented. By Mr. RUTHVEN, from the Merchants of Galway to establish the constituency of that place in the Resident Merchants, Traders, and Artizans. By Mr. HARVEY, from the Traders of Brighthelmstone, for an Act for the more Speedy Recovery of Small Debts. By Mr. LAMBERT, from the Inhabitants of New Ross praying the House would adopt measures to complete the Kilkenny Canal; and from the Catholic Inhabitants of the Union of Tentevir, Rosegarland and Inch, against any further
1206
Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. MORE O'FERRALL, from Athy, Kildare, praying that the Yeomanry Force (Ireland) may be disbanded.

FINES AND RECOVERIES BILL.
Mr. John Campbellbrought in a Bill for the abolition of the present system of effecting Fines and Recoveries. The Bill was read a first time, and on the Motion that it be read a second time on the 11th instant, the hon. and learned Member stated, that he had no hope of carrying the Bill through Parliament this Session, but he wished it to be printed, that it might be generally known. It was unnecessary for him to say any thing of the alterations he proposed, as this part of our law had long been a disgrace to us; it was the remnant of feudal barbarism, and the alterations proposed by the Bill had the sanction of the Commissioners of Law Inquiry.
Sir Charles Wetherellwas glad that time was to be given for the consideration of this very important subject. He admitted that some improvement was requisite, but at the same time he could not believe that the system of fines and recoveries as at present existing ought to be described as a relic of feudal and barbarous times. If improvements could be made in the ancient forms of the law he would not oppose them.
Mr. Stricklandwished to ask the hon. Member (Mr. Campbell) whether at this period of the Session it was his intention to press the further consideration of the General Registration Bill? He hoped, even if it were so pressed, that the county of York would be excluded from its operation.
Mr. O'Connellthanked the hon. Member (Mr. Campbell) for having introduced so many legal improvements. With respect to the system of fines and recoveries he would only say, that he differed in opinion concerning it, from the hon. and learned Member. It commenced with learned Judges in other times, who were more enlightened than the Legislature, and who by the introduction of such a system had actually usurped the power of an Act of Parliament.
Mr. John Campbell,in answer to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Strickland), could only say, that his pressing the Bill or not must depend upon the duration of the present Session. If the Reform Bill passed, which he hoped God might grant, the Session would be prolonged, and in such a case he would certainly

1207
press it upon the consideration of the House.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a second time on the 11th.

GENERAL REGISTRY BILL.
Mr. Ayshford Sanfordpresented a Petition from 1,200 Landowners and Inhabitants of the county of Somerset, against the Registration Bill. The petitioners represented to the House, that the measure would seriously affect the owners of small properties. They stated, as a fact, that two-thirds of all the existing mortgages were on properties which were under the value of 300 l. He hoped the hon. Member would not press forward the Bill at present, or he should feel bound to oppose it.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, they had an institution of this nature in Yorkshire since the time of Queen Anne, and it was now expected that institution was to be abolished wantonly and from the mere love of change. It would excite less alarm if the deeds were to be deposited in each local district, rather than to have one central mausoleum to hold them. He had a strong suspicion that the whole affair would turn out to be a job. He was instructed by his constituents to require that Yorkshire should be exempt from the operations of this Bill.
Lord Morpethsaid, he had obtained the promise of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. John Campbell) that Yorkshire should be excluded from this Bill, and he was sure that no breach of faith would be committed towards him.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that if the Registration Bill were passed into a law it would reduce expense; and as to the notion of this measure being a job, he would ask was he accused of jobbing? He could assure the House that he had refused much higher offices than ever the Chief Registrar under this Bill could expect to enjoy. He was also charged with something like a breach of faith; but he denied that any such charge could be made against him. When the Bill went into the Committee the noble Lord would be at perfect liberty to move that Yorkshire should be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
Lord Morpethdisclaimed intending to make any imputation of breach of faith against his hon. and learned friend (Mr. J. Campbell), but if the Bill went into the Committee he would move that Yorkshire be exempted from its operation.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the reason why the people considered this Bill to be a job was, that all the lawyers in the House were in favour of it.
Mr. Crokerexpressed his entire approbation of this Bill. The necessity of a registry for landed property was so self-evident a proposition, that he was quite surprised it could meet with any opposition. If this Bill were carried, its author would do as much for the benefit of the country as any other individual had ever been able to accomplish.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Bill was highly necessary, and it should have his most decided support. It was so much the reverse of a professional job, that it would lessen the emoluments of every branch of the legal profession.
Mr. Cramptonconcurred in the necessity of a general registry of landed property not only as a security to landed proprietors, but to other classes who advanced money on landed property.
Mr. Burgesaid, that a measure like the present should not be precipitated through the House. Time must be allowed for its provisions to be understood, and it ought to be most fully discussed. It should certainly be printed and distributed before it was further proceeded with.
Petition to be printed.
Colonel Sibthorppresented a similar Petition from the Corporation and general Landowners of the city of Lincoln. A system of registration could afford no security to property, and in fact its adoption would only gratify idle curiosity. It would do small landowners a serious injury and he certainly would oppose it at every stage.
Mr. Wilkssaid, there could be no doubt, but that in many districts of the county of Lincoln there was a strong feeling against the Registration Bill. He hoped, at least, that the Bill would not be pressed during the Session, and that the whole country might have time to consider it.
Petition to be printed.

NEWTOWNBARRY AFFAIR.
Mr. Henry Grattan Mr. Henry Grattan moved, that there be laid before the House a copy of the memorial of James Nowlan and others, dated August 16, to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, regarding the conduct of Captain Graham and the Reverend W. Morgan, two Magistrates of the county of Wexford, for declining to receive bail, and grant the

1209
required information, on the charge of burning the house of one of the Newtownbarry Yeomen, together with his Excellency's reply; also, for copies of any further communication received by the Irish government relating thereto. After what had passed, he did not see how the Motion could be refused.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, he had not the least objection to the production of the papers which the hon. Member required. The subject had been so recently and fully discussed in the House, that he could throw no new light upon it by any further observations at present.
Mr. Lefroysaid, the name of Captain Graham had been introduced, but to prevent any unfair inferences from being connected with the mention of that officer's name, he begged to remind the House, that Captain Graham had not issued the warrant on which the parties were apprehended, and it was not the custom in Ireland for one Magistrate to interfere with respect to warrants issued by another.
Sir John Newportsaid, if Magistrates were generally not to interfere with warrants issued by each other, cases of great oppression might be the consequence. A false delicacy should not prevent a Magistrate from endeavouring to remedy all abuse of power.
Sir Richard Vyvyanprotested against the time of the House being consumed in this species of discussion, without the requisite preliminary steps having been taken in the Courts of Law.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, no Legislature ever held out a greater delusion to any country than when the House referred complaints against the magistracy to the Court of King's Bench. A greater farce could not be practised than an appeal in such cases to this tribunal.
Sir Robert Batesonthought it was highly improper to occupy the time of the House in such discussion, when so many other important matters remained to be discussed. He protested against the imputations of the hon. Gentleman against that high and excellent tribunal the Court of King's Bench, in which presided men of the greatest virtue and abilities.
Motion agreed to.

POPULAR EXCITEMENT.
Colonel Evansrose to propose a motion, which he supposed the House would agree with him in thinking one extremely proper to be
1210
entertained at the present moment. The motion he intended to make was founded on some proposition which had been made for the better preservation of the public peace, in consequence of the present peculiar state of affairs. It was the opinion of many, that there was no alternative between the success of the Reform Bill and a revolution, in case of its failure. Such being the opinion entertained by some, it was proper, he considered, that the House should be put in possession of the means adopted on a former occasion, when there existed reasons for apprehending popular commotion. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in November last, when the late Government issued a declaration against Reform, such was the excitement caused in the public mind by that act, that the Government thought it necessary to prepare for any commotion by making certain military arrangements. What those arrangements were was not generally known; but it was understood that, previous to the 9th of November, when his Majesty—then as much and deservedly revered as he was at this moment—was about to visit the City, all the regiments in the neighbouring counties to the metropolis were drawn together and distributed in different parts of the metropolis, to act against the people. He had heard also, that in addition to all this, every policeman received private instructions, which authorized him to select a friend, who was to act with him. His object was not now to question the propriety of that proceeding, but to attract attention to a crisis, which was not only not dissimilar to the one in question, but, as it appeared to him, of infinitely greater moment and danger. He thought it would be only prudent to provide for the apprehended danger, and place the public peace on a more secure basis than at present. He would beg leave to move an humble Address to his Majesty "For copies of papers remaining in any of the public offices, tending to show the extent of the insurrectionary movement expected to have broken out in the metropolis on the 9th of November last: also, of any arrangements or plans of operation for putting down the same by force of arms, so far as these may be communicated without detriment to public safety: also, returns of expenses for movements of troops collected to be in readiness to act against the people on that occasion, or incurred

1211
for any addition to the defences of the Tower, towards increasing the cannon and musket-fire capable of being brought to bear from it against the surrounding streets or buildings."
Sir Henry Parnellwas of opinion that the hon. Gentleman had shown no grounds for his Motion. The hon. Gentleman did not object to the propriety of those arrangements; and that nothing more had been done than was expedient, and not only usual, but the duty of every commanding officer to do on such occasions. He had made inquiry, and had ascertained that nothing more was done than to have the military in readiness to assist the civil power. He therefore hoped the honourable House would not give its consent to the Motion.
Mr. Huntsaid, the gallant Colonel had mentioned insurrectionary movement; he (Mr. Hunt) could give him every information about that; and he therefore begged leave to say a few words on the subject. A few days before the 9th of November, he was chairman at a very crowded Radical Reform meeting in the Rotunda: 2,000 or 3,000 people were present, and a great number could not obtain admittance. About 300 waited round the door for some time, and then, by a general rush, made their way into the passage, stole three or four tri-coloured flags, and then went out again in a body, making loud outcries. They were met by the police, who gave them a good drubbing. This was the insurrectionary movement, and this only. As to any danger which would have attended the King on going to the City, he could only say, his Majesty might have walked, without the slightest danger, all the way from his palace.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, as the House seemed much averse from entertaining this Motion, nothing was requisite for him to do but remind the House, that he had at the time fully explained the motives which induced the Government to take the precautions alluded to. He had then adverted to the communications which had passed between the Government and the Lord Mayor, and said, that from these and the symptoms of popular discontent then observable, the Government had exercised a sound as well as a humane discretion in securing the public against the miseries of a popular commotion, by pro-providing means for its immediate suppression. The precautions were entirely
1212
defensive; and, had the necessity for ascertaining the fact occurred, they would, he believed, have proved effectual, and, by prompt interference, have averted the anarchy and bloodshed which must have been the consequence of a want of preparation to meet such an exigency. He hoped never to see a Ministry neglect such precautions. He would only beg the House to bear in mind the events of 1798, in comparison with the crisis alluded to by the hon. Member; and then he did not doubt their concurrence in his opinion—that humanity, as well as good policy, required that those precautions should be taken. Those precautions were not to act offensively against the people, but defensively, and for the protection of their best and dearest interests, which were inseparably dependent on the preservation of the public peace.
Colonel Evans,in justification of his Motion, referred to a paragraph in the report of the right hon. Baronet's speech, delivered at the time, in which he was represented to have said, that the reason for putting a stop to the intended visit of his Majesty to the City was to prevent a collision between the military and the people. He certainly was of opinion that, in the present critical state of affairs, some inquiry was necessary for the purpose of averting the threatened danger.
Sir Henry Hardingedeprecated any motion like the present; it could lead to no good purpose, and was, on the contrary, likely to mislead the public. No other preparations had been made at the Tower than those which were necessary, and only of a defensive nature. He acquitted the gallant Officer of any intention to convey to the troops a notion that they were not to obey the directions of the Executive as well as those of their superior Officers when constitutionally given. The troops, he was sure, would always do their duty.
Motion negatived without a division.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill.
General Palmersaid, that as the present was his first opportunity of speaking upon the question of Reform, he hoped he might be allowed to state his opinion of he general measure, and as in what he

1213
had to say he should abstain from any argument already urged in the debate, he trusted it might be considered a claim to the indulgence of the House, and an earnest that he would trespass as shortly on its time as the deep importance of the question would allow him. He had ever held the same opinion of the absolute necessity of Reform, and to the full extent of the present measure, and could not express it more strongly than in the few words of the late Mr. Pitt, which he begged to quote as the text of his argument to support it:—'Without a Parliamentary Reform the nation will be plunged into new wars; without, a Parliamentary Reform you cannot be safe against bad Ministers, nor can good ones be of use to you. No honest man can, under the present system, continue Minister.' Such were the words of the late Mr. Pitt, before he came into office, and although the present state of the country was solely to be ascribed to the continuance and enormous increase of the abuses of the system under his Administration, the hon. Member firmly believed that Mr. Pitt when Minister, would have adopted Reform but for the causes which prevented it, and compelled him to abandon the attempt. The same excuse was to be made for each succeeding Government; and although he had ever opposed the system, and must have continued to do it under whatever Ministers, it was but the truth to say, that hitherto no Ministry could have carried the question of Reform; for the reason that, whatever the feeling of the Crown or the Aristocracy, the general feeling of the people was against it; but now that their eyes had at last opened to the necessity of the measure, and the public voice had called so loudly for it, the commencement of the present reign, with other fortunate events combining in its favour, had been the golden opportunity for any Government to have carried it. In the first place, what more fortunate than his Majesty's accession to the Throne at so critical a moment, being just in the nick of time to win the hearts of the people by that endearing conduct which, however natural in itself, was so unlike all precedent, that if it had happened to follow and not precede the great event at Paris, would have destroyed all its charm and all the good arising from it, in that, reciprocal attachment and sympathy of feeling between the Crown and people,
1214
the best security for the interests of both? Secondly, the glorious Revolution at Paris, which not only had done immortal honour to the moral character of the French people, but the greatest service to the present, question, by at once removing those fears which had been so long and deeply impressed in the minds of all classes in this country as to the danger of Reform, looking to the example of the former French Revolution. Thirdly, another Revolution in Belgium, not being (as in France) the immediate consequence of an act of tyranny without example, but arising out of the deep resentment of the people at the oppression of their government, which the example of Paris had occasioned to burst forth not only in Belgium, but more or less throughout the Continent; and lastly, the situation of the Holy Alliance, who, in spite of their treaties, and the sum of 2,000,000 l., thrown away by this country at the peace on fortresses to maintain them, were unable to combine against France or Belgium, having more than enough upon their hands at home. For all those reasons, the opening of the late Parliament by the King's Speech had been the golden opportunity for any Minister to declare the intention of Reform, and, above all, the individual to whom the country owed the deepest obligation for the adoption of that previous measure of the same moral and political character, but of far greater difficulty—Catholic Emancipation; and it was in the firm belief that the same necessity which had determined the late Minister upon the Catholic Question, would equally have induced that Minister to have carried Reform, which had led him to look with satisfaction to his continuance in office as the surest means of obtaining it, inasmuch as he would have had, not only the Crown and people, with all the strength of Government, on his side, but the same zealous and disinterested support of the Whigs which they had given him on the Catholic Question, and which would have enabled him to carry Reform in the same triumphant manner. But, however mistaken in such belief, he hoped it was all for the best that the cause of Reform was not in the hands of those who, in carrying the Catholic Question, declared it to be against their political feelings, and solely from the necessity of the case; but of that party who had ever been the friends of civil and

1215
religious liberty, and to whose eloquence and labour in the cause of both, the public were mainly indebted for every liberal measure adopted hitherto by Government. It was, therefore, under all these circumstances, looking to the state of parties in that House, and to all which had been said, both in and out of it against the present Ministers, that he had risen as an old, warm, but still independent friend, not only to defend their Bill, but also their motives in accepting office for that glorious purpose, against the heavy but unfounded charges of their opponents. To this effect he would very shortly state the grounds on which he made the following declaration in the face of the present House of Commons and the country. From the time he first came into Parliament, twenty-three years since, there had been no question before it involving the dignity of the Crown, the honour of Parliament, or the interests of the people, wherein his hon. friends, the Whigs, had not strictly done their duty; whilst all that had tended to degrade the Crown and Parliament in the eyes of the people, and to bring the country to its present state, had been solely the acts of their opponents. In making this declaration he would only trouble the House with two cases in support of it, the subjects of which were of a painful nature, but so deeply important to the question, that he rested his whole argument of the necessity of the Reform Bill entirely upon them. The first took place in the Session of 1809, being the memorable inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York as Commander-in-chief, upon which important question he must just observe, that this case was in itself the strongest example of the want of Reform, because it could not have happened under a Reformed Parliament, for in a Reformed Parliament no Minister would have advised that unconstitutional act of the Crown, in the appointment of one of its own branches to the command of the army; whilst under the existing system he could not oppose it; and thus it had been to the present time, that, for want of a real Representation of the people in Parliament, to enable an honest Minister to do his duty as the constitutional adviser of the Crown, he had only held his office at the joint will of the Crown and the Aristocracy, commanding the majority in that House; and he did not hesitate in saying, it was to this abandonment of the prin-
1216
ciples of the Constitution, by destroying the balance of its parts, that the whole public debt of the country was solely to be ascribed. In proof of it he would refer to the speeches of the late Lord Chatham, and of Mr. Pitt, whose words he had quoted; and in repeating them, where he says "Without Reform the nation will be plunged into new wars," he would ask the Ministers who wrote, and all who had read the King's Speech at the opening of the late Parliament, if any thing could have prevented war but public opinion against it? With respect to the whole proceedings of the inquiry to which he had alluded, which did more to degrade the Crown and the House of Commons in the eyes of the people than all the previous questions in Parliament, he would assert, that the conduct of the Whigs, in their painful situation betwixt the Crown and the people, was in strict accordance with their duty; whilst the Ministers of that day, to support the system or to keep their places, sacrificed the honour of the House of Commons to the personal feelings of the Crown, first, by making themselves parties in the cause wherein they sat as judges; and, lastly, when the truth came out, in prevailing on the House to deny it, in the face of evidence which spoke for itself to the minds of the whole country; and thus, in setting public opinion at defiance, they raised a feeling of indignation throughout the kingdom, which nothing but the retirement of the Duke from office could have removed. And here, to prove what was of more importance to the question of Reform than the character of the Ministers, viz. the character of the people, in their firm attachment to the Crown, and to shew that all the excitement of the public mind on that occasion was solely against the Ministers and House of Commons, and not the Crown in the person of the Duke of York, he must mention the extraordinary fact of the re-appointment of the Duke to office, without any expression of public feeling against it, the reason being, that the people having carried the question of truth against the Ministers and House of Commons, by the retirement of the Duke, their resentment subsided with the removal of the cause; and thus the reaction of public feeling took place, the Duke having ever been popular with all classes, from the proverbial kindness of his disposition, and the openness, sincerity,

1217
and manliness of his character; and considering how much he had suffered more than his conduct merited, the people, who did not understand the constitutional question of his appointment, were glad to see him back in office, as the only means of removing his disgrace. But for the country's sake, would that the public mind, that was now enlightened upon the subject, had been as well informed at that period, or rather at the time of the Duke's first appointment to the command of the army in Flanders, at the commencement of the war of the Allies against France; because the same public opinion which, in spite of the Ministers and the whitewashing vote of the House of Commons, drove the Duke from office, might have prevented that unfortunate appointment in the first instance, which, looking to all the political and constitutional mischief that necessarily grew out of it, he considered as one of the main causes of the present distress of the country. And now, in conclusion of this case, he must mention an instance of public virtue in the Whig Aristocracy of that House, which, in his opinion, was without a parallel in the parliamentary history of the country, namely, the conduct and speeches of the two noble Lords the Mover (Lord Milton) and Seconder (Lord Althorp) of the motion of censure against Ministers in the Session of 1811, for advising the Crown to the re-appointment of the Duke to office, wherein, looking on one hand to the trying situation in which their own elevated rank must have placed those noble Lords with respect to the Crown, and on the other to the unpopularity of their motion, both in the House and country, for the reasons he had stated, he had ever considered their conduct on that question to have established their character as the firmest and most uncompromising defenders in that House of the Constitution and the real liberties of the people; and in saying it he must add, that if he had had no other grounds for his confidence in the present Government, it would have been sufficient for him, the fact of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being one of the truly noble Lords of whom he had been speaking, the other noble Lord being, happily for Reform, and singularly under all circumstances, his colleague in the Representation of Northamptonshire. The last case was that of the equally memorable proceedings against the late Queen,
1218
wherein, upon all the important questions in the House of Commons, the conduct of the Whigs was dictated by the same constitutional feelings as in the case of the Duke of York; whilst for the other House it were unnecessary to say how much the country and the late Queen had been indebted to the powerful eloquence and support of the same party for the abandonment of that most dangerous of measures for the character of Parliament, and the honour, interest, and even safety of the Crown, the Bill of Pains and Penalties. And here, in answer to the heavy but utterly unfounded charge which in both these cases was brought against the Whigs, and which had been renewed on every occasion of their defending the cause of the people, by accusing them, as at the present moment, of endangering the safety of the Crown for the mere sake of office, he would appeal to candour and common sense, whether the noble Lord at the head of the present Government, who had distinguished himself above all others (at least of the order he belonged to) as the powerful defender of the late Queen, was it possible that the said noble Lord or others of the same place, or the present Lord Chancellor, the present Attorney General, or any of the Whig party who had stood forward as the defenders of the Queen, could, in so doing, have entertained a hope of office, not merely at the time, but during the lives of the late King, the late Duke of York, or the next in succession to the Crown? But, happily for the country, their honesty had been their best policy, and the more fortunate at the present moment, in the proof it had given to the people of the heart and head of that individual whose name he need not mention. And here, to return once more to the people, who in this case, as in the Duke of York's, were accused of disaffection to the Crown, he must beg the attention of the House, not only to the total want of truth in these charges, both against the Whigs and the people, but to the proof of their being the sole invention of the Tories, to support their system, and to prevent then, as they wished to prevent still, the only remedy for all our evils, a measure of Reform; for having proved that the Whig Aristocracy, whose own existence as an order depended on the Crown, might as well have been charged with the intention of destroying it as of getting into office by opposing it in the case of the Queen, so

1219
he would equally prove, that the people might as well have been accused of the desire of office as of disaffection to the Crown. But before he produced an evidence, so fortunate for their cause, that if he were one of those who ascribed chance to Providence, when it happened to their wish, it would tempt him to believe that Providence in this case had lent her hand. He would first ask why the people in the case of the Queen were not to be actuated by the same feelings as the Whigs, and to express the same indignation at the conduct of the Government, without being accused of that disaffection to the Crown, which, of all charges, was the most unfounded and inconsistent with the national character? And now, to set the question at rest, he would produce his evidence of their loyalty, not merely from the ranks of their accusers, but out of the mouth of the present leader of the Ultra-Tory party, being the unanswered and unanswerable speech of the hon. member for Boroughbridge against the Tory Ministers in the Session of 1821, upon the memorable question relative to the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy, at which time the learned Gentleman was the new and aspiring member for Oxford, being then in the prime of life, with his lungs in their full strength, and not in the dying state he had lately declared himself; and hon. Members who had only witnessed the last efforts of his eloquence might form some idea of its former character when assured that all the pelting of the storms of his abuse against the present Whigs had been like the dropping of "the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath," compared with his bitter reproaches of the Tories of that day, for what he had called their unconstitutional, illegal, radical, and revolutionary proceedings against the Queen, concluding one of the best speeches ever delivered in that House with declaring, if the Bill of Pains and Penalties had been brought down from the Lords, that he, the learned Gentleman, would have moved, as an amendment, to entitle it, "A Bill to deprive her Majesty of her just rights and privileges as Queen Consort of the Realms." And yet "within a month, or ere those shoes were old" in which he had so nobly defended her late Majesty, he walked over to the same Tory Ministry, and took his seat as Solicitor-General. The hon. Member hoped he had thus proved that the conduct of the people in
1220
the case of the Queen was dictated solely by the honesty of their hearts, and that sense of justice which led them to defend her cause with the same zeal which Ministers had betrayed against it, and to shew her all the respect in their power to console her for the treatment she had received. And here, in conclusion of this last case, he had been strongly reminded of it in the contrast betwixt the present people and those of former times, by the speech of his hon. friend, the member for Aldborough, who began his attacks upon the Bill in Committee with a comparison betwixt his own humble talent and that of preceding speakers in the debate, taken from a speech in the Play of Richard the Second which after describing the flattering reception of the usurper Bolingbroke upon his entry into London, with Richard a prisoner at his heels, proceeded to state how the citizens treated their unfortunate King; and if the House would allow him to add a quotation to the many which had been given in the debate, he would repeat, the passage which his right hon. friend had called to his recollection:—
"As in a Theatre the eyes of men,
After a well-graced actor leaves the stage,
Are idly bent on him that enters next,
Thinking his prattle to be tedious;
Even so, or with much more contempt, men's eyes
Did scowl on Richard; no man cried God save him!
No joyful tongue gave him his welcome home;
But dust was thrown upon his sacred head;
Which with such gentle, sorrow he shook off,
His face still combating with tears and smiles,
The badges of his grief and patience,
That had not God for some strong purpose steeled
The hearts of men, they must perforce have melted,
And barbarism itself have pitied him."
Such was the reception of the unhappy Richard by the citizens of those days when unkinged by Bolingbroke; but he thanked God that the present citizens took a warmer interest in behalf of the Queen so unjustly and illegally degraded by the Ministers: and, whatever their opinion, the feelings of the people did honour to their hearts, and the worst misfortune that could happen to the Crown would be the want of them. He had thus endeavoured to do justice to the present Ministry and the people; he hoped also to have shown that the distressed state of the country was solely to be ascribed to that system which the late Mr. Pitt, with the best intentions on coming into office, was unable to control; for it was but justice to his character to state the fact to those who might not know it, that Mr. Pitt, as Minister, had arranged and would

1221
have effected that great measure of Reform, the abolition of tithes, but for the breaking out of the French Revolution, which unfortunate event defeated his intention, and compelled him to enter into the war with France, in spite of his endeavours to avoid it. And thus Reform was of necessity abandoned; for war was the steam-engine that multiplied the power of the system, and all its expense and patronage the fuel which supplied it, whilst the loans that were raised for its support, being expended in the country, increased its trade and commerce, and by giving full employment to the people, enabled them to bear the taxes to pay the interest of the debt. Thus all went smoothly for a time, and thus corruption, "as if increase of appetite had grown by what it fed on," continued to spread, until the whole nation became so identified with the abuses of the system, and the enormous expenditure of the Government that no Ministry could stop it; and thus the evil was left to cure itself, as it had done at last, for the want of the means to prolong it, insomuch that, it was only the general distress of the people, and their utter inability to bear longer the burthen of taxation, which, in opening their eyes at last to the necessity of Reform, had roused and combined their efforts to obtain it. And here he must tell the right hon. Baronet, in answer to all his speeches and solemn warnings of the consequences of the present measure, that it was this conduct of the people, the happy change of Ministry, and, above all, the unexampled firmness and wisdom of the Crown, which had saved the country from the calamity which the continuance of himself and colleagues in office must inevitably have produced; for if they believed in all they had said of the danger to the Crown and House of Peers from the present Bill, what must it really have been if the Crown and present Ministers instead of gaining by their conduct the hearts and affections of the people, had opposed their will and power. He had shown in both the cases he had quoted, that as to the question of Reform the people had always the power and they had at last brought, it into action. Public opinion, and the weight of the people in the scale of the Constitution, had, in spite of abuses, and in spite of all the imposture of the present Representation, effected the measure of Reform. He had proved that twenty years
1222
since, public opinion removed the Duke of York from office; and it had stopped the proceedings against the Queen. And, lastly, what but public opinion and his own declaration against it removed the late Minister? And if the public mind had been as enlightened forty years since, and had spoken out then as it had done now, he sincerely believed, without joining in the praise or censure of the late Mr. Pitt, that as Minister, with the people at his back, he would have carried the question of Reform, and thus, by controlling the power of the Aristocracy in that House, would have prevented all the increase of the public debt, and have spared England and France all the misery which the unnatural war betwixt them, as regarded the interests of the people, had produced; but as the excess of evil produced good, so both nations had become the wiser and the better for their misfortunes. And, looking to the glorious example of France, he rejoiced that England had been actuated by the same spirit, because he was convinced, that all the people asked was justice, and that, with the knowledge of their power, they were too enlightened, and knew their real interests too well, to abuse it. And here he begged to make an observation relative to the attacks which had been made upon the friends of the measure, as the pledged supporters of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, according to what had been called the cuckoo cry of the people. Although the worthy Aldermen so attacked had justified the pledge and defended their constituent in calling their colleagues to account, and had been ably supported by other hon. Members, yet others, the friends of the Bill, had disclaimed such pledge, and had asserted the freedom of their votes. Upon this important question he must beg to say, that in agreeing to the independence of their votes as to the Government, he must deny it totally as to their constituents, for what was the use of a Representative in that House, unless to represent the voice of the body who sent him there? And although of necessity he was mostly left to his own discretion, because occasions like the present seldom occurred, yet, when they did, public meetings might well be called a farce, if the Representatives of the people were not to be bound by their decision, but were to set up their own opinions against the declared sense

1223
of their constituents. As to the charge against the worthy Aldermen, of being slaves, the cap only fitted those who had no constituents, or none but slaves to represent, viz., the Members of the nomination boroughs, who were as much bound in honour to vote according to the politics of their patrons, or resign their seats, as he, the Representative of the Bath Corporation, would have been bound to do the like, had not his constituents sacrificed their private interests to his feelings of public duty. And, in answer to the hon. and learned Members and others, who had spoken so warmly on the subject, he would ask whether, if any one of them had been the friend of Reform, he would sit in that House for the borough he now represented? As to what they had called the cuckoo cry, he must beg their pardon for thinking there was more sense in the cry than in the epithet they had given it; and if they must have a nickname for it, they should call it the goose cry, for, as history said of Rome, it was that which saved the Capitol, so future history would say of England, it was this cuckoo cry which, in carrying Reform, had saved the Constitution. For what had been the origin of the cry? Before the Reform Bill the cry was, for short Parliaments and the Ballot, and here, in defence of the people, he must say a few words upon that subject. He had always been a friend to the ballot, without questioning the sincerity of other Reformers who were against it, and in deference to their prejudices, he hoped the present Bill might prevent its necessity; but, in his opinion, there could be no real freedom of election without it: if it were not so, why had the ballot been invented, and why was it generally adopted by every club throughout the kingdom? This disproved the assertion, that it was an un-English practice, although it might be called so with reference to the practice of the Constitution, wherein the people were represented in appearance but not in fact; but even as at present, where the people had a voice, to substitute the ballot for the poll would give the substance for the shadow; the ballot too, in his opinion, was as necessary for the elected as the elector, and like the quality of mercy, which "blesseth him that gives and him that takes," was the only real protection of the honour and independence of both; it was the only protection of the elector against the undue
1224
influence of every kind to which he was liable in the exercise of that choice, which, to be truly free, should be free as his own thought, and the only protection of the elected against the necessity of asking what he should refuse as a favour, and which placed him in that situation with his elector, that ought to be as painful to both as it was inconsistent with their relative situations in life, and every true feeling of public and private honour. Again: it was the only effectual means of preventing the expense, and all the other evils, which open election contests must produce. And again, for the same reasons, it removed all the objections to short Parliaments. Such were the reasons which, in his opinion had justified the feelings of the people in favour of the ballot, and were the proof of their moral and intellectual improvement; whilst the Reform Bill had done credit to their hearts and understandings, in at once removing all their doubts and fears, and inspiring that confidence in the Ministers which their conduct had so well deserved. And now, what had been the origin of the cry but the conduct of the opponents to the former Bill, which had compelled the Government to advise the dissolution of Parliament? when the people, thus appealed to by the Crown, most wisely and constitutionally, not only chose for their Representatives the professed friends of Reform, but, to prevent all misunderstanding by leaving loop-holes to creep through, or pins to hang a doubt on, bound them to support the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill; or, in other words, to vote for the whole measure of the Ministers, and against all the amendments of their opponents, who, in the opinion of the people, had no object but to defeat it. Such then being the cause, what had been the effect, but, simply, that the Ministers, thus supported by the country, had again brought in the very same Bill, which, however excellent in itself, would never have been carried but for the cuckoo cry of the people, who, to follow the example of the cuckoo, had turned the late Ministry out of their nest, to hatch the egg of their own real liberty in it? And although this glorious triumph of the people was not to be seen by the right hon. Baronet, it was clearly seen, and as honestly confessed, by a late Member of the House, the oldest, strongest, and most consistent Tory in it—namely,

1225
the late member for Dorsetshire, who, in a most candid speech, told his late constituents, that however deeply he lamented it, the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, was carried; thus declaring his opinion, as plain as words could speak it, that the Bill, so carried by the voice of the people in that House, should not, would not, could not, be opposed elsewhere. With this opinion he fully agreed, and for a reason so strong and natural, that he felt no doubt upon the subject. The first resolution of the House of Commons in every new Parliament, declared it was a high infringement of its liberties and privileges for any Peer to concern himself with the election of its Members; and he could not believe, in the face of such resolution, that any one of the many fathers here referred to, would place his son in that predicament, to compel him either to impeach his father's conduct or his own. And here he must beg to ask the noble Lord on the other side, who had so warmly expressed his feelings to the last—and of whom, although he had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with the noble Lord, if he might speak as he thought, he believed him to be "honest as the skin between his brows." He would ask the noble Lord, how he could reconcile to himself to be a Member of the House, solely through the means of that interference, against which, in the name of the people, he had so strongly and solemnly protested?—and further, if allowed to say it as an old Reformer in the House whilst the noble Lord was yet at school, he was sure, that when the noble Lord's apprehensions of the danger of the present measure should subside; and when the noble Lord was again a Member of the House, as no doubt he would be if he wished it, having all the advantages of rank, property, and his own personal merits to recommend him—the noble Lord would be more satisfied with his new seat as a Representative of the people than the one he now filled. Having thus availed himself of the indulgence of the House, he would no longer detain it than to express in the fewest words his opinion of the present glorious measure; which when the noble Lord, who had so well deserved the honour of the undertaking, first unfolded to the House, gave him all the delight expressed by other hon. Members, but without the least surprise, being not jot more than he had expected from the
1226
Ministers; and which, to have been surprised at, were to have doubted their honesty, firmness, common sense, and the sincerity of their declarations on coming into office; for to have stopped short of what they had done, would have been only a half measure, that neither could have satisfied the people, nor have effected any real benefit for the country; whilst the present Bill had already paved the way for all the good to follow it, by the confidence it had inspired throughout the country in Ministers, who had sacrificed all their unconstitutional power, looking solely for their support to the good opinion of the people. As to all the charges brought against them, he thought the two noble Lords, the mover of the Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, between them, had conducted it throughout, had, in all their speeches, fully acquitted Ministers of every unworthy motive; whilst all the defects of the measure were solely to be ascribed to the necessity that compelled them, in framing it, to preserve as much as possible that ancient form of the Representation, which contained all the anomaly, inconsistency, and injustice their opponents had so much complained of. These defects the Ministers must have endeavoured to remedy as far as the case would admit; but the main object of their Bill was, a real Representation of the people; and considering the difficulty of the task, in prevailing on so many different Reformers in that still unreformed House to consent to so strong a measure, it had been no less to his surprise than satisfaction to see it carried through the Committee by such large majorities. The clause for the division of counties, against which so much had been said, was, no doubt, a necessary compromise on the part of Ministers, if such it could be called; but, with all his respect for the opinions of those who had been the warmest and most powerful friends to the Bill, he could not agree with their objections to this clause, nor the danger to be apprehended from it; insomuch that the Bill had given to the people all the power they wanted to protect themselves against it; and as to supposing the present to be a final measure, no hon. Member could seriously believe it; for it would be too much to assert of any Act of Parliament, and, above all, of the present Bill—of so new and complicated a nature, consisting of so many clauses, and the effect of which, like that which the

1227
removal of old London-bridge might have upon the Thames above it, no human being could pretend to say; nor what must yet be done to prevent any evil arising out of the great good which the destruction of that old, worn-out, rotten fabric, and the old, worn-out, rotten system of the late Tory Government, must produce. To this sincere opinion of the Bill he would only add, that, next to the measure itself, he considered the Government to have deserved the greatest credit for keeping it a secret to the last moment, and for giving way to their opponents in the late Parliament, upon the question of the new writ for Evesham, to prevent the danger of betraying it in a previous debate; and wherein he thought the right hon. Baronet and his friends had been caught in their own trap—for unless to obtain their secret from the Government, he could not believe they would have moved their bill to disfranchise Evesham, upon the very eve of the Reform Bill, without waiting to see if it were wanted. But however that might be, the Ministers had shown their sincerity and good sense, for with the intention of adopting the remedy for the whole evil, it would have been worse than useless to waste the time of the House upon so small a part; whilst the conduct of the right hon. Baronet and his friends had been like that of the old lady, who, when making one hole for her cat to go through, must need make another for the kitten—for where was the use of both Bills? And how, in the face of their own small measure, could they oppose this great and glorious Act, not for the punishment, but the prevention of the crime, and not, like theirs, an act of gross injustice, in disfranchising the whole electors of a borough upon the ground of the corruption of part—thus punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty, and reversing the maxim of the law, which declares it better that ninety-nine guilty escape, than one innocent suffer—and this too on the part of the late right hon. Secretary, whose labours in the Home Department, in the general amendment of the laws, had been the theme of praise throughout the country—and yet, upon the question of this glorious measure, which, in setting the example of virtue in the Government, had done more already to prevent corruption and to raise the moral character of the people, than the whole bundle of his amended laws together; the right hon. Gen-
1228
tleman, in the face of his Evesham Bill, fights, tooth and nail, against it; and thus in his justice, wisdom, and morality, this "wise young man," this "upright Judge," this "second Daniel," makes an example of the single case, but defends the general practice. For how, in common sense, could he prevent the corruption of open boroughs, whilst, in general, seats were openly bought and sold? What reason could he give why the Evesham or Liverpool electors should not sell their seats, whilst boroughmongers sold their seats?—or why these poor and needy offenders should be punished whilst the practice was permitted in the rich? What, but this plain common-sense view of the case could have dictated the words of their former Speaker, who, more than twenty years back, upon the question of Reform, told the House that the bare mention of the sale of seats would have made their ancestors start with indignation? And well might the Government of that day, to support the system and prevent the exposure from such a quarter, do all they could to stop the public Press; but, now that the game was up, the system being fairly worn out, and that natural causes, with most fortunate events, had combined the Crown, the Government, and the people in the same just cause, he could not but think the right hon. Baronet, notwithstanding all he had said against it, would do best, even yet, to follow his own example, and, once more, make a virtue of necessity, especially now that he was out of office, when, without a question of his motive, he might fairly pay the debt he owed the Whigs, by helping them, as they helped him, and thus, between them, carry the two great measures of civil and religious liberty.
Lord John Russellwished to take that opportunity to reply to a very general report that had gone abroad, intimating that the Reform measure was not final, and was not intended as such by the Government. He begged to state, that he had always maintained that the measure was a final one. But when it had been argued there were certain anomalies in the Bill which would render it necessary to have recourse again to Parliament, he had answered, he did not think those anomalies would render any such application necessary, but that the measure must be judged by the effects it would produce. If it should work well for the prosperity and welfare of the country, then, of course,

1229
it would be final; but if, on the other hand, it failed of producing these effects, then it must be modified; but his full persuasion was, that the measure would fully answer the expectations of those by whom it had been introduced.
Sir John Walshsaid, that when the proper opportunity arrived, he should move an instruction to the Committee on this Bill, to consider the propriety of giving Representatives to the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrew's, and he was quite sure, a proper and adequate constituency could be found for them in those Universities.
Sir George Clerksaid, I rise to point out a provision of this Bill, which, in my opinion, is most objectionable, and which, upon consideration, I trust the noble Lord will be induced to abandon. I allude to that part of the Bill which establishes in Scotland a new Court of Appeal—I mean the Court which, in disputed cases, is finally to determine the validity of qualifications to vote. Considering the high character of the Sheriffs and Magistrates, who preside over Courts from which Scotland has derived the greatest benefit, I must protest against any provision which may tend to lower and degrade them. The Sheriffs of Scotland have a very important jurisdiction; they are vested With the power of trying civil causes of very considerable amount; they are themselves members of the Faculty of Advocates—men of eminence in their profession, and far removed from any party or political feeling. Therefore, if from such persons any appeal be allowed, it should be to one of the supreme Courts of the country. But by this Bill it is provided, that a certain number of persons, whose names do not yet appear, are to be appointed as a Court of Appeal from the decision of the Sheriffs. These persons, the clause enacts, are to be either of the Faculty of Advocates, or Barristers—meaning, I suppose, English lawyers [no! no.] Then this part of the Bill must have been prepared by some English friend of the learned Lord Advocate's, who is totally ignorant of the legal phraseology of the Courts of Scotland. In that part of the kingdom we have no such thing as a Barrister. Those who plead at the bar of the Courts of Scotland, are not called Barristers, but members of the Faculty of Advocates. Therefore, if the word "Barrister" in this clause do not mean an English lawyer,
1230
it is an absurdity, and could never have been inserted by any one who knew anything of the law, or the practice, or the phraseology of the Courts of law in Scotland. The clause provides, that a certain number of Advocates or Barristers shall constitute a Court of Appeal from the decision of the Sheriffs. Now, supposing that these persons are all to be members of the Faculty of Advocates, I still ask the House, whether it would be possible to devise any measure more calculated to lower and degrade the Sheriffs, than to render their decisions subject to the reversal of a body so constituted. It is further provided, that these persons are to be named by this House—that is to say, that they are to be named by the noble Lord opposite. I have heard a rumour that it is the intention of his Majesty's Government entirely to revise the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland, for the purpose of introducing a new order, of course of a totally different nature. If such a thing really be in contemplation, it may be well to introduce into this Bill a clause for the purpose of degrading a Court which it is intended to abolish, but which at the present time is held in the highest estimation by the people of Scotland. There is not a single person connected with Scotland, whatever his general opinion upon the merits of this Bill may be, who docs not reprobate this particular clause of it. I trust, therefore, that it will be removed. I should have supposed that it would have been a much more natural course to have appointed a numerous court or commission of lawyers as in England, and to have given an appeal from their decision to that of the Sheriff. Perhaps the best course to have pursued would have been, to have made the Sheriff of every county decide upon the qualification of the voters in that county; and, if any appeal from his decision were necessary, to give it to the Sheriffs of two or three of the adjoining counties. But of all the measures that could possibly be proposed, none, I am satisfied, could be more calculated to excite uneasiness and indignation in Scotland, than one which involves, as this does, the degradation of the Sheriffs' Courts. I have ventured, rather irregularly, perhaps, to call the noble Lord's attention to this point, previous to the Bill going into Committee, because I am sure that, upon consideration, he will perceive the propriety of abandoning so obnoxious a provision.
Lord Althorp: In the first place, I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for the courteous manner in which he has stated his observations upon this part of the Bill; but he is aware, or, if not, I must inform him, that the clause to which he alludes provides only for the first registration of voters, after the Bill shall have passed. The state of the case is this: it was deemed improper that the Sheriff should decide without an appeal; that appeal, it was originally intended, should be to a superior Court; but it was considered that, under the early operation of the Bill, the number of appeals, in all probability, would be very considerable; so considerable, as materially to interfere with the administration of the ordinary business of the superior Courts. Therefore it was provided, that for the first registration, and the first only, three Advocates should be appointed. With respect to the word "Barrister," I admit that it ought not to have been used. I certainly conceive that an Advocate is a Barrister—that the terms are synonymous; but as the peculiar phraseology of Scotland admits but of one, the other shall be omitted. I assure the hon. Baronet, that it never entered into our heads that English Barristers should be sent down to Scotland to determine upon the qualification of Scotch voters. I must also beg the hon. Baronet to believe, that nothing was further from our intention, in framing this clause, than to lower or degrade the Sheriffs' Court in Scotland. For my own part, I believe it to be a most valuable part of the local jurisdiction of that country, and for that reason no one would regret more than I should, the adoption of any measure which would tend to sink it in the public estimation.
Sir William Raesaid, it being the object of the Government to assimilate the Representative system of the two countries as nearly as possible, I do not think that this appeal should be given from the decision of the Sheriffs. If the decision of the Judges of Assize in England is to be final, I do not know why, upon the same principle, the decision of the Sheriffs of Scotland should not be final also. No doubt can be entertained as to their equal competency; and as far as impartiality is concerned, the Sheriff's of Scotland have decidedly the advantage, since they are much less likely to be biassed by political motives than the Judges of Assize in England. The cruelty of the case is this:—
1232
that you draw a comparison between the Judge of Assize and the Sheriff, by vesting them with the same powers in the first instance; but by making the decision of the former final, and that of the latter subject to a reversal by a Court constituted of a body of Advocates, you do, in fact, lower and degrade the Sheriff in a manner which the people of Scotland will not bear to see. At this time of day I certainly did hope, that we should not have had such a provision introduced into any bill relating to Scotland. There is also another provision to which I must object, as drawing an invidious distinction between the Judges of England and Scotland. In England, the Judges of the supreme Courts are allowed to exercise their franchise as electors. In the present Bill, an express provision is made to prevent the Judges of Scotland from doing so. Formerly there might be a reason for this; and even as the law at present stands, I should not be anxious, or at least I should be indifferent, as to whether they were admitted to the franchise or not; but when the whole of the Representative system is changed, and any man in this country who occupies a 10 l. house is allowed to exercise the franchise, I can perceive no reason why the Judges should not be admitted to the same right.
Lord Althorpreplied, that as the particular clause to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman objects will come regularly under our consideration in Committee, I do not think that the present is either a convenient or proper time to discuss it. When the proper opportunity arrives, I think I shall be able to convince the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no ground for his objection.
Sir Charles Wetherell: The office of Sheriff in Scotland is, in some degree, analogous to what was the ancient office of Sheriff in England. Now that such an office as that, filled by the most eminent Scotch lawyers, is to be overhauled, degraded, and dethroned, and its decision made liable to the reversal of some half dozen radical lawyers, may, perhaps, do very well for a Reforming Government, but it is quite inconsistent with the existing Constitution. That the decision of the Sheriffs of Scotland should be liable to the reversal of such an extraordinary appellant body as that proposed to be constituted under this Bill, is a proposition so contumelious and disrespectful to those

1233
learned and useful, and, I will say, eminent and able Judges, that I confess I cannot work up my mind to such a pitch of credulity as to believe that his Majesty's Ministers are serious. Is there not some smell of patronage in the appointment of these Advocates [hear, hear]? Is it the hon. member for Ripon who interrupts me by that strange ambiguous sound, which leaves the mind in doubt as to whether it be meant for a "hear! hear!" or a "no! no!?" Is he so weary that such slumberous sounds must needs escape him? or does he think that my observations are so pointless, witless, pithless, so dull, so heavy, so little bearing upon the subject, and withal so little in tune, as to be utterly unworthy of attention? Does he approve of the contumely cast upon the Sheriffs of Scotland by this Bill? Does he approve of the Scotch Judges not being permitted to vote? Does he remember who it was that adjourned an English Court to go down to Cambridge to vote at an election? But I forbear my interrogatories—the hon. member for Ripon, oppressed with his own heaviness, probably knew not the point I was discussing—I will remind him: I was contending, that it was extremely improper that the judgment of the Sheriffs of Scotland should be subject to the reversal of another Court, which I do not think likely to decide with propriety. That was the point which I was discussing; and as the hon. member for Ripon was pleased to interrupt me upon it, by what appeared to me to be a disapprobatory exclamation, I hope he will take an opportunity of informing us in a more regular manner, and in a more intelligible tone, what his opinions upon the subject really are. I should be very glad to hear from the hon. Member what argument he has to maintain the proposition, that the ancient, and well tried, and long approved, and much respected office of Sheriff in Scotland, should be lowered, degraded, and cast down, in the manner proposed in this Bill. The hon. member for Ripon never says anything—I have now said more than I intended—but that is often the case when a man who has much to say, or who has not much to say, but who still has some thing to say, is interrupted by one who has nothing to say, and who raises a cry which I will not call senseless, because that would be unparliamentary, but a cry quite destitute of all meaning.
Mr. Hayes Pettit: I trust I shall receive that indulgence from the House which is due to any of its Members who has been personally attacked, and attacked too without the slightest cause. Why the hon. and learned Gentleman should have selected me as the party who interrupted him, I really cannot tell. I was totally silent at the time—I did not interrupt him either by voice or gesture—I was silent and passive. But the attack savours of the inconsistency which distinguished the whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. In the first place, he accuses me of interrupting him by a cry, the meaning of which he defies any human being to define; and, in the next place, in the very succeeding sentence, he talks of my slumberous disposition and habits of somnolency. I own that, during my attendance in this House. I have sometimes felt rather thankful that I possessed the gift of somnolency, and could indulge it without the risk of noise. If we involuntarily nod in the course of any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's lengthy orations, can it be interpreted into an interruption? I do not understand the purport of the interrogatories which the hon. and learned Gentleman was pleased to address to me. I am not gifted with any judicial power; I have no Court to adjourn. The elective franchise I certainly possess, and have often exercised, but never at the expense of any suitors, because no man can sue before me. The hon. and learned Member has called upon me to give some opinion upon the question of Reform; and has commented, in his usual vein of satire, on the silence which I have hitherto observed. I will not, as a sort of retaliation, make any observations on the many useless and unnecessary speeches which have been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I must say, that, considering the length to which the discussions on the question of Reform have been carried, I think it can hardly be considered a fair ground of complaint against any individual for not prolonging them. I am aware that there are individuals who complain of those on this side of the House, not on the score of their much speaking, but of their little speaking; in fact, because they do not choose to stand up as butts, or marks, for the Opposition to shoot at. I should not have risen upon the present occasion except, perhaps, for the reason that the

1235
gentlest animal will turn when trodden upon. Having been called upon, by the observations of the hon. and learned Member, to present myself to the House, I will venture, even at the risk of being shot at, to give my opinion upon the question which has been raised. I see nothing derogatory to the Sheriff's of Scotland in the provision which it is proposed to make with respect to the final determination of the validity of qualifications to vote. Why the Sheriffs' Court is to be presumed to be an incompetent tribunal, because, upon a subject of this kind, an appeal is given from its decision to another tribunal, differently constituted, and to exist only for the first year after the Reform Bill shall have come into operation, I cannot understand. It seems to me that there is no ground for the assertion which has been raised, and therefore I shall be perfectly ready, if the necessity should arrive, to give my vote in favour of the clause as it now stands.
The House in a Committee.
The preamble of the Bill read by the Chairman.
Sir George Clerk: I wish to ask the noble Lord to consent to postpone the consideration of the first clause until after the other clauses have been gone through. This clause fixes the number of Representatives to be returned for Scotland: and if it were agreed to, it. would prevent several alterations being made relative to the Scottish counties, which it is intended to propose in the Committee. In the preamble to the English Reform Bill, there was not a word said as to the number of Members to be returned by the counties and burghs; but all this is premised in the present Bill. I know that it was fixed at the time of the Union, that Scotland should return forty-five Members, but there can be no objection to make an addition to that number. I certainly think that it is inexpedient that this preamble should be argued, as we may, in the course of the Committee, see reason to give additional Members to some places, and then we shall have to retrace our steps. I know that there is a very strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the proposition for giving an additional number of Members to the Scottish counties, and I entertain strong hopes that the noble Lord will be induced to consent to this proposal. I am sure—
Lord Althorp: I beg pardon of the hon.
1236
Baronet; but I merely wish to observe, that I am willing, if it be thought desirable, to consent to the postponement of the preamble. With respect to the proposition for increasing the number of county Members in Scotland, I will merely observe, that I have not the least doubt in my own mind, that it would be inexpedient to consent to any such addition. I make this observation with a view to prevent any expectations being formed that I could support such a proposition. I shall not now go into the reasons that induce me to think so, but shall reserve what I have to say on the subject until the motion is made. I will merely observe, in addition, that it appears to me to be extraordinary, and even inconsistent, that those opposed to Reform should be such strenuous advocates of this proposition.
Preamble postponed.
On the question, "That the Burghs of Peebles and Selkirk stand part of schedule A,"
Mr. Gillonsaid, I rise for the purpose of proposing that the towns of Peebles and Selkirk be left out of this schedule, and that they shall continue to return a Member, as heretofore. I concur entirely in the propriety of the alterations that have been made in the Scotch Reform Bill, and I am much gratified that his Majesty's Ministers have proposed that a separate Member should be given to the great city of Perth. This place, in my opinion, is well worthy of having the choice of an independent Member. The feeling in favour of Reform is almost universal throughout Scotland; and I am sure that the persons whom it is now proposed to disfranchise would willingly abandon their privileges, if they considered that the retention of them would hazard the success of this measure. It is obvious, however, that this cannot be the case, and I do not think that anything has occurred that can justify such a course. I am not among the clamorous enemies of Reform, but have been a constant and tried friend, and I do most sincerely lament that the noble Lord should adopt so harsh a course towards these burghs. I cannot help feeling that I am bound to concur with the opponents of Reform in the view they take of the first part of schedule A, for it is in direct opposition to the principle laid down by the noble Lord; it begins with disfranchising the burghs of Peebles and Selkirk, which contain a most respectable

1237
and intelligent body of inhabitants, and would afford a constituency, both in numbers and character, against which no possible objection can be raised. I should be guilty of an act of injustice to the inhabitants of these towns, if I did not enter my protest against the disfranchisement. Since the announcement of the intention of his Majesty's Ministers on this subject, I have received a communication from the burgh of Peebles, from which I learn that there are no less than six petitions in progress against this proposal; and, in the meantime, the townspeople have requested me to enter their protests against the disfranchisement of these burghs. When Ministers abandoned their intention of uniting the counties of Selkirk and Peebles in the choice of a single Member, and permitted each of them, as heretofore, to return a Representative, there was no ground or necessity for throwing the burghs into the counties. I am convinced, that the adoption of this course will only lead to dissension and ill-will. If the burghs of Peebles and Selkirk had a Member continued to them, the householders in those towns would enjoy the suffrage; but, according to the present arrangement, they will not have it. The expectations which this most respectable class have looked forward to with so much joy, will thus be disappointed. The cup of happiness you have held up to their lips, and have now dashed it down, and deprived them of the satisfaction every man must feel in having a share in the choice of the Representatives of the people. I beg to observe, that I do not object to the town of Airdrie being added to this district of burghs; on the contrary, I am glad of it; indeed, I mentioned, in the first instance, to the noble Lord, that this would be a most proper place to be thrown into the district of burghs. We do not object to any addition that it may be thought expedient to make, but we do object to these two towns being taken out of the district. In justice, then, to the inhabitants of these burghs, and in deference to their wishes, I beg leave to move, that all the words relative to the disfranchisement of these places be left out.
Sir John Hay: Sir, I throw myself on the indulgence of this House, of which I have but lately become a Member, and shall endeavour, in a few words, to express my opinion of the clause of the Bill now brought under the consideration of the
1238
Committee. I find myself imperiously called upon to do so, by the very peculiar situation in which I am myself placed: were it not so, I believe there is no Member of this House so little likely to intrude his opinions, or occupy the valuable time of the Committee, as the humble individual who now presumes to address you. Sir, I have opposed this Reform Bill in all its stages; and no one here can doubt my sincerity in so doing, who reflects on the position in which I stand as Member of Parliament for the county of Peebles, and who has read the first clauses of the Reform Bill, applicable to Scotland. It were unreasonable to expect that I should act otherwise, and I feel it hard that I should be set down as one of those men who are opposed to all Reform, because I cannot consent to a bill, or series of bills, (were there no other reason to influence my vote), which contains a clause so hostile to the feelings of that respectable and independent body I have the honour to represent; and which clause, permit me to say, is equally unpalatable to all who may, by an extension of the elective franchise, be called on to partake of the rights which the law of the land has, from the remotest ages, restricted to the tenants in capite of the Crown. God knows, I am not the man to object to the extension of the elective franchise to all my countrymen: extend it as far and as wide as you can with safety and propriety. I am most willing, Sir, to give to all our countrymen a full and fair share of our political privileges; and I am also willing to give to them a full and fair share of the public local rates and burthens, which have hitherto been borne by the country gentlemen, who have exercised that elective franchise. For this arrangement, no provision is made in the Bill before us; and this Committee are well aware, that these burthens have never hitherto been allowed to press on the feuars, householders, or small tenantry, in any part of Scotland. Sir, I should be the last man to wish to keep up the ancient distinction of the salt on the table, and to have seats arranged above and below it. I should, for myself, invite all my countrymen to sit down together, and partake of the good things set before them by his Majesty's Ministers, "with what appetite they may," and I only trust that, before they rise from the table, they will discharge their fair share of the reckoning. Sir, having ex-

1239
pressed myself thus, I must again say, I find it hard to be perpetually taunted by the Gentlemen opposite, as one hostile to all Reform, because I have stated my uncompromising hostility to this Bill. My worthy friend, the hon. member for Lancaster, told us last night, that this Bill, which I now hold in my hand, was the true spear of Ithuriel—a touch of which was the test who were, and who were not true Reformers. This was a high flight to take, and not unworthy of his brilliant imagination; but he forgot entirely, that the spear of Ithuriel was of ethereal temper, wielded by an angel, forged by no mortal hand, and not a two-pronged fork, of vulgar fashion, and of earthly fabric. Sir, in looking at the clause now under the consideration of the Committee, I have gone back to the preamble of the Bill, and there I can find nothing which justifies the introduction of such a proposition. Indeed, I must say, that the preamble of this Scotch Reform Bill seems to have as little connection with what follows, as many an ill-written prologue to a modern play, to which it has been inconsistently appended. I am, therefore, obliged to refer to the preamble of its great precursor, the English Reform Bill: for, like a little cock-boat, we must follow in the wake of the great vessel which sails before. Now, what do I find in that preamble? It is enacted, "to deprive many inconsiderable places of the right of returning Members, to grant such privilege to large, populous, and wealthy towns, and to increase the number of Knights of the Shire." Now, Sir, how is this preamble followed out in the Scotch Reform Bill? In the last edition of it, I do not find any one inconsiderable burgh struck out; and to this, Sir, I make no objection; it is right, and acting according to justice. But was there any intention of adding to the number of our Knights of the Shire? Quite the contrary. By the Bill which was read in this House a second time, our county Members were diminished by two, while sixty-seven (indeed, including the two additional Members lately given to Yorkshire, I may say sixty-nine) Knights have been granted to the shires of England. This clause has been amended; and we are now, per favour, placed where we stood before. In that Bill, there was a clause uniting the two separate, independent counties of Peebles and Selkirk; and, had it been persisted in, I was pre-
1240
pared to shew this Committee its gross injustice, and how little consonant it was to the interests involved in these two counties. These counties, Sir, have no connection, but a juxtaposition on the map; they are separated from each other by a district of mountainous country. There is, indeed, no direct practicable carriage road uniting them; and, so little connection have they hitherto had, that there is but one individual in Peeblesshire who, possessing a small patrimonial estate in the county of Selkirk, is a freeholder there, and is enabled to attend their Courts as a Justice of the Peace, their meetings of Commissioners of Supply, and of Road Trustees. But this very obnoxious clause has been withdrawn, and is now modified in another way; and I have been invited, by some of my friends here, to be content, and express my thanks for the consideration our case has met with. This puts me in mind of an old Scotch phrase, about being thankful for small mercies; but, Sir, I will quote the answer put into the mouth of one who stood in the situation I now do, receiving as a favour a small portion of what he was entitled to consider his own—I prefer giving the literal translation to the original—
Such is the tyrant's gift; he robs you not.
But, Sir, could I bring myself to make an acknowledgment, I take this public opportunity—for I am not much inclined, nor likely, often to trouble this House—I take this opportunity of saying, that there is no man within the walls of this House to whom I would so soon or so willingly pay that compliment as the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for I have been particularly struck with the open, candid, fair, and 1 will say (however I may differ in opinion with that noble Lord), the honest manner in which he has conducted himself during these arduous discussions; and I regret, also, that the Lord Advocate is not in his place, as I regret to hear the cause of that absence; for, although I am but little personally acquainted with that learned Lord, I will say that I know, however distinguished he may be by his literary attainments, he has rendered himself even more distinguished by the anxious solicitude he has shewn— consistently, of course, with his own principles—to forward the interests, and gratify the feelings of his countrymen. But, Sir, I must most strongly object to the new proposition, made in this clause,

1241
to throw the royal burgh of Peebles into the county. This proposition, Sir, has been made, I presume, on the principle of the transfusion of blood. It is done with a view to transfuse a little fresh, warm, wholesome, democratic blood into what some choose to consider our old, worn-out aristocratic system. This is an ingenious device, but the contrivers of it forget that they drain the last drop from their healthy subject, while the unfortunate recipient feels little comfort or revival from the turbid flow in his distended veins. For, what becomes of the householders of Peebles, who are thus disfranchised? They have been strong advocates for this Reform; they wish anxiously to move with the mass of their compeers, and to continue united with those other burghs with which their destinies have been hitherto united. I leave their case, however, in the hands of the hon. Member who represents, in this House, their interests and opinions. I must further say, that I ground my objection to this amalgamation of county and burgh Representation upon the English Reform Bill; for expediency, convenience, or the will of the stronger, cannot form the groundwork of this union. If it be so, why were these reasons, if they can be called such, not set forth in the preamble to the Bill? I find, Sir, in the English Reform Bill, certain principles laid down. The line below which nomination falls, is fixed at a population of 2,000. The line above which no disfranchisement takes place, is a population of 4,000. I find Malton, with a population of 4,005, is safe, being beyond the mark. I find, further—and I beg the attention of the Committee to this fact, there being a vast difference between preserving what exists, and raising up new constituencies—that Gateshead has been constituted a burgh, and to it a Member has been given, not containing, in 1821, nearly the population of the county of Peebles. I find, further, Rutland untouched; with its 18,000 inhabitants, it retains its two Members; and upon these grounds, I claim the same consideration for the county I have the honour to represent. Peeblesshire contains nearly 11,000 inhabitants; and, Sir, I hold in my hand a list of what may be the probable constituency of the county under the new system. It was prepared by myself, when I had no hope, and, permit me to say, when I had no wish, to have the honour of a scat in this House, to
1242
which I have been called by the heavy loss we have sustained in our late worthy Member. The number of our new constituency, including the freeholders now on the roll, will exceed 450. I could wish to point out, without entering into other matters, what will shew, at once, the resources and the loyalty of our county. I hold in my hand a copy of returns made to the Home Department, between the years 1803 and 1809, which will shew the amount of the volunteer force kept embodied—a regiment of six companies of infantry, and one of sharpshooters, including staff: it amounted in all to 668, to which must be added a troop of yeomanry, making in all 726 men. In 1808, the volunteers were disbanded, and the Local Militia Act passed; since which period, an addition of another troop of yeomanry was made, doubling that constitutional force. Now, Sir, having made this statement in behalf of the county I have the honour to represent, I am the more strenuously induced to oppose this clause, nay, to divide this Committee upon the subject, that from the late hour at which this project was announced, I have had no time to consult my constituents. I have received only from one of them a short, hurried note, which states a general objection to the clause, and leaves me to do as I think best for them, relying on my honour; and were there no other ground of objection than this, I should urge my conscientious objection to this clause. I must state to this Committee—and it must always be disagreeable and painful to be obliged to state any thing which is personal to one's self—but this Committee can have no acquaintance with the position in which I personally stand. It cannot be supposed that they are much acquainted with a distant country, and a small county there, and still less with the position of the humble individual who now addresses them. But I refer to those of my countrymen present who are acquainted with me, and, in particular, to the hon. Gentleman who represents that district of burghs, whether he does not consider that I have personally a political interest in this affair. He knows, Sir, that my residence is in the vicinity of the royal burgh of Peebles—that more than half the parish belongs to me in property—that I have burgage lands and tenements in and round and adjoining to this royal burgh—that I have always been on the most intimate and

1243
friendly terms with those of that place who are likely to be called upon to enjoy the new franchise in the county—that I believe I may presume to say, that if I required it at any time, I should have well founded hopes of receiving their support. Sir, having stated thus much, for which I ought to apologize to the Committee, I must say, as a man of honour, I hold myself bound (were there no other grounds) to give this measure my decided opposition; and I put it to the candid and honourable mind of the noble Lord, whether I, as a man of honour, can act otherwise. I do therefore most earnestly entreat the noble Lord to use his most powerful influence to restore the householders of Peebles to the privileges of which they will, by this clause, be deprived; and that he will once more replace them in that class of burghs in which they have been classed since the union of the kingdoms; and, if he grants this, I shall feel, from the peculiar position in which I stand, that he is fully entitled, if I may be permitted to say so here, to my most warm, sincere, and personal gratitude.
Lord Althorp: After the speech of the hon. Member who has just, sat down, I feel called upon to make some observations. I cannot help saying, that the remarks which have just been made do the hon. Baronet the greatest credit, but he will allow me to add, that the whole tenor of his speech would rather be an inducement with me not to comply with his suggestion than to adopt it. I never objected to that influence which a benevolent and intelligent landlord acquires over his tenantry; on the contrary, I think it most desirable that every thing should be done, that consistently can be done, to increase rather than to diminish this indirect influence of property. With regard to this question, I am sorry to be compelled to declare, that, after the best consideration I have been able to give to the subject, I cannot consent to comply with the Amendment of the hon. Member for these burghs. According to the arrangement proposed in the original Bill, the counties of Selkirk and Peebles were for the future only to return one Member conjointly, in consequence of the smallness of their constituency. There appeared, however, to exist great objections to the adoption of this course, objections of such weight and of so strong a nature, that we did not think we could in justice proceed.
1244
We found still the constituency of these counties so small, that we were obliged to look out for means of increasing it, and the result was, that we could devise no other course that we thought we could ask the House to sanction, than that now proposed—namely, to throw those two burghs into the counties to which they severally belong. The population of the county of Peebles is 10,046, and that of the burgh of the same name 2,705—thus leaving only 7,341 for the number of inhabitants of the county, out of which we were to form its constituency. Again, the population of the county of Selkirk is 6,637, that of the town 1,728—thus leaving only 4,909 for the county population. For these reasons, it appeared desirable that these towns should have a share in the county Representation of those places in which they are situated. I do not think that any injustice would be done to the towns by this arrangement, for each of them will still have a share in the election of a Member of Parliament, and I think that the influence of these towns would be as great when combined with the county as it would if they continued to have a share in the election of the Member for the Linlithgow burghs. I think that they would rather be gainers according to the arrangement I propose, and in addition to this, the constituency of each of the counties would be much improved. For these reasons, I shall persist in my suggestion, that they have a share in the county Representation. The hon. Members objected, that, although the owners of houses will have a vote in the counties, yet that the householders will not, which they would have had, if they had voted at a burgh election. The hon. Gentleman said, that hopes were held out to the householders of the towns of Peebles and Selkirk, which it is most unfair to disappoint. I am willing to admit that expectations may have been formed, which will be disappointed under the arrangement that I now propose, but it should be recollected, that these persons will not be placed in a worse situation than they are at present, on the contrary, they will be placed in a much better situation. No doubt the householders in these towns will not have the franchise conferred upon them, neither do they possess it now, but still the towns will have a very great influence in the county elections; and I am sure that the interests of both house-

1245
holders and landholders will be protected. I think, therefore, that it is advisable that the Committee should adopt the course I now recommend. I have stated fairly the grounds upon which I have proceeded, and I trust that I shall have the support of the House.
Sir John Hay: I rise merely to observe, that the noble Lord has included the population of the whole of the parish of Peebles in the estimate that he has given of the number of inhabitants in the town. I believe the population of the town of Peebles, at the utmost does not exceed 1,800.
Sir George Clerk: I regret that the noble Lord has not thought it consistent with his duty to assent to the proposition of the hon. Member opposite. The noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, when he first submitted the measure of Reform to the House, said, that his Majesty's Ministers did not intend to propose that any burghs in Scotland should be disfranchised, with the exception of the small districts of the eastern Fife burghs. These, however, have been saved from impending threats that are held out, and they are, with the addition of another place, to return a Member to this House, as they have hitherto done. But now an extensive alteration has been made in the Scotch Reform Bill, arid we find that two important county towns, formerly untouched, are to be placed in schedule A, with a view to their complete disfranchisement. I should have thought that the noble Lord, for the sake of consistency, would have been anxious to abide by the principles laid down with regard to the English Bill. If this were done, both these burghs would be saved from disfranchisement. In the case of the town of Peebles, we find the burgh and parish of the same name, and it is admitted that the parish of Peebles contains 2,700, which is considerably beyond the line drawn as the boundary for disfranchisement. But in considering this case, it should be remembered, that we are to look upon them, not as returning separate Members, but as acting jointly, having a share in the election of one: we ought, therefore, not to regard the population of either of these burghs, but the population of all in the district. The noble Lord attaches great, importance to a numerous constituency; and in this case he has made a reduction in the number, in my opinion, without any adequate
1246
cause. I think, after the favour shown to the small Fife burghs, it is not too much to expect that the same treatment should be manifested to the two county towns of Peebles and Selkirk. The noble Lord said, that there would be no hardship to the householders of these towns, as they have not the right of voting at present, and that their interests would be sufficiently protected by the Representatives of the counties; but surely the noble Lord does not consider it a trifling circumstance, that the expectations of these persons have been disappointed; and I must say, that they are treated with great harshness. The noble Lord said, that after the deduction of the population of these two burghs, the county of Peebles would contain 7,000 inhabitants, and the county of Selkirk only 4,000. It should be remembered, that these are the two important grazing counties of Scotland, and I do not see why they should be excluded from sending Members to this House because their population is small. I have not yet heard any satisfactory reason assigned for the course now recommended; and I am sure, from the information that I have received on the subject, that the number of persons entitled to vote in each of these counties, will exceed 300, without throwing in the burghs. The number of proprietors of houses in these burghs, I believe, is extremely small; and in comparison with the number of persons entitled to vote from the possession of property in the county, is perfectly insignificant. The counties of Peebles and Selkirk, from the nature of their produce, peculiarly require Representatives to watch their interests in this House; and as they are more agricultural than perhaps any other counties in Scotland, it is desirable to abstain as much as possible from throwing the population of the burghs into them. I can see no ground for adopting the course now recommended by the Government with regard to these two burghs, nor can I conceive any reason why we should deprive them of the share they have hitherto enjoyed in the election of a Representative. According to the sets of these burghs, the number of electors that they supply to the district of burghs is considerable; but the number of persons who would be entitled to vote at a county election, from properly they hold in the burghs, is very inconsiderable. If the hon. member for Linlithgow presses his Motion to a division, he shall have my vote, as I

1247
think that it is an act of injustice to deprive the two prosperous towns of Peebles and Selkirk of that share in the Representation which they have hitherto enjoyed.
Mr. Kennedy: I cannot compliment the hon. Baronet in the course that he has taken on the present occasion, and more especially when he states, that he is completely at a loss to understand the reason that has induced his Majesty's Ministers to propose that these burghs should be disfranchised. In my opinion, the only question is, how are those burghs to be enfranchised? The hon. Baronet complains of disfranchising the householders of the towns of Peebles and Selkirk, when he surely could not have been ignorant that they have no share whatever in the choice of a Representative. No person can vote for the election of a Member of Parliament who is not a member of one of the corporations of the towns. It must be recollected that these corporations are self-elected; for when a vacancy occurs in these bodies, the remainder of the members elect a person to fill it up. The corporation of Peebles has only seventeen members, and that of Selkirk thirty-three, so that it is obvious that the householders have no great share in the franchise. In my opinion, throwing these burghs into the counties, is the only means of giving-them a chance in a free election. I deny that this can be considered as a proposition to disfranchise these towns. When counties are so extremely small, and the county constituency so confined, it is absolutely necessary to add the population of the towns to secure even a chance of independence. I think that the throwing the population of the burgh of Selkirk into that county will lessen the chance of its continuing a nomination county, and I am glad to avail myself of any thing calculated to diminish the probability of the present objectionable system continuing. I must express my regret that the noble Lord has consented to abandon his intention of uniting, for the purposes of election, the counties of Peebles and Selkirk. As, however, he has done this, I will only observe, that I should have opposed this alteration in the Bill, had it not been for the proviso, relative to the towns, which has been introduced. I am convinced that a county, with a constituency of only 300, cannot be independent; but that the Member must almost invariably be subject to the nomination of the two or
1248
three great landowners. Each of these burghs, also, will have more control in the election of a Member of Parliament, when joined with its respective county, than if it was merely a contributory burgh. If the Committee should not think proper to sanction the proposition of my noble friend, he will be bound to bring forward his first proposition respecting the union of the counties of Peebles and Selkirk for the election of a Member for this House.
Mr. Keith Douglas: I must congratulate the Committee on the discovery just made by the hon. member for Ayr, namely, that the proposition of the noble Lord does not go to the extent of disfranchising the burghs of Peebles and Selkirk, but that it ought rather to be considered as a proposition to enfranchise them. I was quite surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman indulge in such observations respecting the present franchise in the burghs in Scotland. The hon. Member said, that they are now merely nomination burghs, that the franchise rests entirely in the Town Councils and Corporations, and that the people have no share in the election of the members of those bodies. All the householders in the place, however, are eligible to become members of them. The inference which the hon. Member drew from the statement he made was this; that the householders of these burghs ought to be thankful for whatever his Majesty's Ministry might think proper to give them. It must be recollected, however, that the inhabitants of all the other burghs in Scotland are to have the franchise, and therefore it is an act of injustice to deprive those who would be entitled to vote in the burghs of Selkirk and Peebles of their share in this privilege. With regard to what fell from the noble Lord, I will merely make one observation. The noble Lord said, that the constituency of neither of these counties would be sufficient without the addition of the burghs. Now, there is no doubt that both these counties are wealthy; and although their constituency is small, I cannot see the necessity of introducing a body of voters into the Scotch counties, against which the noble Lord was particularly desirous to guard in the English Bill. Particular care was taken in that Bill, now before the other House, to separate the town and county constituency: I cannot, therefore, see what ground there is to depart from this course as regards Scotland. I have

1249
heard no reason urged why these places should not retain their rights and privileges in having a share in the election of a Member of Parliament, whose peculiar province it would be to watch over the interests of these burghs. For these reasons I shall give my cordial support to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
Lord Althorp: I think it is very desirable to increase the number of voters in small counties by taking in the constituency of the towns. This would not apply where the number of voters is large; and, therefore, I cannot admit that. I am at all inconsistent. The circumstances are very different in different cases; and the same rule does not apply to the instance before us. During this discussion, great objections have been raised to introducing the 10 l. householders into the counties; but I think that householders of these two towns will be a very valuable addition to the constituency of the small counties. The hon. Member opposite has given a reason for opposing this arrangement, which would be an additional inducement with me to support it. The hon. Gentleman says, that nobody could influence the householders—that they would vote as they pleased, as nobody would be able to control them. Now, if this is to be the result, I think that they will form a most desirable addition to the county constituency. It is well known that these counties are small, and that the landed property is in a few hands; the proposition, therefore, that I now make will prevent the undue exercise of influence which might otherwise take place. I cannot agree that, by adopting the present course, we are disfranchising these towns. This is not the case; but it is proposed that their constituency, instead of having a share in the election of the Member for a district of burghs, shall vote for the county. I cannot think that these persons have any cause of complaint, as it must be remembered that, at present, they, in point of fact, have no share in the Representation.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson: I confess I entertained a strong objection to that part of the Bill which proposed to make such a violent change in the counties of Selkirk and Peebles, and even partially to disfranchise them. I am glad that the noble Lord has consented to continue to these counties their Representatives; but I regret that he considers it necessary to throw
1250
these burghs into them. The hon. member for Ayr has said, that the present measure gives to Scotland, for the first time, a share in the Representation. I totally deny the assertion; all that this Bill does is, to make various changes in the Representation, and introduce certain improvements. To say that Scotland has no Representation in Parliament, is an utter absurdity. Scotland has, from the earliest period of her history, had a Representative assembly; and I cannot view this Bill as a boon; but I like the improvements that it will effect, looking at them as a right which the people are entitled to claim. One of the chief objects of the present Bill is to extend the suffrage; but it does not follow, because the constituency is small, that there is no Representation. Would any one say, because the number of the electors of Bath is only thirty, that, therefore, Bath has no right to Representation? But, if it be granted, that, to open the election should be considered a favour, I cannot think that the breaking up the corporation that exists in that city, and throwing- open the franchise to all, should be regarded in any other manner than as the restoring a right. I cannot agree that it is a boon, to a place containing 44,000 inhabitants, to give them a voice in the election of their Representatives. I admit that the Scotch counties and burghs have small constituencies; but be they either small or large, it is an absurdity to say that they are not the Representatives of the people. The population and wealth of Scotland have increased greatly since the time of the Union; and the people of that country have a right to look to Parliament to supply any deficiencies that may be experienced in the Representation. A measure for this purpose has now been brought forward; and we have been under the necessity of laying down principles for our guidance in the proposed changes. Among other suggestions, it was proposed by the noble Lord, that the county and burgh voters should be kept entirely distinct; and that those who voted under property in a burgh, should not vote for the county. I regret that it was thought necessary to depart from this rule. I think, that the rural population of villages ought to be represented in the counties; and the town population ought to be kept distinct. I do not object to the 10 l. householders of the county having votes for it; but I do object to the counties being inundated by

1251
the town voters; for, if this be allowed, the agricultural interest of the counties will be completely destroyed. On these grounds, therefore, I shall vote for the proposition of my hon. friend, to leave the burghs of Peebles and Selkirk as they are now. I object to this departure also, because it will be the means of disfranchising a great many persons. This, I know, will be considered a great hardship; and, in addition to this, I think the change will be highly inconvenient. I am extremely loth to oppose his Majesty's Ministers in carrying their measure of Reform through this House, but I think that I should be sanctioning an act of injustice, if I did not oppose the disfranchisement of these two burghs.
Mr. Pringle: I should almost think that it would be wasting the time of the House, to spend much of it in replying to the argument of the hon. member for Ayr, in favour of the disfranchisement of these burghs. It amounts to this:—That because they have not hitherto had popular election to the extent to which he would give it to them, they have never been represented; so that, by disfranchising them now, you do them no injury—you deprive them of nothing. Why, Sir, I should almost think it a sufficient answer to refer him to the stand which has this night been made by their Representative for their interest. Deprive them of the assistance of one who is so ready to plead their cause in this House, and do you deprive them of nothing? But so sufficient a reply has already been made to the sophistical reasoning of the hon. member for Ayr, by my hon. and learned friend, the member for Kirkcudbright, that I shall not weaken its force by attempting any addition. I must remark, however, on the fact, that in these burghs the actual number of constituents is not so very small as is stated by the hon. member for Ayr. In Selkirk, he has said, the electors amount to thirty-three. This is the number of the Town Council; but every year one-half of that council is chosen by the votes of all the trades in the burgh—so that those who have a voice in the election of Deacons, necessarily participate in the elective franchise. This is well known to all candidates who canvass the burgh, and especially to those who endeavour to keep up an interest there; all of whom find it necessary to secure the good will of others, besides the actual members of the Town
1252
Council. The Set of the burgh of Peebles partakes, though less extensively, of a similar constitution. By cutting off all these privileges, therefore, you affect the interests of a much greater number of individuals than may at first sight appear. One observation in the speech of the hon. member for Ayr, I feel myself specially called upon to reply to—I mean his insinuation, that the county of Selkirk is a nomination county. On the part of the respectable and independent freeholders of that county, I repel his charge with indignation. I deny that, in any sense of the term, does the county of Selkirk deserve to be called a nomination county. The roll of freeholders consists of fifty gentlemen, of whom, as I stated on a former night, the majority are possessed of considerable estates within the county, and the remainder are all either the sons or brothers of these proprietors. By this constituency no Member has at any time been sent to this House, except one of themselves, an independent country gentleman. This has been the case from the earliest times. During nearly three centuries that the freeholders of Selkirkshire have formed part of the constituency, they have never elected a man in office, never any member of a noble family, and never a stranger; and that is more than the largest counties can boast of, if it be a subject of boasting. I know well that the hon. member for Ayr alludes to the circumstance of one nobleman having a large estate within the county; but that estate does not enable him to nominate the Member, even if he were disposed to dictate to the freeholders, which he would be the last man to do. It happens, that there is not a single voter whose qualification is derived from that, estate, excepting the brother of the noble Duke; and as he is restricted by his entail from creating voters, of direct influence he has none. His influence, therefore, is of that kind which hon. Members opposite have always admitted to be the most legitimate—the indirect influence of an affluent and patriotic nobleman amongst his friends and neighbours, by whom he is beloved as he deserves to be, and as his predecessors have been before him. The country gentlemen around him are as independent as himself, and only know him as the greatest proprietor amongst them; and, as such, the most deeply interested in seeing the county of Selkirk well represented.

1253
But, instead of dictating to them, he has always studied their wishes and feelings; and hence, in that county, there has long been, even beyond the memory of man, the most uninterrupted harmony. Is this, then, the county which the hon. member for Ayr calls a nomination county? There does not exist, in the whole British empire, a more independent body of electors than those freeholders who have done me the honour to send me here as their Representative. When such a charge, unfounded as it is, is made against my constituents, I am entitled to retort; and I should certainly have expected it to have come from some other quarter rather than that from which it did. There is not any one from whom it could have been more unbecoming than from the hon. member for Ayr, who is himself returned to this House by the direct influence of another noble Duke, who lives in a different part of the kingdom. With regard to the particular question now under the consideration of the Committee, I have heard no sufficient reason alleged for the proposal of the Government to blot out these two ancient burghs from the roll of the royal burghs of Scotland. They have done nothing to deserve this; and their case would be just as hard as that of the eastern district of Fife burghs, respecting which the Ministers have been forced to retrace their steps. I see nothing consistent in the argument, that the counties require such an addition to their constituency, seeing that each of these counties will have without them, under this Bill, as numerous a constituency as has been deemed sufficient in England to give a claim for two Members. This, perhaps, may not appear from the statement of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he has quoted from the population returns, where the parishes are given along with the burghs; and the two parishes of Peebles and Selkirk happen both to be very extensive. In the southern counties of Scotland, there are extremely few royal burghs; and why should that small number be still further diminished? In Roxburghshire and Berwickshire, there are only two, and these are all that Ministers will leave in that extensive south-eastern district. This is not the way in which they have acted with other interests in the northern counties, and still less in some other districts; and why should the interests of these counties,
1254
which are purely agricultural, be so unfairly dealt with? We have not had time to ascertain what is the feelings in these burghs themselves, respecting the proposed arrangement, as none of us possess the advantage which the hon. member for Ayr seems to have enjoyed, of communicating before hand the intentions of the Ministry; but I cannot think that they will be disposed quietly to acquiesce in this unjust attempt to annihilate their ancient privileges. At all events, Sir, they shall not want friends to stand up for these privileges; and since the hon. Gentleman who represents them in this House, has, with an independence which does him honour, called upon the House to preserve these privileges, I, for one, shall give my hearty support to his motion.
Sir George Murray: I am very anxious to say a few words on the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr. On the same ground which the hon. Member has urged, for depriving Selkirk and Peebles of the franchise—namely, the not possessing a larger constituency than thirty-three and seventeen persons—Ministers might entirely deprive all the burghs in Scotland of the franchise. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to assert, that Ministers would be doing no injustice if they deprived Edinburgh of her Member, because the constituency at present contains only thirty-three Members? Perhaps the hon. Member does not consider that the withholding the right of sending Members for Scotland, should be regarded as a matter of grievous wrong. I regret that the noble Lord should consider a large constituency to be necessary, and that the independence of places cannot be preserved unless the number of voters be great. I am sent here by a comparatively small body of persons; but I know that it would be utterly impossible to form a more independent constituency. I think that a man sent here by a small number of independent and intelligent electors, is much more likely to be impartial and unbiassed in his conduct, than a man elected by a very numerous constituency.
Sir James Mackintosh: I fully agree with the right hon. Baronet, that a man sent here by a small constituency may be perfectly independent; but the question is, whether the chances of independence are not greater with a large constituency than in a small and close elective body? The object of this Bill, is to enlarge the consti-

1255
tuency, and to adopt means to make it as independent as possible. I agree with my hon. friend, that you may give an adequate compensation to the small towns, by throwing them into the counties, but thats rule will not apply as regards large town like Edinburgh. In these small burghs, the right of suffrage is not to be taken away, but it is to be transferred; so that the same individuals, in other capacities, will vote for the county. In point of fact, it is only giving all those persons an equivalent elsewhere for the vote you will take from them in the burgh. I do not think this could be done in a town with 10,000 or 20,000 inhabitants; but I see no objection to it in the case of a small town, situated in a small county. I will not now go into the question, whether a place with a small and close constituency, is represented. The hon. and learned Member has alluded to the city of Bath, as not having the franchise conferred upon it as a favour. I will not say whether this be the case or not; but I know that the Bill now sent up to the other House will confer upon the inhabitants of Bath, for the first time, a share in the election of their Representative. Can it be said, that the twenty-seven persons who elect that Member, constitute the whole of the city of Bath, and that the 40,000, inhabitants are nothing? If it be said, that the people of Scotland had any share in the Representation, I deny the assertion. Scotland has never possessed a popular Representation, and this Bill has been brought forward with a view to bestow—not to restore—a popular Representation. I have been told, that Scotland has a Representation; but I ask, a Representation of what? Certainly, it is not a Representation of the people and property in Scotland, in any sense of the word. Where-ever the people have no share in the elections, there is no Representation. No constitutional writer or lawyer, from Brae-ton or Fleta, to Blackstone and Hardwick, has at all laid down a system such as at present exists in the Representation only of certain classes. The people generally have no concern in the elections for the whole kingdom. I say a Representation, in the sense it has ever been used in England—in the sense in which it should always be considered in the House of Commons—does not exist, and I hail this as a first attempt to bestow a Representation upon Scotland.
Mr. Cumming Bruce: the gratification which I always derive from the eloquence of the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down, disposes me not to quarrel with him for having, with scarcely any reference to the question before the House, indulged us with a speech on the general question, already so fully discussed during the two long nights on which the House was occupied with its consideration. I shall not follow the example of the right hon. Baronet, having already occupied more of the time of the House on that question than was, in any shape, justly due to so humble an individual. But when the right hon. Baronet reiterates, for the twentieth time, his declaration, that Scotland has hitherto enjoyed no Representation at all, because it has not enjoyed a popular Representation, I must again state, what I have already asserted to the House, that such is not the fact. Though not popular, our Representation is a Representation of property, to a very great extent. The right hon. Baronet would seem to assert, that numbers—that population alone—is the element which should be considered, in forming a system of Representation. I had thought that property, also, should enter into the consideration—if for nothing else, as a standard of fitness and intelligence; and the mere fact, that a property standard of qualification has been adopted, in the general measures of Reform, proves that such also is the view of his Majesty's Government. I do not approve of the fixed qualification, in its universal application; but its adoption proves, at least, the fact, that property was thought worthy of some Representation. But I shall not follow the right hon. Baronet further. My object in rising, is to press on the noble Lord opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a consideration, which should, I think, induce him, in the view of giving full effect to his own principles, to agree to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member. In every word which fell from my hon. friend, the member for Peebles (Sir John Hay), whose candid speech made so great an impression on the House, in every word of what fell from him, in praise of the fairness, and candour, and conciliatory conduct which has characterized the noble Lord, throughout the whole of these proceedings, I most fully concur; and so I am fully persuaded of the sincerity of the noble Lord's declaration, that his only

1257
motive in proposing to throw these burghs into their respective counties, is a desire to create a free and independent constituency. Sir, I sincerely believe that such has, in every instance, been the desire of the noble Lord, however much I differ from him as to the success which will follow the course he has pursued. But to attain his own object, I put it to him, after having listened to the statement made with so much manliness by my hon. friend, of the great influence which, from his large property and great and deserved influence, my hon. friend must possess in the vicinity of the town of Peebles, whether the constituency of the county is likely to be improved, as far as exemption from individual influence goes, by such an accession; to its numbers? It may be all very true, as the noble Lord said, that in the hands of my hon. friend, that influence can only be exerted in a way useful and beneficial to the community. But my hon. friend, after all, is mortal; and the same influence may fall into hands disposed to use it in a very different spirit. I therefore would press on the consideration of the noble Lord, that he will best realize his own object— the securing a county constituency, exempt from any great individual influence—by acceding to the proposal which has been so ably advocated by my hon. friend. My hon. friend opposite, the member for Ayr (Mr. Kennedy) threatens us with the resumption of the concession made to these counties, in leaving them their separate Member, if this proposal be acceded to by a majority of the House; "for," says my hon. friend, "Selkirk will become a nomination county; and I abominate all nomination." Really, the virtue of my hon. friend must have been severely mortified at the sittings of those little Cabinet Councils in Downing-street, at which the Bill in its present form was agreed to. I could really almost pity the situation of my hon. friend, when, with all his holy hatred of nomination, he found himself obliged to agree, that the county of Sutherland should retain its right of sending a Member to this House. I should almost have feared that the bare proposition would have driven my hon. friend from the fellowship in which I am consoled to see he still sits with such apparent complacency, If there be a nomination county in the wide range of Scotland, it is the county of Sutherland, Why, there is but one proprietor, I may say, in
1258
the whole county. I quarrel not with his Majesty's Government, however, for allowing it to retain its right—far from it. It is one of those rags and shreds of our old Constitution which I rejoice to see preserved. Something at least is gained, in my view of the question, when the rights given by distinct Acts of Parliament to the tenants of the family of Sutherland are preserved. But this concession to any existing right must have been very painful to the anti-nomination feeling of the member for the Ayr burghs. But, Sir, I shall not trespass longer on the time of the House. I rose merely to urge on the noble Lord the fitness of keeping out of the county of Peebles a constituency which may be subject to a preponderating individual influence.
Mr. Robert A. Dundas: I have no wish to trespass on the attention of the House, nor shall I follow any hon. Gentleman by entering at large into the merits of this great question. I merely wish to set the House, right with regard to an observation which was made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He stated, with reference to what fell from the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, that the arrangement which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Government with respect to Selkirk and Peebles, will merely have the effect of transferring the right of individuals from burghs to counties. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman will consider the principle of this Bill, he will find that it confers the right on a totally different description of persons; not that these individuals will not exercise the right in burghs, but it merely restricts the rights of those individuals who would otherwise exercise them if these burghs remained in the position in which my right hon. friend opposite wishes to place them, It is with that view that this Motion has been brought forward: I shall support it; not that I approve in any degree of the principle of this Bill; but inasmuch as this proposition will have the effect of preventing some disfranchisement, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to divide the House he shall have my vote.
Mr. Gillon: I have not the slightest wish to prolong the debate, which has already occupied a considerable time; but, at the same time, I must beg to remark, in allusion to the particular point which is now under the consideration of the Committee, that the hon. Gentleman is decidedly in error who stated that the franchise would

1259
be given to the same individuals as those who possess it at present, and that the only difference would be, that they would be made county voters instead of burgh voters. I can assure the House, that if I had entertained such an opinion, I should not have brought forward this motion; as, if that had been the case, I conceive I should have been supporting a most objectionable point in the present state of the Bill. The fact, however, is, that the right will be possessed by a very different class of individuals. I hope that his Majesty's Government and the House will be induced to comply with the Motion of which I have given notice, which has for its object the giving of Representation to the owners of property in burghs, who do not possess the right of voting in burghs, without depriving the householders in burghs of the benefit of the franchise. I will merely say further, that I shall feel it my duty to press this Motion.
Sir Charles Forbes: I certainly feel disposed to support the Motion of the hon. Member. But I am induced to trouble the Committee in consequence of the threat of the hon. member for Ayr, who has stated, that if this Motion be carried, the Government will again bring forward their first proposition respecting the union of the counties of Selkirk and Peebles. Now, I undoubtedly should protest against uniting the counties in Scotland while the English counties are divided. It is of the greatest importance that we should exactly understand the course which his Majesty's Government intend to pursue in respect of this part of the subject; and I trust that the noble Lord opposite, with that courtesy and kindness for which he is so eminently distinguished, will tell us how the fact really stands, and if his intention has been correctly stated by the hon. member for Ayr. One word before I sit down: I very much regret the absence of the hon. member for Preston this evening, because I think, had he been here, he would have heard a good deal said on his favourite topic—the people. I declare, that from the 1st of March down to this day, the people have been the constant theme of converastion: I never heard so much of them before. Every word of my right hon. friend's (Sir James Mackintosh) speech to-night was about the people there was not one word in it, from beginning to end, about property. Really I am quite puzzled to understand this, both
1260
here and elsewhere. I am constantly tearing of "the people and property," and "property and the people;" and the words are so often bandied about from one side of the House to the other, just as it happens to suit the argument of the parties using them, that at this moment I declare I am totally unable to tell on what principle these expressions are so continually made use of.
Lord Althorp: In answer to the question of the hon. Baronet, I have to state, that when we wished to depart from the proposed union of these counties, we deemed it expedient to throw the burghs into them, in order to give them a respectable constituency. If, then, this part of the arrangement should be defeated, can he expect us not to revert to our original intention regarding the counties? Undoubtedly, Sir, this is what he must look for.
Mr. Pringle: I cannot suppress my surprise at what has just now fallen from the noble Lord opposite. I must entreat the indulgence of the House for a few moments, on account of the peculiar situation in which he has placed me. He has stated to the House, that if this Motion shall be carried, he means to revert to his former arrangement, and again propose to the House to unite the counties. Sir, I did not expect this from the noble Lord. When I heard such a threat from the hon. member for Ayr, it made no impression upon me whatever; and I did not think it worth my while to notice it, for I thought that I could have appealed from it to the justice of the noble Lord; but I now find I have been mistaken. When I heard him already declare, that in giving up the arrangement of uniting the counties, his Majesty's Government had been induced to do so by the representations which had been made to them, and which had changed their view of the question—when I heard him thus put it upon the grounds of expediency and justice—I never could have supposed that he would have gone back from such a declaration, and, in spite of his own acknowledgment, again call upon the House to do wrong to these counties. Does the noble Lord suppose, that by this threat he is to influence our votes upon the question immediately before the Committee? If this be his expectation, in one Member, at least, he will find he is mistaken. I am called upon to do an act of justice, and to resist the disfranchisement of these burghs, and this I shall do, re-

1261
gardless of the consequences. But I have no fear of the consequences. If this Motion be carried, and if then the noble Lord shall attempt to put his threat in execution I shall appeal from him to the justice of this House, and I feel assured that I shall not make the appeal in vain. The hon. member for Linlithgow (Mr. Gillon), has brought before us a specific motion. Of the justice of that motion I have already expressed my opinion, and from such tin opinion I can never go back. Happen what may, I shall give my support to the Motion.
Lord Althorp: I stated at first that these two towns were to be thrown into the counties if the intention of uniting them was to be given up. Cut I do not think I have been rightly understood by the Committee. I said, that it might be expected we should revert to the whole of the original arrangement, if this part of it were lost; but I did not mean seriously to intimate that we were resolved to do so. I certainly did not expect that what I said would have the effect of making the hon. Member opposite angry.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson: I shall not trespass on the attention of the House many moments. ["Oh, oh! "Divide, divide!" Question, question!"] Hon. Gentlemen who cry "Question," do not understand the importance of the subject. This question certainly arises out of that which the noble Lord was pleased to decide in favour of the counties of Peebles and Selkirk. Under the impression that each of these counties were to have Representatives, I felt, in common with all the people of Scotland, grateful to the noble Lord for having acceded to our wishes. At present, however, the case is altered. The noble Lord has declared, that if this Motion should be carried against him, he will consider whether he ought not to retract that concession [no, no.!]. So, at least, I understood the noble Lord. I am glad to find I am mistaken. One hon. Member has called for the union of these two counties, according to the original plan of the noble Lord; and I am sorry to see that there are some of the Members for Scotland who are inclined, to reduce in place of augmenting, its county Representation, and who seek, upon all occasions, to degrade the character of that Representation in the eyes of this House. It has been said, that, the whole of the Representation proposed to be attached to Scotland, is a boon to
1262
that country, for that Scotland has never had any Representation. I have often said, and 1 repeat it now, that the system of the Representation of Scotland is defective, and that it ought to be amended; but I deny that Scotland has never been represented, or that Representation is now for the first time to be extended to it. Were that the case, you, Sir, from the chair must propose to alter the title of the Bill, by making it a Bill, not to amend, but to give a Representation to the people of Scotland.
Lord Althorp: I certainly thought that what I had before staled on this subject would have been a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that the explanation I then gave was sufficient, and I as certainly did not expect to be called upon again. Undoubtedly, Sir, I understood that my hon. friend was perfectly satisfied with the proposition that had been made for placing these towns in the counties; therefore, I am surprised at the opposition which has been offered to it. If I were to allude to what is past, I must say, that I should have expected a very different result.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson: I beg to assure the noble Lord that I was not present when any intention of offering this proposition to the House was expressed. I was not present at any meeting where such a proposition was introduced. If I had, however great my respect for the noble Lord, I should most certainly have opposed it.
Sir Charles Forbes: I am happy to find, as I had supposed, that the noble Lord, when he seemed to adopt the threat of the hon. member for Ayr, was not in earnest. But the joke was a very bad joke; and I cannot help thinking, Sir, that my hon. friend the member for Ayr, with those strong feelings of impetuosity which he occasionally exhibits, went a little further perhaps, in the situation of locum tenens for the Lord Advocate, than he ought to have done.
Sir George Clerk: Sir—[cries of "Question!] if that hon. Member who cries "question" had attended during the discussion, he might have had some right to call "question;" but as he is one of those hon. Members who have just come into the House for the purpose of voting on a question of which he has not heard one single word, he will perhaps allow me to make an observation. When I look to the quarter of the House from which

1263
those cries proceed, and see that those benches are chiefly occupied by hon. members for Ireland, I must say, considering the inconvenience to which the hon. and learned member for Kerry has put us, by moving a call of the House on Monday, in order to secure a full attendance on the Irish Bill, that they might, in return, have heard us upon the Scotch Bill. It is not possible, from my knowledge of the noble Lord's character, that I could suppose he intended to commit any deliberate act of injustice, and therefore I will only say, that I do trust, notwithstanding even the threat which he has held out on this occasion, we shall be able to save the right of voting for these two flourishing towns, against either of which I have not heard one single argument adduced which can justify their being divided, either on the ground of corruption or want of population.
The Committee divided on the original Question, when the numbers were: Ayes 133; Noes60—Majority 73.
On the question, that these words, "And that one shall always be returned by each of the shires enumerated in the schedule A, hereunto annexed, stand part of the clause,"
Sir George Murraysaid, the Amendment I have to suggest is this—I should beg to propose that each county in Scotland having a population which, by the census of 1821, amounted to 100,000 inhabitants, shall be entitled to return two Members to this House in place of one only, as proposed by the Bill now under consideration. I found this claim upon several different grounds. I found it, in the first place, upon this ground:—I conceive that Scotland has a claim, and a well-founded claim, to a larger number of Representatives than it is proposed by this Bill to give to her. The Representation of Scotland at the period of the Union was fixed at forty-five Members, and so fixed with reference to the population of the country as compared to that of England, and to the amount of the revenue and taxation in both countries. If I can establish the fact, that the relative proportion between the two countries has very considerably altered since the period of the Union, and that Scotland has gained very much during the time that has since elapsed, both in population and in revenue, as compared to England—if I can shew this to be the case, I shall estab-
1264
lish a fair claim to a more considerable addition than is given by this Bill to the Representation of Scotland. It appears that, at the period of the Union, in 1767, the Customs of Scotland amounted to 30,000 l. whilst the Customs of England amounted to 1,341,559 l.; the Excise in Scotland at that period amounted to 33.500 l., in England, to 947,602 l. making the whole of the revenue of Scotland, under these two heads, amount to 63,500 l. whilst that of England amounted to 2,289,161 l. The proportion, therefore, of the total amount of the English Customs and Excise, when compared to the total amount of the same branches of the revenue in Scotland, was about thirty-six to one; that is to say, the revenue of England was thirty-six times greater than that of Scotland. The state of things, however, is now very materially altered; for, according to the returns of the year ending the 5th of January, 1830, it appears that the English Customs amounted to 17,524,138 l. and the Excise to18,243,929 l., making a total of 35,768,067 l. The Customs of Scotland at that time amounted to 1,372,089 l.; the Excise to 2,762,993 l.; making altogether 4,134,082 l. The result, therefore, is, that the united Customs and Excise of England exceeded the united Customs and Excise of Scotland in that year in the proportion of about eight-and-a-half to one. The Committee will see that this fact presents a very different picture of the state of Scotland at the present period from that which she exhibited at the time of the Union. With regard to population, also, Scotland has been increasing in a somewhat similar ratio, though certainly the increased proportion in this respect has not been, perhaps, so great as in the revenue. On these grounds, therefore, I think I may fairly put it to the Committee, that there is a just claim on the part of Scotland to a considerable increase in the number of her Representatives. But I would also beg leave to refer the Committee, with relation to this question, to the observations which were made by the learned Lord Advocate, on the nature and character of the Treaty of Union, These were the words of the Lord Advocate:—'At last came the union of the two kingdoms; a bargain harshly and ingeniously made by the stronger party, and assented to by the weaker, not, he believed, under the influence of the most honourable motives—a bargain by which a neighbour-

1265
ing nation, pretending to treat on terms of equality, had the face to propose to another that all the diminution in the number of Representatives should be on one side.' This opinion of the character of the Union given by the learned Lord, who has himself brought the present Bill into the House, fortifies the claim which I have to make for an increase of the number of Representatives for Scotland. But there are also other reasons why this addition should be allowed. When the English Bill passes, if it ever does pass, into a law, Scotland will possess another claim to an increase in the number of her Representatives, on the ground that, up to this moment, she has had virtually a Representation to a greater extent than would at first appear, in consequence of many individuals from that country having had the advantage of obtaining seats for English burghs. Now, the Committee will recollect, that Scotland will lose that advantage by the operation of the English Bill, for I conceive that the effect of that measure will be to localize, much more than has hitherto been the case, all political interests, and the Representation will be more immediately and directly connected with the place from whence the Representative is sent. I believe that is, indeed, one of the arguments which the supporters of this Bill bring forward to shew the advantages which will result from it. It must, however, be also clear, that the very circumstance of Representation being more localized renders it necessary that every part of the country should have its true and proper share of Representatives. The present system of Representation is not placed upon this footing; it is not now so much localized as it will be by the new Bill. And I must say, that I think the general interests of the country are more likely to be attended to, and may be advocated with a much greater probability of success now than they will be hereafter, when the Representation becomes so localized that every individual Member in this House will be bound to attend more closely, and almost exclusively, to the particular interests of the place he represents, than has heretofore been the case. Hitherto, many of those individuals who were brought in for the seats which are to be abolished by the English Bill, were not immediately connected with the local interests of the places they sat for, but they were very frequently the able advocates of
1266
general and important interests, as well within the united kingdom, as in distant parts of the empire. From this circumstance, I conceive that it is still more necessary that Scotland, in consideration of the Representation being more localized, should endeavour to obtain a greater number of Representatives than she has hitherto possessed, to advocate and support her particular claims. These are the general reasons which induce me to propose that an addition should be made to the Representation of Scotland; but I also claim it on other grounds, which have been fully established, I think, by his Majesty's Ministers, in the course of the discussions upon these Reform Bills. When the noble Lord the Paymaster General of the Forces, brought these Bills into the House, on the 1st of March, 1831, he stated, that the 'Bill for England will give two additional Members to each of the twenty-seven counties, where the number of inhabitants exceeds 150,000.' Now, here the noble Lord establishes the principle of granting an increased share of Representation to the English counties, with reference to the number of their population, and upon that principle, to twenty-seven counties, four Members each have been accordingly given, on the ground of their possessing a population of upwards of 150,000. Now, I think I may fairly claim, that the principle here laid down in so distinct a manner for England, should be extended to Scotland also. But I think this principle must obtain still further support from what was stated subsequently by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord said, 'In the provisions of this' Bill we have found it necessary to give Representatives to a greater number of burghs than we originally proposed. This led us to consider how we could give the agricultural interests a balancing influence. Something was requisite; for, by giving Members to such a number of towns, many of which we knew would return Members in the manufacturing interests, we feared their preponderance over the agricultural interests of the country. In this emergency it struck us, that by giving additional Members to counties, we should avoid this preponderating influence of the manufacturing interests; and, accordingly, seven counties, where it was known that the agricultural interests predominated, were

1267
were selected, and to these additional Representatives were given.' The former principle to which I have referred was that of giving Representation to counties with reference to their population; but here the noble Lord introduced the further principle of granting Representation also to counties, for the purpose of forming a balance to counteract that preponderating influence which the Bill had given to the manufacturing interests. Now, there is no man in this House more indisposed than I am, or than I have at all times expressed myself to be, to draw distinctions which would have the effect of creating a spirit of jealous rivalship, or a feeling of hostility between one interest and another in the State; but the noble Lord having, in the course of the consideration of the English Bill, admitted the propriety of giving additional Representation to seven English counties, for the purpose of bringing in agricultural Representatives, and the House having given its sanction to that principle, I conceive I have a fair claim to ask for the application of the same principle to Scotland. By a reference to the Bill for improving the Scotch Representation, it will be seen, that all the addition proposed to be made to that Representation is to be given to towns—all the eight additional Members will be the Representatives of towns. Now, Sir, I do not at all object to these towns being thus represented—quite the contrary. I put in myself a strong claim for the capital of the county which I have the honour to represent, as being a city fairly entitled in every respect to that privilege; and I am exceedingly happy to find that his Majesty's Government have been pleased, in their amended edition of the Bill, to give a Representative to the city of Perth.
What I am now desirous of establishing, and which I think is but just and fair, is, that the principle which has been laid down in the case of the English counties should be applied to the counties of Scotland, and that we should have increased agricultural Representation given to us also for the purpose of balancing and counteracting the increased influence given to another description of interests in Scotland by the proposed Bill. The motion, therefore, with which I shall
1268
hereafter mention. But, still further to strengthen my claim to this alteration, by reference to the expressed opinions of his Majesty's Ministers, I would beg leave to refer to an opinion given, or rather to an observation made, by the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to this very principle. That right hon. Baronet stated, in answer, I think, to some remarks made by the hon. member for Marlborough—I believe, with reference to the number of Members given to Cumberland, he having drawn a comparison between that county and Dorsetshire—that, 'Had Dorsetshire, by the population returns of 1821, contained upwards of 150,000 souls, it would, without any reference to its burgh Representation, have been admitted to the right of returning four Members to Parliament. Now this sentiment from the right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty, confirms what I before stated relative to the principle of giving Representation to counties on account of population, and which was so clearly laid down, and acted upon, in the English Bill. And I may yet further strengthen this argument, if it be necessary, by again referring to the opinion of the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General of the Forces.
With reference to the Representation of Wales, that noble Lord said, 'His Majesty's Government have found that there are four counties in Wales distinguished as possessing a considerable population; there is the county of Glamorgan, to the Representation of which one Member has been already added: the county of Pembroke contains a population of 74,000 souls; but it has no additional Representative given to it, as it has already gained by the Bill two districts of burghs.' This statement does not at all weaken the principle, which I contend has been laid down; on the contrary, it rather confirms it; because the noble Lord assigns as a reason for not granting to Pembrokeshire an advantage similar to that given to Glamorganshire, that it has already received an increased share of Representation, by the addition of two districts of burghs. The other two Welsh counties mentioned by the noble Lord on that occasion were Carmarthenshire, and Denbighshire; the former containing a population of 96,000, and the latter a population of 76,000. To these two last counties, his Majesty's Ministers proposed to give one additional Member each. The noble Lord's observa-

1269
tions confirm the principle of increasing the county Representation, which we have already found laid down, and acted upon. It appears to me, that my proposition is again materially strengthened by the observations here made by the nobleLord, for he said, that 'As two Members more are 'thus to be added to the county Representation, his Majesty's Ministers, in conformity with the principles on which they have acted throughout the whole of this Bill, now propose to give two Representatives to two more large towns.' The towns referred to by the noble Lord, were those of Ashton-under-Lyne, and Stroud. We find, therefore, this principle laid down—that there shall be a fair balance preserved between contending interests; and we find the principle laid down and applied in the former part of the Bill, by giving Members to counties, for the purpose of preventing an undue preponderance of the manufacturing interests, by the increase of town Representation; and here again it is confirmed and strengthened, by being applied in an opposite direction; and in this instance, two additional Members are given to towns, in consequence of additional Representation having been granted to the Welsh counties. It appears to me, therefore, that the principle is confirmed in the strongest possible manner, by the mode of its being acted upon in both these cases. What I aim at is, to persuade this House, and his Majesty's Ministers, of the fairness and justice of applying the same principle to Scotland, on both the grounds which I have already stated. Let us now proceed to compare the population of the counties in England to which additional Representation is given, with the population of the Scotch counties, for which I put in my present claim. I find here, with reference to the population of those counties to which four Members have been given, that the county of Durham possesses a population of 207,000 inhabitants. Now, that county is to receive four Members, as county Representatives, and it is to have also six Members for towns; so that here is a population of 207,000 sending ten Representatives to Parliament. Then there is the county of Northumberland, possessing a population of 226,000; and that county will also send four county Representatives to Parliament; in addition to which, it will have seven burgh Representatives; making a total of eleven Representatives for a popula-
1270
tion of 226,000. With regard to Cumberland—and let me here observe, that I take those counties which are nearest to Scotland, and, therefore, the most likely to be brought into comparison with the state of Representation in that country—the county of Cumberland has, by the Bill, four county Representatives, and four burgh Representatives; making a total of eight Members for a population of 156,000. Now, taking the Scotch counties, for the purpose of comparing them with the English counties I have mentioned, I find the county which I myself have the honour to represent—the county of Perth—containing a population, by the census of 1821, of 130,050 persons; and yet that county, with a population falling very little short of that of Cumberland, which sends eight Representatives to Parliament, will only send two Members to represent its interests in this House, and one of these will be for the city of Perth, which contains about 23,000 inhabitants. Now, it happens, also, that, if we deduct from the county constituency, or, I should rather say, if we deduct from the county population, the population of the burghs, in both cases, it is singular enough, but it so happens, that if you take away the number of inhabitants contained in the towns of Cumberland, which are to send Representatives to Parliament, it reduces the population of that county to 115,000 persons, sending four Representatives to this House; and, if you take away the population of the city of Perth from that of the county of Perth, the number of the inhabitants of the county becomes exactly the same as that of Cumberland—namely, 115,000, but who are to send only one Representative to Parliament, It is quite impossible that any Member of this House can fail to perceive, that there is a considerable degree of unfairness in this system of Representation. If we advert next to the counties in England to which a Representation of three Members has been allowed (I will not trouble the House by referring to the burghs in these counties), we shall find the facts to be as I shall now state to the Committee. If we take the county of Hereford, for instance, we shall find, including the boroughs population, that it contains 103,243 inhabitants—falling, therefore, considerably below the population of many counties in Scotland, which send only one Representative to Parliament, but to each of which I propose that the

1271
Bill should grant two Members. We shall find, also, that Cambridge shire contains a population of 121,900, Hertford, 129,700, Berks, 131,977, Bucks, 134,068, Oxford, 136,971, and Dorset, 144,499. Now all these counties, if we take a general average, are pretty nearly upon a par with those counties in Scotland, in whose behalf all I ask is, that, in place of one Member, they should be allowed in future to return two. And it must be recollected that these English counties, nearly corresponding with them in amount of population, are to send three Representatives each to Parliament, independent of those Members who are returned for their burghs. I will beg leave to enumerate the population of some of the larger Scotch counties. Aberdeen, in 1821, possessed a population of 155,387; Ayr, 127,299; Mid-Lothian, 191,514; Fife, 114,556; Forfar, 113,430; Lanark, 244,387; Perth, 139,050; and Renfrew, 112,175. These counties altogether contain a population considerably larger than those English counties to which I have already referred. Why the treatment of these Scotch counties should be so extremely different from the English counties, I confess I cannot understand. I have shewn that they possess a population sufficient to entitle them to an increased share of Representation; there is also a sufficient extent; there is no deficiency in point of wealth; and I have heard it admitted, by almost every Gentleman in this House, that there is no want of intelligence among the people of Scotland, which should restrict the number of their Representatives. For my own part, I certainly cannot conceive that any objection to granting this increased Representation to Scotland can be founded on the argument of the necessity of adhering; to the Articles of the Union; for his Majesty's Government have themselves departed from the Union, in all those parts of the Bill where it has suited their own views and their own purposes to do so, without any hesitation or scruple whatever. The learned Lord told us, indeed, on opening the discussion on this Bill, that he did not mean to follow the old system, or to leave even one rag or shred of it remaining. But my interpretation of the Articles of the Union has always been this, that they were intended to guard and protect us against any thing oppressive, but not to act as a bar to our receiving our fair and proper share of a benefit which is conferred
1272
on other parts of the united kingdom. I think his Majesty's Ministers might go upon the liberal principle which is admitted, I know, in all military transactions at least; for wherever there is an article, even in a capitulation, the interpretation of which admits of any doubt, it is always decided with a leaning rather to the weaker party than the stronger, in order that the weaker party may not be oppressed. I call upon his Majesty's Ministers to apply this principle to Scotland; and I say that, although we are the weaker party, there can exist no right to debar us from the receiving a benefit which we are entitled to claim under this Bill. I think the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, in allusion to what took place at the time of the Union, stated, that the Scotch were anxious to have some deviation from the proposed plan, and to have a greater number of Representatives; but to these representations the English Commissioner; answered, "You shall have forty-five Members, and no more;" and in this" practical and sensible" manner was the Representation of Scotland settled at the time of the Union. I cannot concur with the noble Lord in his application of the words, "practical and sensible," to this conduct of the English Commissioners; and I feel much more disposed to apply to it the epithets of unjust, arrogant, and dictatorial. Authority and power have interfered to oppress the weaker party; and I should incline to believe, that nothing but those strong means of influence which the learned Lord alluded to, as extensively prevalent at that period, could have induced the Scotch to give way, and to assent to what appears, by the admission of the English Commissioners, to have been so strongly felt as an act of injustice, in rating so low the number of the Scotch Representatives. There is no ground which can possibly be stated why Scotland should continue to be so treated. It cannot be said that the country is a conquered country: if any statement of that kind were made, I should beg to ask when, and by whom, has Scotland ever been conquered? Any one aquainted with the history of Scotland must know well, that it is a country which never submitted to any conqueror. Invaded it has been—successfully invaded—but conquered it has not been, for there is no record in history of any hostile power having been enabled to maintain a permanent footing in that

1273
country. But even if it were otherwise—even if it had been conquered, I contend that the term "conquered country," ought never to be applied to any portion whatsoever of a united kingdom. In a united kingdom there is no conqueror, and no conquered; the rights of all are equal, and it is only by proceeding on such liberal and enlightened views of policy that we can produce that state of unanimity, and of harmony, the existence of which is so essentially necessary for the preservation of our internal tranquillity, and for the advancement of our common interests. I claim, therefore, on the several grounds I have stated, that a greater number of Representatives be given to Scotland; and I take the liberty of moving, that, after the words in the clause now before the Committee, which have been just read by the hon. Chairman, there be inserted these words: "Two shall always be returned by each of the following shires—namely, Aberdeen, Ayr, Edinburgh, Fife, Forfar, Lanark, Perth, and Renfrew."
Lord Althorp: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement of the relative proportions of the revenue of Scotland and England, and he has very truly observed, that there is a very considerable difference between the state of these proportions, at present, and their existing relation at the time of the Union; therefore, he contends, that we ought not to place Scotland on the same footing as she was when the revenue of this country was so much larger compared with hers. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to add eight more Members to the Representation of Scotland—that is to say, he proposes that that country shall have in the whole sixty-one Members, instead of forty-five. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the revenue of England exceeded the revenue of Scotland in the proportion of thirty to one, at the time of the Union, whereas its excess is now only about eight-and-a-half to one. Why, then, if, at the time of the Union, the number of Members to be allowed to Scotland had been calculated in this way, instead of forty-five Members, she would not have had more than between fourteen or fifteen; and, if the same proportion were to be preserved at present, instead of sixty-one Members, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give her, fifty-six would he the number of Representatives to which she would be entitled. It must, I think, be quite clear,
1274
Sir, that this was not the ground on which the number of Members was fixed at the Union, because the proportion of her Members then was three times as much as the proportion of her revenue, compared with what it is, on its present scale of forty-five, to the present revenue of Scotland. If we were to legislate on the same principle now, instead of fifty-six Members, Scotland ought to have the number 168, which would be three times the relative proportion it should bear to that revenue. I, therefore, must say, that I think any consideration of the amount of revenue, as bearing on the number of Members at the Union, and the number of Members that ought to be given now, should be put quite out of the question, for that never was, and is not now, the ground on which the number of Members should be fixed. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect, too, Sir, that the proportion of Scotch Members is not only increased by the number of eight, which we propose to add, but by other means; for not only will she have eight additional Representatives, but the number of English Members is also considerably diminished; and, therefore, instead of Scotland having fifty-three Members, bearing only the same proportion to the number of English Members, as her Representatives do at present, the advantage on the part of Scotland will be enhanced in the further degree, by which the now existing number of English Representatives is diminished; so that the advantage given to Scotland in proportion, is, in fact, much greater than it appears to be. But then the right hon. Gentleman says, that the population of the counties of Scotland is equal to that of the English counties, whose Representation has been increased, and on that ground, he asserts, a larger number of Members ought to be allowed them. The population of these counties has been properly stated, and the argument would have had some weight, if there were no other point to be considered; but there is another consideration of great importance to be remembered, and that is the number of electors. Now, I apprehend, that in the largest counties in Scotland, the number of electors, under this Bill, will not be equal to that in many of the smaller counties in England. I speak, of course, rather loosely, but I have seen a calculation of the probable number of electors; and it has been stated to me, that

1275
in all Lanark there are not more than between 2,500 or 2,600 voters. This calculation was shewn to me, not at all with a view to this discussion; but if I recollect right, the number of voters did not exceed that amount, notwithstanding it is one of those counties in which nearly the largest constituencies might be supposed to exist. Well, then, if this be the case in all those counties to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, the number of voters will be greater in the small counties of England than in the largest Scotch counties; and, therefore, when we are considering how many Representatives should be given to a country so differently situated in this respect from England, I cannot think that population, and population alone, ought to be the guide on which we are to go. For these reasons, Sir, I really do feel that this claim, in justice, does not exist in the way in which it has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, that Scotland will have the number of her town Representatives increased, but that she will not possess the same advantage with respect to her county Members. This, certainly, Sir, is very true; but the right hon. Gentleman should recollect how very inadequately the manufacturing population of Scotland has been represented: because, when we consider that such a town as Glasgow, and many other large manufacturing towns in Scotland, have had no more weight in the election of their Representatives than the smaller burghs with which they were connected, we must all admit that this branch of the Representative system in Scotland is very defective. The first thing that would naturally strike one, in looking to the state of the Representation of that country, would be, that the manufacturing interests much more required an increase of Representation, than the agricultural interests demanded the addition of county Members. For this reason, the course which has been adopted seems perfectly right, and the reasons I have stated fully justify the Representation of Scotch towns being increased in preference to that of Scotch counties. I must say, therefore, that, on the best consideration I can give the subject, it does not appear to me that the case brought forward on the part of Scotland for a larger increase in the number of her Representatives is one which is founded injustice. The amount of the consti-
1276
tuencies of Scotch counties will be very small when compared with the number of electors in the counties of England; and, as I said before, the different circumstances in which the two countries are placed in this respect, must be taken into consideration. For these reasons, I shall feel myself bound to oppose the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do so, not from any jealousy of Scotland, or from not wishing to see the inhabitants of that part of the kingdom adequately represented in this House, but because I think, upon the whole, that, as this Bill stands, they will be fully represented. Certainly they will be more fully, if not better, represented, than they have been hitherto, and will enjoy a larger share of influence in this House.
Sir George Clerk: The principal argument of the noble Lord is, that we are not to take the mere population of Scotland, but to look to the circumstances of the country. The only argument, however, in the noble Lord's speech that made any impression upon my mind was, that the number of Representatives had been increased in an adequate proportion with the number of electors. But I must confess, that I think the information he has received, as to the number of electors likely to be created under this Bill, very erroneous. He states that, from the accounts sent to him, he estimates the number of electors for the county of Lanark at 2,500. But I am certain that, before the first registers are completed, they will amount to double that number. We hear much of the great boon which this Bill will be to Scotland, in enabling the people to elect Representatives; but the value of that boon greatly depends upon your giving them Representatives to elect. And it must be admitted, that the number given her, under this Bill, will not compensate her for the loss of the advantages she used to enjoy in sending Members to this House through English boroughs. Let us look at the different principles under which Representatives might be given to Scotland. At the time of the Union, one of the first principles the English Commissioners looked to, was that of taxation; but that of Scotland not being one-fortieth of that of England, would only have given her ten Representatives, which being acknowledged to be too few, they turned their attention to the principle of population. At that time, it was calculated that the

1277
population of Scotland amounted to 2,000,000, and that of England to about 6,000,000, which would have yielded a proportion of one to three, and have given Scotland one-third of the total Representation—a much larger share than the proportion of taxes paid by her entitled her to look for. The third proposition was, that a ratio compounded of taxation and population, should be given. That was the principle adopted in fixing the proportion of the Irish Members, and was the principle also proceeded upon by Cromwell. His United Parliament was to contain thirty Members from Scotland, that is, one thirteenth; the total number being 400. The number proposed by the English Commissioners was thirty-two. The Scotch claimed much more; and this was the only question on which they had a solemn conference. Finally, the English Commissioners said, that they could not concede more than forty-five. The Scotch Commissioners thought this much too small a number; but, rather than throw any impediment in the way of the great measure of the Union, they adopted it. But if forty-five were then thought too little, surely the fifty-three proposed by this Bill cannot be thought enough! According to the noble Lord, we contribute one-eighth part of the revenue; and if we look to our population, we shall find it to be one-sixth that of England. If we take a just principle of population and taxation, we should, therefore, according to these data, be entitled to one-seventh of the Representation; and as the number of Members is reduced, by the English Bill, to 478, our share would be seventy-two. But instead of that, my right hon. friend only begs you to add eight more to what you have already given us, making our number sixty-one. I admit that, on account of the great advance Scotland has made in commerce and manufactures, it would be absurd to keep up the proportion of two county Members to one burgh Member. But if you adopt the suggestion of my right hon. friend, they will only be in the proportion of thirty-eight to twenty-three. The noble Lord stated, that it was impossible to follow the same rule in this respect in England and Scotland. But the noble Lord, for similar reasons, might have applied the same argument to the agricultural and manufacturing counties of England. Yet the object of the Bill of the noble Lord is, to
1278
preserve the proportion between the agricultural and manufacturing districts, in such a way as to give one Representative to every 25,000 inhabitants. I should be glad to have the same principle applied to Scotland, for that would give us eighty Representatives. Whether, therefore, we look to taxation, to population, to the two conjoined, or to the proportion allotted to the least favoured districts of England, Scotland is entitled to more Members than is given her under this Bill. I will not follow the line of argument before taken up by the right hon. member for Aldborough, with respect to the greater or less favour shewn to particular counties; but I am willing to compare the whole of Scotland with the least favoured agricultural districts of England. I confess, that when I consider the great importance of Scotland in an agricultural point of view, I think it but fair that it should be put upon an equal footing with the agricultural districts of England. I am unwilling to detain the Committee at any great length, after the able and unanswerable statement of my right hon. friend near me, which the noble Lord has not at all refuted. But there are one or two observations more I wish to make. The noble Lord thinks that Lanarkshire, with 300,000 inhabitants, cannot muster so great a constituency as I think it will; but there is hardly a house in Scotland, above the smallest cottage, which has not from a quarter of an acre to an acre of land attached to it, and which will not, by the proprietor, be estimated as being worth 10 l. a-year to him. There cannot be the slightest doubt, therefore, that the number of electors created by the Bill, will be in a greater proportion than in any of the agricultural counties of England. Why not say at once, that all counties with above 100,000 inhabitants shall have two Members? With what justice can you say that the small county of Rutland shall have two Members, whilst Lanarkshire shall have only one? It is upon these grounds, that I give my cordial support to the proposition of my hon. friend, and hope that no objection will be taken to it by Gentlemen from other parts of the empire.
Mr. John Campbell: What I am about to say may not, perhaps, make me very popular in my own country, but the interests of justice require that I should candidly deliver my sentiments. It does

1279
appear to me that I, as a Scotchman, as well as the rest of my countrymen, ought to be satisfied. I acknowledge that the right hon. member for Perthshire has made out a strong case, which I do not think entirely answered by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). But we ought not to consider what we are strictly entitled to, but what, under all the circumstances, we may reasonably ask. It appears to me that, from the reign of Edward 1st to the present time, England never dealt with Scotland on more liberal terms. I ask the right hon. Baronet whether it could have been expected, under ordinary circumstances, that England should consent to Scotland gaining Members, whilst she herself lost many? And by whom is this proposition for increasing the number of Scottish Representatives made? Have we forgotten General Gascoyne's motion, and who voted for it? Have we forgotten, that by that proposition England was to maintain her 513 Members, and that no other part of the United Kingdom was to gain any? Could it be expected by any one who voted for General Gascoyne's motion, that England retaining 513 Members, Scotland should have seventy, or even the sixty-one now proposed? No, Sir: all who voted for General Gascoyne thereby declared that they could not expect more than forty-five for Scotland—that they would not increase the numbers of the House. Indeed, I believe it has been, on all sides, admitted, that the numbers of the House are already too great. Why, the benches are not sufficient to contain us, even as we now are; and I think the Committee sitting upon the subject will find a difficulty in accommodating us all. But I have not heard it proposed by any one that the numbers of the House should be increased; and I apprehend that if any Reform Bill had been brought in by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, Scotland would have fared much worse than she will do under the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By asking too much, you often miss what you are reasonably entitled to; and I rather think that it was upon the expectation that Scotland would be satisfied with these eight new additional Members that they were given to her; for what would have been the use of giving them, if she was to be as much dissatisfied as when forty-five was the number allotted to her? It does appear to me that Scot-
1280
land has no reason to be dissatisfied with the numbers given to the burghs; for although at the Union thirty were given to the counties, and fifteen to the burghs, yet, in point of fact, it is only since that her great burghs have risen into importance. All that she then had were a few miserable fishing communities, very unlike the Glasgow, the Paisley, and the Dundee, now so properly provided for.
Mr. Robert A. Dundas: I have no doubt that when we divide on the motion of the right hon. member for Perthshire, the word will be passed for a certain number of English Representatives to come into this House, and counterbalance the votes which, if confined to Scotchmen, would be in favour of that Motion. What answer has been given to the arguments of my right hon. and gallant friend, in favour of giving proper Representation to the Scotch counties? As all the ancient institutions of England have been subverted, and an entirely new, system of Representation framed, I think it rather hard upon Scotland, that she is not to reap her share of the benefits of that system. My right hon. friend has brought before the House the population of the different counties of Scotland, to which he proposes to give two Representatives, and in all of them it is greater than those in England to which the English Bill gives three Representatives. As to the constituency not being as large, I think that what has been stated by the hon. member for the county of Edinburgh, is a sufficient answer to that question. If the feuars are to form an independent class of voters, it is an additional reason for increasing the number of the Representatives. I have no expectation individually, that the Motion of my right hon. friend will be carried. For a certain number of persons, pledged to support the Bill, as proposed by Ministers, will come in, and without having heard one single word of the arguments of my right hon. friend answered, because they are unanswerable, vote against him; but that is no reason why we, the Representatives of Scotland, should not show that country, that, although wishing the present system to stand as it is, yet that, as a new system is to be framed for England, we cannot acquiesce in any proposition which shall deny the people of Scotland their full and fair equality in that which is to be granted to the other parts of the United Kingdom. It is under these circumstances

1281
that I feel myself bound to support the proposition of my hon. friend, the member for Perthshire.
Mr. Gillon: I shall trespass but a very short time on the Committee. I think it my duty as a Representative of Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman opposite having declared that the people of Scotland will not be satisfied unless it have more Members, to express my conviction that they are, as they ought to be, perfectly content with the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. What Scotland wants, is not so much an increase in the number of her Representatives, as an improvement of their quality—an improvement which will inevitably take place when they are elected by a large, independent, and intelligent constituency. Notwithstanding the odium it may bring upon me in the eyes of the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, I am one of those who say, that Scotland has never hitherto been represented at all. The arguments in favour of a larger Representation for Scotland come with a particularly bad grace from Gentlemen who, by voting with General Gascoyne, virtually said, that Scotland, was not to have any increase of Representation. If the number of English Members had been kept at 513, and Scotland, according to them, be entitled to one-seventh, which would be seventy-five or seventy-four, are they prepared to say that the numbers of the House should have been augmented to that extent, when it is now acknowledged, on all hands, that our numbers are at present inconveniently large?
Mr. Croker: If, after all that has passed in these extraordinary debates, one could be surprised at any thing, I confess that I should have been astonished at the arguments which have been just produced by the last speaker, and by the hon. member for Stafford, who spoke before. These hon. Gentlemen, in denial of the claim made by their native country for its fair share in the new system of Representation, have stated, that all must agree that the numbers of the House are inconveniently large, as if the gross numbers of the House were any answer to a question, which in fact only applies to the proportions in which the numbers are to be distributed; and this objection, futile at any time, happens to be made at a moment when we are, as we last night also were, debating the representative rights of the ancient kingdom of Scotland, now so important a
1282
portion of the empire, in the thinnest House that I believe any subject of any thing like similar importance was ever discussed in. This part of the argument, which was peculiarly urged by the last hon. Gentleman, is contradicted by the eyes of every man around him. He may think our audience inconveniently large. I say that, on the contrary, it is, on many important occasions, injuriously small. I say, that if this House were now assembled in proper number, the justice and force of the claim of Scotland must to-night achieve a victory even against the majority of Ministers. I complain that it is the inconvenient thinness of the attendance; I complain that it is the paucity of our numbers, and the want of discussion and information on the case of Scotland, that will permit the perpetration of the injustice with which she is threatened. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last but one (Mr. John Campbell), and who first broached this admirable argument, was particularly happy in his mode of putting the case. Scotland, he admits, ought, according to all the doctrines of statistics—according to every proportion of taxation—according to all the returns of population—according to every rule and measure of national inportance—to have more Members than the Bill allots to her; but then he has against this a conscientious objection—a constitutional objection—a philosophical objection—"we have not room!" Scotland has an immense and growing population. She demands and deserves a larger Representation, but you cannot comply with her just demand. Why? "Our benches are not large enough." Eight counties of Scotland have above 100,000 inhabitants, but you cannot give them two Representatives. For what reason? Our benches are not large enough! when the hon. Gentleman was speaking to comparatively empty benches—empty benches, which I will do him the justice to say, that for once he had not caused.
I must say, that it is the most surprising absurdity I ever heard, that the miserable details of our benches, and that the architectural formation of our seats, should be thought of in a great constitutional question, and urged as a reason why justice should not be done to the great, the permanent, and, I will add, the honourable, interests of that wealthy and important portion of the empire. The hon. and learned

1283
Gentleman (Mr. Campbell) chooses to impute to hon. Members on this side of the House, that by voting with General Gascoyne in the last Parliament, that the number of English Members should not be decreased, they implied that they were against all increase of the Representatives of Scotland. I deny that altogether, and not without authority; for I had an explanation that very night with a right hon. friend who takes a great interest in the affairs of Scotland. I told him, that I voted for General Gascoyne's motion, in the hopes of keeping the Constitution as it was—of defeating the sweeping and devastating change with which we were menaced—I reserved to myself the right of considering the Scotch Bill as a distinct subject, and protested against being supposed to give, by that night's vote, any opposition to such a reasonable increase of the Scottish Members as the interests of Scotland, and the claims of her people, might require. These were my avowed sentiments on the night of General Gascoyne's motion and these are still my sentiments on the motion of to-night. I, Sir, am not one who, like the learned Gentleman, would measure the rights of the people, or the extent of the Constitution, by the miserable carpentry of the benches upon which we sit. But if we are to condescend to notice such trifles, allow me to ask, whether it was objected to the Irish Union that there was not room to accommodate the Members that might be sent from that country? I am old enough to recollect that, on that occasion, the carpentry, which the learned Gentleman reverences so highly, was pulled to pieces, and that there was no difficulty in making room to admit the additional 100 Irish Members.
The learned Gentleman has not looked in to the works of legislators or of jurists, nor searched the texts of constitutional law; he has not referred to De Lolme, or Montesquieu, or Blackstone, but seems to have taken the Carpenter's Guide, or the Builder's Directory, as his manual of legislation; and yet I think that, had he duly studied these mechanical treatises, he might have discovered that means might, without any great difficulty, have been devised for admitting eight additional Members for the Scotch counties. If the objection is to be one of mere carpentry, I think his Majesty has cabinet-makers who ran overcome greater difficulties than this; but, seriously, I am surprised to hear an hon.
1284
Gentleman, a lawyer, and a Scotchman, addressing almost empty benches, and saying, that he could not vote for the rights of his countrymen, because they would not have room to sit. In an early part of the evening, the learned Gentleman endeavoured to extend to England some part of the benefit which his country derives from the laws respecting registration; I took the liberty, on that occasion, of applauding and encouraging his endeavours; but let him now help us in trying to extend to Scotland some more of those benefits which England expects to derive from this new extended system of Representation. Let him not have one rule for one part of the country, and another for another [hear, hear!] I understand the meaning of that cheer. It implies, that I am wrong in stating that there is one rule for one part of the country, and another for another. If my assertion be doubted, I must prove it—I am called upon to substantiate the fact—I will substantiate the fact, and will prove that a great, and flagrant, and offensive injustice is done to Scotland, while other portions of the country are fostered and favoured.
A line, imaginary in some parts, a rivulet in others—at last, a river divides the county of Cumberland from Scotland. I make no apology for this discussion, nor for the introduction of the case of Cumberland; I have been invited to it. It has, moreover, been debateable land for the last 500 years; the local, and sometimes the general interests of Scotland have been contended for on that ground, and I here renew that battle. And great, I own, will be my surprise, if, after attending to the facts which I shall state, any Scotchman shall be found to vote against the motion of my right hon. and gallant friend (Sir George Murray)—a motion founded on the strictest justice as regards the empire at large—a motion which involves the dignity and honour of Scotland as a people—a motion, finally, made by one whom Scotland admires as a patriotic Statesman, while she glories in him as a victorious and laurelled soldier. I say, Sir, I cannot believe that any true Scotchman will vote against a motion so recommended, and additionally supported by the facts which it falls to my humbler lot to be able to supply. The county of Cumberland, thus separated from Scotland by an almost invisible boundary, appears, in the population returns, to contain 156,000 in-

1285
habitants. His Majesty's Ministers have said, that certain counties in England, which contain above a certain number of inhabitants, should each return four Members. They drew their line at 150,000, and Cumberland is included within it. Although I do not see the right hon. member for Cumberland in his place, I must observe, that Cumberland is a Ministerial county; that it is represented in the Cabinet which framed this Bill, and, therefore, it is not strange that its interests should have been attended to.
The House is well aware that Cumberland has received additional burgh Representation; and every body must see that, in reckoning a county population for Representation, we ought to deduct from it the population of the towns to which the separate franchise is given. Now, deducting the population given to the burghs in Cumberland, you reduce its population for county Representation to 115,000, so that, if the principle of Ministers were to be fairly applied, it would not give to Cumberland four county Representatives. But by this political legerdemain, of reckoning the burgh population twice over, however, it is to receive four. And this is not all: it is to be divided into two equal parts; so that, in fact, 57,500 inhabitants in Cumberland are to return two county Representatives. This is all very well; but let us just step into Scotland—cross the imaginary line in the mountains—cross the brook in the valley—cross the bridge at Longtown, and what do you find? Why, that one short step has removed you into a county where 230,000 inhabitants are entitled to have only one single Member. Recross the imaginary line—recross the brook in the valley—recross the bridge at Longtown, and you are again in the favoured county where 57,000 inhabitants are gratified by two Members. I know not whether the four new Members for Cumberland will represent its interests better than two now do; but if, as his Majesty's Ministers profess, this additional Representation be a great advantage, then I say, that Lanarkshire, and Perthshire, and Aberdeenshire, and, indeed, all Scotland, are shamefully defrauded; and yet the hon. Gentleman—a Scotchman and a lawyer—tells us that he does not look upon this as an act of injustice! But, no: he does not quite say that; he hesitates—he declares that his private judgment is not convinced—that
1286
he is not satisfied with the reasoning of the noble Lord; he hums and haws, and then he looks into his brief, and finally gives us to understand, that whatever his private opinions may be, he will speak from his brief, and vote against the motion of my gallant friend.
And then the learned Gentleman supports this monstrous case—a case which in itself he cannot defend—by a proposition more monstrous still. He says that Scotland shall endure this. For why? Because she already endures it—because she has never been fairly and freely represented. What an argument! As long, indeed, as we were living under our old institutions, as long as we were inhabiting the old—inconvenient in some points, perhaps—but venerable edifice built by our ancestors, we put up with inconveniences and irregularities, because they were reconciled to us by habit, endeared to us by happy recollections, and adequate, not-withstanding local defects, to our wants and our wishes, to our present happiness, and to our future safety.
When a proposition was made, isolatedly, some years since, for an alteration in the Representation of the people of Scotland, the opponents of that proposition used against it, with great justice and propriety, precisely the same argument which the hon. Gentleman has so improperly, and he must allow me to say, so illogically used on the present occasion. They said—and Scotland acquiesced for a long period of years in the argument—"As we are not going to make a general alteration of the representative system of the whole of the empire, we think it would be inconvenient to disturb that of Scotland." The argument was good at that time—it was irresistible; and the, good sense of Scotland acquiesced in it, although no one, either here or elsewhere, denied that there were points in the Scotch system which it might be desirable to amend, if it could be done without risking the disorganization of the general system. But now, when you have disarranged, and disorganized, and destroyed every thing for the sake, as you tell us, of substituting a new and perfect system, is it not monstrous to hear Gentlemen turning round and saying that Scotland, forsooth, is still to be depressed and degraded (for the exception will operate as a degradation) by a partial adherence to the old and anathematized system? If you had left to England and to

1287
Scotland the pride, and the glory, and the security of our ancient feudal fortresses, we were content to bear the inconvenience for the counterbalancing advantages; but when you have levelled those venerable edifices with the ground, when the bastion, and the buttress, and the battlements that protected our ancestors, are destroyed, and all their defences scattered to the winds, is nothing but the dungeon to remain? Are the glory and security to be swept away, and the traces of servitude and degradation only to survive? You have abrogated all that was venerable—you have destroyed all that was ancient—you have made yourselves a clear and unencumbered space, on which your political Vauban may trace without impediment, the rectangular and rectilinear fortifications, the scarps, and counter-scarps, the horn-works, and half-moons, which you are about to substitute for the picturesque and time-honoured towers of our ancient Constitution. Why, then, is Scotland to be excluded from the general regularity; and with what reason can the learned Gentleman defend this momentous alteration, on the ground that Scotland is unfairly represented, and then vote that, although an improving change be made everywhere else, the antiquated injustice shall continue in Scotland?
When we have swept away the electoral boundaries of every county, and of every city and town in England, why are we so anxious to keep to the imaginary boundary between Cumberland and Scotland? Will any man venture to tell me that Lanarkshire is inferior to Cumberland in any of the elements of Representation? What is the superiority which is to obtain for the English county a quadruple proportion of Representatives? The learned Member answers—because it has always been so. No such thing. Cumberland had, under the old unequal system, double the number of Representatives that Lanark had, but, under the new system, it is to have four times that number, though Lanark has four times the qualifications on which Representation is professed to be given. What was the condition of these two counties at the time of the Union? Cumberland, perhaps, was nearly in the same relative state to the rest of the country as it now is; but Lanark, and all the rest of Scotland, have risen in population, in wealth, in intelligence, and in all the elements of Representation, by the industry, the talents,
1288
the good order, and the increased civilization of its inhabitants. Is this civilization, this order, this industry, this wealth, this intelligence, this increase of population—are all these considerations now to be thrown aside; and are we to be referred back to the ancient time when Lanark, as the learned Gentleman has said, was a poor and miserable county, with only a few fishing towns on its borders?—and the learned Gentleman's argument is, that you should treat it as if it were so still.
If your new principle of Representation is worth any thing, it is because you profess that it will quiet agitation; satisfy popular feeling; bestow equality of rights; and tranquillize the country. But if it is to open any hope of such advantages—which, at best, I believe to be a mere delusion—it will at least be conceded to me that it must proceed on some general principle of fairness and justice. If you attempt to build a new system on foundations which you stigmatize as rotten, your whole edifice will fall to pieces. If you attempt to connect your new-fangled doctrines with ancient and forgotten, or, at least, discarded prejudices; if you measure the Scotland of to-day by the Scotland of an hundred years ago, I tell you, your measure will be the most fatal apple of discord that was ever thrown down to be run for in the race of turbulence by national jealousy. Do you fancy that a high-minded and jealous people like the Scotch will patiently submit to such a slight? and a slight, not temporary, but permanent—to last, at least, as long as your new constitution shall last. Such an injustice dissolves the principles of the Union, and will revive and perpetuate ancient feuds. We shall again have border wars, though of a new kind. The Scotch will make inroads, not for flocks, and herds, and beeves, and sheaves, but for Representatives. The black mail, formerly paid for the protection of cattle, must hereafter be paid for the preservation of Representatives. It is a singular thing, but it does, by a strange misfortune in human affairs, so happen, that where you see the greatest propensity to plunder, you generally see, close by, the greatest incitement also. Now, there is the Prime Minister's, my Lord Grey's, own county of Northumberland, which borders Scotland on the southeast, as Cumberland does on the southwest. I assure his Majesty's Government, that, in all fairness, the northern catherans

1289
may come down and lift a Member or two from that county. For if you look at the question statistically, fiscally, politically, nay, alphabetically, or by whatever fine words the Representation of Northumberland has been justified, you will still find, that, as compared with several of the counties of Scotland, it has many Members to spare. But, if not content with the plunder of Northumberland, these depredators should extend their inroad to Durham; what a rich booty that Member-breeding county would afford them—that rich and abundant nursery of new Representatives!
We have read that the old borderers have made Newcastle tremble; but if the modern depredators, allured by the richness of the booty, should only pass the Tyne, and get to Gateshead—Good Lord, what a prize they might make! Sir, I really cannot but fancy the new burgesses for Gateshead, and Kendal, and Tynemouth, and Wearmouth, Monks and Bishops, and Shields, North and South, carried off, like Bailie Jarvie, by way of hostages for a fairer distribution between Scotland and England of the electoral right and the representative privilege. This, perhaps, is treating so grave a matter with too much levity; but the feelings of dissatisfaction and jealousy, which I have pictured by these allusions, will exist, and will display themselves with move serious features, and more lamentable results. I repeat, can you hope to build any thing solid on so rotten a foundation? Can you expect that Lanarkshire, Perthshire, Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire, and those other great Scottish counties, which have of late increased so much in population, in wealth, and in intelligence, have at the same time so scandalously decreased in moral feeling, political pride, and national courage and independence, as to submit patiently to be degraded below Cumberland, Northumberland, and Durham, because the noble Lord chooses to adhere in this particular—and this alone—to ancient arrangements, and to preserve, to the injury of Scotland, the imaginary line which divides the countries?
All is to be changed; every county is dismembered; the limits of every city and town are obliterated; every charter, however ancient, is forfeited; rights, the most sacred, confiscated; constituencies which have sent to this House the St. Johns, the Windhams, the Walpoles, the Pulteneys,
1290
the Pitts, the Foxes, the Burkes, the Pitts and Windhams again, names twice honoured in our history; the Sheridans, the Tierneys, the Percevals, and the Cannings—the constituencies, I say, which gave these men to the British senate, are all swallowed in this political earthquake; their services forgotten; their former usefulness, not only contemned as obsolete, but arraigned as criminal—all, all is to be swept away. The rule of three is to level all before it, and to expunge from the new rule of English constituency those corporate bodies, and those electoral towns which have given political birth to all those eminent statesmen who contributed, while they lived, to the prosperity of the country, and, after their death, have conferred illustration on its history. But in the general wreck of rights, privileges, and property, of natural limits and of moral connections, one single object floats—one single distinction is preserved—the imaginary line that separates the hills of Scotland from those of England is to be not merely remembered, but maintained, and marked as an effective and practical political boundary. What is the consequence? The heathy mountains, heretofore untrodden, except by the shepherd or the sportsman, will now, I suppose, be startled by the visit of a band of commissioners riding to determine the boundary between the two countries—a boundary, on one side of which there shall be provincial partiality and Ministerial favouritism, and, on the other, flagrant injustice and national degradation. How long, I must again ask, do you expect that Scotland will submit to that injurious distinction?
But I will restrain these oratorical movements and impulses. I have been betrayed into them by the natural indignation which partiality and injustice must always excite, and by the warm and brotherly affection which I feel for the interests of Scotland, which are, in my opinion, injured and endangered, not merely by this Bill, but by the principles on which the two hon. Members opposite have supported it; but I need make no apology; I feel that my warmth will be not only pardoned but approved, when I am addressing a tribunal of high-minded English Gentlemen, on a question involving, in my opinion, the political rights and the national honour of the industrious, intelligent, gallant, and generous people of Scotland.
But putting aside all rhetoric, I shall

1291
conclude by asking one plain question, and soliciting from the opposite bench a plain answer. What entitles the counties of Northumberland and Cumberland to be divided into four shires of about 59,000 inhabitants each, each returning two Members to Parliament, while Renfrew, and Fife, and Forfarshire, with 120,000 inhabitants, and Perthshire with 140,000, and Aberdeen with 160,000, and Lanarkshire with 250,000, are to have but one?
Mr. John Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman has made a personal allusion to me, which I feel bound to answer. I beg to state, then, that I am riot the nominee of any rotten burgh; I am not sent hereby any Peer or by any proprietor of boroughs. I spoke from no brief, nor have I received any retaining fee. There may be some nominees in this House who have received a retaining fee to do this or that; the right hon. Gentleman himself may have received a retaining fee; but let me inform him, that I stand here an independent Member of Parliament, being elected by an independent body of constituents, and that I speak the honest and independent sentiments of my own heart.
Mr. Croker: I beg leave to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that in saying he spoke from a brief, I meant no offensive allusion; I did not know how I could account, more delicately, for the learned Gentleman's saying, that he was not of the noble Lord's opinion, and yet that he meant to vote with him. To be privately of one opinion, and yet speak publicly for another, seemed to me to be very like what gentlemen are sometimes supposed to do when speaking from a brief. As to what the learned Gentleman has said about the retaining fee, I can sincerely assure him, that it never entered my head to suppose that any one would think of giving him a fee for his advocacy, either for or against the Bill.
Mr. Maberly: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to have taken the whole case of Scotland to himself. Instead of defending the existing system, however, and merely asking for an additional number of Representatives, it would have been quite as fair if he had expressed his determination to support a measure of justice towards Scotland—a measure which should give her the choice of her Representatives. At present she has nothing like justice, so far as regards her Representative system. I would now
1292
put this case to the House; whether individuals, employing thousands of the population of Scotland—having all sorts of property, freehold, leasehold, and copyhold, and carrying on important manufactures in many parts of the country—ought not to have a voice in the return of Representatives for it? At present they have nothing of the kind. Then, I ask, whether some sort of Reform is not necessary? By the existing system, the Members for the Scotch burghs are returned by a self-elected magistracy, the people having no voice, either in the election of Magistrate or Representative. Under such circumstances, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have manifested his affection for Scotland much more strongly, if he had come forward to have supported something in the shape of Reform, instead of ex pressing his adherence to things as they are. Whether you regard the counties or the burghs, it cannot be said that a single man in Scotland is fairly represented under the existing system. Do the superiorities represent the landed interests? No such thing. Many of the superiority voters have not an acre of land. I will ask the hon. Baronet opposite, who is a dealer in superiorities, whether the superiority system of Scotland is not as bad, or nearly as bad, as the nomination system in England? I ask him, whether he has not many of these superiorities? whether he has not bought many of them? and I ask him, whether he, as a dealer in superiorities, can say that they represent the landed interests of Scotland? I have already said, that the self-elected bodies of Magistrates return all the Members for the Scottish burghs; the superiority voters, having themselves no interest in the land, return the county Members. These are facts which no one denies; and I venture to say, that there is not a town or a county in Scotland which does not complain of them. Yet the right hon. Gentleman professes to think that he is acting justly towards Scotland, by declaring that no change whatever in her Representation is required. I am satisfied, however, that any person who will look fairly to the state of Representation in that country, will see that it is far worse than the nomination system of England. At present the people of Scotland have no voice in the election of their Representatives. And yet the right hon. Gentleman, who professes to manifest so strong an

1293
affection for Scotland, is willing to continue the present system of election, and only asks for an additional number of Representatives. I am satisfied, that the people of Scotland would be content with the present number, provided they were admitted to the right—the just right—of electing them. If the right hon. Gentleman can manifest his affection for Scotland in no other manner than that which he has exhibited this evening, I am sure the people of that country will not thank him for it.
Mr. Croker: The sum of the hon. Gentleman's observations seems to be this—that, because Scotland has, heretofore, had in her Representation nothing but "superiorities," she shall hereafter have nothing but inferiority.
Colonel Lindsay: I must say, that the hon. Gentleman opposite has clearly and distinctly avoided answering any one of the observations of my right hon. friend below me. In no respect whatever did my right hon. friend defend the existing system in Scotland. His argument was this:—"If you are going to form a new Constitution for Great Britain and Ireland; if you are going to change the whole of the Representative system of the United Kingdom, you ought, injustice to Scotland, to give her a proportionate degree of Representation with the other parts of the empire." Upon what principle is it that the Representation of Scotland is to be changed? Is it upon the principle of population? If it be that, Scotland having a population of 2,000,000, and England having a population of 12,000,000, the Representation of Scotland should be in the proportion of one-sixth as compared with England. I will not repeat the arguments which have been so ably advanced by my right hon. friend below me; but I cannot help saying, that, under this Bill, Scotland will not have justice done her in respect of Representation; and that, for my own part, I would rather that her Representation should remain as it is. Had the noble Lord's measure of Reform been more moderate; had it gone only to a reformation of the burgh system, which I admit to be bad, no man would have supported it more sincerely than I should have done. The present system is undoubtedly a very close one; but the noble Lord's scheme for correcting it would lead to Universal Suffrage. It has been stated, that the people of Scotland
1294
will be satisfied with this Reform. If I thought that that would really be the case, it would go far with me to support the Bill; but I am of a different opinion. The hon. member for Selkirk has said, that the people are delighted and charmed with the Bill, and that they regard it as the greatest boon that could be conferred upon them. How can he judge of that fact? The people have been told of Reform, and, no doubt, are anxious for Reform, but they know nothing of this Bill. I do not know, then, upon what ground it is that hon. Gentlemen say that they will be satisfied with it. For my own part, I must repeat, that I think Scotland, under this Bill, will not be admitted to a fair and just proportion of Representation; and, for that reason, I shall support the motion of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Perthshire.
Admiral Adam: In answer to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I can only say, that the people of Scotland hailed the principle of this Bill, at the late general election, with the utmost satisfaction. Another proof of the feelings of the people upon the subject may be found in the number of petitions which are daily laid upon the Table of the House, from every part of Scotland. With these proofs before us—the most legitimate, proper, and respectful that can be offered to the House—I know not how it can be stated, with any regard to truth, that the people of Scotland do not generally approve of the measure.
I only wish to make one or two other observations, in reply to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite. He asked in the course of his speech, how Scotland is to be fully represented hereafter, when, under the operation of the English Reform Bill, there will be no chance of Scotch gentlemen coming in for counties or burghs in England? In answer to that, I will only ask, how are Middlesex, Stafford, and Norwich, represented now? Will any man tell me, that the feelings of the constituents of these places towards their present Representatives will necessarily undergo a change when the Reform Bill shall have come into operation; or that Scotchmen, by their talent and worth, will not command the suffrages of the people of England to an extent fully equal to what they do now? Much has been said about the claims of some of the larger counties of Scotland to additional Representation, on

1295
the ground of the extent of their population. When that argument is advanced, it ought not to be forgotten, that many of the counties, having but a small population, are permitted to send Members to Parliament; so that, if you take the whole population of all the counties of Scotland, and divide it by the number of county Representatives, you will find that the Representation is fairly proportioned to the extent of the population.
Sir Charles Forbes: The hon. member for Abingdon has expressed himself in a very warm, but, no doubt, conscientious manner, upon the subject of this Bill. He commenced with a loud complaint, that although he had built houses and manufactories, and given employment to vast numbers of the people of Scotland—for which, as a Scotchman, I am sure I return him my sincere thanks—still, under the existing system, and no doubt it is the case, he has no right to vote for any one of the Representatives of that country. But the hon. Member is no doubt aware how easily he might have qualified himself, not only to vote for county Members, but even to represent a Scotch county. He has also thought proper to complain of the Representation of Scotland, as unconnected with the land. I confess, that such a complaint rather astonishes me; because I have always understood the general objection to be, that the Members who are returned under it are too much connected with the Court. Departing from this ground of complaint, however, whether right or wrong, the hon. Gentleman suddenly turns round upon me, because I happened to cheer a part of his speech, selects me as a particular object, against whom the provisions of this Bill may be most properly applied, and charges me not only with holding a number of superiority votes, but of being an actual dealer in them. Now, I admit, that I do hold several superiorities, I wish I held more of them, whether connected or unconnected with the land; for I insist upon it, that one is as good as the other. But as to dealing in superiorities, I deny the truth of the allegation. To be a dealer in any article, I must, as the hon. Member knows by experience, sell as well as buy. Now, although I have bought superiorities, I never sold one; therefore, I hope the hon. Member will admit that I am not what he would perhaps call a superiority-monger. I regret much that the nature and cha-
1296
racter of these superiorities have not been sufficiently explained to the House and the country; and I must say, that it is not very creditable to the legal Members connected with Scotland, who are perfectly competent to deal with the subject, that they have not so explained the real nature of superiorities as to enable the House to form a correct opinion upon them. My right hon. friend, the member for Portarlington (Sir William Rae), says, that the House will not listen to so dry, and, to most Members, perhaps, so uninteresting a subject. I perfectly agree with him; for I have observed—as these empty benches indeed testify—that the House is little disposed to listen to any part of the great question of Reform, as far as it relates to Scotland. Therefore, before the rush comes—before the House fills, in anticipation of a division—before the absent arrive to molest us with their impatience, I, unlearned as I am, will endeavour to give the House some more correct idea of what these superiority votes really are. Fortunately, by mere chance, I happen to have in my pocket an able letter, written by a Scotch Lawyer, upon this very subject, which I received as far back as the month of March last; and as it contains a full and clear description of the nature of the superiority votes, I hope the Committee will allow me to read it. It is in these terms:—
"The subject on which I trouble you, is that which is now agitating the country, and by which I see that the vested rights of individuals are about to be sacrificed, by way of experiment at improvement in our mode of election. I feel a particular interest in the measure; for it is only twelve months since I purchased a freehold in this county, which cost me nearly 600 l., and to yield it up without a word, would not be doing myself, my family, or my country, justice.
"Much has been said as to parchment voters, and so forth; but these are as old, and have as good a right to their property, as any in the country. Originally, the Crown gave a right to both superiority and property; but the superior has always had the right of creating vassals—that is, selling the property, dominium utile, while he retained the more noble part, the dominium directum. This is that part which gave him the right of voting in elections, while his vassal had merely the fruits of the soil. The rights of both are completely separate and distinct, the superior's estate being held immediately over that of the vassal; therefore the conveyancing of Scotland is according to the strict principles of the feudal law, the leading principle of which is, that the superior is lord

1297
of the fee, the vassal holding directly of him, as if all his rights were derived from the superior's grant.
"The power of superiors (with proper qualifications) voting at elections, is regulated by Statute. The Act of 1681, cap. 21, says, none shall have a power to vote in the elections of Commissioners of Shires, but those who at that time shall be publicly infeft in property or superiority of 400 l. Scots, of valued rent, which rent is ascertained by the cess-books kept in each county. This Act, and others on the same subject, are supported by the Act of Union between England and Scotland; and to this Act I beg to refer you. The eighteenth article says, that no alteration shall be made in the law which concerns private rights, except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland. And by the twentieth article, all heritable offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, &c., are reserved to the owners as rights of property, in the same manner as then enjoyed by the laws of Scotland, notwithstanding the Union. The Act, 16 George 2nd, cap. 11, defines what is a sufficient qualification—namely, lands holden of the king or prince, liable in public burthens for 400 l. Scots, valued rent. No doubt, certain heritable jurisdictions were abolished by the Act, 20th George 2nd, cap. 41; but by the 6th section of that Act, reasonable satisfaction was ordered to be made to those who were affected by the abolition. There is, therefore, not the least question, that the superior of property is, by the law of Scotland, the only person who has a right to vote at elections, if possessed of the necessary qualification, although the feu-duty, payable to him from the land, may only amount to a penny; and any attempt made to deprive him of this property, is a violation of private rights, vested in him by the law of his country. An Act of Parliament is, no doubt, omnipotent; but it should be based on justice; and if the present scheme is carried, individuals may, by the same rule, be deprived of any property they have bonâ fide acquired.
"Supposing the Bill to pass, private rights ought, undoubtedly, to be guarded; and either of the following plans might be adopted. First, compensation should be allowed, according to the principle established at the time the heritable jurisdictions were abolished; or secondly, the vassals who are now to be benefited at the expense of the superiors, should be bound to pay for the superiority applicable to their lands, at a price to be determined by a Jury. This price may be fixed according, to a proof to be led, of the prices paid for superiorities for a certain number of years back. Either of these principles ought in justice to be adopted. If the vassal is to receive all the advantage, he ought to pay for it; but if it is thought that he ought not to pay, then Government ought to pay the value, according to the precedent already noticed."
I trust that this letter will give the House a clear idea of the nature of the superiority
1298
votes of Scotland. I have read it in the hearing of many who are able to correct me, if necessary. I certainly did not think it possible, that the hon. member for Abingdon could be so completely mistaken upon a subject of this nature, as to call the owners of superiorities mere parchment voters. In many instances, the proprietor of the superiority is also the owner of the land; and most landholders, if they have not the superiority of their own estate, at least possess one over other lands; and I contend, that they are as much entitled to the privilege of voting, as the landholder is to enjoy his land. It is well known, that many of them are extensive owners of copyhold estates, to which species of property no superiorities are attached, as not holding of the Crown. Part of my own lands is of this description, holding of the Earl of Fife, from whom I certainly have been anxious to purchase the superiorities; but have been prevented doing so, from their being held by his Lordship under a strict entail.
I shall conclude, with expressing my approbation of the Motion before the House. I think that it would be beneficial to increase the number of Scotch county Members. I beg, therefore, to return my thanks to the right hon. and gallant Officer, the member for Perthshire, for having proposed the measure, and to the right hon. Gentleman near him, the member for Aldborough, for having so ably supported it. That right hon. Gentleman has advocated the interests and honour of Scotland, in a manner that ought to put some Scotsmen to the blush. I must say that I never heard so eloquent, so able, and so just a speech in favour of Scotland in my life.
I beg pardon for having taken up so much of the time of the House; but I felt called upon to make these observations, in consequence of what fell from the hon. member for Abingdon. I should be sorry to say any thing obnoxious to my hon. friend, on this, or any other subject; for he has done more for the promotion of the manufactures of Scotland, and the employment of the people, than perhaps any other individual; and I feel thankful to him accordingly; but when he designated me as a dealer in superiorities, I did feel called upon to repel the insinuation; for, although I admit that I have bought superiorities, and given them away in my family, I again say, that I never sold one,
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he had given his cordial support to the motion of the right hon. and gallant General, the member for the county of Perth. It was a reasonable and a just proposition, which Scotland had a right to expect would be acceded to; and the question really was, whether they would give or refuse to that country the adequate proportional share of the Representation to which her population, and her contributions to the support of the State, gave her an undeniable claim. Was Scotland to be made an exception to the liberal mode of dealing which was adopted towards other parts of the kingdom? Did Scotland deserve to be treated less liberally than Wales? yet two Members were given to Welsh counties, which had not one half of the population of several of the Scotch counties, and contributed a perfect trifle to the public Treasury in comparison with them. The county of Glamorgan, with about 100,000 inhabitants, and others of less population were to have two Members each; that is, one in addition to their former number, whilst the county of Lanark, with its 240,000 inhabitants, and its immense wealth and resources available to the State, was to be satisfied with its former number, that is, one Representative. The same observation applied to the counties of Edinburgh, Ayr, Aberdeen, and others. The Bill, it was true, gave to Scotland fifty-three Representatives, whilst, by the Treaty of Union, forty-five only was the number allotted to her. But since the Union, Scotland, let it be remembered, had increased in wealth in a much greater proportion than England. At the Union, the taxes paid by Scotland were to the taxes paid by England as one to thirty-five or thirty-six; they were now as one to eight, or nearly so. And how was Scotland dealt with at the period of the Union? Two independent nations treated, or were supposed to treat, on an equal footing, with a view to a Union of the Legislature of the two kingdoms; and yet the condition on which that Union was effected was, that one of those countries was to retain the full number of her Representatives, whilst the other was to lose nearly three-fourths of hers. A Union had been more than once attempted before the reign of Queen Anne—in the reign of Charles 2nd; so late as that period, the Treaty for a Union broke off, because the Commissioners for Scotland would not even take into consideration any proposition for
1300
reducing the number of the Scottish Parliament by a single Member, whilst the number of the English Parliament remained at its full amount. But, at a later period, means were found of overcoming such objections. The measure was carried in the reign of Queen Anne, which reduced the number of Members for Scotland to forty-five, whilst it left those of England at the original full number of 513. But how was this effected? By money—by corrupt bribery of money administered to the Scottish Statesmen of those days; by money paid out of the English Treasury, and despatched to Scotland by the order of Lord Godolphin. The list is published, and stands recorded to the disgrace and dishonour, not of Scotland, or of the Scottish nation, but of the corrupt and profligate Statesmen who betrayed and sacrificed her on that occasion. He could not understand upon what principle the noble Lord proceeded in opposing the claim which was made by the gallant General on behalf of Scotland. The noble Lord had consented to leave to the county of Selkirk, with its 8,000, and the county of Peebles, with its 11,000 inhabitants, each a Member, and he would give no more than one to the county of Lanark, with its population of 240,000. He (Mr. Fergusson) did not complain certainly of the noble Lord, for having left to Peebles and Selkirk what they had always had, and which it would have been most unjust to have taken away from them; but he complained, that the noble Lord did not deal liberally towards the large counties of Scotland, as he had done towards those of England and Wales. Four Members were given to Cumberland, whilst Scotch counties exceeding it in wealth and population were to have only one. None of the English counties to whom three Members were given exceeded, he (Mr. Fergusson) believed, in population, or equalled that of the most populous counties of Scotland. Three counties of Wales were to have six Members among them, whose population was not equal to that of the county of Lanark, which was to have one, and no more than one, Representative. Wales contained little more than one-third of the population of Scotland, and had not certainly one-third of its wealth. But Wales was to have twenty-eight Representatives, more than one-half of the number which was given to Scotland by this Bill. Yet he did not complain that too much was done for Wales, but that too little was done for

1301
Scotland. He (Mr. Fergusson) trusted that full and equal justice would be dune to Scotland as well as Wales, and that the House would accede to the Motion of the gallant General, as a reasonable and just proposition. He called upon the Members for Scotland in particular, upon every feeling of patriotism, and every principle of justice, to give to it their support.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, there is another circumstance which has not been alluded to in the course of these discussions, and which I think ought to operate as an additional inducement with the noble Lord to consent to the present proposition. Hitherto, the eldest sons of peers could not be Representatives for places in Scotland, but this Bill removes that restriction. Now, the English Reform Bill localizes, to a considerable extent, the Representation, and the sons of Scotch peers will not be able to get access to this House by means of those burghs which have hitherto served for that purpose. On looking over the list of Scotch peers, I find that there are fifteen eldest sons of peers who might be returned through the influence of their respective families for places in Scotland. I have no objection to the eldest sons of peers being elected as Members of this House for places in Scotland, but it must be recollected, that many of the gentry of the country will be thereby excluded from Parliament. This is a strong additional reason to assent to the motion of the right hon. Baronet. In making so extensive an alteration in the old system of Representation in Scotland, we ought to consider the probable working of the new machinery to be introduced: and, above all, to consider how much the influence of property will be lessened in that country.
Lord Althorp: It appears to me, that the arguments which have been used in support of this proposition are rather arguments ad hominem, than to the reason and principle of the proposition. It was said on a former occasion, and urged, I admit, with great truth, that the interests of Scotland had not been lost sight of in this House under the present defective system. Certainly the Members who will be returned under the proposed arrangement will not be less regardful of the interests of that country. During the course of my experience in this House, the influence of the Scotch members has not been small, though only forty-five in number, and that will not be diminished by giving to Scot-
1302
land fifty-two members. It is, however, a little extraordinary, that all these complaints should originate with those who are opposed to all Reform; and I would also beg the Committee to recollect, that when the motion of General Gascoyne was brought forward—the object of which was to declare that no alteration should be made in the proportion of members to be returned from the different parts of the United Kingdom,—no objection was offered to it by those Scotch members who now complain that Scotland is not adequately represented, as regards the number of Members. If the motion of that gallant General had been adopted, no additional Members could now be given to Scotland; and yet hon. Members who supported it turn round and charge his Majesty's Ministers with having been guilty of injustice to Scotland! We have diminished the number of English Members, and we have increased the number of Scotch Members, and yet we hear constant complaints of our not having acted fairly. Looking at England and Scotland, as distinct, with respect to population, and also regarding the different circumstances of the two countries, injustice has not been done to Scotland by its not being put on the same footing as England in regard to Representation. We looked at the two divisions of the country, and we proposed those alterations which we thought most advantageous to each, and calculated to promote the permanent interest and welfare of the whole empire. It ought not to escape recollection, that the great mass of the population of Scotland, wealthy and intelligent as it is, has at present no share in the election of Members to this House. This Bill gives Representation to the people of Scotland: it brings into the constituent body the middle classes of the population; it, therefore, does justice to, and confers a great benefit on Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks,—"When you go so far, why not go farther?" But I say, that the people of Scotland have no right to complain when so much has been done; and it would be impossible to give all that is desired without acting unfairly to the other portions of the empire. Government is treated unfairly in being charged with having acted with injustice to Scotland, when it has given a Representation to that country which it never had before. I know that the Gentlemen opposite are opposed to Reform altogether; but I must com-

1303
plain of the mode in which we have been attacked, and blamed by those who could not be ignorant that we have done all in our power to satisfy the people of Scotland. I have been told that the people of Scotland are not satisfied; but I can only say, that I regret that this is the case, for I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government have been as liberal to Scotland as it consistently could be. I regret that this proposition should be forced on the Government by the friends of the measure; and I must say, that I do not think that we ourselves have been fairly dealt by.
Sir George Warrendersaid, I will very shortly reply to some of the observations that have fallen from the noble Lord. I took occasion, in the course of the last Parliament, to urge this subject on the consideration of the noble Lord; and I was in hopes that he would have been induced to assent to such an addition to the number of Scotish Members as is now proposed. I admit that it would not be difficult for the Scotch Members in this House to combine and carry a measure favourable to Scotland, but I think that such a course would be most unfair; and I trust that the Representatives of that portion of the empire would never be induced to coalesce in an object for the promotion of the advantage of one part of the community at the expense of the rest. With respect to Scotland having at present only forty-five Members, I would mention a curious circumstance, of which the noble Lord is perhaps not aware. It is a remarkable fact, that in addition to the forty-five Representatives for Scotland, there are now forty-seven Scotch gentlemen who sit in this House as Members for English places. When the Representation of England is localized, and the constituency remodelled, these will be excluded from the places they now represent. Considering, therefore, that, at present, Scotland is able to supply the deficiency in the number of its Members by means of the English boroughs, and that hereafter that means of access to the House is to be closed to her;—it appears to me that it is only a matter of justice to assent to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. With respect to the eldest sons of peers, I agree with the observations which fell from the hon. member for Dumfries. I know more than one or two counties in which the influence of peers might be
1304
exercised in such a way as to secure the return of their sons. Taking this circumstance, therefore, into consideration, in addition to the fact that many Scotch gentlemen will be excluded from this House who now represent English places, I trust that the noble Lord will be induced to withdraw his opposition, and assent to the proposition of the right hon. and gallant Officer. At any rate, I hope that the Committee will take the same view of the case as myself, and admit that Scotland is entitled, on every claim of equity, to this addition to her Representation. I was in hopes, from what fell from the noble Lord, when he proposed that additional Members should be given to the Welsh counties, that he was prepared to make the same concession to the larger Scotch counties. I should be sorry to throw any impediment in the way of this Bill, as I think that it will make a beneficial change in the system that has hitherto existed in Scotland, and I know that the people look forward to it with the greatest anxiety. But I also know that assenting to this proposition would make the measure more satisfactory. I trust, therefore, that it will receive the sanction of the Committee.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson: I am extremely sorry to find that I have been misunderstood. I beg to say, that I never accused the noble Lord of injustice; on the contrary, I believe he has been actuated by the best motives. I believe he has given this additional number of Members to Scotland with the very best intentions; but I must take the liberty of saying, that I think this part of his proposition will be a perfect failure. There was one part of the speech of the noble Lord which could have been intended to apply to nobody but myself. Now, I can only say, that my conduct on this occasion has been precisely of the same description as that which I have pursued during the whole of the debate, I have before stated, that I never will do any thing against the principle of the Bill, generally; but if any motion be made, of which I approve, or which I think will improve the details of the Bill, I will support it; at the same time, I am most ready to give the most efficient support in my power to the principle of the Bill. I could not, as a member for Scotland, refuse to give my assent to the proposition of the gallant Officer. I shall, therefore, give my vote in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Jamessaid, it was usual for hon. Gentlemen to begin by saying, that they do not wish to prolong the debate, and he was not desirous of trespassing on its attention; but as some observations had been made with respect to the county of Cumberland, and as neither of the Repr-presentatives of that county was present, he might be allowed to say a few words. He had never heard so radical a speech as that which has been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Aldborough. It was not sufficient for him that Members are to be given, according to the ancient constitution, to boroughs and counties; nothing would satisfy that right hon. Gentleman unless he had district voting. Yes, he said in effect, district voting! There might be anomalies in this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would give the country no reform at all before this plan was proposed. If Ministers had brought forward such a proposition as that the hon. Gentleman recommends, we should never have heard the last of it.
Mr. Crokerbegged to say, that he never made any declaration, one way or the other, on so general and vague a question as Reform. He had opposed the Ministerial schemes of Reform as dangerous in their principle, and unjust in their details. As for the other and contradictory charge which the hon. Gentleman had brought against his speech, as being "radical," the House would require no better proof of its not being so, than its having displeased the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jamesassured the right hon. Gentleman, that he was not displeased with his speech; and if the plan of Reform should not be carried in another place—which he hoped to God, for the safety and peace of the country, it would be, or, if it did not produce good government, in either of these cases he would vote for the right hon. Gentleman's plan of district election.
Mr. Jephson,in consideration of what had been stated relative to the population of Scotland, and the comparative amount of the revenue, declared that he should vote in favour of giving additional Members to Scotland.
Sir George Murray: It gives me great pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman state that he will give me his support on this occasion. I extremely regret the absence of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, be-
1306
cause I recollect, that when I gave notice of this Motion, he was good enough to say that I should have his support. My object in rising, however, is to notice one argument which was adduced by the noble Lord. He said, that we had no claim to additional Members for Scotch counties, because we should have but a small number of voters under this Bill. That is an argument in favour of Universal Suffrage; because, if we are to be deprived of additional Members in consequence of the small number of our voters, then certainly the argument would arise, that the number of voters ought to be increased for the purpose of enabling us to obtain this additional share of Representation. I cannot, however, admit the principle to any extent, that I am here merely as the Representative of those who sent me hither by their votes. I consider that I am here for the purpose of representing the interests of the population of the country, generally, to which I belong; and when I am advocating any question before this House, I consider myself not merely as the Representative of those individuals by whose votes I am sent here, but as the Representative of all the interests included in that portion of the United Kingdom for which I am a Member; and it is on that principle that I have invariably acted throughout the discussion of this Bill. If his Majesty's Government can prove to me that this measure is really for the interest of all those people whose rights I am sent here to take care of, I will give it my support. The reason I withhold that support is, because I do not think the measure will be advantageous to the people generally. If we were to be bound by the principle that we are only to consider the interests of those individuals by whom we are immediately sent here, I must say that I think it would be the worst that could possibly be introduced into the Representative system.
Lord John Russellbegged to say one word with regard to the reason given by the hon. member for Mallow (Mr. Jephson) for voting in favour of this proposition. They were not bound to compare the revenue of Scotland and England; for if he looked to the plan of his Majesty's Ministers, he would find that the principle laid down was population, and he was using an argument which might hereafter be turned against his own country. When the question of Ireland came before the House he would see that the propor-

1307
tionate amount of the revenue of that country and England, did not entitle it to more Members than it received at the time of the Union. With regard to Scotland, he thought no case was made out.
The House divided. on the Original Motion; Ayes 113; Noes 61—Majority 52.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. In favour of the Reform Bill; from certain Magistrates, Clergy, and Freeholders of Berkshire, by the Earl of ABINGDON. By the Earl of ROMNEY, from Maidstone. By Lord HOOD, from Coventry. By Earl GOWER, from Wolverhampton, signed by 5,720; Newcastle-under-Lyme; Longdon and Laneend, in the Staffordshire Potteries; Stoke-upon-Trent, and Penkhall; Royal Burgh of Dingwall; Royal Burgh of Wick. By Lord YARBOROUGH, from five places in Lincoln. By Lord KING, forty-three, from several parts of the country, twenty-six of them from Political Unions, all breathing one sentiment, that if their Lordships should unfortunately reject the Bill, the Public Peace would be endangered. By Lord SUFFIELD, from the Town of Salford, signed by 5,641 Individuals, many of whom had not been friendly to Reform till within the last few months, and even weeks. By Lord HOLLAND, from one James Wright, who stated, that he possessed the right of Voting for ten places under the existing system, and that he was willing to sacrifice that privilege to facilitate the passing of this Bill; and several others from Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire; from Blandford, Dorsetshire; from a place in Leicestershire, signed by 7,000 persons; from Castle Carey, Somersetshire; from Witney, Honiton, and Halifax. By Lord SEGRAVE, from Stroud, signed by 225 persons; from Stonehouse; from the Mayor and Inhabitants of the Borough of Berkley, signed

1119
by 454 individuals; from the Inhabitants of the Borough of Tewksbury, signed by 770 persons; from the County of Gloucester, signed by 1,728 persons; from the Mayor and Corporation of the City of Gloucester; and from several other places in Gloucestershire. By the Bishop of CHICHESTER, from the town, of St. Ives. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Battle; Ashford; Chichester; a place in Norfolk, signed by 1,390 persons; Daventry; Higham Ferrers; and from several other places. By the Earl of GLENGALL, from Thurles, Tipperary. By Earl GREY, from various places and Corporate bodies in Great Britain and Ireland, including the Borough of Monmouth; Bury, Lancashire; Launceston, Cornwall; Rochdale, Essex; the Parishes of St. Giles and St. George, Westminster; the Provost and Burgesses of Pollockshaws; the Incorporation of Hammermen, Edinburgh; and the Commissioners of Police, Glasgow. By the LORD CHANCELLOR, thirty-eight, and among these Petitions, one from Birmingham, agreed to at a Meeting of not fewer than 150,000 persons;

who, his Lordship stated, according to his informant, had conducted themselves with as much decorum as the House of Lords itself, and who, so far from exhibiting any disposition to turbulence, after the conclusion of the business, went home like children from a village school
;
from the Parish of St. Anne, Limehouse; from the Ward of Aldersgate; from Wigan, Lancashire; from Whitehaven, Cumberland; from Dewsbury; Doncaster; Calne; Bridgenorth; Preston-Pans, and the Borough of Annan, Scotland. By Lord BELHAVEN, from Renfrew, and from certain Incorporations in Glasgow. By Lord PLUNKETT, from an Individual in the City of Cashel. By Viscount MELBOURNE, from St. Paul, Covent-garden, and from Truro, Cornwall. By the Earl of POMFRET, from Towcester, Northamptonshire. By the Earl of LICHFIELD, from Great Yarmouth, containing 600 names more than the one which had before been forwarded to the House of Commons. By Lord DUNDAS, from the City of York, and the Town of Largs. By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Leith; from the Royal Burgh of Dunfermline, signed by nearly 2,000 persons; from Weavers of the Royal Burgh of Selkirk; from Linlithgow; from Inhabitants of the Counties of Dumfries and Perth; from Inhabitants of Selkirk and Portobello; from the Guild of the Royal Burgh of Inverkeithing; and from the Town of Kilmarnock in Ayrshire. By Lord HOWDEN, from Tadcaster. By Lord LILFORD, from Warrington, Lancashire, signed by 3,350, and from Leighton, in the same county, signed by 4,615 persons. By Lord TEMPLEMORE, from Gorey, New Ross, and other places in Ireland. By Lord SHERBORNE, from Cheltenham. By the Duke of HAMILTON, from Hamilton, and from Lismahago. By the Earl of DARNLEY, from Gravesend and Milton. By Lord FOLEY, from Worcester. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Oldham, signed by 6,500 persons; from St. Pancras; from Croydon; from Bread-street Ward; from Coleman-street Ward; and from the Political Union of Edinburgh. By the Duke of GRAFTON, from the Magistrates and Inhabitants of Woodbridge, Suffolk, and from Inhabitant Householders of Whitechapel. By Earl CRAVEN, from Coventry. By the Marquis of WESTMINSTER, from St. Martin-in-the-fields, Shaftesbury; Congleton; Nantwich; Holywell, Flintshire; from Limerick, and six other places. By Lord POLTIMORE, from Okehampton, and another place. By the Duke of LEINSTER, from the County of Clare. By Viscount GODERICH, from Gainsborough, in the County of Lincoln. By the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, from Loughbred. By Viscount FALKLAND, from the Borough of Falkland, By the Earl of SEFTON, from Toxteth Park (a suburb of Liverpool), signed by 6,000 persons of the greatest respectability; from Bolton, Lancashire, signed by 10,900 persons; and from a Parish in Leicestershire, signed by 400 persons. Against the Reform Bill By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Borough of Preston, Lancashire; from Canterbury and its vicinity;
1120
from the Town and Port of Sandwich; from the Nonresident Freemen of the Borough of Dover, living in London; from the Inhabitants of Wye, Kent; from the Freemen of the City of Lincoln; from the Inhabitants of Ramsgate, and its Vicinity; from the Gentry, Clergy, Freeholders, and Inhabitants of the County of Sussex; from the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of Dorset; from the Parishes of Deal and Walmer. By Lord GRANTHAM, from Inhabitants of the Town of Cambridge. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from a considerable number of the most wealthy Inhabitants of Leeds; from Wakefield and Doncaster, Yorkshire; and from the Parish of Shot-over, Oxfordshire. By Viscount LORTON, from two Incorporated Trades in the City of Dublin; and from the town of Ballymena, Antrim. By Lord DYNEVOR, from Carnarvon. By the Earl of WESTMORELAND, signed by 500 persons from Northampton. By the Duke of RUTLAND, from the Borough of Leicester. By Lord WYNFORD, from Guildford. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Bridport, and Newport, in Cornwall. By Earl BATHURST, from Inhabitants of Tewksbury, and its neighbourhood. By Viscount LORTON, from the Corporation of Barber Surgeons, Dublin, for the Continuance of the Coal Meters Establishment. By a NOBLE LORD, from the Catholic Merchants of Galway, to extend the Franchise of that place to Catholics.

REFORM PETITIONS.
The Earl of Camperdownhad petitions in favour of the Reform Bill to present from the town of Aberdeen, and twenty-two other places in Scotland. He would, in imitation of his noble friend at the head of the Administration, and his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, merely read the names of the petitions, observing, that this was done not, certainly, out of any disrespect to the petitioners, but only for the convenience of the House. The petitions were numerously signed, and were couched in firm but temperate language. One of the petitions, however, deserved some particular notice. It was from the town of Aberdeen, and was signed by 5,000 persons of all classes, and might be said to convey he language and sentiments of Scotland generally on the subject of the Reform Bill. Aberdeen was a place of considerable importance; it was the seat of an University, and a great commercial and manufacturing city; and being considered as the capital of the north of Scotland, it was the residence of a great number of the most respectable and wealthy individuals of the district. The principal of one of the Universities proposed one of the resolutions, and the meeting at which the petition was agreed to was attended by many of those who had been before desirous of a much more extensive Reform, including Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage. The petition in favour of the present Bill was unanimously adopted, and this proved that no abatement of the zeal for Reform had taken place in that quarter. Their Lordships would please to observe,

1121
that this petition, and the other petitions from Scotland to their Lordships' House, referred to this Bill which was now under their consideration, and to this Bill alone; for they knew that it was upon the fate of this Bill that the question of Reform depended. He was not one who was very apt to be alarmed, but he confessed that he did feel considerable alarm at the contemplation of what might be the consequences of the rejection of this Bill. The people of Scotland had long been anxious for an efficient Reform, and they thought that at last they had got it in their grasp, and if they failed to secure it, the disappointment would be so much the greater. His Lordship presented the Aberdeen petition, and petitions from the Corporation and inhabitants of Kirkaldy, signed by 1,353 persons, the Corporation giving up their monopoly for the good of the public; from Markinch; from Blackford; from Carnwath; from Haddington; from Kerrimuir, signed by 1,000 persons, although it was a small town; from Abernethy; from Ely; from the Law Procurators of Perth; from Anstruther; from Laurencekirk, from certain Incorporated Trades of Aberdeen, and other places.
Lord Mintoconfirmed the statement of his noble friend as to the disposition of the people of Scotland in regard to this great measure. All their petitions referred exclusively to the Bill before the House, which some of them distinctly marked as the English Bill, for they were too intelligent not to be perfectly aware that it was upon this Bill that their own Reform depended. His Lordship then presented Petitions in favour of the Reform Bill from Melrose, Jedburgh, and Howick, the latter signed by 1,100 persons.
The Duke of Devonshirepresented petitions to the same effect from the county of Derby, the result of a county meeting held on Saturday last, and which had received 2,568 signatures in the course of seven hours; from the town of Derby, containing 4,670 signatures, and including the names of the most respectable, wealthy, and intelligent inhabitants of the place; from Bakewell, signed by 2,000 persons (that which he had presented in the last session from the same place contained 400 less); from Wirksworth, and eighteen other places in the same county. The noble Duke begged to repeat, in the most emphatic manner, what he had declared on a recent occasion, that, so far from any
1122
reaction having taken place in the sentiments of the inhabitants of the county of Derby with respect to the Reform Bill, the conviction of its necessity, and justice and policy was, if possible, every day increasing.
The Marquis of Londonderry, on the petition from the town of Derby being laid on the Table, said, that he had been honoured with the presenting of a counter-petition signed by 100 persons, from the same place, though he knew nothing of the town or of the petitioners. The petition was accompanied by a letter from a most respectable solicitor who, he believed, was well known to the noble Duke, of the name of Moseley—Thomas Moseley.
The Duke of Devonshire.—I am not acquainted with any solicitor of the name in Derby, and the names of almost all the respectable inhabitants of the place are familiar to me.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas, then, misinformed. The letter stated some facts which he thought it very important for the House to be in possession of, as throwing light on the character of the petitions presented by so many of their Lordships in favour of the Reform Bill. It stated, that the meeting was by no means unanimous in adopting the petition; that the Mayor refused to take the chair when it was proposed; that three-fourths of those who signed it had never heard it read; that one person boasted of his having signed it with his own hand ten or twelve times; and that another person amused himself by making a child of three years old hold the pen, and, as it were, sign it. It was a singular fact also, that many of those who had on a former occasion attended the county meeting for Reform, had absented themselves from that which was held on Saturday last.
The Duke of Devonshirewas prepared for some such statement as that just broached by the noble Marquis. He had also a letter from the town of Derby—and that from a gentleman whose character was above all suspicion—with respect to the doings of the anti-reform party, if party the fragment of a section could be called—from which, with permission, he would read a short but expressive extract:—"Several attempts," says the writer, "have been made by the Anti-reformers here, to throw discredit upon the proceedings of a meeting at which they dared not show their faces; and, among others, they

1123
contrived by a paltry artifice to get a child's signature attached to the petition. But such pitiful tricks only defeat themselves." This showed that he was not wholly unprepared for the noble Marquis's statement. The writer stated, that the child's signature was perpetrated in consequence of the individual who had the guardianship of the petitions having been taken ill—an unfair advantage being then taken of his absence. This simple statement of the fact, he believed, was enough by way of showing the value of the noble Marquis's new correspondent's assertions. And now let their Lordships for a moment look at the facts of the case, so far as they were an indication of the feelings of the inhabitants of Derby in favour of Reform. The petition which was intrusted to him on a former occasion, and which he forebore presenting, because it was agreed to during the existence of the late Parliament, had 3,000 signatures; that which he now presented, and which of course spoke the existing feeling, was signed by 4,670—no, 4,669—for he made the noble Marquis a present of the three-year old signature. The noble Marquis admitted, that he knew nothing himself of the county or town of Derby, and therefore could not take it upon him to assert from his own knowledge that a re-action had taken place against the Bill. "Now," continued the noble Duke, "I do know the county of Derby, and am well acquainted with the sentiments of the intelligent and respectable portion of its inhabitants with reference to the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, and I here, in my place declare, that one unanimous and enthusiastic feeling in favour of that measure pervades the whole county." He would have attended the late county meeting from a feeling of duty; but that he thought, as the petition was addressed to that branch of the Legislature of which he was a Member, it would be more becoming in him to stay away, so as not in any way to countenance the notion of undue interference. The feeling of the people of Derby, he repeated, was unanimous in favour of the Bill.
The Earl of Mulgravecould not help congratulating the noble Marquis on his improvement in an art on which a noble Earl had, on a former occasion, extolled his merits—the art, namely, of discovering a mare's nest. The present far exceeded any exploit of the kind in which he had before signalized himself: for the noble
1124
Marquis first admitted, that he knew nothing of the county of Derby—that his correspondent was also unknown to him—and that, while the petition presented by the noble Duke contained 4,670 signatures, that which was intrusted to him had not more than 100; and yet the noble Marquis contended that his petition should be received as the expression of the inhabitants at large!
The Marquis of Londonderrydid not think the ridicule of the noble Earl candid, after his declaration that he made his statement not on his own authority, but on that of a gentleman whom he had named. The main points of that statement had been admitted by the noble Duke, who, moreover, had not stated the name of his correspondent.
The Duke of Devonshire: The name of my correspondent is Mr. Joseph Strutt—a gentleman whom every person acquainted with the town of Derby would at once admit to be, perhaps, the most respectable, as he is certainly the most wealthy inhabitant of the place.
The Marquis of Londonderrythen proceeded to read an extract from Mr. Moseley's letter, in order to shew that Mr. Strutt's son, Mr. Edward Strutt—[The Duke of Devonshire: He is the nephew], was opposed to the Bill. He admitted that the counter-petition was not numerously signed, but he appealed to the noble Duke, whether the petitioners were not the most wealthy and respectable inhabitants of Derby?
The Duke of Devonshire: Certainly not. The petitioners are very respectable persons, but they are not residents of Derby; all the leading and most respectable inhabitants of that place have signed the petition in favour of the Bill which I have just presented.
The Marquis of Londonderrymust bow to the noble Duke's superior local knowledge, not being himself competent to offer an opinion on the matter. He only performed what he felt to be a duty, in stating what was represented to him to be the fact, and was not further responsible. The noble Marquis presented the counter-petition, signed by about 100 inhabitants of Derby, praying their Lordships to preserve unimpaired the institutions which our ancestors had handed down to us.
Petitions laid on the Table.
The Earl of Seftonsaid, that the first petition which he should present to their

1125
Lordships in favour of the Reform Bill was from the great and important town of Liverpool, and was signed by 17,600 of the inhabitants of that wealthy and influential place. The petitioners stated, that it was their firm conviction, that on the passing of that Bill the safety and welfare of the country mainly depended. There were two circumstances connected with this petition with which their Lordships should be acquainted, as they afforded a tolerable proof of the feeling in Liverpool in favour of the Reform Bill. The first was, that this petition had been unanimously adopted at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Liverpool, regularly convened, and held in one of the squares of that town; and the second fact was, that out of the 800 subscribers to the Exchange Rooms (the principal place of resort for the merchants in Liverpool) 600 had put their names to this petition. It might be safely taken, therefore, as expressing the opinion of the inhabitants of Liverpool on this important question.
The Marquis of Salisburydid not at all wish to impugn the respectability of the petitioners, at the same time that he wished to know from the noble Lord, what was the extent of the population of Liverpool? Of course, all the inhabitants of Liverpool had not attended the meeting at which this petition was adopted.
The Earl of Seftonsaid, it would have been impossible for the whole population of Liverpool to attend the meeting at which this petition was adopted, but that meeting fairly represented that population, as it had been regularly called and held in pursuance of public advertisement. As to the extent of the population of Liverpool, the noble Marquis was quite as well informed on the subject as he was.
Lord Hollandsaid, that, this petition had been adopted at a public meeting regularly convened, and as no one appeared there to oppose it, it was to be taken as expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Liverpool, for "de non apparentibus et de non existentibus eadem est ratio."
The Marquis of Salisburymerely wished to know whether the petition was represented as speaking the opinion of the whole town of Liverpool.
Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Dacrepresented similar petitions from the Inhabitants of the county of Hertford, numerously and respectably
1126
signed by the freeholders of that county; from the Inhabitants of the borough of St. Alban's, in the same county; from the burgesses and other inhabitants of the borough of Sudbury; from the Inhabitants of the town of Wisbeach in Cambridgeshire; from the Weavers of the town of Perth; and from the Inhabitants of the town of Hertford, numerously and respectably signed.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that he had been intrusted with a petition from the town of Hertford, from by far the greater portion of the wealth and respectability of that town, praying their Lordships not to pass this Bill into a law without such modifications in it as should remove the various objections to its different clauses. He felt bound in fairness to stale, that this petition had been proposed at the public meeting which adopted the petition just presented by the noble Lord, and that it was rejected by the majority at that meeting. At the same time he would again assert, that all those who had signed it were persons of station and respectability in the town of Hertford. At the meeting of the county of Hertford at which the county petition just presented had been voted, he believed that not more than 100 freeholders attended.
Lord Dacresaid, that not having been at the county meeting, he could not state what was the number that attended there, but, judging from the number of signatures to the petition, he should suppose that the meeting had been a respectable one. In the course of a day and a half, one-third of the freeholders of the whole county of Hertford had put their names to the petition. With regard to the counter-petition from the town of Hertford, he was aware that there was such a petition; he had not heard that it was brought forward at the public meeting which had been held of the inhabitants of that borough, but he could vouch for the respectability of the persons who had signed the petition which he had the honour to present, and who, he believed, were the same persons from whom the noble Marquis had recently sustained a defeat.
The Earl of Mulgravebore testimony to the respectability of the signatures attached to the petition from Hertford in favour of the Bill. At the same time, he wished to ask the noble Marquis, if his petition was signed by more than two of the Corporation. He had received information

1127
that the persons who had signed it were supposed to be under the influence of the noble Marquis.
The Marquis of Salisburyre-asserted that the names to the counter-petition from Hertford were most respectable, although he was ready to admit it was chiefly signed by tenants of his. He must complain, however, that the King's name had been most unconstitutionally used in that place to promote the feeling in favour of the Reform Bill. But he was scarcely surprised at seeing such a use made of his Majesty's name, when he found the first Minister of the Crown doing precisely the same thing in that House. They were told, that the King had given his sanction to this measure; no doubt the King had sanctioned the bringing forward of the question; but it was a most unconstitutional thing for a Minister of the Crown to come down to that House and to tell them, that the King had given his sanction to a measure which still awaited their Lordships' consideration.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, that the noble Marquis had quite mistaken what had fallen last night from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government. The noble Earl merely referred on that occasion to the words in his Majesty's Speech, submitting this question to the consideration of the Legislature, and what he then said could not at all bear the meaning which the noble Marquis attributed to it.
The Marquis of Bristolsaid, that if their Lordships were pledged to Reform, they were not pledged to this Bill, which was nothing more or less than a complete and sweeping revolution. He would assert solemnly, in the face of Heaven and earth, that rather than give his assent to it, he would consent to lay his head on the block.
The Duke of Richmondwished to know whether the noble Marquis opposite—he did not allude to the noble Marquis who had just appealed to Heaven and earth—but to the noble Marquis below him (the Marquis of Salisbury); he wished to know whether that noble Lord meant to say, that his noble friend at the head of the Government had, in his speech last night, made use of the King's name in the shape of a threat towards that House?
The Marquis of Bristol: If the noble Duke presumes to give me a lecture, I will give him a more severe one in return. The words "Heaven and earth," which fell from me, were spoken in solemn se-
1128
riousness, and did not form a fit subject for levity. I repel his attack with the utmost indignation that I can possibly express.
Lord Hollandwas at a loss to know what Heaven and earth had to do with this Bill. His noble friend, the noble Duke, merely wished to know what meaning the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Salisbury) meant to attribute to the expressions which had fallen last night from the noble Earl at the head of the Government.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that when he rose he did so for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Salisbury) and not to the noble Marquis above him (the Marquis of Bristol.) It was far from his wish to say or do any thing uncivil or uncourteous to that noble Marquis, either in that House or out of that House. Indeed, he was not, he hoped, in the habit of acting in that manner towards any noble Peer, and he was sorry that the noble Marquis should have lost his temper in consequence of a misapprehension of what had fallen from him. The noble Marquis talked of repelling his observations with indignation. If there was one thing beyond another on which he prided himself, it was upon never losing his temper in that House. He would not be provoked to do anything towards the noble Marquis, or any one else in that House, that he ought not to do. Again, he repeated, that he should be sorry to say anything uncourteous towards the noble Marquis, at the same time that he begged that noble Marquis would in future keep his indignation to himself.
The Earl of Falmouthcontended, that the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government had told them last night that they must have this Bill, or no Reform at all.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the noble Earl at the head of the Government never said that the Bill should undergo no modification whatever in the Committee, nor did he mean to say so. All that he said was, that if this Bill should be rejected, he would never propose a less extensive measure of Reform. His words never meant that this Bill was not to go through the usual course of all Bills that had to pass through Parliament.
Lord Kenyondeprecated incidental discussions of this kind on the presentation

1129
of petitions, and begged to suggest the propriety of limiting explanations to one noble Lord on each side of the House, on the presentation of petitions.
The Earl of Albemarlepresented petitions in favour of Reform from Thetford and Wymondham, in the county of Norfolk. The noble Earl said, that he would take that opportunity of making a few observations to the noble and learned Lord opposite, respecting the petition from Norwich, presented to him by that House on the preceding night.
The Earl of Eldongladly availed himself of the opportunity presented by the noble Earl, of acknowledging an error into which he had unintentionally fallen, in stating the number of signatures to the Norwich petition against the Reform Bill. He had told their Lordships that there were 13,500 signatures to the petition, instead of 3,500. He had that morning carefully inspected his instructions, and he was bound to say, that no fault could be attributed to any body concerned but himself.
The Earl of Albemarlesaid, that the explanation of the noble and learned Lord was quite satisfactory, and he now begged to present a petition of an opposite character from the city of Norwich. He had it from a most respectable person, Mr. Anthony Hudson, that he never saw the Common-hall so numerously and respectably attended as on the occasion of voting that petition. The petition was subscribed by 11,750 persons in two days; whereas the petition to the Commons had no more than 6,100 signatures.
The Duke of Newcastlepresented a petition against the Reform Bill, from certain of the Burgesses of the town of Nottingham. The noble Duke was instructed to state that a great proportion of the inhabitants of Nottingham was adverse to the measure brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers.
Lord Hollandsaid, that he had presented a petition signed by 13,000 of the inhabitants of Nottingham, and a petition almost unanimously agreed to by the Corporation of Nottingham, praying that their Lordships would pass the Bill now before the House. He thought it bad taste to scrutinize too narrowly every petition that might be presented, but when, in the face of these two petitions from the town of Nottingham, the noble Duke asserted, that the people of that town were adverse
1130
to the Bill, he thought that he was justified in asking the noble Duke upon what authority he made that statement. If it was upon the authority of the petition just presented, he begged to know whether any one opposed that petition; and, if no one did oppose it, whether it was agreed to at a time and place which gave the inhabitants of Nottingham, who were favourable to the measure, an opportunity of declaring their sentiments upon it?
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, that the petition he had presented was merely a petition of the undersigned. When he said that the people of Nottingham were adverse to the measure, he stated not his own opinion, for he had no means of forming an opinion upon the subject, but the opinion of the petitioners. He was far from desiring to cast any slur upon the petitions which had been presented from Nottingham by the noble Baron. He held in his hand another petition, to the same effect, from Worksop; but as there was an informality in it, he could not present it.
The Duke of Norfolksaid, that he had last night presented a petition from Worksop, in favour of the Bill.
The Duke of Newcastlewas informed, that that petition was signed chiefly by Catholics and Protestant Dissenters.
The Duke of Norfolksaid, that the first signature to the petition happened to be that of the Vicar of Worksop.
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, he believed the Vicar was the only member of the Church of England who had signed it.
The Duke of Norfolk: That was another mistake of the noble Duke. It was signed by other members of the Church of England.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that the first petition he had to present was from the county of Wilts. It had been agreed to at a county meeting, which was most numerously and respectably attended, and among the persons present, and concurring in the petition, were many who had not formerly been Reformers, but who had now become convinced of the necessity of Reform. He thought it necessary to state to their Lordships, that he had taken no part in calling this meeting, and that he had not even given an opinion as to the propriety or the impropriety of calling such a meeting. This, as well as all the other petitions which he had to present, were specifically in favour of the Bill, and none of them prayed for any other advantages

1131
than those which the Bill conferred. The noble Marquis presented twenty petitions to the same effect, from Trowbridge, Chippenham, Swansea, East Stonehouse, Leamington, Devizes, and other places.
Lord Rollereferring to the petition from Stonehouse said, he thought it might be convenient if noble Lords who had petitions to present from places with which other noble Lords were connected, would give information of such petitions to the latter. He must say, that he thought this was not asking too much. Now he had made no attempt to get up petitions; but others had come into his neighbourhood, and bringing with them petitions in favour of Reform, got about 100 or 200 persons, whom he employed, and who were under the greatest obligations to him, to sign those petitions.
Lord Cliffordsaid, that after what the noble Baron (Rolle) had said last night, in contradiction to the representation of the High Sheriff of Devonshire, he was sure the noble Baron did not stand in need of previous notice to enable him to make observations upon any petition.
Lord Rollesaid, that he had only spoken upon the information of others respecting the meeting of the county of Devon. He was told, that the meeting was called at twelve o'clock, and that at that hour not more than fifty persons were present. The High Sheriff, therefore, did not appear till half-past one o'clock, and even then, after every exertion had been used, a greater attendance of persons than 500 in number could not be procured. From these circumstances he inferred that the petition did not represent the opinion of the county.
The Earl of Morleythought it was hardly worth while to debate the Devonshire petition now. This discussion appeared to him to have arisen from the noble Baron (Lord Rolle) near him being jealous that the East Stonehouse petition had not been intrusted to him; but he thought the petitioners had acted more wisely in sending it to the noble Marquis.
Lord Rolledenied that he was jealous of the noble Marquis.
A Noble Lordbegged to know why the noble Baron (Lord Rolle) had not attended the meeting in Devonshire? If the noble Baron had done so, and talked the matter over there with the freeholders, he must have come to another opinion, and he might have saved a little of their Lordships' time. What he and others who called
1132
that meeting wanted was, to excite the noble Baron and his friends to attend; but they had failed in that part of their object. It was well, however, that the noble Baron and his friends had stayed away; for if they had met the Reformers fairly in the field, they would have been completely floored.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that there were still on the list the names of thirty Peers who had petitions to present, many of which petitions could not be presented without being accompanied by some observations. He would suggest, therefore, that as the hour was late, they had better proceed with the debate at once, and let the remainder of the petitions stand over till to-morrow.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that it was of the greatest importance that the petitions of the people should be received. If noble Lords would occupy as little time as possible in presenting the petitions intrusted to them, the list would be speedily exhausted.
The Earl of Winchilseapresented petitions from Sandwich, Dover, and Deal, praying that their Lordships would use their high prerogative and reject the Reform Bill, which, besides producing the most prejudicial results, would entirely disappoint the expectations of its supporters. The noble Earl said, that he was ready to admit that there had been, some time ago, a strong feeling in the county of Kent in favour of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. If his information, however, were correct, that feeling had greatly subsided. As to the late meeting of the county, he could state, upon the authority of a gentleman upon whose veracity he could safely rely, that at the opening of the meeting there were not more than 800 persons present; and that at the close of it, there were not more than 3,000 present. Now he recollected a meeting of the county, not a very long time ago, at which there were, he verily believed, at least 30,000 persons present. It had been stated by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) last night, that there were only twelve dissentients to the petition agreed to at the late public meeting of the county—but that was not a full meeting. The county would not meet, and he would tell the noble Earl why not. It was because a most important petition of theirs had been treated by the House with neglect;

1133
and he had been told by hundreds—he might say, by thousands—of the Yeomen of Kent, that until they had some evidence that their petitions would be received with the consideration and respect they were entitled to, the Yeomanry generally would not again meet or ask any thing at the hands of their Lordships. He could state, too, that at a public meeting the other day at Sandwich, a petition against the Reform Bill was agreed to, although Sandwich had sent to Parliament two Members who were pledged to the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. "I trust in God," said the noble Earl, "that I shall this night have an opportunity of stating the grounds upon which I shall vote against this measure."
Petition laid on the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—SECOND READING— SECOND DAY.
On the Motion of the Earl of Winchilsea, the Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Second Reading of the Reform in Parliament (England) Bill was read.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, he could not consent to give a silent vote upon the present occasion, for whether he considered the vast importance of the Bill which had been placed on their Lordships' Table, the second reading of which was then the question to be discussed, or whether he considered that if a false step of legislation upon the subject were once taken, that it could never be retraced—in which ever way he regarded the subject, he felt it to be his bounden duty openly to declare his sentiments to their Lordships. He admitted that there were abuses in the present system of Representation, but when he considered the immense injury which might be done in an unwise, unjust, and injudicious attempt to correct those abuses—when, in fact, he considered that the just balance of power which had hitherto so happily existed between the three estates of the realm might be destroyed, he owned he felt deeply the great responsibility which he incurred by making any attempt to alter or to modify the Constitution. This was the sentiment he felt, but, as he had applied his mind honestly and sincerely to the consideration of the subject, he trusted that the conclusions he had come to would not prove altogether erroneous or unacceptable to the country. He had no private interest to consult; he knew of but
1134
one party, and that party was his country. To the interests of that country he was devoted, and he would earnestly and fearlessly consult them on the present and on every other occasion. He approached the consideration of the subject perfectly unbiassed by any feeling of private, or personal, or party interest; for he had no parliamentary connection with any borough which would be affected by the Bill, and he had no attachment to any party but the one great party he had already named. He approached the question, too, unawed by intimidation—whether that intimidation was attempted to be exercised by unprincipled and revolutionary individuals, or by the insolent, malignant, scurrilous, and tyrannical portion of the Press, which had for the last six months had recourse to every species of abuse, falsehood, threat, and virulence, for the purpose of lowering the aristocracy in the eyes of the community, and frighting it from the honest and wise exercise of those privileges, which, whether considered by their Lordships as Peers of Parliament or as Englishmen, were dear beyond all price, and at all hazards ought to be maintained. The privileges of the House of Lords were a part, and a vital part, of the Constitution; and if their Lordships could be induced, by the vile means which had been adopted, to limit or to sacrifice them, then they would be subjected to a power, the tyranny and oppression of which were more odious to the true lover of liberty, than was the domination of the greatest despot whose rule ever cursed society. Yet to that tyranny and that oppression he was ready and prepared to oppose himself, and if all its virulence was directed against him he cared not, for he was convinced he should be supported by every man in whose bosom there was a virtuous, moral, or religious feeling. He should be supported by all whose support or countenance was honourable or creditable, and thus assisted, he would oppose himself to that levelling spirit, which, not content with common calumny, had endeavoured, foully and basely, to turn the stream of public opinion to the prejudice of an illustrious female—one who moved in the very highest rank of life, and the distinguishing characteristic of whose conduct was, that it had secured to her the admiration and the love of all good and virtuous minds. Such was the character of the illustrious female assailed, and assailed, too, from no other reason,

1135
and upon no other ground, but because it was asserted she had used her rights in such a way as militated against the progress of this measure. Would to God he knew the vile atrocious slanderer! Would to God he knew the anonymous slanderer who had in so cowardly and base a manner insulted and traduced a virtuous and exalted woman; and if he did, either the humble individual who then addressed their Lordships, or that blot to manhood and to human nature should never again see the light of day. This was not a private question, but it involved the dearest and the best interests of the country, and as the laws of that God whom he adored and served justified his raising his arm in hostile strife to resist the invader of his country, so would they justify him in calling to a fatal account the miscreant who would stab by slander and abuse, the dearest interests of virtue and of truth. The front of the offence committed by the illustrious individual who had been traduced was, that by her uniform excellence of character she had acquired a large and powerful influence over the mind of the country, and that influence was wisely directed to a maintenance of those virtues of that Constitution and of that religion that had secured to England all its happiness and all its prosperity. When individuals in exalted stations thus conducted themselves, their welfare and their protection became a nation's nearest duty, and every one who loved virtue or his country's interest was bound to stand forward in their defence. He repeated, that he approached the consideration of the question under discussion uninfluenced by any private or party feelings; and he might also say, and with perfect sincerity, he approached it with a heartfelt wish that he might be enabled to take that course which was the best calculated to benefit his country, and to transmit to posterity that Constitution which was the best legacy the present generation could hope to leave to their successors. The Constitution had been impaired by an abandonment of some of those principles which had given it strength, but in that circumstance he saw no reason for its utter prostration, convinced as he was, that it was to the system of government the country had so long experienced that it owed the enjoyment of its civil and religious liberties. That Constitution was now assailed. It was attacked on the one hand by English radicals, and
1136
on the other by Irish demagogues and Popish priests; and their Lordships were bound to see that no new means were given to its foes by a destruction of the balance of power in the three estates of the realm. It was in this spirit that he should investigate the measure before their Lordships. He should address himself but briefly to the whole subject. In the first place he should inquire whether in the lapse of years some defects or abuses might not have crept into the system of Representation which required a remedy. In the second place, he should inquire whether any new interests had sprung up in the country, and arrived at such a magnitude, or were possessed of such a character and nature, as to require protection and assistance through the medium of direct Representation. And in the last place, he should consider whether the Bill proposed to their Lordships was calculated to remedy the abuses he admitted to exist, and to supply that new Representation that must be confessed to be desirable if upon inquiry it appeared that any new interests had sprung up; or whether it would not be desirable to adopt some other plan for remedying the defects complained of, under a conviction that the Bill as it stood was calculated, and indeed must from necessity in its operation destroy the just balance of power which was essential to the existence of the Constitution. These were the considerations he proposed to enter upon, and if it should appear that this Bill, as proposed by the noble Earl, would destroy the just equilibrium in the different branches of the Legislature, as upon the maintenance of that equilibrium depended the continuance of the Constitution, he would boldly and fearlessly give it his direct negative. With respect to the first point to be investigated he candidly owned he had long entertained the opinion that too much political influence had fallen into the hands of a few particular persons through the existence of decayed boroughs. Whatever might have been the importance attached at one time to many of those boroughs, however great might have been their trade, their wealth, or their consequence, it was now a matter beyond the possibility of dispute that many of them were not only decayed, but so decayed as to have no interest of their own to protect or to maintain. This was the fact, and he had long been of opinion that it would be beneficial to the country if that influence were reduced. He con-

1137
tended that the parliamentary influence derived from those boroughs placed a preponderating power in the hands of the Ministers which ought to be checked. It was a power which enabled a Government to carry a particular measure in opposition to the decided wishes, and reasonable and constitutional wishes, of the people. It was that influence which enabled the Ministers of the day to carry the Catholic Question in opposition to the voice of the country. The Minister who introduced that measure into the other House of Parliament well knew, and he even had his authority for stating, that if a general election had taken place, so strong was the feeling of the country against the Catholic Bill that it could not have been carried. This it was, that had induced much of the present demand for Reform. The people wanted not the overthrow of the Constitution, but seeing that abuses had crept into the Representation, which enabled a Minister to carry measures opposed to the great majority of the country and to the spirit of the Constitution, they required that those abuses should be corrected. Noble Lords opposite were now most tender of the right and the influence of petitioning, but they had pursued a very different course when the Catholic Question was under discussion. Then the Petitions of the people had been disregarded; they had been thrown aside without consideration or respect; and the consequence was, that a vast number of persons had determined upon not addressing their Lordships, or Parliament at all, until the right of petitioning was not merely recognised, but respected, by the prayers of the Petitioners being attended to. The people of this country did not require the sacrifice of any particular interest or the destruction of the privileges of any constitutional order, but what they in reality required was, that there should not be suffered to exist a preponderating power which was foreign to the Constitution, and gave a Minister the means of defeating and opposing the wishes of the country. And when he heard of individuals ostentatiously offering up their boroughs on the altar (as it was called) of patriotism, he could not but question their motives, and watch the subsequent proceedings. Respecting those motives he had no manner of doubt, and if there were any who believed them to be disinterested, he referred to their consideration the new Marquisates and other
1138
honours which had been showered upon the persons making the pretended sacrifices. Disinterestedness in such conduct there was none, and the country could not find in it any compensation for the injuries it had suffered. These were among the reasons by which he was induced to desire that the decayed boroughs might be merged in the general property of the country, and not left at the command of the Minister of the day. He would then proceed to the consideration of the next point, which was as to whether or not any new interests had sprung up which required and were entitled to the protection derived from direct Representation. Upon this branch of the subject he had no doubt whatever. Any person who looked at the great manufacturing towns which had in modern times grown up, and considered their different and peculiar interests, could not entertain a doubt as to the propriety of those interests being guarded by particular representatives elected for their preservation. Many cases might occur in which a Minister might propose a measure acceptable, as it applied to the mass of the community, but most injurious as it applied to the particular interests of some single town or some particular manufacture; and unless that town or manufacture were adequately, or, he ought to say, directly represented, it might be sacrificed through ignorance. Take, for instance, a recent proposition, to impose a tax upon raw cotton. If that tax had been adopted, a great and a new interest would have been most seriously injured; and yet the injury could only be pointed out by those familiar with the particular manufacture; such considerations made it plain that it was desirable and necessary that all new interests of importance and value should be provided with representatives. If that conclusion were correct, it necessarily followed, that representatives should be given to those great towns in which particular manufactures and those newly-created interests were chiefly situated, and where their peculiarities and wants were best understood. He therefore could but remark, that the late refusal to transfer the franchise from corrupt and convicted boroughs to large towns, in which there were confessedly and notoriously new interests, was most injudicious, most unjust, and most impolitic. He then came to the third point he proposed for consideration. With respect to those parts of the Bill which went to

1139
the disfranchisement of out-voters and to the reduction of election expenses, in principle they had his cordial approval; but he must say, he entertained great doubts as to the efficiency of the execution of the plan. He did not believe, that in many instances the regulations respecting out-voters would prove upon trial at all satisfactory; and he also entertained considerable doubts as to whether election expenses would be so greatly reduced by the provisions of the Bill as its framers appeared to imagine would be the case. He had already stated that he approved of that part of the Bill which gave to great towns, in which new interests had sprung up, direct Representation. But there his commendation must cease. He thought the disfranchising clause went too far. He did not wish to be understood as contending that there ought to be any increase in the numbers of the House of Commons; he thought, on the contrary, there ought not; and it was not necessary there should be for the purpose of putting into practice the views he entertained with respect to the disfranchising clause and giving Members to new interests. To make room for these new Representatives some of the decayed boroughs must undoubtedly be disfranchised, but there was a vast difference between such a necessary step and the wanton and sweeping act of disfranchisement proposed by the Bill. Such a course as that which he now pointed out would be satisfactory to the country; for while it properly provided for the protection of new interests, it would also pay attention to the preservation of that balance of power which was essential to the welfare and the prosperity of the country. And this led him to notice one of the principal and most fatal of the objections which he had to the Bill. He had stated that he was fully prepared to give to all great towns which had new and unrepresented interests Representatives for their protection, but he was not at all prepared to give his support to a measure which gave Representatives to towns and districts which had no particular or new interests whatever to protect. To interests he was prepared to give Representatives, but he never could consent to give Representatives to mere masses of population which had no manufactures or special interests to protect. He objected, therefore, to giving Representatives to such places as Woolwich, Greenwich, Deptford, the Tower Hamlets,
1140
Finsbury, and Marylebone. He had long thought most seriously upon this subject, and he was thoroughly convinced that there was nothing whatever in the spirit or the practice of the British Constitution, as hitherto known, which favoured the notion that Representation was or ought to be founded upon numbers. This was not merely his own opinion, but it would be found upon inquiry that the most intelligent of the merchants, bankers, and traders of London attributed a vast deal of the success of this immense city in commercial pursuits, to its freedom from the continual excitement necessarily arising out of frequent political elections. It was idle to say, that large towns, merely as large towns, required representing, for they were adequately protected by the mass of the Representatives; and he contended that a great portion of the wealth and consequence of London and its neighbourhood had resulted from the little interruption it had received from political contests. Let their Lordships compare the state of London with the state of Paris, and the force of his argument would at once be illustrated. In Paris there was political election enough; that capital had, at the least, an abundance of Representatives; and yet what was its condition? Let him not be told that they were not to refer to other countries. When the navigator saw another vessel wrecked upon a rock he must be blind indeed if he ran his own in a similar direction. He called upon their Lordships then to look at the situation of Paris, with all its Representatives and its distracting elections. In Paris there was a stagnation of trade, a dearth of commercial activity, and confidence, for the inclination and mind of the community had been directed to other topics; while in London a system of commerce, altogether unprecedented in magnitude, in importance, in regularity, and in its results, had been happily established and was in full operation. He had thus stated those principles of the Bill of which he approved, and those to which he objected, and he would then proceed to notice some particular clauses that required especial attention. If he had not considered the objections he had already stated to the Bill to be insuperable, there were still an abundance of others to regulate his conduct with respect to it. Their Lordships had been told that the provisions respecting the qualification for votes for the

1141
counties were made with a view of protecting the landed interests. He viewed them in a very different light. He objected especially to the admission of persons renting so low as premises of the value of 50 l. a year being admitted to the county constituency. What would be the effect of such a qualification in the neighbourhood of large towns, of the metropolis, and upon the county to which he had the honour to belong? Let their Lordships look at its effect in Kent. Such towns as Margate, Tonbridge Wells, and the neighbourhood of the metropolis would furnish a great proportion of the constituency, and their qualification would not be of a nature to prove, that they had any connection whatever with the landed interest, or that they were at all permanently connected with the county. He objected therefore to the proposed constituency for counties. Then with respect to the clause which gave the right of voting in boroughs to 10 l. householders, he thought the qualification too low. He thought so when the Bill was in its original shape; and it was only proposed to give the right of voting to bonâ fide annual tenants, upon an annual taking of a house of the yearly value upon the parish books of 10 l.; but if that was his opinion, his objections had necessarily been greatly increased by the alterations which had been made in the original clause. As the Bill at present stood it admitted weekly tenants paying 3s. 10 d. per week, who had occupied a house for the space of twelve months, to the franchise. Would any one be found to contend that that class of persons were independent? Surely not. They would be in the hands of those persons who chose to give them their qualification, or they would be ruled by the worst, enemies of the country. Talk of a weekly payment of 3s. 10 d. as rent giving to a person the right of voting! Why, there was scarcely a man, however dependent or poor, that did not pay that sum, and this provision of the Bill, therefore, while it pretended to be founded on a proper qualification, almost amounted to universal suffrage. If that was his honest conviction, he asked to what conclusion must, he come with respect to the Bill? Again, he reminded their Lordships, that if they took a false step in this most important and vital matter, that step could never be retraced. He was ready to allow, that unconstitutional power given to the Crown
1142
might be resumed; he was ready to allow too that unconstitutional power given to such a body as their Lordships might be resumed; but he defied any one existing to quote a single instance from the volume of history in which power once given into the hands of the people had been returned by the people. The conclusion, then, he came to was this, that if this clause were adopted, and the low qualification proposed admitted, the necessary consequence would be, that the people would be invested with a preponderating power, which, judging from the invariable result of all similar experiments, would lead to the destruction of the Constitution. But he might be told, you agree to certain principles in this Bill, and yet you reject it altogether. He did no such thing. Ho came forward and fairly stated his views. He did not in general terms oppose the Bill, but he opposed it on specific grounds, and gave his reasons for that opposition. He was favourable to Reform, and while he opposed much of this particular measure he suggested a plan which he in his conscience believed would be preferred by nine-tenths of the county to which he belonged, to the ill-digested, crude and unconstitutional scheme propounded to their Lordships by the present Bill for their acceptance.—He objected to the measure upon an examination of its intrinsic merits, and his feeling in opposition to it was strengthened by the unfair, improper, unconstitutional, and illegal means which had been had recourse to in order to support it. The total want of confidence too in his Majesty's ministers, a want of confidence arising not out of prejudice, but the necessary consequence of their conduct, added to his distrust. He knew that he stood there upon the brink of destruction, and he felt the danger of his position, but he would do his duty to the best of his judgment. He said this in honesty and in sincerity, and, so doing, he would vote against the second reading of the Bill. He would not vote against it because it was a measure of Reform, but because while it professed to remedy abuses, it destroyed the Constitution. It had been asked, "What will the Lords do?" He would answer that question. The Lords would honestly, constitutionally, and fearlessly do their duty. They would do their duty to their King, to their country, and their God—to that King for whose welfare they were

1143
anxious, and from whose bounty they had derived so many benefits—to that country with whose interests their own welfare was bound up, and for whose happiness and whose liberty they would readily sacrifice their existence—and to that God who, in his almighty beneficence, had bestowed greater blessings upon this country than had ever before been granted to a nation, and who would still protect and aid them if they were but true to themselves and strove to merit his assistance. Let their Lordships look to the examples which surrounded them. It would be the worst of blindness for them to shut their eyes to what had occurred and what was occurring. Let them look to that country that was the curse of the peace of Europe. Let them look to that country in which a principle was contended for and admired that was utterly incompatible with the existence of society, destructive of every thing like true liberty, and leading only to one vast and monstrous system of anarchy and confusion or miserable and unredeemed despotism. It would be the worst of blindness for their Lordships to shut their eyes to the fact, that the spirit which had been the bane of France, and had tormented Europe, had reached the shore of this country, and was making strides that called for resolute opposition. It was high time not merely to watch the progress of that desolating spirit, but to check and to curb it. The ship was in danger, and she had been deserted by those who ought to have proved her ablest hands; but let the crew still on board do their duty honestly and zealously, and the gale would yet be weathered, and the bark once again be moored in safety. What was it that gave to that House and would secure to it the respect and esteem of the community at large, and without which that House was nothing? Was it their Lordships rank or their wealth that gave them their importance? No; but it was the honest discharge of those important duties which were intrusted to them by the Constitution. If, then, any inducement were required by their Lordships to bring them to an honest and sincere discharge of their duties, let that thought operate. And if any further stimulus should be required, he would implore those among them who derived their titles from a long line of honourable ancestry to reflect upon the glory of their predecessors, and by their conduct to
1144
prove that the blood that flowed in their veins was still pure and noble as the source from which it sprung. To those who had earned their distinction by an honourable and a laborious or a gallant and a brilliant discharge of great public duties he would say "bear still in mind your old course, and to steer right on to honour." They lived in perilous times; but, though the times were full of danger, there was an abundance of example to guide them. Warning upon warning was before them, and ardently did he wish their Lordships to avail themselves of the fruits of experience. He could not pretend to cope with the noble Earl (Grey) in historical learning, but he must be allowed to say that many of the occurrences alluded to by the noble Earl had produced a very different impression upon his mind from that which it appeared they had made upon the mind of the noble Earl. The noble Earl said, that the aristocracy of France were destroyed through their obstinacy, but he had always believed, and still believed, that the aristocracy of France fell because it bowed itself before democracy. Again, the noble Earl had said, that obstinacy led Charles 1st to the scaffold; but he had always understood, and history had recorded it as a fact, that the destruction of that Monarch was owing to an act of weakness upon his own part. But allusions to history as well as to the measure itself were not sufficient for the noble Earl. He had appealed to the Bench of Reverend Prelates, and demanded their support. He (the Earl of Winchilsea) would also address himself to those reverend Prelates, and he would conjure them to remember that they were the Representatives of the Church of England, and that the interests, perhaps the existence, of that Church were now at their disposal. He would say to them, be just and fear not, and, imploring them to adhere to those who in the hour of danger had sustained and protected them, he should be confident of their support. But it was said, why vote against the second reading of the Bill? Let the Bill once go to a Committee, and there could be no hope of afterwards stopping it. He honestly and fairly admitted that there was a strong feeling in the country as to the necessity of some measure of Reform, but at the same time he must, in toto, disavow that the feeling of the country was in favour of "the Bill,

1145
the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill." He felt that he had intruded too long upon the attention of their Lordships, but there was still one point connected with the subject to which he could not help adverting. His objections to the Bill were fatal, but still he was a friend to Reform, and so much so that if a Bill corresponding with the opinions he had expressed were at that moment upon their Lordships' table it should have his support. He felt the difficulties, however, of the case. He was aware that such a measure could not originate in that House, but let it be brought in elsewhere, and he doubted not that the people of England, as well as the aristocracy of England, would receive it with approval and with gratitude. Such a Bill would maintain the balance of power, and tend to perpetuate the liberties of the country. Against this Bill, however, the second reading of which had been proposed by the noble Earl opposite, he must vote, from a rooted and honest conviction that, while it proposed to correct abuses, it would in reality destroy the Constitution, and with it the liberties and the prosperity of the country.
The Earl of Harrowbyspoke to the following effect,*
My Lords: I owe it to your Lordships to apologize more particularly for offering myself to your notice at this moment, somewhat out of the ordinary course of debate, and when another noble Lord, so much more entitled to your attention, proposed to address you. But I felt that it was impossible for me to let this question go to a vote without expressing my opinion upon it, and I also felt that, unless I took a very early opportunity of speaking, the state of my health would oblige me to give up all hope of doing so at a later period of the night. I have, it the outset of the remarks which I consider it to be my duty to address to your Lordships, to claim your patient and indulgent attention—a favour of which I have much need at all times, but most especially or the present occasion. I have not beer much in the habit of intruding myself or the attention of this House at any time and for some years past I have hardly spoken on any question. When I finally retired, four years ago, from official situations, and almost from any interference in
* Printed from the corrected speech published by Roake and Varty.
1146
your debates, I had hoped that I should lave passed the short remainder of my life, without witnessing any period of so great political excitement, as to compel me once again to take an active part in your deliberations. It is no light occasion which could prevail upon me to break through the silence which it was my wish to have observed. A deep and paramount sense of duty has alone induced me to come forward. If I have but little inclination to engage in any discussion, still less can I wish to engage in what must, I fear, be considered as a mock debate, since your Lordships have been told by the highest authority that you must yield—that you must pass this identical Bill, Because the people must be satisfied—that they will not be content with any less efficient and extensive measure—and that, if you reject this Bill now, you will have perforce to pass a worse in a succeeding session. Such appeared to me to be the declaration of the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, in a speech which, after his repeated disclaimers, I will not venture to characterize as one of threat or menace, but by which, it is evident, from the very anxiety which he displayed to repel such an imputation, that he felt, unless his observations were qualified by such declarations, there was ground for your Lordships to apprehend that the deliberations of this House were intended to be overawed. This expression of my feelings on what has fallen from the noble Earl, I think I owe to your Lordships; but, having said thus much, it is my earnest desire to debate this question with as much calmness and moderation as any question can be debated which involves the vital interests of the Constitution of this country.
I could have wished that my strength had enabled me to reply last night to the speech of the noble Earl, while the arguments which he brought forward were still fresh in my memory. He has stated with perfect fairness what he considers to be the real situation of your Lordships on this question, and has admitted, that there is nothing in its nature to justify the suspicion that you will be actuated, in your decision, not by public, but by personal motives. He has also admitted, that the power of nomination to certain seats in the House of Commons does not belong to your Lordships as Peers—that it is a power attached to property and not to rank—that

1147
it is possessed by few amongst your Lordships, and is shared in nearly equal proportions by Peers and by Commoners. The noble Earl might have added, that, as far as the influence of the nomination boroughs could be traced in the divisions of the two Houses of Parliament, it would be found (so far, at least, as we can judge from the imperfect accounts of those transactions), that instead of these nominees being an united body, which, as it has been falsely alleged, is continually preying on the vitals of the people, they have been usually pretty equally divided between the two parties in the State; so that, even were the imputation well founded, the country has at least had the satisfaction (if satisfaction it can be called) of not having more than one half of these supposed harpies preying upon her vitals at one and the same time.
I find, in a list which has been recently circulated in the country with great activity, my name inserted among the patrons of nomination boroughs, as patron of Tiverton. The noble Earl having thought it right to set the House rectus in curiâ, I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I trespass upon your attention for a few moments, to set myself rectus in curiâ as far as regards this sort of charge. Nearly a century ago, my grandfather being then, I believe, Solicitor-general, was introduced to that borough by the influence of Government, under the patronage of a great merchant, who, as such, had considerable weight in the Corporation. Whilst acting in his legal capacity he had an opportunity of doing them some service: this led to a great intimacy between him and the principal persons in the borough, and he sat many years in Parliament as one of its Representatives. The interest thus established descended to my father, and subsequently to myself, for, when I first came of age, I was elected Member. In 1795, on the death of my colleague, the Corporation, without any solicitation on the part of my family, proposed to choose my younger brother, who was at that time either just called to the Bar, or on the point of being called to it; but my father doubted extremely the policy of thus diverting him from his legal pursuits. He was, however, elected, and for the last six-and-thirty years the connexion has subsisted on the same footing, and has descended to my children. One old man recollected my grandfather—others recol-
1148
lected my father—all have known me, and my brother and my sons have been personally agreeable to the present electors. During the whole of this period, neither myself, nor any member of my family, has owned a house or an acre of land within 100 miles; nor is there a single elector who owes me a single shilling, or whose vote I can in any sense command. Indeed, money is quite out of the question, and I should have heard without the slightest degree of alarm, that two nabobs from India had gone down to canvass Tiverton, even though they had each 10,000 l. in his pocket. The influence which my family has exercised in that borough was a personal influence, and though I do and ought to regret that I may not be able to transmit to my posterity the valuable legacy of such an ancient and hereditary friendship, still I know of nothing, either in my public or in my private character, which should lead your Lordships to disbelieve me when I declare that, had my influence there rested upon the narrowest and most permanent burgage tenure, instead of a personal, and of course a precarious connexion, it could not have weighed as a feather in the scale towards deciding my vote on such a question as this. My object in making this statement is not to free my own character from suspicion, but merely to illustrate the sort of connexion, so unjustly stigmatized, which other noble Lords may maintain with other boroughs.
The next topic in the speech of the noble Earl was a vindication of his own consistency. In different Houses of Parliament, from the first moment of his political life, he has unquestionably been an advocate for different degrees of Parliamentary Reform; but from what has repeatedly fallen from him, towards the latter period of it, I, as well as others, had been led to hope and to believe, that his ideas upon that question had been somewhat narrowed. I had thought that, since the zeal and warmth of youth had subsided, the noble Earl, in maturer life, had adopted notions of a less theoretical and sweeping character. He still denies all intention of proceeding upon abstract principles of right. The only right which he acknowledges, is the right of the people to be well governed. To that doctrine I cordially subscribe; and therefore I contend, that he who undertakes to form a new government for the people, is imperatively

1149
bound to show, not only that, under the existing system, they have been ill-governed, but also that, under that which he proposes, they will be better governed. If he do not show this, he is a subverter of that very right which he professes to maintain.
But, my Lords, has the noble Earl substantiated one or other, much less both of these propositions? No; they remain utterly unsupported by fact or argument. And it is not too much to affirm, that the feeble attempts which have been made to substantiate them, prove as clearly that they are untenable, as that we are indebted for our new Constitution, not to the application of the noble Earl's political maxim, or indeed of any sound principle of government, but to impelling forces from without, which, setting such maxims and principles at nought, and aiming recklessly at theoretical symmetry and ideal good, can urge us on to no other destiny than convulsion and ruin.
If my memory could serve, and the patience of your Lordships could endure, I could make the longest and the best speech that was ever made in or out of Parliament, against this Bill, without spoiling it by the admixture of a single thought or word of my own, merely by repeating the speeches and writings of those who are now its proposers or supporters. Do I say this because I wish to reproach any man for changing his opinion? No! I disdain to avail myself of a mere argumentum ad hominem. My cause can well afford to spare it. But when I consider the weight and authority of those persons who have both formerly and latterly maintained the principles which they now abandon, we, who it seems have been misled by their authority, have aright to demand of them, more than of any other persons, a full and satisfactory explanation of the grounds upon which they have changed their opinions. It is not a vague declamation on the rights of man (which have not, indeed, been introduced in this place)—it is not a laboured harangue upon the deficiencies of our present Constitution, or a loose panegyric (of which, by the bye, we have heard but little) upon the transcendent merits of the new one. It is not that which we demand, but a grave and statesman-like exhibition of those reasons which induce the proposers of this Bill to believe that another mode of government, to be, established by this Bill, will be a better govern-
1150
ment for the people than that which has so long existed. This is the real question. This is the kind of statement which, as I contend, we have a right to expect from the noble Earl. The want of it is a deficiency in his argument, which the country could not anticipate, and of which it has a right to complain.
There is one reason, indeed, on which he has mainly relied, and which he seems to think was a substitute for all others; namely, that this Bill, or one of equal efficiency and extent, ought not to be, indeed cannot be, resisted. The noble Earl has told us, that at the last general election but one, the coincidence of the French revolution had flung the people from one end of England to another, into a state of great ferment; that the embers of Reform, raked up a short time before it, had given but little flame; but that, when the news of that revolution arrived, it acted like the pouring of oil upon ashes, and warmed those decaying embers into a general blaze. Now, I beg leave to remind your Lordships, that it was subsequent to that event that both Houses of Parliament (without opposition) addressed the Crown, stating that they were fully sensible of, and justly appreciated, the full advantage of that happy form of government under which, through the favour of Divine Providence, this country had enjoyed, for a long succession of years, a greater share of internal peace, of commercial prosperity, of true liberty, and of all that constituted social happiness, than had fallen to the lot of any other country in the world. Yet, with that Address of the two Houses of Parliament before him, the noble Earl has said, that the feeling of Reform, which had just, arisen from its ashes, was aggravated almost to madness by the declaration of the noble Duke now near the Table (the Duke of Wellington)—a declaration which I certainly regret, because it induced the country to think that no attention whatever would be paid to its wishes for a rational, moderate, and well-tempered Reform. The noble Earl, on coming into office, was of course anxious, and I admit properly, to bring forward a measure of Reform to satisfy what he deemed the just wishes of the people. He considered most carefully whether such a measure as that which had been presented by a noble Lord to the House of Commons, at no distant period, was or was not one which he could, con-

1151
sistently with his duty, submit to Parliament for its approbation. On this last point he came to the opinion, that no such plan would give general satisfaction; and he has thought that he could find no medium between a scheme of that description and the present Bill, by which he expects to satisfy all wishes, inasmuch as it exceeds all hopes and expectations. The noble Earl much underrated his own powers, when he imagined that he could not have framed a Bill very different from this, and yet capable of satisfying most of those whom it is possible or desirable ever to satisfy. I have no doubt that, with such a Bill, he would have conciliated a much more weighty and solid support to his Administration than that which he has acquired by his present measure, and that he would have disarmed the hostility of a large portion of those individuals who now feel themselves obliged to oppose this Bill, because they consider it to be a change which must inevitably lead to all other changes.
The noble Earl has told your Lordships that this measure is a bold measure of Reform. In that assertion I fully concur; indeed, so bold a measure has never been brought forward by any statesman in any country under heaven. Noble Lords will not expect me to fatigue myself and the House by going into a review of all the extravagant plans of Reform which have been framed for the improvement of the constitutions of other countries. I will, however, defy your Lordships to select, out of all those plans, any one which, unless it fairly professed itself to be a revolution, was equal in the magnitude of its consequences to this Bill of moderate Reform. But the noble Earl tells us that it is on the ground of the very extent of the measure that he rests his belief that it will satisfy the people. Now I am of opinion that the satisfaction with which it has been received by those classes of the people, who avowedly consider it only as a steppingstone to further and still more dangerous changes, will not be its best recommendation to your Lordships, or to any friends of the real liberty of their country.
The speech of the noble Earl, excepting that part of it in which he went into a very imperfect detail of the provisions of the Bill, was employed in making an eloquent and a very able attack on the whole system of nomination boroughs. I will not weary your Lordships by a tedious re-
1152
ference to historical details, or enter into an investigation of the accuracy of the noble Earl's assertion that this Bill goes to effect, by the abolition of the nomination boroughs, only a restoration of the ancient Constitution. I would, however, request the noble Earl to point out to me the time when the Constitution bore any resemblance to the Constitution which would be created by this Bill. In spite of the indiscriminate attack of the noble Earl on this influence over the Representation of the country—an influence which individuals possess, as he himself admits, not in consequence of their rank in society, but in consequence of their property in certain districts of the country—I defy the noble Earl to point out the time in which this influence did not exist to a great extent. The noble Earl has said, that all the great authorities who have most considered the principles on which the Constitution of England is founded, are on his side. Is this assertion correct? I could quote, if it were necessary, the opinions of Mr. Pitt, delivered at a period when age had matured his experience; I could quote the opinions of Mr. Burke, of Mr. Wyndham, of Mr. Canning. Can the noble Earl mention the names of any men who united with greater talents greater knowledge of human nature, or a more intimate acquaintance with the workings of human society? Whatever may be their future destiny, at least these nomination boroughs are well entitled to a funeral eulogy. It is through them that all those persons who have made a distinguished figure in Parliament have found their way into it, either on their first entrance, or at some subsequent period of their lives. This is no slight recommendation of such boroughs, unless you can shew that the road into Parliament under the new Bill will not be far more difficult of access to men in their circumstances. Besides, these boroughs have often proved a valuable safeguard against the domineering influence, sometimes of the Crown, sometimes of the people, and have thus prevented collisions between the two Houses of Parliament. They form one of those instances which prove the soundness of Mr. Fox's historical philosophy, when he stated that the practice of the Constitution was admirable, but its theory defective and absurd. The noble Earl is now endeavouring to bring back the Constitution to that theory which his great political prototype declared to be defective

1153
and absurd, whilst he is throwing away all the advantages of that practice which he so much admired.
It is now an old story, and though it may not be ungrateful to your Lordships' ears, I am afraid that, when my words find their way abroad, it will not be very grateful to the ears of some people out of doors—it is now an old story, that we ought not to make great changes in our Constitution, because, in point of fact, it works well. The time was, when this eulogium sounded well in the ears of Englishmen. It has been repeated in all quarters of the world, it has been proclaimed by historians, philosophers, and politicians, and echoed by the people of England. But now we have become accustomed to be addressed in a different strain. "You fancy yourselves," say the orators of the day—"you fancy yourselves a great, and happy, and glorious people, but you are wofully mistaken; you are a wretched, an impoverished, and an ill-governed people; you are suffering so universally under your present system of misgovernment, that if you leave one stone standing of that fabric which you falsely suppose to have given you shelter and protection for so many years, it will crumble on your heads, and detroy you amidst its ruins.
The principle and object of this Bill are, to make the Constitution more democratic. Look to the consequences. When that assembly, which has already become the chief governing power of the state, attains to be not only the governing power, but the government itself, and suffers itself to be guided by other assemblies of another description, such as have recently been formed in the north, and especially at Birmingham—when these come with their directions for our conduct thundering over our heads; what, I ask, will be the kind of government then presiding over the interests of the country? What is it that we are to expect from a Legislative Assembly so constituted and so directed? The people, I know, have been told that they will have cheaper bread; and it is assumed by some that we shall have fewer taxes. Weak and miserable delusion! After all the successful efforts* of the noble
* Since the peace, taxes to the amount of 31,350,000 l. have been repealed: 4,050 offices, of which the income was 701,000 l., have also been abolished; and yet the House of Commons is to suffer an universal change, because
1154
Duke and his predecessors, strenuously supported by the House of Commons, as at present constituted, to lighten the burthens of the State—efforts which, in some instances, I am inclined to think were carried too far; after all the further attempts made by the present Administration to gather gleanings from a field which had been so fully reaped, is it not a weak and miserable delusion to say that, be the assembly as democratical as it may, it can materially reduce the present amount of taxation? Yes, a House of Commons elected under this Bill could, and I have little doubt would, reduce taxation,—but at what cost?—by the sacrifice of the good faith, the security, and the happiness, of the country.
Now, as to war—for war is another point on which the supporters of this measure have attempted to delude the people. Under the government of a democratical assembly, we are told that we shall have no wars. No wars, indeed! Is then all history a fable? Where is the democratical State which was not the most warlike of all the States around it? Look at the history of our own country, and then say whether the passion for war has decreased among the people as their institutions have become more liberal, and their form of government more popular. But why will there not be wars? Because it is said that Parliament has hitherto entered into wars against the inclination of the people. Now, the Revolution is the period since which the popular voice has been most loudly heard in Parliament. Look, then, at the war which immediately followed it. Perhaps that is one of the cases of the most doubtful kind. I ask whether we are confident that a Parliament reformed on such a plan as that which is now before us, would have supported William against James? From what we know of those times, I think it doubtful whether this reformed Parliament would have supported such a war: but surely that the then Parliament did support that war will not be made a ground of accusation against it by those who call themselves friends of the liberties of the country. Again, let us look at the war of 1741: that war was actually forced upon the Government by the people. I am not certain as to the feelings of the country at the beginning of
it is the indiscriminate supporter of taxation and corruption.—[Sic. Orig.]

1155
the war of 1756, but I know that that war was successful in its progress, and, therefore, was highly popular. Then came the war with America. No man can doubt, that, at its commencement, and for a considerable period, it was the war not of Parliament alone, but of the country. It grew unpopular at last, because it was unsuccessful; and I do not deny that that war was then carried on, after it had ceased to be popular, in consequence of the excessive influence possessed by the Crown in the House of Commons. That influence was then as great as in the time of Sir Robert Walpole, when about 200 Members were, as is well known, subject to it; whereas, it is indisputable that the Crown cannot now command the support of one-third of that number. In the first French war, opinions were certainly divided; but in the second, by far the most expensive, the feelings of the country were so much in accordance with those of an unreformed Parliament, that, as far as I recollect, not more than one petition for peace was presented during its whole course. There can, therefore, be no ground for presuming that a reformed Parliament would not have supported it. I contend, therefore, that the experience of this country, since the Revolution, when its freedom was secured on a firm foundation, proves that the people have more frequently encouraged the Government in war, than compelled it to refrain. So much for the question of war.
Notwithstanding all the practical benefits which are, as I believe, secured by the present construction of the House of Commons, it is, I admit, one of the parts of the Constitution, the advantages of which are not so easily perceived by minds unaccustomed to political speculations, whilst its alleged defects and anomalies can be made palpable to the most uninformed understanding. I therefore feel much like the noble Earl who has just sat down, that at this period, when attacks of so serious a nature are made upon the Constitution, and appear to produce so deep an impression upon the country, I ought, though not satisfied that the present system is perfect, to hesitate before I consent to changes which, made at such a moment, may be made too hastily, and too extensively. While I say this, I am ready to declare that I am so far a reformer that, under existing circumstances, I should not object to such a revisal of a
1156
part of our present system, as should both diminish the number of those places, which experience has proved to be most exposed to bribery and corruption, and the number of other places of which the odium now counterbalances, if it does not outweigh, the advantages. The noble Earl has urged the necessity of granting Representatives to the great towns which have lately risen into importance. On that part of the subject I agree with him. I am no new convert to the doctrine—for, never has an occasion arisen (and there have been a few in my time), for a transfer of the franchise from a convicted borough to a large town, in which I have not given my support to the proposal; nor have confined my support to votes in this House; but I have strongly and frequently pressed the necessity of the measure elsewhere. For a considerable time, even when the subject of Reform was much in agitation, it did not appear that, on the part of these towns, there was any strong impression that their interests would be materially advanced by having Representatives. That feeling seems to me to have now taken an opposite direction. Though, therefore, I may doubt whether their interests have actually suffered from the want of direct Representation, or would be better attended to by having Representatives of their own, than now when they are virtually represented by means of those mercantile men who sit for small boroughs, I am fully prepared to yield to the wish which those great towns have expressed. Indeed, I see no objection to its gratification, but the objection to change itself.
I agree with the noble Duke, that no system has ever been proposed, least of all the present Bill, which affords the prospect of working as well as that which has hitherto existed; but I feel that ground alone to be no longer tenable. I should support, therefore, even a considerable change, because I think that it is not enough for a country to be well governed, unless the majority of that part of the population, in any degree capable of judging, are satisfied that it is well governed. Do not misunderstand me. I think that much of the power of a Government everywhere, rests on the confidence of the people; and if that confidence be shaken, be the Government in reality good or bad, it is the interest and duty of the Government to take such reasonable measures as suggest themselves to recover that confidence,

1157
and assure its continuance. That, however, is not to be done by changing at once the whole constitution of the House of Commons. Whenever such a change is proposed (and such a change, I think, is now proposed) I must resist it, in the hope that the quiet good sense of the people of England will recover from its present delusion; and, however indignant they may at first be with those who dare to oppose such crude and perilous suggestions, I am sure they will soon return to their old feelings of love and respect for those who perform only their duty in arresting the wildness of the popular career.
I do not wish to follow the noble Earl into the details of this Bill; but I think, if it were, a Bill fit to go into Committee, that some of the objectionable parts of its details (if we can talk of anything in this Bill as a detail) are capable of correction. But shall I, on that ground, consent to its going into Committee? I think not, if I am satisfied, that the principle of the measure is bad. I believe the principle on which the whole of this Bill is founded to be such, that no amendments made in the Committee can so remove the objections to it as to make it our duty to pass it into a law. I confess, that there was a short period in which I flattered myself, that some amendments could he proposed which would render this Bill, if not a boon to the country, at least a measure of less dangerous import than I now consider it. I set to work—I made the attempt—I put my hand to it, but I found it impossible to proceed, and I awoke from my delusion. I was met at every step by the principle which I considered so objectionable—the principle, that population, taken by itself, must be the basis of Representation. It is said, How can it be so, when the Bill requires that, in each borough, there should be at least 300 voters composed of a class of persons renting 10 l. houses? But is it not so, when a place containing a population of 2,000 persons, on the ground of numbers alone, retains one member, and a population of 4,000, on that ground alone, retains two Members? These Members they would respectively retain, even were the whole population composed of paupers. If these places do not possess the requisite amount of qualified voters, a pack of Commissioners is set loose to hunt for the complement, in the neighbourhood, and in some cases at the distance of many
1158
miles; so that the constituency, to any extent, might be composed of strangers. However small, therefore, may be the proportion which the borough itself is able to contribute to the required constituency, still its claim to be represented in Parliament is admitted solely upon the ground of its population. If this be not to take population as the basis of Representation, I know not what can be so. In that part of the Bill which gives additional Members to counties, the selection is guided by population alone. Here, at least, there can be no room for dispute. Population, therefore, taken by itself, is, according to this Bill, the basis of Representation. I will not go into the argument, whether that is, or is not, the best basis; but I believe, that in no country, except the United States, has the experiment ever been tried. Even in the wildest times of the French Republic, population and taxation combined were considered as the essential basis of the system of Representation. But, if population alone is to be taken—if you set out on that principle, and hope to find a resting-place from attempts at future changes, which is one of your grand arguments in favour of this sweeping measure, you will assuredly be mistaken. If you do adopt that principle, you ought to follow it out consistently. Has that been done here? You will indeed find great difficulty in fixing the line, and that is a reason why you should not adopt the principle at all. But if you do adopt it, what reason can you give to the towns now unrepresented, which have a population below 10,000, but much beyond that of a great number of those boroughs which retain one or two Representatives, why they should not be admitted to any share of the elective franchise—towns, too, which have not only the claim of numbers, but possess in themselves the required constituency? Why are the towns having a population of between 10,000, and 20,000, to have only one Member, when one is to be returned by boroughs having only 2,000, and two by those which have only 4,000? Why are towns, with a population of 100,000, and a number of qualified voters, amounting almost to universal suffrage, to be contented with the same share in the Representation as boroughs of 4,000, which must eke out their scanty proportion of such voters, by calling in the inhabitants of adjoining or not adjoining dis-

1159
tricts? These questions are endless; these anomalies are innumerable. I am to be told, I suppose, that the present mode of Representation is full of anomalies. This is one ground of complaint. But how does this Bill remove it? Can the varieties now existing be correctly called anomalies? In order to have anomalies, you must first have a principle. But it is our pride that, in the formation of our Constitution, no principle of abstract theory was consulted. It is the result of the wisdom of successive generations, acting upon no system, but governing themselves by the different circumstances in which at various times they were placed. They made such changes as the circumstances of society required, but in making them they did not adopt any regular plan.
I say, therefore, that my objection is to the principle of this Bill. There is no ground whatever for supposing, that the towns which you have retained or selected are more fit to send Members to Parliament than many others which yon have left out. That is my first objection, and you may hope in vain to give satisfaction by thus establishing, by an Act of Parliament, what, according to your own principles, is unjust. Let me add, that if you establish the Representation solely on the basis of population, I do not know what you will be able to say to the claims of Ireland. We, who oppose that principle, should have answers enough—we could say, that they did not pay a sufficient amount of taxation. That was the principle adopted by Mr. Pitt, who left only a Representation to those boroughs in Ireland in which the greatest amount of population and taxation were found to be united. I wish any noble Lord, who supports the Bill, to tell me what answer he could give. I know that no answer can be given to the agitators there, for nothing will satisfy them; but I think, that no answer can be given by the supporters of the Bill to those who fairly wish to see the Representation of the two countries placed upon the same footing.
I have another objection to the Bill. I think that, though the noble Earl did state reasons, good or bad, why the boroughs in schedule A or B should be wholly or in part disfranchised, why Representatives should be given to the large manufacturing towns, and why some should be added to the extensive counties, he has entirely omitted to state any reasons for
1160
destroying the elective franchise, not only in the places included in schedule B, but in every city and borough against which no complaint has been brought forward. We know what they have produced—what sort of Representatives they have sent to Parliament—and yet there is no one place, with the exception of the two Universities, in which a single right of election has been left unchanged. Although I do not assert that the species of property which exists in boroughs is to be considered as property, in the strictest sense of the term, yet I think that every right of that sort ought lo be most lightly touched, and not touched at all without some strong reason, and without a fair prospect of affording to those whom you compel to part with it, the advantage of improved government and all the compensation which that advantage can secure. Now with respect to the rights of voting in all these boroughs, whether exercised by corporations close or open—by liverymen, freemen, freeholders, burgage-holders, potwallopers, scot-and-lot payers, in short, all that infinite variety of electors, which I believe sincerely, in the working of the Constitution, has produced the best consequences to the State—I find that they are all to be swept away at once sub silentio, and as a matter of course, and swept away too, without, as I see, or am even told, on any rational grounds, securing the advantages of permanent good government. These are all to be abrogated, and in their place is to be substituted one universal right, of which we can have no experience, as it does not, I believe, exist in any one city or borough throughout the kingdom.
There is another objection I have to the Bill, and that is, the enormous number of persons it will introduce to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. I ask whether that is a trifle?—where is the example for it?—where is the country that has even the same number as we have now? Look to France, which has just been regenerated: France, which has been regenerated upon a democratic principle, had not, I believe more than 80,000 voters; and now the democratic party seems to have been satisfied with an increase which makes the total number of voters about 200,000. But France, my Lords, contains, if I am not mistaken, 32,000,000 of inhabitants; yet there her liberals thought that a constituency of 200,000 made the country sufficiently democratic. Here we

1161
have only 12,000,000 inhabitants, and yet we have—I cannot exactly state the number—but something between 400,000 and 500,000 voters; in addition to which, it is now proposed by this Bill to create half a million. Thus are we, with our 12,000,000 of inhabitants to have 1,000,000 of voters; while democratic France, with her 32,000,000 of inhabitants, is content with about 200,000 electors. My Lords, I think that, with respect to the inconvenience which must arise from this enormous increase in the constituent body, no man can venture to express a doubt. Whether there maybe provisions, hereafter, to obviate this inconvenience I know not; but of this I am certain, that so great is the influx—so great the accession of new voters, that it is impossible it should not be attended with confusion and disorder.
My Lords, the anomalies of the Constitution have been much insisted on, and the evils under which the country is stated to labour have been forcibly portrayed; but where has the noble Earl found out the panacea for all evils—the universal medicine—to be substituted for the wholesome diet by which England has been so long nourished, by which she has grown, and on which she has thriven? He has found it in the intelligence and independence of one class of voters—in one class alone—governing in all places and in all parts of the country. Formerly, my Lords, we were in the habit of considering that a variety of electors was good, because thereby an opportunity was afforded for men of different habits, occupations, and situations in life, to find their way into the House of Commons. The noble Baron (Holland) will perhaps, remember a pamphlet which was written by a person high in his confidence, and with a view of giving some advice to the Cortes of Spain. I concurred, my Lords, with many of the observations which I found in that pamphlet; and I particularly agreed with the recommendation not to create a uniform mode of election, or a uniform right of voting throughout the country. They too, my Lords, who think an equality in the suffrage desirable (I confess my Lords, I am not of that number) might with justice object to this measure, the effect which it must have in different places—in some creating, Universal Suffrage, and in others (I wish they were numerous) leaving a small but an ample number of qualified electors.
1162
If I am told that this last objection is inconsistent with the other, and that I cannot therefore maintain them both, my reply is this.—It is true that the uniformity of qualification will not, in all cases, owing to the unequal value of property in densely and thinly-peopled districts, confer the I franchise on the same class; but this very admission, so far from invalidating one or other of the objections, affords the best illustration of the impolicy of the proposition itself; since the qualification will be virtually lowered where every prudent Statesman would wish to raise it, and raised where it might, perhaps, with comparative safety, descend still lower.
My Lords, there are some omissions in the speech of the noble Earl which I regret, and of which I think this House and the country have some reason to complain. The noble Earl has entirely left out of consideration what I, in my ignorance, thought the real, the great problem for a Statesman to consider, when about to construct a Legislative Assembly. The first question which I should have thought it necessary to ask myself, and to answer at least to my own satisfaction, and, as far as I was able, to that of others, is this:—By what mode of election is an assembly fit to govern the country most likely to be procured? I should have thought that looking to history and experience, would have been the best way to qualify men to become judges of what was in truth the best Constitution. But history and experience have been thrown aside. To an individual like me, I allow it might be remarked, "You do not seek for the best Constitution for the country, because you say, this which you now enjoy is decidedly the best." But still there is a question fit to be asked and answered, and it is this. When the clauses of your Bill come into operation, what will be the sort of persons elected by the populous places in which there is a constituency of many thousands—a constituency not merely paying 10 l. per annum, but 3s. 10 d. per week—composed not of householders only, but of as many lodgers at that rate as each House may contain? What probability is there that these electors would be guided in their choice by that sound judgment which upon such an occasion, ought to prevail? If too I am told, that a very numerous constituency will really be a cure for bribery, I ask you to look to Dublin and to Liverpool. I ask you to remember Westminster, when West-

1163
minster was contested, and then to tell me if it did not, on both sides, present a scene of the grossest bribery? Ought not then the noble Earl, before he decided on so enormous an increase to the existing number of electors, to have paused, and considered, and asked himself whether, if his desire were to procure good Members of Parliament, he was likely to produce such a result by the adoption of such means?—whether it was probable that such a constituency would be directed by motives which would lead them to make the best selection? It has been said, that such persons are bad judges of measures, but that they are good judges of men. This I believe to be a fallacy; although I have more than once heard it brought forward by good authorities. When you say these people are good judges of men, it is meant they are good judges of the conduct of men. What is the conduct of a public man? How is it to be estimated? Simply by his opinions or votes upon certain great measures. In order then to judge rightly of the man, they should be capable of judging of the measures themselves. Now this is the very proposition which is denied. But, my Lords, when I assert, that universal popular Representation is not the best mode of securing good Members of Parliament, do I wish it to be excluded on this account? No; I rejoice that popular franchise has formed a part of the constituency of this country. I rejoice in it, because it has tended to give the people that exalted idea of their own freedom which distinguishes them from the nations of other countries, because it has given them an interest in the affairs of the State, and fostered, in all classes, even the most humble, a spirit of pure patriotism. There is not, therefore, one place in which popular Representation prevails, from which I would take the franchise.
But with a constituency universally popular, and with the fear of a contested election hanging over their heads, how large a number of Members will act as mere delegates? With the mere prospect of such a system, how many act so already? How completely will then be forgotten that great constitutional principle, the principle which covered and corrected all our anomalies—that when once a man set his feet in the House of Commons, he was the Representative, not of the place which sent him, but of the
1164
people of England! Whenever any popular excitement takes place at the time of a general election, will not nearly the whole House represent only the temporary opinion and passions of a majority in the country, leaving the minority, however respectable in intelligence, property, or numbers, almost without an organ? With such an assembly, fluctuating, as it must do, with every variation of a breeze, which may blow by turns from every point of the compass, what will become of stability, the great element of social and political happiness? Will this be a government for which the noble Earl himself will tell us that we ought to exchange our own?
If the Bill were to leave all these 150 boroughs nearly in the state in which it found them, it would be something in its favour. But among the many reasons for which I oppose it, there is this above all—that I object to altering any one of the ancient franchises of the realm without assigning a good and sufficient reason. While I confess that there are certain portions of the existing system which are liable to condemnation, I do so most reluctantly; and I deeply regret that the noble Lord should have felt no such reluctance—should have been restrained by no fear, lest his sweeping condemnation of the whole should lead the people to the belief that there was not one part of the Constitution which should remain unchanged. The dreadful effect to be apprehended from this universal change is, that it must unsettle the minds of men as regards the whole system. If we say to the people, all the rights of such and such classes of persons, heretofore voters, are to be sacrificed, and this without deigning to assign any reason, what must be their feelings? Will they not say, as soon as their highly-raised expectations of compensating benefits shall have met with the unfailing disappointment that awaits them—"The Government which sacrifices the rights of its subjects is not that under which we wish to live, and Parliament itself is no longer entitled to our respect and obedience?"
But what is the compensation offered by the noble Earl for this indisputable evil?—the purity of election. Will then these boroughs, which are to have from three to four hundred electors, be secure from the influence of corruption? I have always understood, on the contrary, that boroughs of that description were precisely those in

1165
which there was the most direct and the grossest bribery, because men could, by a small sum of money, secure a majority, and on that account always sought those places as affording the cheapest way by which they could get into Parliament. Now, if this be the case, do you expect to attain the end you propose to yourselves, by increasing fourfold, as your Bill will do, the number of places in which a constituency thus limited will offer the same temptation?
Again, too, I would ask the noble Earl, what sort of Parliament can he hope to have under the operation of his Reform Bill? We have heard of a Parliament which acquired the title of Parliamentum indoctum. I fear that, under the circumstances to which I have alluded, a good claim to this enviable designation might be once more set forth.
Is it not essential to the deliberations of the House of Commons upon the public affairs of India, that persons should find admission into that assembly, whom long residence in that country has furnished with knowledge derived from experience? How are such men, estranged as they are from home, to procure a seat under this Bill, except by bribery? how are the West-Indian and Colonial interests to be represented? Some men connected with commerce and manufactures may, it is true, become the Representatives of commercial and manufacturing towns, unless they be supplanted by some noisy demagogue, whom they are deterred from opposing; by the salutary fear of having their persons endangered, and their houses burned down by the mob. But will the House of Commons be, as at present, an Assembly representing all the great interests of the country—all the great interests of the empire at large? Will it possess all the information necessary to manage all the complicated affairs which frequently come before them, without the aid of professional men—without the presence of his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, and other eminent lawyers, to correct those mistakes into which a want of legal knowledge must infallibly lead a Legislative Assembly? For how are these persons to be returned? how can they, consistently with their attention to a profession so laborious, devise means of entering that House, except, as in the other case, by bribery; unless, indeed, they have obtained, in some way or other, political notoriety?
1166
Let the noble Lord answer me this. Not only lawyers would be for the most part excluded from that House, but others who, perhaps, formed its most useful Members, but whose fortune, whose constitution, whose habits, all forbid them to face the expense, the trouble, and the ferment of a popular election. I ask the noble Lord, how are such men to come in? If all these classes be not excluded, will not the avenue for their entrance into Parliament be extremely narrowed?
Again, how do the noble Earl and his friends expect to be able to carry on the public business in the House of Commons, if the present Bill pass into a law? Will they promise to themselves, and to all their successors, such an inheritance of unvarying popularity as always to be placed in Parliament whenever their constituents are appealed to? Will they not, by the introduction of this measure, have subjected themselves and their successors to the sudden impulses of popular feeling—impulses which they must either instantly obey, or which may as suddenly drive them from office? The measure is akin to that by which the salaries of the great officers of the State have been reduced. The possession of wealth, my Lords, has not hitherto been, and I trust it will never be, an indispensable qualification for the higher offices of the State. The measure to which I allude is odiously aristocratical. By reducing the salaries of the great officers of the State, you leave the offices open only to the possessors of wealth; you narrow the choice of the Crown; you deprive the country of the power of calling into its service the most useful and the most brilliant talent which it possesses. The presence in the House of Commons, not only of the higher officers of Government, but of many persons in subordinate offices, is extremely useful—and, as well as that of the former, almost indispensable. Should this Bill pass, and all boroughs with a small constituency, and under private influence, be swept away, by what means can they gain a seat? How will they be able to bear the expenses of a contested election? How will they have gained sufficient popularity to command the suffrage of the people? If they are to come in at all, it must be by bribery out of the purse of government.
Another question, too, I have to ask the noble Earl, and I trust my doing so will not be considered as admitting that

1167
your Lordships have a peculiar interest in opposing this Bill. If we have any interest in this particular, it is only in common with the nation at large—I mean the possibility of your Lordships introducing your eldest sons into Parliament. I ask the noble Lord how is this, except in a few instances, to be effected under the Reform Bill? And I ask, if there is to be a House of Lords, is it not fit that it should be able to display that knowledge which must be laboriously acquired, and that talent which is matured by the habits of exertion? My Lords, I have heard many celebrated Members of your Lordships' House, during the fifty years to which my memory extends, but I cannot recollect more than ten men who have taken a distinguished part in your Lordships' debates, who had not had their schooling in the House of Commons. It is not that this is beneficial in exercising their talent as speakers alone, but it gives them an opportunity of learning how to transact the public business; and what is, perhaps, more important still than anything else they can there learn, they are brought into contact with their fellow-subjects, and with popular bodies. They are thus taught to feel and appreciate English liberty and English independence, which, born as they are to hereditary honours, and, in most cases, to hereditary wealth, might be less present to their minds and less powerful in actuating their conduct, than if they never had been elsewhere—than if they had breathed no other atmosphere but that of your Lordships' House. I would not, however, give this as a reason why you should not pass the Bill, were not the country, in my conscientious judgment, equally interested with your Lordships, on this and on other accounts, in its rejection.
I have yet another question to ask the noble Earl. I should be glad to know if he really believes that a body, constituted after the manner he proposes for his new Parliament, would assist his Government in carrying into effect their views on what are called liberal principles? Can he think so, when it is more than probable, that if we had had a Constitution framed upon a model similar to that now before us, the people would still have been labouring under a multitude of those taxes which were imposed in the ignorance of former times, and entangled in all those trammels of commercial and financial law with which society was formerly embar-.
1168
rassed. I ask the noble Earl, would the great measure of Catholic Emancipation have been passed by a Parliament so reformed? I do not believe that it would. On all these points, my Lords, I offer my conjectures: the noble Earl has not offered his; I beg, therefore, that we may hear from him (or from some of the noble Lords near him), his conjectures respecting the matters to which I have adverted. But when I have heard them, shall I be satisfied that your Lordships should pass the Bill? Are your Lordships prepared to make an entire change in the whole Representative system, simply upon the conjectures of the noble Earl? No; this is my objection—I oppose any measure which proposes to alter every thing. Amend it as you may—leave uninjured all the ancient rights, which are so wantonly to be destroyed, simply directing you disfranchisement against those boroughs which are incontestably nomination boroughs. Ought we to be satisfied? Would Ministers stand blameless? No; the injury is irremediable—I do not speak of passing, but of proposing, a plan of universal demolition and universal re-construction. Your Lordships may prevent some portion of the evils which would otherwise result, by not permitting the Bill to pass into a law; but neither you, nor the might of man, can revoke the mischief of proposing it. The Ministers have done what no Ministers ever ought to do—they have brought forward a measure which it may be almost equally dangerous to adopt or to reject. The noble Earl may pride himself—very justly pride himself—upon the distinguished powers of mind and of language which he has ever displayed as a Member of the Legislature. Through a long political life I have had the misfortune generally to differ from him, yet I respect his motives and admire his talents. But even had those talents been employed in guiding the vessel of the State through the sea of troubles on which it was embarked, and not in obstructing the measures of those who, with whatever difficulty and expense, have still successfully steered it through such tempests as never before assailed a country at any period of the history of the civilized world, still, however great the benefits which might have resulted from such an exercise of his talents, the single act of proposing this Bill would, in my opinion, go far to cancel all our obligations to him. I say this, my Lords, more in

1169
sorrow than in bitterness. I never was, or could be, a rival to the noble Earl—when he accepted office I was not his political enemy. I wished, certainly, that the strength of the noble Duke's Government should have been made sufficient to enable him to remain in power, but, finding this not to be the case, I heard with pleasure that the noble Earl was advanced to the station which he now holds. He knows that it was my wish to support him. I trusted not in the Mr. Grey of 1793, but in the Earl Grey of 1830. I trusted him then, and I still believe in his sincerity, much as I distrust his political discernment, when he declares that, in proposing this most sweeping measure of Reform and confiscation, he believes that he is not proposing anything beyond, or at variance with, the expressions in his Majesty's Speech. My interpretation of these expressions is far different. I see nothing in them to justify the principle or the main portion of the Bill.
The situation of the noble Earl, when he assumed the chief station in the Government, was one which (if, in tunes like these, the possession of high office could produce that feeling) was an object of peculiar envy. He had it in his power to confer great and permanent good upon his country. He was placed on a lofty eminence between two contending parties—those who wished to change everything, and those who wished to change nothing. He might have introduced a measure which would have satisfied as large a portion of those who can be satisfied with anything as this Bill can possibly satisfy, and he might have reconciled to Reform a large proportion of those who are dissatisfied with the present Bill. He might have secured the valuable support of many of those who are called the conservative party, and might have induced them to rally round his standard. He might have stood, as it were, between the living and the dead, and in my conscience I believe he might have stayed the plague. Instead of this, he has chosen to follow the example of the Roman Tribune:—'pollicitus toti ferè Italiæ civitatem, 'omnibus statum concupiscentibus, summa imis miscuit, et in præruptum atque anceps 'periculum adduxit rempublicam.'
What is now the state in which the noble Earl has placed himself and his country? It is, I repeat it, more in sorrow than in bitterness that I speak. I
1170
well remember, that when, in another House of Parliament, where the noble Earl and myself were sitting at the same time, he was taking measures and using language which Mr. Pitt thought betrayed too strong a leaning towards the principles of those who were then called Radicals—he warned him—a warning which the noble Earl may still remember—against any connection with a party of which he would himself become one of the first victims, because it was equally hostile to talent and to virtue. I think that what the noble Earl is now doing, will, contrary to his intention, give a degree of strength to that party which he will never be able to control. My authorities are the leaders of that party. They say, "We support this Bill, not because we are satisfied, but because, if a change to this extent be once effected, the rest of our work is easy. If the chariot be once set in motion at this pace, it must, by its own momentum, be hurried down the precipice." Do you believe them, or do you not? Do you doubt their intentions? That is strange incredulity, indeed, in defiance of their own declarations. Do you doubt their power? I so far doubt it, that I believe, should matters come to a crisis, their power would be broken by the result of a collision with a Government really determined to do its duty.
My Lords, omitting almost every thing of detail, and without discussing for a moment the manner in which the measure is proposed to be carried into execution, I have now, however imperfectly, stated my objections to the principles of this measure, and I do not think that it would be consistent with my duty to myself, your Lordships, and my country, to give my vote for the second reading. The noble Earl, however, tells us that this Bill, as it now stands, or something equally efficient, must pass. Now, no Bill equally efficient can be brought in, which does not carry the work both of destruction and of creation as far as this Bill, for nothing short of that will, strickly speaking, deserve the title of equally efficient. What hope, then, have we of doing any good by proposing amendments in Committee? The door is closed. It is true that, in another place, the Government said they were prepared to adopt any amendment which did not materially interfere with the principle of the Bill. But how did they redeem that pledge? Not a single amendment did

1171
they consent to, except some pitiful trifle, which in very shame they could not reject, save upon one occasion, when an important amendment was carried against them by a majority of their own friends—an amendment of which the noble Earl does not approve.
But the noble Earl says, that the people at large are for the Bill. If that be so, who can wonder at it? The noble Earl has spoken much of bribery; but, I ask him, was there ever, in the records of history, a bribery to the extent of that offered by this Bill, in the shape of an elective franchise to 500,000 persons? It declares a certain class of persons to be the sole electors of every city and borough in the kingdom. Thus a bribe is directly given to that class of persons to support the Bill. You ask 500,000 persons whether they choose to have, nay, to monopolize, political power? Who could expect any other answer than what was given? But even with all this, while I admit the general feeling to be still in favour of a change, and perhaps no small change, in the constitution of the House of Commons, I must declare, that I do not see any symptoms of the people being as decidedly in favour of the Bill now before your Lordships as they were when they knew little of it. It is true that petitions have been presented, and I wish at all times to treat petitioners with respect: they have aright to be heard and to be attended to; but when they come before us, we must consider the nature of the subject on which they address us. If it should happen to be a subject of so great, and difficult, and complicated a nature, that even persons of the highest talent, the highest information, and the highest wisdom, possessing, moreover, that knowledge of the mind and heart of man which alone can make a good politician, approach with awe a matter of such mighty import, and, after applying themselves to its consideration, are involved in embarrassment, and remain to the last doubtful of the propriety of the decisions to which they come; may we not, with all respect for the persons who send us those petitions, doubt whether they can, by possibility, be qualified to judge, to advise, much less to dictate upon it?
The petitions in favour of this measure come chiefly, but not exclusively (for there are many from the classes above them, and still more from the classes below them), from those persons to whom
1172
the bribe is given—from the 10 l. voters; and although I admit that this class in England, and particularly since the schoolmaster has been abroad, are more intelligent and better able to form a correct judgment upon such subjects, than persons of the same rank in life in any other nation in the world, yet, as they are for the most part employed, for the largest portion of their time, in the various necessary occupations from which they derive their support;—unless they are gifted with an intuitive power of acquiring knowledge, which does not reach the higher orders, and those who have more leisure and better opportunities to learn, they can hardly be capable of forming such a judgment upon the principle and details of so great and complicated a measure, as shall preclude us from the exercise of ours. What can most of them really know about the Bill, except that it gives them votes?—and votes are good things. But then they are told it will give them cheap bread. A demagogue presents himself to them with a red cap upon a pole, and two loaves of bread, one large and the other small, saying, "if you vote for such a candidate, you will have the large loaf; but if for the other candidate, you can only have the small one." Thus are they deluded—thus played upon by the excitement of fallacious expectations, and by the exertions of a Press which has been sufficiently characterized by the noble Earl (Winchilsea), to render it unnecessary for me to say one word respecting it. Can we wonder, then, that they are in favour of the Bill, the only measure of Reform now before them, although it is obvious that not one in a thousand of them can have read it, and that, if that one can fully comprehend it, he has done more than myself, and I believe most of your Lordships, have been able to do.
The petitions of these persons deserve, no doubt, serious consideration; but I have yet to learn that either this or the other House of Parliament is bound, under the penalty of being cashiered, to follow implicitly any other guide than that of its own deliberate judgment, after full argument and discussion. If that be not so, why sit we here? If we sit here merely to register the orders of the House of Commons, and if the Commons sit in St. Stephen's merely to register the orders of the Northern Unions and the Birmingham Association, how long will it be before

1173
we, in the first place, and the House of Commons in the next, shall be called upon to give up even the semblance of deliberation? Nay more—how long will it be before the Throne itself is considered as an useless and expensive pageant?
Again I say, that I deeply regret that so universal a change in the constitution of the House of Commons has been proposed. Man is the creature of habit rather than of principle; his affections fasten to that which he is accustomed to. Hitherto the people of England have been warmly attached to the existing system, though not blind to its partial defects; but this proposition tends for ever to alienate them from the whole. Is it nothing to alter, almost without assigning a reason, and hardly mentioning it as a part of the provisions of the Bill, the constituency of at least 150 boroughs to whom the privilege of electing Representatives is wholly or in part continued, abrogating rights almost coeval with the Constitution itself, and against the exercise of which no complaint is made? Is it nothing to abolish, or, at least, lo deprive of all political power, every Corporation in the kingdom, whether close or open? Those who know the history of their country must be aware that they were the first foundation, and the main instrument of the establishment of our liberty. In my opinion, they not only have had, but still have their uses. They naturally create a great variety of local attachments, of local objects of ambition: they endear a man to the place of his nativity; and when a man feels an interest in the place where he was born, he extends that feeling to the whole country. What is, moreover, this 10 l. qualification which is considered by Ministers as giving a sufficient proof of the capacity of the possessor to judge of the merits of candidates, and as being so decidedly superior to all other qualifications, that they have substituted that, and that alone, for all the varied rights of voting which previously existed? It is precisely the qualification which gives a settlement in a parish, and entitles the man who has possessed it to apply for parochial relief.
Then it is asked, what do you hope for by resisting the second reading of this Bill? In the first place, there is always something to hope for, when a man, or a body of men, feel that they are acting without private interest, without bias,
1174
without prejudice, and according to what they conceive to be the dictates of their duty. If that, generally speaking, be true, is there a body upon earth upon whom the pursuit of such a course is more peculiarly incumbent than upon ourselves? We are, whatever we may be called, whether a House of Peers, or a Senate, whether a First Chamber or a Second Chamber, we are a co-ordinate House of Legislation with one directly issuing from the people. What is the peculiar privilege and the peculiar duty of such a body? When any measure is presented to us, the adoption of which we apprehend to be pregnant with danger to the community, however strongly that measure may be pressed upon us by the House of Commons, or by the people, it is our primary duty to exercise the privilege which the Constitution has conferred upon us, and to give the country time to reconsider the step which we conceive to be dangerous. Undoubtedly, my Lords, I would rather do this in the present instance, after having tried the practicability of introducing important amendments into the Bill, were it not that, for the reasons which I have already stated, I consider any such trial as hopeless.
We are told by the noble Earl that we have no option but to take the Bill as it is—to adopt at once a proposition which is to consign us and our posterity to a new form of government, which no one has ever ventured to tell us would be practicable, and which, if it were practicable, would, in my opinion, be pernicious. If we take it at all, we must take it precisely in the shape and form in which it has been presented to us—for, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, it is not liable to change. To this decree I cannot bow. I Can, indeed, conceive a measure so framed as to secure all the beneficial results which are anticipated from this very Bill, without the hazard of so much mischief. I think that the noble Earl would have acted with more prudence, if he had commenced his Reform at the other end, if he had given Members with his new constituency, but with a higher qualification, to large places, including both wealth and population, and having distinct interests worthy of a separate organ—if he had added to the most important counties some additional Members, with a more extended constituency, and then had made room for them in the House, by disfranchising, either in whole or in part, those

1175
boroughs which stand the lowest in the scale of wealth and population. A measure of this description, though open to many and serious objections, would at least have avoided the adoption of the most dangerous principles of the present Bill—those principles which must carry us much further than the Bill itself; its effects might have been observed, and we should have retained the power of stopping short or of proceeding further, whichever might be found most advisable. To a measure of this description, within proper limits, I, for one, should not refuse my consent, when convinced that the deliberate opinion of the country is decidedly in its favour.
It was my wish to have been able to vote for the second reading of this Bill. My noble friends around me know that I have frequently expressed such a wish; but I trust that it is not necessary for me to appeal to the conversations which I have had with them, in order that what I assert may be believed. I have done all that I possibly could, to bring my mind to consent to the second reading. I have already stated to your Lordships that I had tried my hand at amendments, with a most anxious desire to render it less noxious, and to bring it into some shape in which it might be less unfit to pass—into a shape similar to that of which I have traced the outline—but I found those principles of this Bill, which I have been stating and combating, stare me full in the face at every step, and I was forced to relinquish the task in utter despair of accomplishing it.
I have a full sense of the difficulties and dangers which may attend the decision of your Lordships against the second reading; but I entertain also a full conviction that the responsibility for those difficulties and dangers rests not on us, who are doing our duty by the line of conduct which we pursue, but on those who, unnecessarily and wantonly, have brought things to their present state. Whatever may be the result, I am decidedly of opinion that the country ought to have time to reconsider this great question, and to weigh well the consequences that may attend its decision.
I have witnessed instances of agitation as great as that now existing, which, in 1780, 1793, and 1819, menaced the tranquillity of the country, but in time subsided; and prosperity, order, and content, succeeded to the violence of the storm. I cannot abandon the hope that the same
1176
happy change may take place in the present case, and that this most difficult and important question may be brought, in cooler moments, to a safer solution. I say, my Lords, out of regard to the people, we are bound to give the country time to reconsider the subject. We are bound, even for the sake of the noble Earl himself, to afford him the same opportunity. I do not expect to alter his opinion, nor do I call upon him to retract his words; but (having given a pledge, and that pledge having already been redeemed) after the decision of your Lordships—if that decision should be what I anticipate—he may still avail himself of that which Mr. Burke calls "the great ruler of human affairs"—a compromise between extreme opinions. In effecting such a compromise he may be assured of powerful co-operation, and the allies whom he will gain, though not so numerous, will be of a very different description from many of those whom he may lose.
In conclusion, my Lords, I cannot assent to the second reading of this Bill. I am of opinion that, if it shall pass into a law in its present shape, it will place us under a form of government as different from that under which we have hitherto flourished, as one free constitution can be different from another. I must again repeat my conviction, that the mere proposal of this Bill, with the sanction of the Crown and of the Administration, has thrown the country into a state from which it will never entirely recover. With this opinion, and believing that a deadly blow has been inflicted on the vitals of the Constitution, I cannot consent to be an accomplice in the crime, though perforce I must be a sharer in the punishment.
Viscount Melbournespoke to the following effect:—My Lords, I am most willing to concur with your Lordships in applauding the ability displayed in the eloquent, but I must say miscellaneous and sometimes contradictory speech which we have just heard from my noble friend; although I cannot but think, that much which has fallen from my noble friend might have letter suited a Committee on the Bill than a motion for its second reading. In what fell from my noble friend, in an early part of his speech I entirely agree; namely, that it is incumbent on the various members of his Majesty's Government to explain the grounds on which they support the measure, particularly those who were

1177
formerly unfriendly to Reform, and have recorded their opinions against it, and being myself in this predicament, without that intimation, I should have taken an opportunity of stating the reasons which induce me to vote for the second reading of this Bill. Nay, my Lords, concurring heartily and cordially with my noble friend I at the head of the Government, in now proposing this measure to Parliament, I think it my duty to state at length my reasons for supporting it. To many of the arguments of my noble friend it was impossible for me to listen with any other than a favourable ear; for they are arguments which I have myself urged elsewhere. If ever there was an individual in the country more anxious than another that the affairs of the country might have gone on without our being forced to incur the hazard and responsibility which must result from so great and fundamental a change in the House of Commons, I am that person. That great Philosopher and Statesman, Lord Bacon, says, that the difference between civil affairs and the sciences is, that while in the latter there should be nothing but change and movement, the former should rest for support on authority and reputation. 'Verum in rebus civilibus mutatio etiam in melius (even if the change were for the better) suspecta est ob perturbationem; cum civilia authoritate, consensu, fama, et opinione, non demonstratione nitantur. In artibus autem et scientiis tanquam in metalli fodinis, omnia novis operibus et ulterioribus progressibus circumstrepere debent.' Undoubtedly the perturbation arising from change is to be avoided; but then the other terms of the proposition must be observed. That which it is proposed to change must be supported by authority, consent, reputation, and opinion. If we find that the columns of that support are sapped and falling—if we find that, instead of authority, there is a disrespect for all authority—if we find that, instead of consensus there is dissensus—if we find that, instead of reputation and opinion, there are aversion and repudiation, it is then our duty to look about us, and to consider the dangerous situation in which we are placed; it is then time to propose some change, it is then time to revert to the first principles of the Constitution, that we may repair the edifice which is tottering and crumbling around us. My Lords, we have been told by one of your
1178
Lordships that we ought not to yield to popular opinion, that we ought not to be governed arbitrio popularis aurœ and that it frequently becomes the duty of legislative and Representative bodies, and of all those having authority, to resist the will of the people. I readily admit the truth of that proposition. Else why have a Representative body at all? The wildest democrat in existence, those who assert that all power is derived from the people, would hardly deny the proposition. No man can suppose for one moment that it is the duty of a legislative body to yield to every gust of the popular breath; no man can suppose that in questions involving the immediate petty interests of the people this should be done, much less in making those fundamental changes which affect the whole interests of a great country, and of which the people are necessarily very incompetent judges. But, my Lords, although it may be our duty to resist the will of the people for a time, is it possible to resist it for ever? Have we not in this case resisted it long enough? I say this the more freely, because I have on former occasions been in the foreground in resisting Parliamentary Reform. Night after night have I resisted it in another place, going far beyond some of those who are now adverse to the present measure. Wherever the flag of Parliamentary Reform was hoisted, I ranged myself under the opposite banner; if I did not lift the standard of the constitution and call its supporters to the field, I was always ready to follow it, and went beyond others in repelling every approach to Reform. I always opposed in the other House of Parliament the extension of the elective franchise to Manchester and Birmingham. I look back with great regret to the period when a motion of that kind was last brought before the other House of Parliament, because circumstances connected with that motion deprived the Administration of that day of the services of Mr. Huskisson; I shall never cease to regret them, for I think, and shall, I believe, always think that he was not fairly treated; and that occurrence, I own, first shook my confidence in the noble Duke opposite. On that occasion, however I opposed the transfer of the elective franchise to Birmingham, because in my own heart I knew, that if that I proposition were adopted, it must necessarily lead to a large measure of Reform, like that which is now offered to your

1179
Lordships. For why, my Lords, give the elective franchise to Birmingham and to Manchester? Because they have become great emporiums of commerce, daily increasing in wealth and importance. Because they are full of men of opulence, of spirit, and intelligence, because they have arrived almost at imperial grandeur, and metropolitan magnificence. Such of your Lordships as oppose the Reform Bill, the noble Earl who spoke last, and the noble Earl who preceded him, would give these towns the elective franchise because they have thus increased. But the whole country has so increased, my Lords; and it seems to me, therefore, as almost all your Lordships have given up the idea that there shall be no Reform, to be impossible longer to resist the adoption of the large measure now proposed or one equal to it. The noble Earl recommended us to give time to the people, he said that, on former occasions, when the wishes of the people on this subject, have been resisted, when similar claims were made and denied, everything has returned to a peaceful channel. For a certain time that may be good policy; the argument is plausible but all experience proves, when the wishes of the people are founded on reason and, justice, and when they are consistent with the fundamental principles of the Constitution, that there must come a time when both the legislative and executive powers must yield to the popular voice or be annihilated. Two of the great arguments against the measure are, that Reform is merely used as a weapon of party, and that the popular demand for it is merely a temporary clamour, that springs up whenever any general calamity occurs, and subsides when that calamity is at an end. Admitting both these arguments to be well-founded, would it not be desirable to deprive party of so formidable a weapon? But when your Lordships see that, on every occasion of public calamity and distress, from whatever cause arising, the people call for an alteration in the Representation, and that the call is accompanied with a deep, rankling sense of injustice suffered, and of rights withheld, can your Lordships suppose that, an opinion so continually revived has not some deepseated foundation, and can you be insensible to the danger of continuing a permanent cause for angry and discontented feelings to be revived and renewed at every period of public distress, and public calamity?
1180
Do not, my Lords, be parties to the continuance of this evil, if I must not say this great injustice. What constituted the great danger which attended the continuance of the system formerly pursued towards the Roman Catholics in Ireland? That it gave opportunities to those who, as has been well observed, "were always lying in wait to take advantage of the distresses of the country." It gave a handle to those who were always ready to stir up sedition. The same kind of danger that the empire was exposed to by the refusal of Catholic emancipation, it is now exposed to by the denial of Reform, but to a much greater degree. The Catholics were comparatively a small body, whose strength could always be seen and measured, but the spirit of Reform has been diffused through the whole population and the whole people may be said to be ready for commotion. My Lords, the popular feeling on the subject of Reform extends, your Lordships do not know how far; it penetrates, your Lordships do not know how deep; and the great danger is, that it will break forth with irresistible violence when your Lordships are flattering yourselves that the country is enjoying general repose and perfect tranquillity, or when it is immersed in other dangers and has no arms to resist a discontented people. I have already observed, that my noble friend who has just spoken stated many things which would have been better stated in a Committee. Why will he not allow the Bill to go into that Committee? I am sure my noble friend did himself great injustice when he said that his right hand had so far forgot its cunning, that he should be unable to adapt any amendments to the Bill. But my noble friend has not stated one objection which does not apply only to the details of the Bill, and which may not be obviated in the Committee. Undoubtedly the measure is an extensive one. It does away with the nomination boroughs; it takes away one Member from a number of other boroughs; it alters the constituency of boroughs; it proposes to add to the county Representation—a measure which has always been proposed in every plan of Parliamentary Reform submitted to either House of Parliament; it proposes a general alteration of the qualification throughout the country; and it introduces—which is not the least important part of the Bill—a great variety of regulations as to the

1181
conduct and management of elections, with a view to conducting them cheaply, and bringing them to a speedy termination. I will not deny that these are great and important changes and alterations requiring much deliberation, and I regret that so much misapprehension prevails in the public mind as to the supposed delay in proceeding with this Bill. I cannot concur in the censure that has been passed upon the House of Commons for the time and consideration they bestowed on this very important Bill. That House could not have done otherwise, and have done its duty, and no time has been needlessly consumed, no delay has been excessive, considering the great importance of the measure. But as this great measure is eagerly sought for by the country—as it is proposed by his Majesty's Government—as it has been thus deliberated upon, and considered by the House of Commons, and as they, with a large majority, pray your Lordships' concurrence—will you, I ask, at once reject it? will you, by a single night's vote, defeat the hopes of the nation, and cast away, as if it were idle and worthless, the fruit of so much care? Will you reject it on the ground that you may, perhaps, hereafter entertain some similar measure? If such, my Lords, be the ground of your opposition—if you now oppose the Bill, promising to give a better measure hereafter—consider, my Lords, that such a promise is the condemnation of the present system, and the justification almost of that dangerous discontent which I have adverted to, and which your Lordships will not in that case remedy; but your Lordships will well weigh, and deeply consider, the step proposed to you; and pause, I implore you, before you disappoint the wishes of the great body of the people. My noble friend has gone into the whole history of this question since the American war. I can only say, that into all the considerations which that extensive and discursive survey embraces, I am not prepared to enter, as the question before your Lordships is sufficiently extensive and important in itself. Let us consider the circumstances in which we are placed, and the subject as it is brought before us. Though all things may undoubtedly go well as long as the Members of the other House act harmoniously together—supposing, however, which may easily happen, that the Members returned by the popular
1182
voice range themselves on one side, determined to carry this measure, and those who are returned in a manner which I need not point out, were to range themselves on the other, what, my Lords, would be the result? Could such a contest be otherwise than perfectly serious? or suppose, my Lords, that we should range ourselves in continued opposition to the majority of the other House and the wishes of the people, must not that lead to consequences the most disastrous? My noble friend misinterpreted the language of my noble friend at the head of the Treasury, when he inferred that the Bill must not be touched or modified, and that your Lordships were to be no longer masters of the measure—and must merely register the decrees of the House of Commons. That is not the conclusion which I drew from what was stated by my noble friend, nor will his language bear such an interpretation. Nothing which fell from my noble friend, can warrant the assumption that he wishes in the slightest degree to impede or control your Lordships' deliberation. The noble Lord has asked what is the basis of the measure, and whether it is not population? Population is not the basis of the measure, it was necessary that we should have, for the purposes of disfranchisement, some practical rule; and, therefore, the want of population was adopted as the rule to disfranchise nomination boroughs. But there is nothing about population on the face of the Bill. I do not mean to deny the statements by which the Bill has been supported in another place; all that I mean to say is this—that there was a necessity for some strict rule both for disfranchisement and for enfranchisement, and population was undoubtedly chosen as the rule for determining the places which should continue to return Members to Parliament; but that mere population was the basis adopted for the Representation of the country I distinctly deny. We never intended that population should be the basis of the Representation of the country. The whole measure goes to effect an extension of the present system of Representation, and adapts it more completely to the circumstances and situation of the country; but it looks at property, at different interests, and at different classes, as well as at population. It is impossible, however, on the second reading of the Bill, when the general principle of Reform is the only

1183
question for our consideration, when we have to determine whether there shall be Reform or not. [No, no.!] Noble Lords are eager to disclaim hostility to Reform; every one is anxious to shew that he is a Reformer; and noble Lords now as indignantly deny the charge of being Anti-reformers, as they some years ago would have spurned at the imputation of being Reformers. When that is the case, I put it to your Lordships, as Reform is the general principle of the Bill, and as that is now the question for discussion, I put it to your Lordships whether you can refuse to read a Bill the second time of which you approve the principle? It is agreeable to the course of your Lordships' proceedings to discuss the principle of a Bill before going into a Committee; and if you approve of that principle, to go into a Committee. Or are your Lordships prepared to say, that you approve of the Reform, and will not go into a Committee? I appeal to the noble Earl who spoke early in the debate, and who introduced a bill in the beginning of the Session, in which he took a considerable interest, but which, I must say, was of very trifling importance as compared to this Bill, and was as inconsistent as a bill could well be, and the noble Lord pressed your Lordships to allow him to go into a Committee, merely on account of the excellency of the object he had in view. If your Lordships oppose the principle of Reform, you will not allow the Bill to go to a Committee, but as your Lordships are all Reformers, and as the Bill is made to your hand, you will surely assent to the second reading, and amend and change it in Committee according to the reason, and sense, and justice of the House. If not, what alternative is there? What course will your Lordships pursue? What do you propose? If you will not allow the Bill to go into a Committee, and there is no other Bill, what have you to offer? If it is necessary, as is stated, to appease the spirit of the people—if it is necessary to propitiate them, your Lordships will allow the Bill to go to the Committee, and so spare yourselves the mortification of hereafter retracting, and of presenting some other similar Bill. The arguments which have been directed against the details of the Bill are fit only for the Committee, and I should wish to spare your Lordships' time by not now discussing them. I will not go, therefore, into all the questions mooted by the noble
1184
Earl. I do not deny, that this is a measure of great importance—that it causes a great change—that it will be followed by other great changes; that other measures will be necessary to carry it into complete effect. There must be a change in the Constitution in respect to Ministers having seats in another place. There are some defects which may lead to other changes. I would not exclude Ministers from that House, nor allow them to obtain seats there by any other means than the voice of the people. I should be exceedingly sorry to see such a change, but the Bill will make other changes necessary to adapt it to the working of the Constitution, and to the circumstances of the country; but to effect these changes, I rely on the elasticity of the Constitution, and on its adapting power, which has preserved and improved it in times past, and will not fail, I hope, to preserve and improve it on future occasions. I am departing, however, from the rule I laid down not to go into the details, which demand more discussion than I can now give them. I must abstain, though that is doing the measure injustice, because it is not possible for me to go the length I wish. I will only implore your Lordships to consider the subject well, and not now to touch those topics which will best be considered in the Committee, but to reserve yourselves for the discussion of those details on which you are, I trust, determined to enter in another stage of the Bill. Your Lordships are about to decide a great question—a question involving the peace and happiness of the empire in a far greater degree than that great question it was the glory of the noble Duke's Administration (the Duke of Wellington) to conduct to a successful termination. There is, however, I beg leave to observe to your Lordships, a great difference between this Bill and that for the relief of the Roman Catholics, to which it has been compared. That measure, my Lords, had been frequently demanded, and as frequently refused, till at length you were forced to forget your own previous resistance, and grant that which you before denied. You are not pledged to any opposition to this Bill. You have it now in your power to grant what will be considered a boon, on which the repose of the country depends, and which is looked for with impatience. By this Bill you are not bound in any manner. You have never rejected this, or any similar

1185
Bill. Some of your Lordships may, in the other House of Parliament, have expressed an opinion on Reform; but as a body—as a House of Peers—you are unbound and uncompromised. Your Lordships have free liberty and power to decide as you think fit, and you will come to the decision free from the influence of fear, free from all apprehension, free from all menace, free even from that fear by which a noble and generous mind is sometimes led to rash and untimely acts—free, my Lords, from the imputation of fear. The noble Duke stated at the beginning of the debates on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, that he did not consider that he was addressing himself to your Lordships' fears. I am not of a different opinion. It is said that the great measure of Catholic Emancipation has not accomplished all that was promised. I admit that—but I would beg leave to ask, what would have been now the state of Ireland had that measure not been passed into a law? If the, want of complete success is to be ascribed to the conduct of one man; if he has had the power to oppose the beneficial workings of the measure, and delay its advantages, I must say, that the power of that man is the creature of your Lordships' hands; your obstinacy gave him influence, and gave him the power which he possesses to impede the healing effect of that beneficial law. That he should have had the power to raise obstacles to the peace and tranquillity of the country, is a circumstance which I deeply and seriously lament; and I implore your Lordships to raise up no such other man, not to give a scimitar into the hands of many such men, by making the people believe that their humble petitions are disregarded, and that they must not look to your Lordships for redress. Do not, my Lords, arm a host of demagogues with the discontent of the people. Whatever other motives may actuate your Lordships, I implore you not to be guilty of the rashness of fear; I implore you not to be guilty of the greater rashness of delay. I will remind your Lordships of the address of the Roman Consul to his council on going to war, when he planned that masterly march which overthrew the Carthaginian general before he could unite himself to his other forces—a march which, perhaps, changed the destinies of the world. What that great man then addressed to the council, I will presume to repeat to your Lordships. He assured
1186
them that their safety depended on the adopting his plan immediately, and that here would be danger in delay. He exclaimed, "Only do not procrastinate—do not make that measure which is safe, if adopted immediately, dangerous by delay."—Ne consilium suum, quod tutum celeritas fecisset temerarium morando facerent.
The Duke of Wellington:*—I concur, my Lords, entirely with the noble Viscount who spoke last, in the opinion that this measure is a most extensive one. It goes to overturn the whole system of our Representation; it affects the counties, towns, and boroughs; it destroys or disturbs every existing interest; and, as the noble Lord said, it will require further changes. It alters all the relations of Representation, and even the proportions of the Representatives of the different parts of the monarchy. It is the most considerable alteration and change ever proposed. The noble Lord says, it would not be sufficient unless it went to a great extent; and he tells your Lordships it ought to go to a Committee; and that we should not reject the measure now, but proceed to consider its details in a Committee. Notwithstanding all the changes it is to effect, it will be followed by other changes, in order to render it fit for working, and adapt it practically to our Constitution. Ought we not to know what those changes are before we are called upon to consider this Bill in a Committee?
Before I go any further, I wish to observe on a statement made by the noble Earl who introduced the measure. He did me the honour to notice my conduct. The noble Earl, when he opened the measure to your Lordships, made some observations on me. He seems to prefer that course to explaining or defending his own measures. The noble Earl seemed to forget that there was any necessity to defend his own measure or explain it to the House, and chose rather to criticise me and my language, and the language of my right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel), and our conduct and language in Parliament during the last Session. The noble Earl thought proper to find fault with my language relating to the constitution of Parliament, and attributed to me, and to what I said in Parliament, the spirit of Reform in the country, and the breaking
* Reprinted from the corrected report, published by Murray.

1187
up of the late Government. The noble Earl found fault with my opinion of Parliament; but what had the Parliament done tip to the moment when I was speaking to make it undeserving of our approbation? My noble friend (the Earl of Harrowby), who has spoken with great ability, regretted that I should have made the statement I did make to your Lordships of the character and conduct of Parliament. My Lords, I beg my noble friend and the noble Earl to recollect, that when I spoke of the Parliament, I spoke as the King's Minister, and that it is the duty of the King's Minister to support the institutions of the country: it had never, when I was in office, been the practice for the King's Ministers to give up the institutions of the country, and abandon them the moment they were attacked.
But, my Lords, if I wanted an example of the opinions of the value of the House of Commons, I should find it in the opinion of the noble Earl, the last time, I believe, that he spoke of the House of Commons. In the month of February, 1817, the noble Lord said, 'Constituted as it now was, he in his conscience believed that the House of Commons was, of all other institutions, in all the other countries of the world, the institution best calculated for the general protection of the subject. Supported by the people in temperate and firm claims for redress, it was not only able, but certain to remedy every wrong. It was capable to act as the most efficient control upon the executive, by diminishing the means of corruption and reducing the pressure of a severe and grinding taxation.'* That was the opinion of the noble Earl himself in 1817; and what, I would ask, had the Parliament done subsequently to deserve the disapprobation of the noble Earl—what had it done between 1817 and the moment when I pronounced that approbation of Parliament of which my noble friend and the noble Earl have expressed so much disapprobation? When the noble Earl quotes what I said not quite a twelvemonth ago, he might, I think, quote it correctly. What I said was, that Parliament had done its duty by the country, and enjoyed its confidence. I said, that if I had to create a constitution of Parliament, I could not create that which existed, because I did not believe the wit of man could invent such a system;
* Hansard's Parl. Deb. vol. xxxv. p. 428.
1188
but I said that I would do my endeavour to establish one like it, in which property, and particularly property in land, should be preponderant. That was what I said; and I afterwards had the satisfaction to hear the noble Marquis (Lansdown) deliver a similar opinion. He had stated, that in any system of Representation which he could support, property and learning must be preponderant. I said, that I should consider it my duty to resist the adopting of any plan of Reform that should be brought forward: I spoke as a Minister of the Crown, and as a Minister of the Crown I meant to resist Reform.
The noble Lords say, that this statement of mine caused great enmity to me, and created that spirit of Reform which has since pervaded the whole country. I beg the noble Earl's pardon; but the spirit of Reform in this country was the consequence of the French Revolution. It is true, that ever since the American war a desire for Parliamentary Reform has been manifested in this country—it has been manifested particularly when any disturbance or insurrection has occurred in any of the neighbouring foreign countries—above all, since the French Revolution; and when there has been any extraordinary distress or difficulty in the country. At the same time, I believe that, from year to year, the manifestations of such a desire have been less frequent. I have, indeed, the authority of those most friendly to Reform for saying, that the manifestations of the desire for Reform were less frequent till the period of the Revolution of July, 1830, than they had formerly been for a number of years. It happened, unfortunately, that, a few days before the Ordinances were issued in Paris, his Majesty had dissolved the Parliament. At the elections, my Lords, a strong spirit of Parliamentary Reform was exhibited. In several contests, candidates for seats in Parliament were called upon to pledge themselves upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. In many contested elections, the contest was decided in favour of the candidate who declared himself a Reformer.
The noble Earl has likewise referred to what I said on the 2nd of November, in this House, as the cause of the disturbed state of the city of London and its neighbourhood, and of the circumstances which occasioned the letter from the Secretary of State to the Lord Mayor, communicating

1189
to him, that his Majesty would not visit the city on the 9th of November.
This letter was written on the 7th of November. The circumstances which rendered it necessary to write it were known to the King's servants on the 5th and 6th.
The noble Lords have the papers in their own hands. I beg to know whether, in their opinion, the information which we had received was sufficient to warrant the advice which we considered it our duty to give our Sovereign, and to obtain his commands, on the 7th of November? The noble Lords have not themselves thought proper to advise his Majesty as yet to pay a visit to the city. I may fairly presume, therefore, that our advice was judicious on the 7th of November.
But it is said, that the circumstances which rendered this advice necessary were occasioned by what I said in Parliament; that is to say, that having spoken in Parliament on the 2nd, the effect produced in the city, and in the neighbourhood, was such, by the 5th, that the King's servants were obliged to advise the King on the 7th not to visit the city. Is this possible, my Lords? I again call upon the noble Lords to say whether we were or were not justified in giving the advice which we did give?
My Lords, the state of the public feeling and opinion in London, as well as in the north of England, and elsewhere in the country, had been influenced by the state of affairs in France, in Belgium, and in other parts of Europe. It was the state of affairs which occasioned those circumstances which induced us to advise the King not to visit the city; and not any opinion of mine on Parliamentary Reform, delivered in this House on the night of the 2nd of November, and which could not have been known at all till the 3rd, and could not, therefore, have occasioned, by the 5th, the circumstances to which I have referred. Then the noble Lord has, notwithstanding my repeated contradictions and explanations, asserted that my opinions upon Parliamentary Reform, as delivered upon the 2nd of November, had occasioned the resignation of the King's late Ministers, my colleagues and myself. My Lords, we retired from the King's service on Tuesday, the 16th of November, because we found, that on Monday, the 15th, on an important question, we no longer possessed the confidence of the
1190
House of Commons. We decided in consequence to resign, and we actually requested his Majesty to accept our resignation on Tuesday, the day following.
If we had delayed to carry our design into execution, the great question of Parliamentary Reform, in which I cannot but think the interests of the monarchy are involved, would have been discussed in the House of Commons on Tuesday, and those interests defended by a Ministry no longer possessing the confidence of the House, and which must, therefore, have gone out of office.
If the question on Monday, the 15th of November, had been that of Parliamentary Reform, it is not clear to me that we should have been in a minority. My reason for being of that opinion is, that it appears on the division, on the second reading of the noble Lord's Bill in March last, many Members voted against it who had been in the majority on the 15th of November. Whatever might be the degree in which the Members of the late Parliament were pledged to Reform, I think myself justified in the statement, that my opinion upon Parliamentary Reform did not, occasion our resignation; and that most probably it was not the cause of the loss of the confidence of the House of Commons. The noble Lord assumed his office on the 22nd of November, and on that day he stated to your Lordships on what principles he intended to conduct the Government of the country. Among other intentions he stated that of proposing a plan of Parliamentary Reform. He stated, that he had obtained the King's consent to enable him to bring forward this proposition, as the Minister, and with the power and influence of Government. The noble Lord's words upon that occasion were very remarkable, and deserving of your Lordships' attention.
Your Lordships will observe, that the noble Lord told you that he intended to found his plan of Reform on the basis of 'the institutions of the country;' and, as he explained, a Reform, limited by a desire to stand, as far as prudence will permit, by the ancient landmarks, and to prevent the sudden disturbance of our settled institutions by too large and extensive changes.' He now tells you, that he had brought in a measure which would effect a great change in them; and the noble Secretary of State adds, that these changes must be followed by others. They

1191
must be so followed, or the government of the country will be impracticable.
A bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament, according to the noble Lord's plan, which, after long discussion, was read a second time by the decision of a small majority. This measure altered everything—it changed or destroyed every interest in the country. Instead of proceeding upon the basis of the established institutions, it destroyed them all; and, among other things, altered the relative numbers of the Representatives in Parliament from the different kingdoms of the united empire.
It was proposed in the House of Commons, that the proportion of Representatives for England should not be diminished, to which proposition, after long debate, the House of Commons agreed by a majority of seven. The principle of the noble Lord's bill had been agreed to. Why did not the noble Lords persevere and carry through their Bill, making such alterations as might render it palatable to the House of Commons, and consistent with the established practice of the Constitution? This did not suit their purpose. They dissolved the Parliament, and advised their Sovereign to appeal to his people. I attribute all our misfortunes to that event. The noble Lords advised their Sovereign upon that occasion to come to Parliament, and to make this speech:—
'I have come to meet you for the purpose of proroguing this Parliament, with a view to its immediate dissolution.
I have been induced to resort to this measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it may be most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of making such changes in the Representation as circumstances may seem to require; and which, founded upon the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and prerogatives of the Crown, and to give security to the liberties of my people.'*
The dissolution then made, and the Speech delivered by his Majesty, were both upon a principle entirely different from that of the precedents according to which the measure was adopted. In 1784, the King, George 3rd, differed from his Ministers upon a great question. They
*Parl. Debates, Third Series, vol. iii, p. 1810.
1192
retired from his service, and his Majesty appointed other Ministers. Those Ministers did not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, and the King dissolved his Parliament, and put an end to the session, in the words which I am about to read to your Lordships:—
'On a full consideration of the present situation of affairs, and of the extraordinary circumstances which have produced it, I am induced to put an end to this session of Parliament.
I feel it a duty which I owe to the Constitution and to the country, in such a situation, to recur as speedily as possible to the sense of my people by calling a new Parliament.
I trust that this measure will tend to obviate the mischiefs arising from the unhappy divisions and distractions which have lately subsisted; and that the various important objects which will require consideration may be afterwards proceeded upon with less interruption and with happier effect.
I can have no other object but to preserve the true principles of our free and happy Constitution; and to employ the powers entrusted to me by law for the only end for which they were given—the good of my people.'*
I will not give your Lordships the trouble of listening to the perusal of the case of 1807, which stands precisely upon the same principle as that of 1784. In both, the King differed in opinion with his Ministers and with the Parliament upon measures upon which his Majesty had decided; and he appealed to the sense of his people, and called upon them to elect a Parliament which should give their confidence to the Ministers of his choice, in carrying on the measures which he approved. The transaction was brought to a close before the appeal was made to the people. The people were not called upon to deliberate upon any measure; but the appeal to them was rather, it maybe said, in favour of the men whom his Majesty had named as his Ministers. In the case of 1831, however, the noble Lords have advised their Sovereign to refer for discussion to the people—not whether the King was to be supported in naming his Ministers—not whether Parliament is to be reformed, because, upon the principle of Reform, there was a majority in the late
* Hansard's Parl. Hist., vol. xxiv, p. 774.

1193
House of Commons—but upon a particular plan of Reform, which was accordingly discussed throughout the country.
It is on the ground of the dissolution, and of this Speech from the Throne, that I charge the noble Lords with having excited the spirit which existed in the country at the period of the last general election; and with having been the cause of the unconstitutional practice, hitherto unknown, of electing delegates for a particular purpose to Parliament—delegates to obey the daily instructions of their constituents, and to be cashiered if they should disobey them, whatever may be their own opinion; instead of being, as they have been hitherto, independent Members of Parliament, to deliberate with their colleagues upon matters of common concern, and to decide according to the best of their judgment, aftersuch deliberation and debate. This is an evil of which the country will long feel the consequences, whatever may be the result of these discussions.
My Lords, this measure, thus debated by the people, and thus brought forward by the Government in Parliament, for the decision of Members thus delegated to give it the force of a law, alters everything; and requires, as the noble Secretary of State says, still further alterations in the State, in order to render it practicable to carry on the Government at all.
I will not, at this late hour of the night, enter much into the details of the system proposed, which have been well considered and exposed by my noble friends the noble Earl (Lord Harrowby) and the noble Baron (Lord Wharncliffe) behind me. One of my objections to the system proposed for the formation of the constituency of the boroughs and towns is its uniformity, and which objection was, by the by, mentioned by one of my noble friends. The electors are all the householders, payers of a rent of 10 l. and upwards; these householders, in towns in the south of England—I mean the counties of Kent, Sussex, Surry, Hants, Berkshire, and Oxford—will consist of the occupiers of every house in such towns as will not require a supplement under the Bill to be allotted by the Commissioners; these will be generally the shopkeepers—a class of persons of all others the most, likely to combine in political views—and to be acted upon by political clubs and societies of the description of that formed
1194
some months ago in the Strand, with a view to assist these newly-formed corporations in selecting their Representatives in Parliament.
It is true that this society dissolved itself as soon as its existence was observed upon here or in the other House of Parliament. But political combinations among these voters in boroughs and towns will hereafter be much more probable than it has been heretofore among the various interests of which the borough constituency has been formed.
These combinations, or the influence of such an association as I have described and has existed, would be very injurious to the public interests. I beg your Lordships besides to observe, that in nearly every town not requiring a supplement, every householder will have a vote, including daily labourers, every description of menial servant, waiters, hostlers, postilions at inns, and such like. In respect to counties it appears that sixty-two Members are to be added to this branch of the Representation; of which fifty to counties to be divided, two to Yorkshire, and ten to counties which are to have three Members each. An addition is to be made to the county constituency, by enabling 10 l. copyholders to vote as well as freeholders and leaseholders holding tenements of 50 l. yearly rent, and even occupiers of land paying that sum.
I cannot consider that this system will place the landed interest in the same relation towards the commercial or manufacturing interest, as that in which it stands at present. I doubt the county Representation, as it stands at present, being capable of protecting the landed interest of the country without the assistance of the Members of the close boroughs. These are the true protectors of the landed interest of the country. The increase of riches in all towns, owing to the vast increase of manufactures and commerce, has given great influence to the inhabitants of towns in all county elections. This influence will be increased by giving votes to copyholders and holders of 50 l. leases: these are generally inhabitants of towns and shopkeepers. Throughout the whole of some counties in England, there is not a single acre of land, not in a town, held by a lease.
Towns placed in schedules A and B, deprived of their Members, will continue to influence the elections of Members for

1195
the counties in which they are situated—which elections will be farther influenced by other arrangements of the Bill; giving votes to the freeholders of certain counties of towns in the elections of neighbouring counties.
The Members for counties will, therefore, be nearly as much under the control of the constituency residing in towns, as the Members for the towns themselves will. But, my Lords, the question for us to consider, in the formation of this new system, is, not only what is the system which will best maintain the balance between the county interest and the town interest, but what will best form for the country a Government. That is the most important point for our consideration, and for the people. We must take care that, after all this shall be done, there will be a Government in the country.
We must consider not only the Representation of England, but likewise that of Scotland and Ireland. In respect to Scotland and its Representation, I do not know enough of either to pronounce whether the Representation ought, or ought not, to be reformed; but I must repeat the words of a noble Lord, whose loss I shall never cease to lament, respecting that country (I mean the late Earl of Liverpool) "that Scotland was the best-conditioned country in Europe." I believe I may say that it is one of the best governed countries in the world; and I am sure that for the last sixty or seventy years it has been the most prosperous.
We are bound to look at what is about to be done in respect to the Representation of Scotland. In counties in Scotland, freeholders, leaseholders, copyholders (allowing for the difference of tenure) and occupiers of land paying a rent of 50 l. a-year, are to have votes, the same as in the counties in England. The inhabitants of towns will have the same influence over the elections for counties as in England; but this influence will be more powerful in Scotland than in England, because there are more large towns in Scotland, which, under the system, will not send Representatives of their own, than there will be in England. The county Members from Scotland can no longer be reckoned upon as supporters of the landed interest. The franchises of the borough towns in Scotland will be given to 10 l. householders, as in England; and these will, of course, be in what is
1196
called the commercial or manufacturing interest.
In respect to Ireland, the change is the same as in England and Scotland. In Ireland, there are few holders of land excepting upon lease. But every tenant upon every estate will have a vote for a county. In the towns, 10 l. householders are to vote. These towns may be divided into two classes, close Corporations, and counties of towns. The first were formed by King James 1st, for the purpose of supporting in Parliament the establishment of the Church of England in Ireland, upon which I will say a word or two presently. The returns for these Corporations are now to be made by the 10 l. householders of these same towns.
In counties of towns the voters are to be the resident freemen of the Corporation, and 40 s. freeholders, as at present, and resident 10 l. householders. All these arrangements depart from those of the Acts of 1828. Those Acts left the right of election in Corporations, and in counties of towns, as they had been settled and left at the Union. They deprived 40 s. freeholders of their right of voting for Members of counties, because it was supposed that the exercise of that right gave an undue preponderating influence to persons professing the Roman Catholic religion.
The 50 l. leaseholders will, under the new arrangement, take the place of the 40 s. freeholders, and all will equally be the tool of the priest. For the close Corporations established by King James, 10 l. householders are to vote. These are all Roman Catholics.
In counties of towns we had refused to deprive 40 s. freeholders of their franchise. The freemen of these Corporations are generally, if not always, Protestants, and they can be increased without limitation. The freeholders are generally Roman Catholics. We did not think proper to alter the balance between the two, by leaving to the Corporations the unlimited power of increasing its freemen, while the 40 s. freehold right should have been extinguished. But the noble Lords have gone to work in another way, and, having first deprived non-resident freemen of these counties of towns, who are Protestants, of their votes, they have left untouched the Roman Catholic 40 s. freeholders, and have besides added to the constituency of those counties of towns all the 10 l. householders. These are likewise

1197
Roman Catholics. The noble Lords have thus had the merit, of establishing a Roman Catholic predominant interest in every county of a town in Ireland, in every close Corporation formed for the protection of the Church of England, and in every county.
I will refer presently to the consequences of these arrangements upon the interests of the Church of England in Ireland. In the mean time, I beg your Lordships to observe, that the Irish Representation in the Imperial Parliament cannot be considered as in the interest of the land.
The due balance between the landed interest and the commercial and manufacturing interest in Parliament must be considered a matter of small importance, in comparison with the more important object of considering what will be the sort of House of Commons which such a constituency, so formed, will give us.
Throughout, the whole of the empire, persons in the lowest condition of life, liable to, and even existing under the most pernicious influences, are to have votes, or, in other words, are to exercise political power. Persons in those stations of life do exercise political power already; but in few places in large masses preponderating over the influence of other classes of society. What must we expect when these lower classes will preponderate everywhere? We know what sort of Representatives are returned by the places I have described. What are we to expect when the whole Representation, or nearly the whole, will be of the same description?
We hear sometimes of Radical Reform; and we know that the term applies to Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, Annual Parliaments, and their consequences. But I declare, that, looking at these changes pervading every part of the Representation, root and branch, destroying or changing everything that has existed, even to the relative numbers of the Representatives from the three kingdoms fixed by treaty, I should call this a Radical Reform, rather than Reform of any other description. Is there no danger that, bad as what, is proposed, it will go further than would appear to be contemplated by the noble Lords? A noble friend of mine (the Earl of Harrowby) has stated the danger which will result from this measure, in consequence of the principle on which it stands. It stands, with
1198
respect to large towns, on the principle of population. Certain towns are selected to send two Members because they have above 20,000 inhabitants. Certain others to send one Member because they have above 9,000 or 10,000 inhabitants.
There is in reserve a number of about thirty or forty Members not yet allotted to any constituency. Will it be possible to refuse to extend the right of sending Members to Parliament to any town or parish, which may prove that its numbers exceed 10,000 or 20,000 inhabitants?
But we are told that this is not a question of numbers. How does it happen that there are four or five most beautiful, rich, and flourishing county towns in England, placed in schedule B? These county towns are not only rich in themselves, and by the settlements of gentry residing in their neighbourhood, but they are more populous than is required in order to continue in the enjoyment of their accustomed number of Representatives.
It happens, however, that a part of the population of each inhabit a part of the existing town, not in, but contiguous to the Corporation, as fixed by its ancient charters; such limits not containing 4,000 souls, the numbers required. We are then told that numbers have nothing to do with the various settlements of the Representation under this Bill!
Taking the whole view of this system of Representation to be established in England, Scotland, and Ireland, I cannot but consider that the House of Commons returned by it, will be a democratical assembly of the worst description; that Radical Reform, Vote by Ballot, and all the evil consequences to be expected from the deliberations of such an assembly, must follow from its establishment. I entreat your Lordships to pause before you agree to establish such a system in your country.
But we are told that the people wish for this measure; and when we express our sense of the danger which attends it on account of the democratical power which it tends to establish, an endeavour is made to calm our apprehensions by the assurance that the people are attached to the Government of King, Lords, and Commons.
If we are to rely upon that feeling of the people—if we are to adopt this measure because it is the pleasure of the people, and because they are attached to

1199
the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, why do we not at once adopt the measure which we know that the people prefer—I mean Radical Reform; that is to say, Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments? If we are to make a change, there can be no reason for not going the full length that the people wish, if we can be sure that the measure will not injure the Government, that to which they are attached, of King, Lords, and Commons.
But before we go further, it is desirable that we should examine what is the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, as established in this kingdom. In this Government the King is at the head of everything. All the power is in his hands. He is the head of the Church, the head of the law. Justice is administered in his name. He is the protector of the peace of the country, the head of its political negotiations, and of its armed force—not a shilling of public money can be expended without his order and signature. But, notwithstanding these immense powers, the King can do nothing that is contrary to law, or to the engagements of himself or his predecessors. The King calls Parliament to assist him with its counsels, de arduis regni, and those are responsible for his acts who carry them into execution. His Ministers are responsible not only for the legality, but for the prudence and fitness of his acts. To whom are they responsible? To this, and the other House of Parliament, to the latter principally, on account of the greater activity of its inquisitorial power—on account of its possessing exclusively the power of the purse, and for other reasons. Every act of the Government, or of the King, is liable to be brought under discussion in, and is, in fact, controlled by the House of Commons; and for this reason alone, it is important that we should consider of what description of men the House of Commons is likely to be composed, when we are discussing a question of Parliamentary Reform, in order that we may be quite certain that they will exercise their high functions with wisdom and discretion.
It was on these grounds, that I some time ago called upon the noble Earl to state by what influence he intended to carry on the King's Government in Parliament, according to the principles fixed at the period of the Revolution, and in practice from that period, to this, when
1200
this Reform Bill should be passed. The noble Lord answered immediately—not by means of corruption. I am aware of that, my Lords. I am convinced that the noble Lord is incapable of resorting to such means, as I hope he believes that I am incapable of resorting to them. I did not consider this any answer to my question, which I repeated in a subsequent discussion, on the motion of my noble friend, the noble Baron behind me (Lord Wharncliffe). The noble Earl said, that the Government had nothing to do with such questions; that Parliament was to decide for itself; and that there was no necessity for the interference of Government.
I beg your Lordships to consider what are the questions which in every week, and on every day, are brought under the discussion of the House of Commons—questions affecting the honour, the interests, the rights, the property of every individual in the country, which the King is bound by his oath to protect, and in the protection of which, all are equally interested. They are questions regarding the proceedings of Courts of Justice, regarding the use of the public force, and hundreds of others, which occur daily, in which every individual is interested. I put legislation out of the question: but can the King from that Throne give to his subjects the necessary protection for their rights and property? No, my Lords. It is only by the influence of property over the elections of Members of the House of Commons, and by the influence of the Crown and of this House, and of the property of the country upon its proceedings, that the great powers of such a body as the House of Commons can be exercised with discretion and safety. The King could not perform the duties of his high station, nor the House of Lords, if the House of Commons were formed on the principle and plan proposed by this Bill.
There is one institution which would become peculiarly liable to attack in such a House of Commons, to which I wish to draw the attention of the right reverend Bench, and that is, the Establishment of the Church of England in Ireland. This Church is the object of a fundamental Article of the Treaty of Union between the two countries, and is secured by Acts of both Parliaments, and the King is, besides, sworn to maintain its right and possessions; can any man believe that, when the Representatives for Ireland come

1201
to be elected in the manner proposed by the Bill, the Church of England in Ireland can be maintained?
I have already shown that these Representatives must be elected under the influence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Who are those who now show the greatest hostility to the Church, its rights and possessions?—the Members for populous places. The reason is, that the deprivation of the Church of their property is one of the popular objects of the day. The object of the Bill is, and its effect will be, to increase the number of this description of Members in Parliament, and to render the influence of this party predominant and irresistible.
I believe that the noble Earl (Earl Grey) has already found the Members returned by Ireland, under this influence, very inconvenient to himself, upon more than one occasion; and it appears, that the right hon. Gentleman, who conducts the affairs of Ireland in the House of Commons, was under the necessity, very lately, of giving up a measure which he thought important for the benefit and peace of Ireland, because the Members from Ireland, of this party, were opposed to it. How can the noble Lord suppose, that the Church of England can be protected, or even the Union itself preserved in a Reformed Parliament? There is no man, who considers what the Government of King, Lords, and Commons is, and the details of the manner in which it is carried on, who must not see, that Government will become impracticable when the three branches shall be separate; each independent of the other, and uncontrolled in its action by any of the existing influences.
A noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) who has spoken on this side of the House, has made an observation to your Lordships, which well deserves your attention. The noble Earl has told you, that if you increase but a little the democratic power in the State, the step can never be withdrawn. Your Lordships must continue in the same course till you have passed through the miseries of a revolution, and thence to a military despotism, and the evils which attend that system of Government. It is not denied, that this Bill must increase beyond measure the democratic power of the State—that it must constitute in the House of Commons a fierce democracy: what must be the consequences, your Lordships will judge.
1202
I will not detain your Lordships by adverting to the merits of the system of Government which has existed up to the present moment, upon which my opinion is by no means altered. No man denies that we have enjoyed great advantages; that we have enjoyed a larger share of happiness, comfort, and prosperity, for a long course of years, than were ever enjoyed by any nation; that we have more riches, the largest fortunes, personal as well as real, more manufactures and commerce, than all the nations of Europe taken together; the richest, most extensive, most peopled, and most prosperous foreign colonies and possessions, that any nation ever possessed. There is not an important position in the world, whether for the purpose of navigation, commerce, or military defence, that does not belong to us.
If this democratic Assembly should once be established in England, does any man believe that we should continue to enjoy these vast advantages? But a democracy has never been established in any part of the world, that it has not immediately declared war against property—against the payment of the public debt—and against all the principles of conservation, which are secured by, and are, in fact, the principal objects of the British Constitution, as it now exists. Property, and its possessors, will become the common enemy. I do not urge this argument as one in which your Lordships are peculiarly interested: it is not you alone, nor even other proprietors, who are interested in the protection of property; the whole people, middling classes as well as the lower orders, are interested in this subject. Look at the anxiety prevailing in every part of London, in respect to the great revolution to be made by this Bill. My noble friend, the noble Baron (Lord Wharncliffe) has been ridiculed for adverting to the opinions of tradesmen in Bond-street and St. James's-street. Those in Bond-street consist of more than 200 respectable persons, who are well able to form an opinion of the effect of this Bill upon the resources of themselves, the middling classes, and the poor, as they supply the luxuries of persons in easier circumstances, residing in that quarter of the town. Anything which can affect the resources of their customers, must be interesting to them, and they do feel that this Bill must affect property, private expenditure, and the resources of

1203
themselves, and of those whom they employ. The noble Lord on the other side, who adverted to this topic, greatly underrated the wealth of these tradesmen. I know of one, residing in Bond-street, who employs at all times from 2,000 to 4,000 workmen, whose trade depends, as well as the employment of this body of people, upon the expenditure of his customers: is he not interested in upholding the public faith, and the system of property now established in England? Are not the people, of all classes and descriptions, down to the lowest, interested in the maintenance of our extensive manufactures and commerce, in the conservation of our enormous dominions abroad, and the continued respect of all nations?
If I am right in thinking that this fierce democracy will be established in the House of Commons, does any man believe that that harmony can continue between the King and his Government and the House of Commons, so necessary to insure to both general respect, and to the King's Government the strength which is necessary to enable his Majesty to protect and keep in order his foreign dominions, and to insure the obedience of their inhabitants? We shall lose these colonies and foreign possessions, and with them our authority and influence abroad.
There is no instance of any country having maintained its strength or its influence in its foreign possessions, or the respect of foreign nations, during the existence of internal troubles and disturbance; and there is none of the existence, without such troubles, of a Government consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, independent of each other, and the Members of the latter depending solely upon the popular choice, and being delegates of the people. We have had an example in England of a House of Commons which was independent of the influence of the Crown, and of this House, and of the property of the country. After banishing or imprisoning the most respectable Members of this House, turning the Spiritual Lords out of it, and murdering their Sovereign, they voted the House of Lords useless. I will read your Lordships the account given by a man, who was knowing in his time, (Oliver Cromwell) of what this House became. 'The Parliament which had so vigorously withstood the encroachments of the royal power, became themselves too desirous of absolute au-
1204
thority; and not only engrossed the legislative, but usurped the executive power.'
'All causes, civil and criminal, all questions of property, were determined by Committees, who, being themselves the Legislature, were accountable to no law, and for that reason their decrees were arbitrary, and their proceedings violent. Oppression was without redress, unjust sentence without appeal; there was no prospect of ease or intermission. The Parliament had determined never to dissolve themselves.'
'At length the army interfered. They soon perceived that, unless they made one regulation more, and crushed this many-headed monster, they had hitherto ventured their lives to little purpose, and had, instead of assuring their own and their country's liberty, only changed one kind of slavery for another.'
This is the account of the state of a House of Commons acting independently of all influence, and of the state to which it brought the country. My Lords, I have stated to you what will be the probable action of the system established by the Bill on the Government of the country—that is the real question—what is the nature of our Government, and what the share of the House of Commons in its details; in what manner it controls them all; and how important the composition of that House is to the very existence of Government. I have shown you in what manner the protection of property by Government is necessary, and the dependence of all the sources of our national prosperity upon the continuance of a good understanding between the King and his Parliament. I have stated my reasons for thinking that all these will be destroyed by the Bill. I have likewise stated to your Lordships my opinion that the King's Ministers, by the Speech which they had recommended to the King to deliver from the Throne, on the 22nd of April, on the dissolution of Parliament, had excited the spirit which pervaded the late elections of Members to serve in Parliament, and had occasioned the election of delegates for a particular purpose, instead of Members of Parliament.
My Lords, the King's Speech, upon the occasion to which I have referred, has materially altered the state of this question. The people have been called upon by the King to deliberate upon it, and have been

1205
led to expect that a change would be made. In recommending to your Lordships to vote against this Bill, I earnestly intreat you to avoid pledging yourselves, whether in public or private, against any other measure that may be brought forward. I recommend to you to keep yourselves free to adopt any measure upon this subject, which shall secure to this country the blessings of a Government. By so doing, you will perform your duty by your country, and will deserve its thanks, and the gratitude of posterity.
Viscount Melbournewished to say one word in explanation with regard to a point on which the noble Duke had misunderstood him. He did not assert that this Bill would be productive of change in every branch of the State, and in all the institutions of the country; what he did say was, that it could not be denied, that it introduced a considerable change into the mode of constituting the Commons House of Parliament.
The Marquis of Lansdown The Marquis of Lansdown rose, but was met by [loud cries of "adjourn, adjourn;" "go on, go on;" "hear, hear."] The noble Marquis said, that he was always willing on such occasions to consult the wishes of the House. He rose for the purpose of making a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the noble Duke, and from other noble Lords in the course of this debate; but if the House pleased, he had no objection to postpone those observations till to-morrow.
Debate adjourned.