Sitting of 5 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time; White Boy Offences. Committed; Arms (Ireland); Labourers' House Rent; Hospitals Registration (Ireland).
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, of the quantity of Guernsey and Jersey Spirits imported into London since the 5th July, 1831:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Expenses of the Bankruptcy Courts about to be formed; and of the number and particulars of Petitions presented to the House of Commons.
Petitions presented. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Raheen, for disbanding the Yeomanry (Ireland); from the Magisirates, Burgesses, and Protestant Freemen of Galway, to extend the Franchise of that place to the residents, without distinction of Religion; from the Catholic Inhabitants of St. Mary, Youghall, for the abolition of Tithes; from the Inhabitants of Cappoquin and Castlederwent, and Jewellers of Dublin, for the Repeal of the Union; from certain Individuals, against the present system of Insurance Companies. By Mr. R. GORDON, from the Minister, Churchwardens and Inhabitants of the Parish of Cannington, for a Repeal of the Beer Act. By Sir ROBERT BATESON, from the Mayor, Magistrates, Clergy, and other Inhabitants of Coleraine (Ireland), praying the continuance of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society.

IRISH MAGISTRACY.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from four Labourers in the County of Cork, complaining of the conduct of certain Magistrates, and of the administration of Justice at the Petty Sessions (Ireland). He thought the petitioners made out so strong a case, that had it happened on this side of the Channel it would have produced more petitions than the case of the Deacles. The petitioners represented, that they were the tenants of a Mr. Macarthy, and that an information
2
was laid against them for feeding cattle upon their own land; for which offence they were brought before two Magistrates, one of whom was a curate of the Established Church, and fined 5l. and costs. The petitioners declared their intention to appeal against the order, when the Magistrates made them enter into recognizances, and seized their cattle for payment of the expenses, which they afterwards recovered, on account of the illegality of the proceeding. They were then charged with an assault upon a person of the name of Collins, put forward as the prosecutor, on which charge they were acquitted. They then wished to prosecute the informer Collins for perjury, but were baffled by a variety of legal expedients, and sustained great hardship and expense. These ill-used men had travelled 600 miles in search of justice, but obtained only injustice. They complained particularly of the partiality of the Magistrates. He believed that these statements were founded in fact, and as the conduct of two Magistrates were impugned, he wished to give his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General for Ireland, an opportunity to inquire into the facts.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, he had seen the petition before, and had made some inquiries into the circumstances through a private channel, but without communicating with the Magistrates who were the

3
parties accused, and he was inclined to think, the petitioners were themselves much in fault as well as the man Collins, with whom they were at variance on a point of disputed possession. One of the petitioners had been found guilty of an assault upon that person, and it was from a sworn information relating to this assault that the petitioners desired to indict Collins for perjury. The Judge refused to try the cause, and sent it to the Sessions, and there the Grand Jury threw out the bill. He had reason to believe Collins was exonerated on the merits of the case itself, and not from any technical difficulty. From all his inquiries he had reason to believe that no case of corruption could be made out against the Magistrates.
Sir Robert Batesonwas of opinion, that these petitions were brought in, night after night, for the particular purpose of traducing the conduct of the Irish Magistrates, and keeping up excitement. He believed on the whole, the laws were as justly administered as in this country, and he spoke as an Irish Magistrate.
Mr. Huntsaid, one good effect was caused by these discussions. They made the law officers of the Crown inquire into the cases of alleged misconduct on the part of the Irish Magistrates. He should be happy if the same course was followed in this country.
Mr. Estcourtconsidered the insinuations of the hon. member for Preston most uncalled for. He had no doubt, if any case of oppression could be made out in England, however humble were the suffering parties, that the law officers of the Crown would promptly attend to it.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. O'Connellmoved, that it should be printed. He thought he had some reason to complain that his statements had not been duly attended to. He had no doubt from the information of the attorney of the petitioners, that the facts could be distinctly proved. The report upon the face of it evidently shewed a neglect of duty on the part of the Magistrates.
Mr. Blackneysaid, the two statements, like those on most Irish questions, differed so completely, and were so much mixed up with partizanship, that there was great difficulty in deciding upon either of them. The great ground of complaint respecting the Irish magistracy was, that there were too many churchmen among them, he did
4
not believe they were personally corrupt, but he heard with great satisfaction there was to be some change in the system.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, so long as there were grievances to redress, he for one should make complaints; but what he wished at present to bring before the House was, the custom of giving blank summonses by many Irish Magistrates to persons who did by no means deserve such confidence. He had seen cases of great oppression growing out of this practice.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, such a practice was evidently liable to abuse, and ought to be wholly put an end to. He fully believed, from several cases recently brought before the House, that a complete revision was required with respect, to the constitution of the Irish magistracy.
Petition to be printed.

PROSECUTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition, numerously signed by respectable persons, Inhabitants of the Metropolis, setting forth their disapprobation of Prosecutions on Account of uttering Religious Opinions, and praying that Mr. Taylor might be relieved from the very severe punishment he was suffering, which was contrary to justice and exceeded the sentence passed upon him.
Mr. Humewould seize every opportunity to declare his detestation of the laws under which this man suffered. The House deserved some censure for permitting such laws to be enforced. He did not mean by these remarks to express any particular anxiety relating to the individual who was the subject of the petition; but he would maintain, that every man had a right, which ought to be in violable, to express his opinions upon religious questions, arid, indeed, upon all other matters which were not at war with the principles of public morals. The country could not be said to be in possession of much liberty, when a man was liable to be punished, not for acts, but for opinions.
Lord Althorpthought, that the publication of all religious sentiments ought to be unrestrained and free, provided they did not militate against the peace and decency of society, or contradict the first principles of religion. As to remarks on the characters of public men, he desired there should be no restraint whatever on the publication of opinion; but this case was somewhat different. It operated against the principle on which the foundation of

5
public morals was laid. On the best consideration of Mr. Taylor's offence, he did not think it required the interference of Government.
Mr. O'Connellfully concurred with those who thought that plain and direct attacks upon the Christian religion ought to be prevented as much as possible, but the question was, whether they could be best prevented by contemptuous neglect or prosecution. He feared the latter could never put down opinion. In the case of Carlile, for instance, many persons began to look upon him as a martyr; and had not this man, Taylor, created a sort of party round himself to support and uphold him in his ribaldry? He lived on prosecution, which was a bounty on his trade, and the more he was prosecuted, the more he was encouraged. Feelings of sympathy, indulged towards a man supposed to be oppressed, operated upon people to such a degree that they became partial to his opinions, and thought them right, because they were convinced his oppressors were wrong. Nothing short, of extirpation could put opinion down. He hoped to see the time when every Christian would feel himself so strongly armed in his own convictions, as not to require prosecution to support them.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the unaffected detestation expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman of the doctrines and conduct of Taylor, he was sure met with the full concurrence of the House. He had heard the hon. and learned Member's remarks with great satisfaction. He also agreed with him in thinking, that very great discretion ought to be exercised in instituting such prosecutions as that under which the person in question was suffering. He had successfully tried the experiment of non-prosecution, but it was extremely difficult to withstand the representations of good and religious men. As to the question which had been propounded by the hon. member for Middlesex, he believed few would agree with him that there should be unqualified impunity, or that all laws which bore upon the questions of religion and morals should be repealed. Why, what would be the result of such a state of things, but that people whose feelings were outraged, would resort to personal violence? He acknowledged it was difficult to lay down any precise rule, but he could never admit that every person might attack the first truths of Christianity
6
at their own discretion. Protection was principally required by the young and thoughtless; not that it could be harmed by the statement of facts, by calm reasoning, or by philosophical discussion, but by insult, burlesque, ridicule, and passionate appeals, such as this man Taylor was in the habit of using. He appeared in the costume of a clergyman, and did all he could to insult the feelings and principles of every man attached to the Christian religion.
Mr. Lambobserved, that the prosecution against Taylor had not been instituted by Government. Taylor was a person who had made the most horrid and disgusting attacks upon everything the people had been taught to venerate; for this he was prosecuted, and found guilty by a Jury—and this petition called upon the Government, to interpose the prerogative of the Crown to defeat the verdict of a Jury, without any evidence to show that the verdict was contrary to law or fact. No man could suppose for an instant that Taylor was punished on account of free discussion. Nobody reprobated prosecutions more than he did for mere opinion, but was it not notorious that this man at his trial exhibited himself in the garb of a Christian minister, and outraged all decency by his conduct. Such a disgusting farce deserved punishment, for it never could be allowed to go forth to the public that the most atrocious blasphemy should enjoy impunity. Nothing certainly but strong cases could justify prosecution; but he believed this was a case of that kind, and that Mr. Taylor fully deserved the visitation he had met with.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he fully agreed in the necessity of keeping discussion within the bounds of reason and decency, so as to afford equal protection to all persons With regard to the particular case now before them, he believed it had excited a general horror throughout the country, and the only excuse that could be made for Mr. Taylor was insanity. He ought not to be allowed to go at large; neither ought he to be treated with undue severity, or confined to a particular prison, whose regulations bore very grievously upon him.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, it was utterly impossible that any Government could tolerate such a scandalous outrage as the conduct of this unhappy man presented. He had collected a multitude of people,

7
and in a public theatre burlesqued the most solemn rites of our religion, and had insulted all the feelings which the community most reverenced. It was absurd to suppose such a man excited sympathy.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. Hunt, in moving that it should be printed, said, he did not mean to say anything in favour of Taylor, or attempt to justify his conduct. He had never read his writings, or heard him speak; but the complaint of the petitioners was, that the punishment exceeded the offence. He concurred with other hon. Members in thinking that they had better have their present laws, with all their faults, than to be exposed to the attacks of an infuriated rabble.
Mr. Humewished to know what the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) meant by first principles of religion. He would find that the State in different parts of the empire tolerated Jews, Hindoos, Mahometans, and other sects, all of whom were as much opposed to the first principles of Christianity, as the person whose conduct was now before the House. Every person ought to be tolerated, whatever opinions he might entertain, provided he did not disturb the peace of society. It was allowed by the right hon. Baronet who had recently presided over the Home Department, that the laws on this subject ought to be enforced with great discretion, but unfortunately that was of no avail, for any individual, or self-constituted Society, might prosecute. One of two things, therefore, ought to take place; either the laws should be repealed, or some regulation should be made as to prosecuting for such offences. He never could tolerate a man being punished for publishing an honest opinion. He claimed to have that privilege himself, and he was willing to allow it to others.
Mr. Trevorbegged very seriously to ask the hon. member for Middlesex, if he believed such doctrines as Mr. Taylor was convicted of preaching, had not a tendency to interrupt the peace of society? He differed from the hon. Member, and applauded the Society which had prosecuted this man, and were ready to undertake a duty which the Government declined. From the statement which the hon. Member had made, it might be presumed this person had been prosecuted for certain doctrinal points only, instead of
8
public blasphemy against the Holy Scriptures. He regretted that the hon. Member had put forth the opinions he had with the weight of his authority, and to correct them as far as he could was the motive why he had addressed the House.
Petition to be printed.

CALL OF THE HOUSE.
Lord Ebringtonwished to know from the hon. and learned member for Kerry, whether it was his intention to enforce the Call of the House on Monday next.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he felt it a duty he ought to perform, but as he had some doubts as to the propriety of causing general inconvenience on account of the Irish Reform Bill, he should propose that the Order be discharged.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that considering the condition of the country, he should feel it his duty to enforce the Call of the House, and he, therefore, gave notice he should do so on that day, in order that he might bring forward a motion upon the state of public affairs.

MONEY PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL.
Mr. Littleton Mr. Littleton moved that the Bill be now read a third time.
Mr. Humefelt himself bound in principle to oppose the third reading of this Bill. He never could consent to a law which would have the effect of fettering the hands of both masters and operatives, or that should prevent the one buying, and the other selling labour, on the best terms. He had hoped the day for these restrictions had gone by, and that we had grown so much wiser by experience, as to believe that no man could take such care of another's affairs as the individual himself. The main evil under which the commerce of the country had suffered, arose from the restrictions imposed by ignorant legislation, which prevented labour being bought and sold at the market price. The persons who had petitioned in favour of the Bill, he believed were unacquainted with its probable effects—he feared they would find, that instead of plenty of work and high wages, it would produce a monopoly in the hands of a few persons, who would grind the workmen down to the lowest degree of misery. The measure was injurious in policy, and mischievous to individuals; he, therefore, proposed, for the word "now" that the words "this day six months" be substituted.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that nothing had occurred since he had delivered his opinions on this Bill, to make him believe those opinions were erroneous. He still believed the Bill would operate injuriously to both masters and workmen, but after the discussions that had taken place, he did not expect to alter the opinions of the House; he would, therefore, content himself with recording his own.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, he resided in the manufacturing district in the vicinity of Belfast, and he knew both masters and workmen were favourable to the principle of the Bill, and he also knew that many industrious workpeople had suffered very much by the Truck-system, in having damaged goods forced upon them. Its provisions might be obnoxious to the principles of political economy, but he was quite sure the present system required alteration.
The House divided on the Original Question: Ayes 61; Noes 4—Majority 57.
Bill read a third time and passed.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL— AD JOURNED DEBATE.
The Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Second Reading of the Bankruptcy Court Bill read,
Sir Charles Wetherellcomplained, that there had been a partial distribution of some statements relating to the Bill; he had not received one, although he understood several of his learned friends had.
Mr. Humesaid, there ought to be no mystery, whether this Bill would cost, 25,000 l. or 50.000 l.; he wanted to know, whether the Commissioners were to be entitled to superannuations.
Mr. John Williamswas sure, that 9,000 l. would be saved by the plan, if there was any truth in figures.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought the honour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerned in this; they were about to establish a Court which was likely to cost 40,000 l. per annum, and they had no knowledge of the materials.
The Attorney Generalsaid, there was nothing of mystery in his statement; he had distinctly stated the cost of the proposed and the present Court.
Mr. John Williams Mr. John Williams rose and said, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Borough bridge, upon the previous debate on this question, had made a very general, and therefore, in the opinion of many persons, a very successful attack
10
upon this Bill. With the moderation and care which were becoming to a subject of such very great importance, he (Mr. Williams) should embrace the objects of his learned friend's attack, in the order in which he took them, and he hoped that, when they were fully stated, as clear a case for the necessity of change and amendment would be made out, as any person could conceive. He should consider the subject as one which affected the administration of justice in an enlarged and most important sense. His learned friend (the member for Borough bridge) had begun by stating, that he could not think of abolishing the whole system of these Courts, from the long continuance of it; and he reminded the House, with warmth and earnestness, that that system had very long received the patronage equally of Whig and Tory Chancellors. Such an argument would be equally good to justify the continuance of any system, however vicious or pernicious; and yet systems were not perpetual, but were often modified, or entirely changed, to meet the wants and opinions of society. But his learned friend had said, that he might be brought to consent to the modification of these Courts, though not to the abolition of them; for the system was good, his learned friend said, and by him should it be defended. Without any disrespect to any one person now concerned in the present transactions of the Courts—for he utterly disclaimed all personalities, and believed, that among the Commissioners there were many honourable and learned men—he was convinced, that the whole system was utterly bad, and that it required one entire and complete change. His learned friend had objected to the multiplication of places by the Bill, to the patronage it would give to the Lord Chancellor, to the pension to be paid to the retiring Chancellor; and, lastly, he objected to the Bill because he said, that no competent opinions had been pronounced in its favour. He (Mr. Williams) would first take one opinion of the learned Gentleman's in which they were equally agreed. His learned friend had said, that the question was one of the very highest importance, and of the greatest moment—that it was full of intricacy, and that points of legal decision were submitted to the present Commissioners of Bankrupt. Upon these points there could be no difference of opinion. He agreed with his

11
learned friend in all these points as facts, but in the inferences from them they totally differed. He would maintain, that in proportion as the questions of Bankruptcy were of importance, in the same proportion was it necessary to have a Court which was presided over, by Judges of great learning, and in the same proportion was it necessary to revise, to remodel, and to make a radical change in the whole system. To use the language of the Committee of 1818, in proportion to the importance of the subject, was the necessity, that there should be a complete change in the Courts, and in their practice. These Courts of Commissioners, it was well known, were sub-divided into fourteen, and these lists had not to defend them any analogies, with respect to any other Courts whatever in this kingdom. First as to the appointments of the Commissioners. It was notorious and past all contradiction, that if the present Lord Chancellor should appoint as a Commissioner of Bankruptcies, a gentleman of only one year's standing at the Bar, no man could with justice attack that appointment; because, as his learned friend had justly said, his predecessors, both Whig and Tory, had done the same thing. Was it decent to the mercantile people of England, that any young gentleman, of ever so great promise, but as yet of no performance, should sit in judgment upon a case, or upon a class of cases which were admitted to be of the greatest, importance, both with respect to the very large sums they involved, and to the difficulties of understanding and deciding them? This alone was a state of things in contradiction to the establishment of any Court which possessed the respect of the country. Another peculiarity in these Courts was, that they were the only Courts now existing of which the Judges could at the same time be practising Barristers. There had been one example to strengthen this, but that very example had led to the destruction of the Welsh jurisdictions. He would now ask, how did the system work? Fourteen different lists of gentlemen were all acting independently of each other. In the superior Courts, by means of the conferences of the Judges in the House of Lords, by means of their being brought together in Courts of Appeal, a uniformity of decision was within the reach of every Court. Not so was it with respect to the Commissioners of Bankruptcies, for
12
fourteen independent Courts of Decision were sitting at the same time. Mr. Cullen had said, in his evidence, that, at the same time, the same Commission of Bankrupts had four matters under its consideration. One was, to choose the assignees, one the proof of the debts, one the proof of trading, and one he knew not what; but all tending to confound the judgment. And how were these Commissioners to be remunerated? Why, in a most peculiar manner, which gave them an interest in damaging and prejudicing the suitor, in order to pay the Judge. The interests and duties of these Judges were in direct opposition to each other. They were paid 20 s. each, at every meeting, and therefore the greater were the number of meetings the greater was the pay of the Judge, and the greater number of meetings the greater was the delay in the division of the funds, and the greater in every respect were the injuries to the suitors. It was impossible for these gentlemen, in many cases, to entertain an opinion that was not thwarted by their interests. It was the same with respect to the solicitors and the messengers—the interest of all was, to delay the division of the funds, the early division of which was the very object of the Bankrupt-laws. The Commissioners might be all honourable men; "so are they all honourable men;" but that was no reason whatever why they should be placed in such a situation that they could not do their duty but at the expense of their own interest. It was too much that such a system should be allowed to remain in opposition to all principles, and in defiance of every analogy with other Courts. If a gentleman of great talents, industry, and acquirements, received his early appointment of Commissioner, what was the consequence? The very moment at which he arrived at any proficiency to perform his duty as a Judge, the remuneration of a Judge for it averaged only 400 l. a-year, became too contemptible for him to attend to the duties of his office, and he would be found practising in Westminster-hall, or at Lincoln's-Inn, to the desertion of his duties in Basinghall-street. This fact was within the knowledge of every man, and it was impossible to deny it. From a jurisdiction so prone to error—from a depository of errors like this—it would be conceded that, there ought to be some mode of readily correcting what it did. Was this the case? It was his duty to state, that

13
the only appeal from the Commissioners of Bankruptcies was one, of all others, the most full of delays, the most overloaded with expenses, and more calculated to defeat all the ends of justice and objects of appeal, than any other known to the laws. It was a mere combination of every objection which could exist against the revision of a case. He was speaking of the appeal from the Commissioners of Bankruptcy to the Court of Chancery. First, was that appeal attended with delay? Look at the evidence given on the subject. Mr. Hamilton had said, that he had felt the inconvenience to his clients of an appeal to the Court of Chancery, most particularly when the appeal was from the Bankruptcy Court. Before the petition of appeal could be heard, the mischief to be provided against was very frequently committed, and past all remedy. Most cases of bankruptcy required a speedy decision, and yet in the Bankruptcy Court, in Basinghall-street, the business was worse conducted than in the most petty Court in the kingdom; and if the Court in Basinghall-street were absolutely abolished, and a Court like the Insolvent Court were to be established in its stead, it would be a great advantage to the public. The object, for which the Bankrupt Court was established was lost. Such had been the evidence of Mr. Hamilton, and now let the House hear what had been the evidence of the Chief Baron upon the subject of the expenses. The late Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, Sir James Alexander, had said, that there was a large expense incurred in the first instance. He had taxed a great number of bills, and the large expense arose principally from the number of affidavits, which contradicted each other as to the facts, and if there was any doubt as to the facts, the Chancellor sent the case to an issue before a Jury. One of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, Mr. Greig, had written a pamphlet on the subject, from which he would read an extract. Mr. Greig said, that these difficulties had long been a subject of complaint. The uncertainty of such evidence, the conflicting nature of the affidavits, very often rendered a Commission of Bankruptcy a matter of great expense, and the matter generally at issue was on occasions where a Jury must decide the facts. This was a costly, a dilatory, and unsatisfactory mode of coming to a decision. Now he (Mr. Williams) would come to the subject
14
of expense. Mr. Penson, Secretary of Bankrupts under Lord Eldon, had afforded a conjecture of the immeasurable, and of the almost inconceivable expenses, utterly wasted and thrown away upon those affidavits, which were filed for no purpose except that the suitor might have the satisfaction of knowing that he must have to pay 1,000 l. or 1,500 l. for no purpose upon earth. Mr. Penson further stated, that in the bankruptcy of Messrs. Howard and Gibbs, the affidavits alone amounted to 1,500 folios, and as eight folios went to one brief-sheet, there were about 190 brief-sheets, at 3s. 4d. a sheet, which, with the expenses of preparing the brief, would amount to 50 l.; and as in this case there were five counsel on each side, the solicitors would have to charge this 50 l. five times over, or 250 l. The other side would have the same, expense, so that the amount would be 500 l. This afforded one idea of the length, breadth, and delay of costs, of a Chancery appeal. In this one case 1,000 l. had been spent on the bare materials for the wordy warfare Then came the refreshers, so that infinitely more than 1,000 l. would be spent; and this was by no means an extraordinary case. Mr. Penson had said, that in several cases the expenses of the affidavits had amounted to 1,000 folios. In another cause eight counsel had been employed, and each had been heard at great length. And what did all this end in?—it ended, as the Lord Chief Baron had informed the House, in an inquiry, where, as Mr. Greig very truly said, it ought to have begun—it ended in an issue to try the facts, which rendered all the affidavits useless. He never knew a case where a man had been in the Court of Chancery with any profitable result, and the case subsequently went to a Jury, that he did not throw aside all his Chancery affidavits, and resort to the evidence of other witnesses. The Lord Chancellor, in fact, always said, that where a doubt existed, he should send the point to issue; and how, he would ask, could a case be without a doubt, in which there were 1,500 folios of affidavits? This insufficient and costly appeal, then, was the only correction that existed to the proceedings of the worst constituted Court in England. Would any man of principle undertake to say, that in a country priding itself upon its jurisprudence, such a system could be tolerated for a moment? and if his learned friend replied, that Englishmen

15
had tolerated this, he should then reply that that was not enough to satisfy any honourable mind that such a nuisance ought not to be removed. His hon. and learned friend opposite (Sir C. Wetherell) who spoke against this Bill, said, that no opinion had ever been pronounced in favour of the Court now proposed to be established by the gentlemen examinee before the Chancery commission. It would be marvellous if they had pronounced such an opinion, for the Court had no existence even in embryo until the beginning of this year. If such an opinion had been pronounced, it would have been anticipatively prospectively, and prophetically—to borrow the language of his hon. and learned friend. But did his hon. and learned friend mean to say, that the necessity of something like it had not long been acknowledged? In 1718, upwards of a century ago, there had been a petition from the city of London, complaining that the operation of the Bankrupt-laws was such, that the estate of the bankrupt was consumed in litigation. In 1783, Sir James Burgess put forth a series of reasons against the existing power of the Court of Chancery; and in his learned pamphlet, Mr. Basil Montagu had printed a bill for the remedy of the abuses he complained of, in the same form as Sir James Burgess drew it. That bill contained a provision for a permanent Court, and proposed a remedy for some of the grievances which suitors at present sustained in their appeal to the Lord Chancellor. Again, in the year 1811 there were petitions from the sister kingdom, from Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Belfast, and other trading and commercial places, complaining of the administration of the Bankrupt-laws, and of the manner in which the Courts were formed. In consequence of the general complaints which were made of the existing law, a bill was introduced into Parliament in the course of the year 1811, but for some reason or other, with which he was not acquainted, it was not followed up; that bill, however, contained a provision for the establishment of a permanent Court to dispose of all legal matters in bankruptcy. Then came the Committee of 1817, before which the most eminent legal authorities, Sir Samuel Romilly, Cullen, and others, were examined, and all concurred in stating, that nothing could be more iniquitous than the existing mode of administering the Bankrupt-laws. These things
16
spoke loudly against the existing system, and called imperatively for a radical change in the constitution and administration of these laws. But this was not all. The very cause of this Bill, the very ground of its being brought before Parliament, was the requisition of a numerous body of bankers and merchants of the City of London, assembled last spring, complaining of the manner in which the Bankrupt-laws were administered, and praying for a change. It was that requisition which suggested and became the immediate foundation of the Bill which his noble and learned friend introduced into the other House, which had received the sanction of that House, and which was now in the course of discussion before that House. The necessity for the introduction of some measure to amend the Bankrupt-laws, must be obvious to every one after the repeated and continued complaints which had been made against the existing laws, from the commencement of the last century down to the very day and hour that this measure was introduced. What did the hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge mean by saying to him, or to any of the supporters of this measure, that it was unnecessary—that it was uncalled for—that it had been introduced in mere wantonness of legislation? Did the hon. Member mean to say that, in the opinions of commercial men, as well as in the judgment of the most eminent of those to whom the administration of the existing Bankrupt-laws had been intrusted, that change was not required? All that he (Mr. J. Williams), could do was, to satisfy any man that, for more than a century past, the attention of the public had been continually called to the grievances of the present system. He had done that, and laboured to shew, that the present system was ill-constructed and worked ill, for this plain and obvious reason,—that in proportion as the questions of bankruptcy were of importance, in the same proportion was it necessary to have a Court which was distinguished by Judges of great learning, and in the same proportion was it necessary to revise, to remodel, and to make a radical change in the whole system. To use the language of the Committee of 1818, in proportion to the importance of the subject, was the necessity that there should be a complete change in the Courts and in their practice. The noble Marquis, the member for Buckinghamshire, said

17
that he was anxious to see the details of this Bill, in order that he might form a judgment of what their probable effect would be. He wished to God the noble Marquis were present now, impartially to determine whether the Commissioners should remain as they were, or whether this plan, or something like it, should be substituted. He would allude to those points upon which the present Bill got rid of many of the great and long-lived abuses which had hitherto disgraced this branch of our law. His hon. and learned friend, however, who he was glad to see was at that moment resuming his seat, had asserted that the present Bill would beget a multiplication of appeals. In the first place, said he, there is an appeal from the decision of the one Commissioner to the Subdivision Court. Upon that point, his hon. and learned friend was mistaken—there was no such appeal. The manner in which that part of the Bill was to operate was this:—If the single Commissioner, whose duties were limited, had any doubt upon his mind upon any point, either of law or of fact, which might arise before him, instead of appealing to the Subdivision Court, he called in the aid of some of his brother Commissioners, and, with their assistance, determined the question at once. Nothing, in his opinion, could be a more judicious or convenient mode of settling preliminary difficulties. Still it was said, you have no end to appeal, because from the decision, whether of the one or of the three Commissioners of the Subdivision Court, you have an appeal to the Court of Review. It was for this that he praised this Bill, because it substituted a summary mode of proceeding, which would operate cheaply and quickly, for the long, and tedious, and ruinous system which had hitherto prevailed. By one of the provisions of the Bill, the Judges of the Court of Review were empowered to form rules for the practice of that Court and of the Subdivision Court. Now supposing one of the rules to be, that the Commissioners singly, or formed into a Subdivision Court, should have a shorthand writer to take down all these decisions, or perhaps take notes of all that passed before them, or, if it be deemed better, that the Commissioner should take notes of the evidence adduced before him, in the same manner as the Judge in the Superior Courts—what would be the consequence? Why, that within four-and-
18
twenty hours after a doubt might have arisen in the minds of any of the Commissioners in the Subdivision Court, the opinion of the Judges of the Court of Review might be obtained upon it. Could any reasonable man doubt the advantages of such a system of appeal over one which, attended with ruinous expenses, also kept the parties in suspense and doubt, not only for weeks and months, but for years? The next appeal was to the Lord Chancellor; but it would be upon matter of law only; because the Court of Review, if a doubt or a difficulty arose upon a point of fact, were empowered to direct an issue, as Mr. Greig wisely said, at first instead of at last. Then his hon. and learned friend had assumed, but assumed under a mistake, that there was to be an appeal from the decision of the Lord Chancellor to the House of Lords. If the parties chose to take the appeal to the House of Lords at once, instead of to the Lord Chancellor, they would be at liberty to do so; but if they appealed to the Lord Chancellor, they would not afterwards be at liberty to appeal to the House of Lords. At present, according to the evidence given before the Chancery Commission, it appeared that the number of bankrupts' petitions carried before the Lord Chancellor, did not, on the average, amount to less than 700 a year. Thus, according to the testimony of Mr. Lee, a most competent witness, was one-third of the time of the Lord Chancellor occupied in the disposal of business which did not properly belong to the Court of Chancery. The costs attendant upon these 700 appeals to the Lord Chancellor, according to the sample which he had given, would amount to 700,000 l.; but suppose they were to take it at one fifth of that sum, and say that the costs amounted to 140,000 l., which was a moderate calculation—even then, ought they to reject any measure which had for its object the cutting away of so odious a system? If fit and proper Judges were appointed to the Court of Review, he would venture to say, that the appeals to the Lord Chancellor would hereafter be few indeed. Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Basil Montagu, who had had more practice before the Commissioners of Bankrupts than any other man now living—as well as many other authorities of the highest eminence, all concurred in stating, that a worse tribunal could not by possibility exist than a Court of Commissioners

19
of Bankrupts. The late Chief Baron, Sir William Alexander, stated in his evidence before the Commission, that a Court could be so constituted to determine matters in bankruptcy, as to render an appeal to the Lord Chancellor unnecessary. His (Mr. J. Williams's) object, however, at present was, to shew that the appeals would be few, if a proper Court were established to hear bankrupt cases in the first instance. Upon this point he would quote the evidence of a Mr. Harris, a solicitor at Bristol, a man of great respectability, and in very extensive practice, and who spoke very sensibly upon the subject. Having alluded to the establishment of a Bankrupt Court, he said—'My opinion is, that appeals from such a Court would only originate where there was a manifest error in the decision of the Judge, or in the case of extremely litigious suitors.' Mr. Harris was then asked, whether he did not think that the parties would be anxious to go to a higher Court of appeal. He said, 'Not generally, I should think, except where the suitors are litigious, or the attorney employed—as unfortunately, there are but too many—is of a low, pettifogging character. Where respectable persons are employed, I do not think that there would be many appeals.' Such was the evidence of Mr. Harris, and he perfectly concurred with him in all the opinions which he had expressed. He was satisfied that if the Court of Review were established, they should hear no more of 700 bankrupt petitions being annually carried before the Lord Chancellor. There was one other point upon which this Bill had his most sincere and hearty concurrence, knowing by a pretty long experience how much such a provision was required. He alluded to the appointment of the official assignee, whose duty it would be to secure the property of the bankrupt; and, what was more material, to render it immediately productive, by vesting it in the public funds. He was well aware that the last Bankrupt Act provided, under penalties, that the assignee should place in the hands of some banker the outstanding debts of a bankrupt, as he should collect them. It often happened, however, that the assignee, although, to all appearance, a man of substance and of property, was, in point of fact, in very doubtful and precarious circumstances. It was an old and a true adage that a drowning man would catch at a straw. It had, in many
20
instances, been exemplified in the cases of assignees of bankrupts. Themselves in an insolvent state, they had been unable to resist the temptation of employing the funds, which had come into their hands from the bankrupt's estate; but eventually failing, the other creditors had lost everything. Therefore, it had been thought, that the best mode of applying sums derived from bankrupt estates, would be to compel the official assignee to vest them immediately in the public funds. Moreover, to guard against any danger of loss from the insolvency of the assignee, it was provided, that he should not be allowed to undertake the duties of the office, unless he gave security for the full amount of the sums which might be likely to pass through his hands. So that the danger which now attended the appointment of assignee was effectually provided for, as well as the immediate and beneficial application of whatever assets might be derived from the estate. He would now say a few words upon the pounds, shillings, and pence part of this Bill, about which the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had said so much. Was it really so extravagant and profligate a measure as he had described it to be? In the first place, there was, in the Court of Chancery, a fund of ominous name—a name, by-the-bye, which it well deserved—the Dead Fund, from which, after paying the Masters in Chancery, the Vice-Chancellor, and the other officers of the Court of Chancery, there remained a clear surplus of 27,000 l. a-year free, to be disposed of in any manner that the Lord Chancellor might think fit. The whole expense of the new establishment, according to the statement of the hon. and learned member for Borough bridge, which was somewhat exaggerated, would amount to 29,200 l. a year; to meet this expense, the Dead Fund, if it were necessary, would be applicable, and thus an expense of little more than 2,000 l. a year would be thrown upon the public. But it was proposed to raise a sum equal to the whole expenditure of the Court by a tax upon the suitors, without calling for any portion of the consolidated or other funds of the country. Upon a reasonable and very moderate calculation, the fees paid by the suitors in the new Court would amount to 34,500 l. a year—that was to say, upwards of 4,000 l. a year beyond the estimated expense of the Court itself;—so that, in point of fact,

21
this Court would cost the country nothing. But when expense was talked of, they ought to consider for a moment what was the expense of the present unsatisfactory system of administering the Bankrupt-laws,—it was 71,189 l. a-year—so that, upon the score of saving expense alone, there was a balance in favour of the Court proposed to be established by this Bill, of no less than 41,989 l. a-year. But he was defrauding the Bill of its merits when he descended to these particulars. As his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, too, had well observed, in providing for the proper administration of justice, every pound of expense was not of importance, and should, in fact, be regarded only in a secondary point of view. For this measure, however, he might with truth assert, that in all its parts, in all its operations, it might, without any additional expense, be I brought into use for the benefit of the public. But, supposing that this were not the case—supposing that it were necessary to call upon the Consolidated Fund for 10,000 l. or 20,000 l. a-year, what would that be, compared with the needless sums which, under the existing system, were annually expended in the Court of Chancery. He now came to another point, upon which his hon. and learned friend attracted much attention; he alluded to the patronage which it was contended the Lord Chancellor would gain by this Bill. The House was probably aware, that the Lord Chancellor at present was paid but 5,000 l. a-year from the Consolidated Fund—that, undoubtedly, was a public charge. Then he received from 6,000 l. to 7,000 l. a-year upon fees, and 4,000 l. a-year from the House of Lord, with which they had nothing to do. New, in the first place, upon the subject of fees. Ever since he had had a seat, in that House—ever since he had read anything upon the subject—he had always understood it to be matter of complaint that any Judge should be paid by fees arising from his own Court. At the present time, therefore, in conformity with all that had been said and written upon the subject, it was intended to abolish that part of his emolument which the Lord Chancellor derived from fees, and to substitute another fund from which, by less objectionable means, he might obtain a sum equal to that which he had hitherto derived from fees, and from the Consolidated Fund; so that, for the future, neither the suitors of the Court,
22
nor the country generally, would have to bear any part of the expense of supporting a Lord Chancellor. The manner in which this was proposed to be effected was, to take from the Dead Fund, which was no man's property, a sum of 12,000 l. annually, in lieu of the fees and of the 5,000 l. hitherto paid from the Consolidated Fund. He now came to the 2,000 l. a-year which it was proposed to add to the Lord Chancellor's retiring pension. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge, said that he gave no opinion upon that subject. There certainly could be no ground for objecting to it. Every man who had any acquaintance with the Court of Chancery must be aware, that many serious changes to the prejudice of the Lord Chancellor had been effected by this Bill, and other regulations made which rendered it fit and proper that the amount of his retiring pension should be reconsidered. He who supposed that the people of England were niggard in rewarding those who faithfully discharged high, and responsible, and laborious duties, was mistaken. They were at all times ready and willing that such persons should be amply paid. He wished it to be understood that he had had no communication whatever with the noble and learned Lord who now presided in the Court of Chancery, upon the subject of this Bill—but, at the same time, he must do him justice, and must be allowed to say, that, if ever man deserved well of his country, it was my Lord Brougham, who, by exertions almost superhuman, had got rid of the immense arrear of business which had hitherto been the curse of the Court of Chancery. There was one topic more, and one topic only, to which his hon. and learned friend had adverted, and upon which he would say a few words. His hon. and learned friend had contended that this Bill was framed, as it would appear, almost for the express purpose of creating patronage to the Lord Chancellor. Those gentlemen little understood the profession of the law who supposed that the greater the value of the situation to be given away, the more desirable was the patronage to the person who had the disposal of it. A very little examination must serve to convince any one that it was not in the power of the Lord Chancellor, without incurring the indignation of the public, to make anything like a jobbing, irregular, or sinister appointment to any important judicial

23
situation. By constituting a regular Court, therefore, the Lord Chancellor deprived himself of the power of appointing any other than competent persons to discharge the duties of it. A Commissionership of Bankrupts, on the contrary, was just the species of appointment which might be winked at. It might be made a matter of solicitation, and granted without much consideration as to whether the party seeking for it were competent or not. Mr. Montagu said, that the very day that Lord Erskine received the Seals, he made an application to him for a Commissioner-ship; but, before he was twenty-four hours older, the noble and learned Lord shewed him a list of at least 100 names of persons who had applied to him for the like situation. Did any Gentleman suppose that, in the appointment to a Judgeship such a thing could occur, that, where the appointment was to a situation of 5,000 l. a-year, such applications would be made. They all knew that it was impossible. But the little snug thing of 400 l. a-year came completely within the reach of patronage, and the office of Commissioner of Bankrupts had been a fruitful source of patronage. But the more important the office to which the appointment was to be made, the more was the party appointing bound and fettered by public opinion, and, consequently, the less valuable was the patronage vested in him. It would be impossible for the Lord Chancellor on the solicitation of a Duke to make his younger son a Judge, although he might very easily, and without scruple, make him a Commissioner of Bankrupts. In the appointment to a Judgeship, public opinion must always operate too powerfully to prevent corrupt influence from being exercised. He was not aware that there was any other point on which he had intended to dwell. As far as was in his power, he had followed the course of his hon. and learned friend, and endeavoured to reply to the arguments which were advanced by him. In conclusion, he must express his gratitude to the noble and learned individual who, by his exertions in the Court of Chancery, had "won golden opinions from all sorts of men," for the introduction of this measure; and to declare, that of all reformers in law and equity, none that had ever come under his cognizance could be compared with-him. For this reason he would give his hearty and undivided support to the Bill.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, he had hoped that his honourable and learned friend would have abstained from introducing the Lord Chancellor personally into this debate, particularly when the subject of it was of a general nature, and affecting Lord Chancellors generally; he thought that his hon. friend would have taken a more fitting occasion to introduce the merits of the present Lord Chancellor to the notice of the House. The few observations which he should make with reference to that noble and learned Lord were only called for by the interference of his hon. friend; and in what he did say, he meant in no manner to be understood as reflecting on the noble and learned Lord, or by any means to disparage him. No man had admired, and did admire, more than he, the learning, the talents, and the highly-gifted eloquence of the Lord Chancellor; but he must say, considering the length of time which the noble and learned Lord had sat in the Court of Chancery, and considering the many and highly important and difficult questions of law which were frequently recurring, he did not think that, sitting so long in the Court as he had, and listening so long to the arguments of Counsel, he could have given that deliberation to them which their due investigation imperatively required. He had not intended to have said a word with reference to the noble Lord, but his hon. and learned friend had forced it on him, for he had taken occasion to praise the noble and learned Lord for that which he thought required greater consideration as to whether it did more evil than good. If the noble Lord would take his advice, he should advise him not to sit so long, but to give more time to quiet deliberation, and in making himself master of the practice of that Court, with which he was necessarily unacquainted, inasmuch as he had practised in a Court altogether dissimilar. His hon. and learned friend had said, that the administration of bankruptcy could not be worse than it was at present, and he went into numerous details to make out that case. He would ask, was there any man who would deny that the present administration of bankruptcy was bad? Was there any man who could deny that it required change and correction? Some of the hon. Gentlemen who supported this Bill seemed to take all the credit of the measure to themselves; they had no right to that merit, The late

25
Administration had determined upon the improvement and correction of the Court of Chancery; and one of the most important branches of that improvement was, the reforming of the administration of bankruptcy. If the late Administration had continued to exist, the administration of bankruptcy would have been reformed and rectified as bills were in preparation for that purpose. It was said that, under the present system, the Lord Chancellor might appoint a young man of one year's standing at the Bar a Commissioner of Bankrupts; but if he did so, it would be a most scandalous thing either for him or for any other Chancellor to do. An objection was raised to the present Commissioners being practising barristers at the same time; but were not Recorders generally practising Barristers? He did not think there was much, if any thing, in that objection. His learned friend objected to the appeal to the Lord Chancellor, under the present system; but surely his learned friend had not studied the Bill very attentively, for that appeal was preserved under it. With regard to filing numerous affidavits upon immaterial or collateral matters, in trying a question of bankruptcy, no man could condemn that abuse more than he did. It was true, he would admit, that there were too many Commissioners for the business they had to do; but was that a reason that this new Court was necessary? There were to be sixteen Commissioners under this new Bill; at present there were seventy. The new Commissioners would saddle the country with an expense to the extent of 14,000 l. a-year, and this, too, for the purpose of appointing another set of persons no fitter or more competent than those who at present performed the duties. In the present lists, which were composed of seventy Commissioners, there were to be found sixteen men, as competent as any men that could be brought forward, if not more so; but by the new system, the country would have to pay 14,000 l. a-year to get, by some accident, some few persons who might be capable of the duty of the office. The present Administration had come into power upon a declaration of economy: but this did not show them to be sincere in that respect. It might be requisite to reduce the present lists; but why not take from them those persons who were truly competent, and give them the new appointments? He would be bound to say, the business
26
would be as well done by sixteen of them as by any other set of men whatever. He thought that some of the Commissioners ought to be practising Barristers, otherwise they would degenerate in the knowledge of their profession, as being confined to the Bankruptcy Court alone. They could not be aware of the new decisions daily occurring in their profession. There were many good things to be given away by this Bill, and he could not but draw the attention of the House to some of them. He would not go into a consideration of the Registrars, though it appeared that ten were to be appointed under the present Bill, that is, one to each Judge. He supposed that they would be a sort of inferior Commissioners, and under the control of the Judge; but although there were ten Registrars, whose office it would be to perform the duties now performed by the Secretary of Bankrupts; yet that office was also to be retained. He would observe, that the appointment of a practising solicitor to the office of Secretary of Bankrupts was most objectionable. Lord Eldon certainly made such an appointment, so had previous Chancellors; but it was an objectionable practice, and ought to be got rid of. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that the time in which a Government of patronage could exist in this country had gone by for ever, but every possible mode had been adopted in the present Bill, of creating patronage. There were to be two Registrars and one Secretary to be appointed to perform the same duties. But whose Secretary was he to be? Was he to be the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor? And if so, was the new Court to be considered as only an appendage of the Court of Chancery? The new Secretary was to have 200 l. a-year, whilst the Registrars were to have 800 l. each, and the Judges 1,500 l. a-year. As to the official assignees, it was hardly possible to estimate their salaries. If he had retired from the profession, he should like nothing better than one of these official assigneeships; for having very little to do, he should be sure of getting a great income. The assignees would get enormous salaries, and there would be no control over them. If he did not satisfy the House, that there never was any thing so uncalled for as the proposed new Court, he should stand convicted of knowing no more about the Court of Chancery than his hon. and learned friend himself. He

27
would remind the House, that there were twelve Masters in Chancery, who were fully paid, and not too fully employed; but they had a good deal to do in references made to them in bankruptcy matters, which references they were able most satisfactorily to dispose of, and they might dispose of a great deal more. There was the Vice-Chancellor, too, a Judge who was appointed for the particular purpose of assisting the Lord Chancellor in bankruptcy cases. The present Vice-Chancellor had, during his sittings, devoted thirty-five days to the hearing of bankruptcy cases, and in that period entirely disposed of the whole of them. He had left no arrears in bankruptcy, for, although there were a few cases still set down before him, they could not be called arrears, as they had not been on the paper four months, because he had devoted his holidays to the hearing of bankruptcy cases, and had got through all but those of later growth. This showed that the Vice-Chancellor was fully competent to do the business. The proposition then in support of the present Bill was this—the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor, who had time and ability to do the business in bankruptcy, was to be taken away, and a new Court was to be established, and paid for out of the public money—out of the "Dead Fund," as it was called, and the Lord Chancellor was to retain the whole of his 7,000 l. a-year, without allowing out of it, as Lord Eldon used to do, 2,500 l. to the Vice-Chancellor, in part of his salary for assisting him. There happened to be no arrears of bankrupt cases in the Court of Chancery in consequence of the extraordinary exertions of the Vice-Chancellor, who had been able to get rid of all the arrears, and to keep down the number of causes. The Lord Chancellor now said, that the duty should not be performed in this way, but that he would receive the fees, and cease to pay 2,500 l. to the Vice-Chancellor for the hearing of bankrupt petitions. He did not believe that the present Lord Chancellor had devoted more than eight or nine days to bankrupt cases. The whole of the jurisdiction of bankrupt cases was undoubtedly in the Keeper of the Great Seal for the time being. At present, all the expense of this part of the administration of the law was defrayed out of the fees paid by the suitors in this Court: but it was proposed, that the expenses of the new Court should be paid by the public,
28
out of what was called the Dead Fund. The income of the Lord Chancellor would be increased very considerably by this Bill. At present, the fees paid in the Court of Chancery on bankrupt cases amounted to rather more than 7,000 l. a-year, of which the Lord Chancellor received only 5,000 l. as he had to pay the Vice-Chancellor 2,500 l. a-year out of the fund arising from that source. This new Court was to hear till the appeals in bankruptcy now heard by the Vice-Chancellor, although the appeal still remained to the Lord Chancellor. He presumed, under these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor would cease to pay the 2,500 l. now received by the Vice-Chancellor out of the bankrupt fees. He had not made any personal attack upon the Lord Chancellor in the observations he had thought it necessary to make upon the manner in which the business of the Court of Chancery was performed. Nothing he could say would have the effect of lessening that distinguished individual in public estimation; for, however much they might differ in opinion, it was impossible for any one to withhold a tribute of respect to his distinguished talents. The average salary of Lord Lyndhurst during the three years that he held the Great Seal, amounted to 12,771 l., and out of this he had to pay the Vice-Chancellor 2,500 l. a-year. This left 10,271 l., which was the whole sum he received as Keeper of the Great Seal; but he also received in addition a salary of 4,000 l. as Speaker of the House of Lords: this made a total of 14,27l l. But if the present Bill should pass into a law, the Lord Chancellor would have 18,000 l. a-year, as it was not to be expected that he would continue to pay 2,500 l. a-year to the Vice-Chancellor. A Committee of that House had recommended that the salary of the Lord Chancellor should not exceed 14,000 l. a-year. The noble and learned Lord, the author of this Bill, computed the income of the Lord Chancellor at 15,000 l. a-year, but he (Sir E. Sugden) was prepared to shew that it would amount to considerably more than 18,000 l. and this great increase of salary over that received by his predecessors would be attended with a diminution of duties. He was ready to admit, that the present Lord Chancellor had devoted a larger portion of his time than his predecessors to sitting in Court, but he doubted whether the public had gained materially by it. At any rate, there was no reason to justify the increase

29
of the Lord Chancellor's salary to such an enormous amount as 18,000 l., and at the same time divesting the Vice-Chancellor of 2,500 l. a-year. In addition to this, it should also be recollected, that, by this Bill, the Lord Chancellor saved the charge of the salary for the Secretary of Bankrupts. But the office of Patentee of Bankrupts was to be abolished. This office was now held by Mr. Thurlow, and Mr. Scott, a son of Lord Eldon, had a reversion in it. It had been asserted, that the Lord Chancellor made a great sacrifice by abolishing this office; but how could this be, as he would not have an appointment to this place until after the death of Mr. Thurlow and Mr. Scott, and it was not likely that a vacancy would occur while the noble and learned Lord held the Great Seal. As so much credit was claimed for the abolition of these sinecure offices, he would remind hon. and learned Gentlemen, that there were many sinecure offices attached to the Court of Chancery, which were not to be abolished. Out of some of these, certain portions of the fees were annually paid, the amount of which was not exactly known, but which would go to increase the 18,000 l. a-year. In addition to this great augmentation of salary, this Bill would confer on the Lord Chancellor an extent of patronage greater than any his predecessors ever enjoyed. However, he did not believe that the Lord Chancellor would have the official appointment to the places under the new Bill. He was convinced, from the very constitution of this Court, that it would be made a political engine. He was satisfied that a more unwise act had not been committed since the dismissal of the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for the purpose of appointing a noble Lord to preside in that Court, or of a more decided political bias. He could not see the shadow of a reason for cutting down the salary of the Vice-Chancellor to the extent of 2,500 l. a-year, when such a material increase was to be made to the income of Lord Chancellor Brougham. The noble Earl at the head of the Administration had said, that he was satisfied he had made a very good bargain, but the Lord Chancellor had certainly made a better bargain. But these were not the grounds which should actuate public men. The present Chancellor had already had a considerable share of patronage considering the short time that he had been in office. No less than
30
six vacancies in the Commissionerships of Bankrupts had been filled up. Lord Lyndhurst told each of the Gentlemen whom he made a Commissioner of Bankrupts, that he must not expect any compensation if a change should be made in the Bankrupt Court, and the office of Commissioner abolished. Lord Brougham made no such limitation, but appointed gentlemen to these offices, without, any understanding as to their not having retiring salaries. These Commissioners were to be paid 14,000 l. a-year for retiring salaries, when there existed not the least necessity that they should retire. But, independent of the patronage of the appointment to these lucrative offices, which were more than fifty in number, was the House aware that the appointments were to be made, and the salaries to commence immediately on the passing of this Bill, although the duties of these Judges and other officers, were not to commence until some time after the beginning of the new year? The noble Lord opposite said, that the days of patronage had gone by; but could a proposition of this nature be designated in any other way than as gross patronage and jobbing? He would read the last clause of this Bill, which would render the nature of his objection obvious. 'And be it enacted, that this Act shall commence, and take effect from and after the passing thereof, as to the appointment of the Judges and other officers hereby authorised, and as to all other matters and things, from and after the 11th day of January next.' From this it appeared that these gentlemen would receive their salaries from the day of their appointment, which would take place immediately, although the Bill did not come into operation until the 11th of January. What, a large sum would the salaries of the Judges, Registrars, and other officers of this Court amount to, which must be paid by the public, until the duties of their office commenced! What an opportunity had the Lord Chancellor to give a portion of the bankruptcy business to the Masters in Chancery! for nobody would say that they were now overburthened with the duties they had to perform; but then, if this were done, the fees which would be paid under the new system would go to other persons. The Chief Justice of this new Court was to have 3,000 l. a-year, and the three Puisne Judges 2,500 l. a-year each. These Judges would have little or nothing

31
to do for their large salaries. Such was the impression on the minds of others. A few nights ago his hon. and learned friend said, with some degree of exultation, that one of the most learned of the commonlaw Judges had consented to fill the office of Lord Chief Justice of this new Court. No man could entertain a higher degree of respect for this learned Judge than himself, and every man would admit his claims as a person of eminent talent, extensive legal knowledge, and great industry. It should not be forgotten, however, that this learned Judge retired from the Court of King's Bench to the comparative ease and quietness of the Exchequer, as he found the duties of the former Court too onerous for his advanced years. Since the appointment, however, of Lord Lyndhurst to the Chief Justiceship of the Court of Exchequer, and the throwing open the Court, there had been such an influx of business, that it could no longer be called the seat of ease. The learned Judge, then, to whom he had alluded, was to be appointed to the Chief Justiceship of this Court, and, if the business of this office were great or burthensome, it was not very likely that he would accept it. This salary, however, of 3,000 l. a-year, with comparatively nothing to do, could not but prove to be very agreeable. The four Judges of this Court would have to hear the bankruptcy petitions, and to try issues on points of that nature. The Vice-Chancellor heard all the bankruptcy petitions in thirty-five days, and it was not very probable that it would take these Judges a longer time than that, for there would not be more petitions to hear than the Vice-chancellor heard, as that learned Judge heard all that there were. Again, on the average of a number of years, there were not twelve issues on questions of bankruptcy tried in our common-law Courts. The Court, also, from its constitution, would become stagnant, and decline in public estimation; and, in consequence of the smallness of the business, the legal knowledge of the Judge would diminish, and might become obsolete; and the professional character of the practitioners in it would not be of the highest order. He admitted that the bankruptcy system required alteration, but he objected to the proposed new jurisdiction as inexpedient and inefficient. It was establishing an inferior jurisdiction in the place of one of high importance, and it could have no beneficial operation, but, on
32
the contrary, it would dwindle into insignificance, and be productive of mischief. The great protection which a trader now had against his being unjustly made a bankrupt, consisted in his right to try, by an action at law, the validity of the commission which had been sued out against him. For the trial of such actions no tribunal was more fit, or so fit, as the superior Courts of common-law. He should be sorry to see their important functions delegated to the new Court, which would prove to be as unsatisfactory as it was unnecessary. He would not be understood to advocate the existing administration of the law in bankruptcy, because he disapproved of the mode in which it was intended, by the present Bill, to alter it. Why make a complete change in the machinery of the Court? If it was necessary, were there not Masters in Chancery to whom matters of this nature could be referred? Were there not the present Commissioners, some of whom were amongst the most able men in the profession? Had they not a Vice-Chancellor as a Judge of Appeal, instead of referring every question to the Lord Chancellor? And, also the fifteen common-law Judges for the trial of issues? Why was it necessary to constitute this new Court with such expensive and complicated machinery? No man was more pledged to the improvement of the law than he was, and, when he left office, he explained to the House, in a long speech, the alterations and amendments which it was proposed by the late Administration to make in the law, and the House would recollect that the important subject of bankruptcy was not omitted in the detail he then made. The object he intended to effect was, in the main, that which was sought by the present Bill; but he proposed to attain it in a very different manner. He never contemplated the severing the jurisdiction in bankruptcy from the Great Seal, but to reduce the number of the Commissioners, and to place the duties at present discharged by the seventy in the hands of perhaps twenty; to retain the valuable assistance of the Masters in Chancery, and to make still greater use of it, in order to relieve the Court, and decrease the number of appeals, and, above all, not to part with the privilege of trying actions in the superior Courts. The change which he contemplated might have been effected without expense, and without any such increase of patronage as

33
the present Bill proposed. He never contemplated the forming a new Court, with a Chief Justice aud Puisne Judges, Commissioners and Registrars, at salaries amounting to 26,000 l. a-year. It must be universally admitted, that a more opportune moment for the passing of this Bill could not occur than the present time, for the attention of the public was so strongly directed to other topics, that hardly any regard had been paid to this Bill. It ought to have been brought in and left over until next Session, when time would have been allowed for its consideration by the country, instead of its being hurried in the way in which it had been. Again, it was most objectionable to deprive the creditors of the care of the property of the bankrupt, and to place it under the control of official assignees. The Lord Chancellor was afraid, however, that the creditors might neglect their own interests; for he said, "We must not let the unfortunate creditors place confidence in one of their own body, for there is a chance that he may deceive them; let us, therefore, take charge of the estate." Accordingly, the Government were to appoint thirty persons to perform this duty of official assignees. He had thought that everybody had agreed that it was desirable to leave the management of a man's affairs in his own hands, and the same rule should apply to the creditors in a case of bankruptcy. He was ready to admit, that great frauds and abuses were committed by persons acting as assignees; but this could have been prevented without establishing this machinery. Why not allow the Lord Chancellor or the Commissioners of Bankrupts to remove assignees in case of the non-performance of their duty; and why not modify the law, so as to render the punishment in cases of fraud more certain and expeditious? This part of the Bill would lead to the greatest abuses, and would produce much mischief. He objected to the Government interfering in any case in which the property of individuals was at stake—of course, he exempted the property of minors and lunatics—or of preventing any disposition that a man chose to make of his own. He had always regarded this as one of the chief blemishes of the French law. There was hardly any mode in which a gentleman of England could not dispose of his property. There was no mode of dividing it among his family
34
which he could not avail himself of. The French law, however, on the death of a parent, directed—with the exception of one share—an equal division among the younger children, and a double portion to the eldest son. This was most objectionable, and, even if for no other reason, a father ought to have the power of protecting himself against a prodigal son. An extreme case like that of Mr. Thellusson—where a father left all his property from his family, unless at the end of a certain time a heir-male should be alive—could be no justification of such a rule as was laid down in the French law. But to return to the subject immediately before the House. He contended that it was against the very principle of the law of England, to adopt the course now laid down in this Bill, relative to the appointment of official assignees. Because the assignees appointed by the creditors sometimes violated their trust, it was proposed to take from the creditors the management of the property of their debtor, in which they must feel great interest, and give it to assignees to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Then it was obvious, that these thirty official assignees would have enormous salaries in fees, for they were to receive five per cent on the money collected out of the bankrupt's estate. This might appear a small sum, but when the estate was large, the money that would accrue would be enormous. He remembered a case of the bankruptcy of a Mr. Powell, where the debts collected amounted to 780,000 l. Now if, when this Bill comes into operation, any merchant should fail for such a large sum as that, any one of these assignees would come in for upwards of 30,000 l. He was so convinced, that the remuneration of the official assignees would be enormous, that he was inclined to request his hon. and learned friend, if his praises of the Lord Chancellor should gain for him, as they ought, the favour of his Lordship, to exercise a little of his influence in favour of him (Sir Edward Sugden), for he should like of all things to lay down his more laborious occupation, and take up for the rest of his days with the post of official assignee. One of these thirty official assignees was to be tacked to every existing commission, and the existing assignees were to pay over the money to him. This was an insult to men of character, respectability, and education, which they

35
would not bear. Could it be expected that an honest assignee—a man of justice and integrity—a creditor, who had been appointed under an Act of Parliament—would relish being turned out of his office in this manner, and being obliged to hand over every single shilling he had received? But to what restrictions were these official assignees to be subject? In the first place, good security would be required. It was absurd to talk of sufficient security, for such enormous sums as these persons might receive, which, in some cases, would amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. He did not insinuate anything against the character of these official assignees; they would be gentlemen of good and proper politics. The noble Lord said so—that was certainly something—but men who were to exercise such a control as this, ought to possess even greater merits than that. If a man were to give security for 10,000 l. and then received a very large sum—perhaps 100,000 l.—what remedy would there be if he were to take it into his head to proceed to Calais by steam, or some such quick conveyance? Would not the creditors say in such a case, that it would have been better for them if the Lord Chancellor had allowed them to take care of their own interests, and would they not have a right to say so? What would the effect of this Bill be, so far as regarded country attornies. In that respect, it was one of the most objectionable measures he had seen. As the law now stood, the Lord Chancellor had not the power of appointing country Commissioners, but by this Bill he vested that power in himself, and by that one act secured to himself the patronage of all the barristers and attornies throughout the kingdom. Now, suppose a political Lord Chancellor, such a Chancellor as had been in times long gone by, who would interest himself in political questions, was it not likely that the gentlemen, before they were appointed, would have a little bit of information given to them, to the effect that his Majesty's Government wished to advocate particular questions, and to attach themselves to specific political parties? He had stated, when the Reform Bill was before the House, that it had been calculated that the barristers who would be appointed under that Bill, would not be less in number than 300, and they would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor; if, therefore, the appointment
36
of those 200 or 300 individuals were given him, as well as the influence this Bill would give, an immense degree of power, to be exercised over all the attornies and all the barristers in England, would be vested in him. This was a power which should be given to no man, and the present Lord Chancellor ought to form no exception. The Reform Bill had placed more power in the hands of the country attornies than they ever possessed, and if that Bill should pass, these dangerous powers would be still more increased by the Bill now under discussion. Under that Bill it would be necessary for the overseers to employ an attorney, in order to make out the lists; when the lists were made out, the attorney must go before the barrister to argue the case—for a barrister must not—over whom he will possess a most considerable degree of influence, and if the barristers were to go on their own circuits, it would be still more objectionable, and this influence would be increased. The attorney would possess an interest over the barrister, he would make up the lists, and if this Bill passed, the attornies would have a greater power over the elections of this country than ever was possessed by any class or body of men. Now, as this Bill gave the Lord Chancellor again great influence over these attornies, who possessed so much power, the Lord Chancellor and his Majesty's Government for the time being, would possess an influence over the elections, which was highly improper, unconstitutional, unadviseable, and inexpedient. On these grounds, it would be quite impossible to pass this Bill. He would not stop this measure at present, because he was quite willing to admit, that there must be great alterations in bankruptcy. He entirely agreed that there was a necessity of cutting down the number of the present Commissioners; but the power of deciding cases of this description must not be taken from the Judges of the land, and given to an inexperienced and inefficient Court. He would state to the House a few general observations on this question. He had frequently heard it argued by individuals, whom no man would deny were competent to form an opinion upon the subject, that the business of bankruptcy ought not to be separated from the Great Seal, and he would tell the House why. He was making these observations in the presence of many hon. and learned Gentlemen, who would,

37
no doubt, correct him if he stated anything improper. This was not only an important branch of legislation, so far as the property of individuals was concerned, but there was no law in practice which it might not be necessary to consult in the administration of justice in this respect. The greater part of the solicitors who were engaged in bankruptcy cases only, were much less respectable than any other class of practitioners. There was no branch of the practice in which there was so great a tendency to perjury as bankruptcy. It was requisite, therefore, that this business should be attached to the Great Seal, not merely because the Great Seal was supposed to possess the knowledge requisite to amend and correct the erroneous decisions of the Courts below, but because the importance of that Court, and the importance of the barristers who practised in it, were such as to keep in check and to control undue practices on the part of the inferior practitioners in bankruptcy. The removal of bankruptcy from the Great Seal would, therefore, be the means of also removing this wholesome cheek, and this due administration of justice. Nothing could be more dangerous than the appointment of this Court of Review, which would transact the business now performed by the Vice-Chancellor. If it, were necessary to establish a new Court at all, which he denied—it would first be proper that the whole law of debtor and creditor, and the administration of the Insolvent-laws between them, should be taken into consideration. The Insolvent-law now stood on as bad a footing as a law could well stand, operating most harshly upon the poor debtor, without being sufficiently advantageous to the poor creditor. Everybody knew the truth of this observation, and nobody better than the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; because, before he came into office, he did, in a manner most creditable to himself, and highly gratifying to this House and the country at large, offer to become a most active member of a Committee which the Government then proposed to appoint, for the purpose of inquiring into the law of debtor and creditor. The noble Lord at that period could afford to devote his time to the performance of that duty; but, of course, his coining into office had incapacitated him from doing so. His Majesty's Government had not brought forward any proposition for pursuing that inquiry,
38
although the leading member of it was willing to take upon himself the arduous duty to which he had referred. It was impossible to conceive a more unwise and improper course than that of constituting a new Court of Bankruptcy, while the existing laws of insolvency and of debtor and creditor remained in their present state. This Bill had two objects in view; the first was, the institution of a new Court, which was not wanted; and the other was, the making some half-dozen alterations in the law, which might well be done without having a new Court. Under the existing law, the first man in England might be put into an awkward predicament. A man behind his back might swear to a certain transaction, ex parte; and unless he had the means of shewing that he was not a bankrupt, they were bound to regard him as one, on this ex parte proceeding, and his fair fame and fortune were, perhaps, for ever destroyed. As so much hardship could be entailed upon individuals by this law, the Legislature very properly allowed an appeal to any court of justice in the country. But what did this Bill do? It allowed no such advantage, but compelled the individual to bring his case before one of the unimportant and incompetent Judges of the Tribunal which was about to be established. If this Bill were to pass, what would be the effect, supposing a man—Mr. Chambers, for instance, whose case was well known—should turn out not to be a bankrupt; a man's credit would be destroyed without any cause for so doing. It was quite a common thing, certainly, for the decision of Commissioners to be reversed, and for issues to be tried, and verdicts set aside; but under the present system there was a direct remedy; the case might be tried before any of the Courts in Westminster-hall, or before the Lord Chancellor; but in future this must be done before this new tribunal of unimportant personages. Unless his Majesty's Government could shew that the fifteen Judges of the land were so pressed that they could not hear issues on bankruptcies—the number of which was very small—there was not the slightest foundation for this change. The bankrupt and the creditor ought to have a full and fair remedy, and therefore he was willing and anxious to concur in a measure which would have that effect. There was another question, of very great importance, relating to

39
the saving of which they had heard, and the fund of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke. The Dead Fund was the property of living men; it was composed of dividends which had not been paid over, because the owners were not to be found; and it was, therefore, as much the property of the public as any which was applied in the administration of justice. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have applied the same observations to this fund as to the unclaimed dividends at the Bank of England. There was very great expense and trouble attendant upon getting a small fund out of Court; and no doubt every facility ought to be afforded for that, purpose. These small funds were accumulated at the expense of individuals, and he, therefore, called upon the noble Lord to protect this fund. There was once a suggestion made on this side the House, which seemed not to be attended to on the other side, to borrow the Suitors' Fund and lend it, to Government. He then took the liberty, as he always should, of opposing such a system. Not a single shilling of a fund belonging to the suitors of that Court ought ever to be touched. That fund, so far as it was not wasted, belonged to the State, no doubt; but then, the law applied it in the first instance to make good the necessary charges of the administration of justice—nothing, certainly, could be more fair. It was unclaimed, and it certainly ought to be applied, in the first instance, to defraying those costs incurred in administering justice. The noble Lord, however, was now going to apply it to other purposes. He proposed to give the Lord Chancellor 5,000 l. out of it, as at present, and also 7,000 l. instead of fees and other emoluments. How could such a proceeding be reconciled with justice? What right, had the noble Lord to pay the Lord Chancellor in the way he proposed, without, in the first instance, making a full inquiry into the nature of this fund? In fact that fund had become a public trust; and when the hon. and learned Attorney General said, that he was prepared to provide for these expenses without having recourse to a public fund, this was a perfect delusion; for he proposed to throw those expenses upon a fund which belonged to certain individuals, and not one shilling of which ought to be applied to the benefit of the country. The Lord Chancellor held the bankruptcy business by a particular commission—that commission
40
was always directed to him as a matter of course; and, therefore, though the law in bankruptcy cases was always administered in the Court of Chancery, where alone it could be administered, yet it did not, strictly speaking, so belong to the Court as to justify them in throwing upon the Suitors' Fund, not only the expense of the fees in bankruptcy, but the whole of the expense of this new Court. The noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government, and the noble and learned Lord at the head of the Court of Chancery, would entirely disappoint the expectations of the country, if they brought forward measures of this description, instead of introducing new and complete reforms in the law, and instead of reducing those enormous fees and exorbitant charges which would long ago have been abolished if the late Administration had remained in office. He had a right to say this, and he would now declare, sincerely and deliberately, that he would support any general improvement in this respect which might be brought forward on fair and proper grounds. When the noble and learned Lord who now sat on the Woolsack was defeated on the measure which he (Sir Edward Sugden) then brought forward, he again divided the House, and again declared his intention of making use of his privilege as a Member of Parliament, until, by repeated adjournments, he had destroyed the success of the measure. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord now at the head of the law, had shewn as much opposition to an alteration in the state of the law as it was possible for any individual Member of Parliament to shew in his place in that House. For the task of introducing a Reform in the administration of justice, many individuals might be more competent than himself; but, there was no one who would have set about it with a more sincere and earnest desire to effect, an improvement than he should. He had employed the time which properly belonged to himself—the vacation—to give his best consideration to the subject, and from the course then adopted by the noble Lord opposite, he had had a most sanguine hope that some most effectual improvement in the state of the law would have been introduced. This confidence he could not entertain much longer, if some comprehensive measure were not brought forward. In making any observations upon a public subject, he should always do what he conceived to be his duty,

41
without regard to any, the most remote, ulterior considerations, or to whoever might happen to hold the Great Seal for the time being.
Mr. Serjeant Wildedid not know whether his hon. and learned friend had ever received any castigation in the Court of Chancery, but, certainly, if not for that, for some other sufficient reasons, he had addressed the House on the present occasion on very many, various, and dissimilar subjects. He (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) had never received any castigation from the present Lord Chancellor; and it was, therefore, to him no matter of surprise that an hon. and learned friend of his, near him, could treat, this subject with good humour. One of the evils to which his hon. and learned friend (Sir Edward Sugden) called the attention of the House was, the recent despatch of business in the Court of Chancery. As this House and the country had a tolerably long experience of the evil consequences of delay in that Court, there could be but, very few hon. Members who would sympathize with the hon. and learned Gentleman. This was undoubtedly a measure of very great importance, embracing the whole system of the present administration of the law. Though his hon. and learned friend had entered into a great variety of topics calculated to distract his own attention and that of his listeners, he had not advanced anything decidedly opposed to this proposition. He had not attempted to shew that the Court, which it was proposed to establish, would be incompetent to answer the object for which it was to be created. He was not aware from whom the noble and learned Lord who introduced this Bill in another place, procured the necessary information on which to act, or to whose experience he addressed himself, if he did not apply to the very same quarters to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred. With regard to the introduction of this Bill, the measure now proposed was not new to any individual who might have thought fit to direct his attention to the subject. For upwards of thirty years, the system of bankrupt jurisdiction had been a matter of universal and constant condemnation and execration. This Bill was the result of those inquiries which had from time to time been made, upon the authority of that House, or by persons professionally engaged in the administration of justice: the Bill at the same time proceeded upon
42
the recommendations of Committees of that House, and upon the recommendations of individuals who had given, their best attention to the subject; and there was no part of this Bill, not even that part which was most condemned, which had not received the sanction of most respectable authorities reiterated from time to time. Considering the way in which Commissioners of Bankrupts were appointed, it would be a most extraordinary circumstance if that jurisdiction were efficient; agreeing, however, with his hon. and learned friend, that among the Commissioners there were to be found as intelligent, efficient, and respectable individuals, as filled any situations in the kingdom. He had for many years been in the constant, habit of practising before them, and had, therefore, constant opportunities of seeing them; and he would unhesitatingly state, that there were individuals in that jurisdiction before whom he should be most happy to plead; still that jurisdiction had been made more the subject of patronage than any other in the kingdom. It was well known that to Lord Chancellor after Lord Chancellor it had been the means of obliging political and other friends, and a great number of individuals had been appointed who were utterly incapable of discharging the duties belonging to their office. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of this jurisdiction without knowing anything about it; he had borne testimony to the manner in which the Commissioners did their duty. He believed he never was in a room with them in his life, he was sure that his hon. and learned friend had no experience on the subject, that he possessed no personal means of information. He was quite in error when he stated to the House that much attention was usually given to parties at private meetings. He would read what had been stated by an hon. and learned friend of his, who had been engaged in eleven times as much business before these Commissioners as any other individual in existence. He said, 'Secondly, among 'the evils of the jurisdiction is the difficulty of fixing the attention of the Commissioners.' This individual was himself a Commissioner: he proceeded. 'The attention of the Commissioners is with great difficulty fixed on the subject matter in dispute. I frequently have to implore the undivided attention of the Commissioners, but at private meetings

43
the newspaper is a much more able advocate than I am. In January last, on my stating to a Commissioner, who had appointed two and I believe three private meetings at the same time, that it was impossible all parties could gain his undivided attention; the answer to my observations was, "that the Lord Chancellor had ordered that only three meetings should be held at once." A more perverted or mistaken interpretation of that order could not be conceived.' When his hon. and learned friend, therefore, spoke as he had done upon this subject, his observations were applied to a point, in respect of which he possessed no information. It must be apparent that this was the case, if the statements which had been made by individuals who knew anything of the matter were referred to. It appeared from a statement of Mr. Montague—an excellent authority on this question, and who had been before referred to—that a worse constituted tribunal could not be conceived; but how could it be otherwise? Three Commissioners were appointed to attend a meeting two hours, or, if it were a private meeting, one hour, The counsel, the attornies, and the Commissioners attended, besides the parties. Punctuality was not to be expected; a portion of the two hours or hour, as the case might be, was wasted, in consequence of the non-attendance of the necessary parties. The examination was taken by question and answer, and while it was proceeding the counsel did not sit silent, and discussions frequently arose, so that it often happened that half the time of the second meeting was occupied in re-saying and re-considering what was said at the first; and so they might go on for ten, fifteen, or twenty meetings. Could it, then, be supposed that such a Court as this, and such proceedings as these were calculated to administer justice, equitably, and satisfactorily? It had been stated that the average expense of each meeting was 12 l.; it was not more than 10 l. At last the decision of the Commissioners was unsatisfactory; and what then took place? A petition was presented to the Vice-Chancellor, the depositions being taken before him by affidavit, and, consequently, not in the same way as before the Commissioners. The whole matter was gone over again; at last, at the end of some months, the matter came for hearing before the Vice-Chancellor; he decided, and in many cases the parties instantly appealed, But did he
44
always decide? no; he frequently directed a further inquiry, and often he directed issues to be tried. What was the consequence? These inquiries were unsatisfactory; the case came back again to the Vice-Chancellor, and the parties then appealed to the Lord Chancellor, the whole system being one of endless litigation, procrastination, and expense. Although he, perhaps, had had considerable experience on this subject, still there were many gentlemen who had had more; but, with the permission of the House, he would state a few instances of what had occurred within his own personal experience, and the truth of which he could vouch for. It was admitted—and this fact was material—by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that the nature of this jurisdiction ought to be altered. Now, some short time ago, the necessity of such an alteration was utterly denied, but it was now fully admitted, for no one could deny that great evils existed. His hon. and learned friend referred to a specific case, and as he took it first he would follow his example. In that case a Commission issued against Messrs. Howard and Gibbs; that commission was superseded: it was afterwards tried, and before another Commission; and after a very long examination—sixteen or twenty meetings were held upon it—the petition was rejected. A petition was presented to the Vice-Chancellor to reverse that decision, and praying that it should be received; long affidavits were prepared, and six or seven counsel were instructed and feed. The case came on before the then Vice-Chancellor, Sir John Leach, who, as soon as the case was opened, said—"It is useless my going through this petition. I cannot hear it, inasmuch as the question turns upon contradicted facts, and there must be an issue." An issue, therefore, was directed. That petition did not cost less than 300 l. or 400 l. and before counsel were heard—immediately, in fact, on the case being opened, and without the long affidavits being looked into further than to shew the Court that the facts were contradicted—it was thus abruptly disposed of. That petition was presented in 1816; the issue was tried in about twelve months; and a verdict was found in conformity with the decision of the Commissioners, and against the debt. A petition was presented to the Lord Chancellor, with a complaint that the Vice-Chancellor had not heard counsel, and setting forth the

45
fees and expenses incurred in presenting their first petition. At the end of something like twelve months this petition was heard, and after an argument which lasted three or four days, a new trial was granted on payment of costs by the petitioners: these costs amounted to 550 l. The new trial, at the end of another twelve months, was about coming on, when it was discovered that the order was not quite right. There was a petition, therefore, to the Lord Chancellor to amend it; this was done; but when the cause was about coming on again, it was discovered that there was another error in the order, and another petition was therefore presented, and at the time of the presentation of that petition something like four years and a-half had elasped since the question had first arisen. My Lord Eldon then said, that he should have had all the facts before him three years before, when the petition was first presented. The parties begged and prayed that he would decide the case himself, without obliging them to incur the expense of preparing another issue and sending it down for trial. Four days were occupied in hearing the argument, in which no less than nine counsel were engaged. The Court then made an order confirming the original decision of the Commissioners and the decision of the Jury, and dismissed the petition with costs. The petitioners complained that they should have costs to the amount of 1,550 l. to pay the assignees, besides 550 l. they had paid before, and the petitioners' own costs could not have been less than 2,500 l. The assignees' costs were about 500 l. Thus there was a delay of five years, and the expense altogether was about 5000 l. This was the jurisdiction—the tribunal—which indeed his hon. and learned friend said, he could not defend, but which nevertheless had been defended by others, and held up as perfect and requiring no alteration! He would cite another case which also occurred within his own knowledge. In that case a creditor had proved a debt of the amount of 4,000 l. A petition was presented, in the year 1816, to expunge that debt. The petition was presented to the Vice-Chancellor, by whom the case was referred to the Commissioners, who held twenty-five meetings upon it, which occupied about three years. The Commissioners ultimately decided against the debt; and a petition was presented to the Vice-Chancellor, who directed an issue; after all
46
the expense, therefore, of taking the affidavits—after all the fees to counsel—the matter was in no way advanced, and the affidavits were mere waste paper. The attorney's costs for taking instructions are 1s. for every seventy-two words; for drawing, 8d. per folio, or seventy-two words, and for copying—to be sworn. Then briefing, 3s. 4d. a sheet for every sheet delivered to counsel, of which there were sometimes six or more. An issue was prepared by one side; the other side said that the matter ought to be concluded, and that there ought to be no issue—and the result was, that a petition was presented to the Lord Chancellor; that petition, after about a year and a half had elasped, was at last argued before Lord Chancellor Eldon, and at the period when he left office, it remained waiting for judgment, it having been presented in 1816. The parties implored my Lord Eldon to give judgment notwithstanding that he had resigned the Seals, and not to put them to the expense of having the whole of the matter re-heard before the new Lord Chancellor. In January, 1831, therefore—last January—an order was pronounced on this petition, reversing the decision of the Commissioners, and pronouncing the debt to be good, and the creditors of the estate had the satisfaction of receiving a dividend on 4,000 l. of 2s. in the pound, the costs only amounting to 2.000 l. There was another case, in which a person of the name of Perkins proved a debt to the amount of 4,000 l. The case was examined by the Commissioners, and went through the same routine, an issue was directed in the same manner; the debt was established, and a dividend of 2s. in the pound, or something less, paid upon it, the costs greatly exceeding the whole amount of the debt. He might mention several similar cases but would confine himself to one more. A dispute arose, in the instance to which he alluded, whether the sum of 300 l. had been received by the assignee for the benefit of the estate or his own benefit, on which an issue was directed—the Vice-Chancellor, conceiving himself incompetent: to decide, directed the issue, and the verdict decided in favour of the creditors, and that the money was received for the use of the estate. When the case went back to the Court of Chancery, all the parties were desirous of having their costs out of the fund, but the parties received only 300 l. a sum not sufficient to pay their costs, and

47
the rest they went without. He could accompany these cases with many others which had occurred within his own experience. He would venture to say—and he had been engaged in as many commissions as any man in England—that the instances were very rare where a man was not ruined by a bad commission being taken out against him, He recollected the case of a man whose estate was supposed to be worth 10,000 l. My Lord Eldon directed an issue; great delay took place; the whole estate was ruined and there was not one shilling left to divide among the creditors. Instances like these were not rare—they were in the ordinary course of the administration of justice. It might be asked, how this happened? Was the tribunal incompetent to administer the duties which were imposed upon it? One reason was, the jurisdiction of my Lord Chancellor in bankruptcy was, to a great extent, assumed, for there was no such jurisdiction given him by the law of the land. He had it and exercised it now, and of course it would be idle to attempt to dispute it. He only referred to this matter now, in order to shew why the jurisdiction was so incompetent. The Lord Chancellor had a commission directed to him to try bankruptcy cases; but it was hardly possible to imagine a tribunal less qualified to decide such questions satisfactorily. It was impossible to suppose that disputed matters of fact could be tried by affidavit. The affidavit was drawn by the attorney, and the witness spoke the language of the attorney, and not his own. My Lord Eldon—with his intimate acquaintance with, and knowledge of, human nature—knew perfectly well that it was impossible to decide satisfactorily, on contested matters of fact, without the intervention of a Jury; the Commissioners therefore formed a most imperfect tribunal. Many of them were too timid to discharge their duty efficiently. He had frequently heard commissioners say, when they had been urged to do their duty and commit a bankrupt, "No! we cannot do it, our responsibility is too great." When he was a Solicitor, he frequently refused to issue Commissions for creditors, observing that it would be useless to do so unless they were directed to a particular List. He had frequently heard it observed by solicitors, that there were only particular Lists who would do their duty; they of course, became the subject of particular
48
remark, as they discharged their duty in a different manner from the others. They were accused, or laboured under the imputation, of acting with a peculiar degree of severity, which imputation had no foundation whatever; in fact, he never knew a case of any individual committed by them, who was afterwards discharged by a superior authority. It really was the practice, to say to creditors, "You will only throw your money away unless you can get the Commission directed to a particular List." At this day there were many solicitors who, though they believed that the prosecution of a Commission of bankruptcy would be beneficial to the creditors, declined to take the necessary steps, despairing of obtaining Commissioners who would fearlessly discharge their duty. Therefore, looking to the Commissioners in the first place, it appeared that they had not the confidence either of the profession or of the public; and a great part of the delay and expense which took place, arose from the circumstance of the parties appealing against the decision, merely from want of such a confidence. This was one of the evils proposed to be cured by this Bill, which proceeded upon the recommendations of individuals perfectly competent to form a judgment upon the subject. It was proposed to select many of the new Commissioners out of the existing number; and there was no doubt that out of seventy twenty efficient men might be found; and when it was considered that these twenty individuals would form a separate jurisdiction, giving their whole time to the duties of their office, not acting as counsel, and not having their attention distracted by going into different inquiries partially at one and the same meetings, it must be at once conceded that they would make most efficient Judges or Commissioners. He had heard it stated in another place most distinctly, that many of the existing Commissioners were intended to form the new jurisdiction. His hon. and learned friend assumed that this would not be the case; but he was mistaken. Very many, if not all of the new Commissioners would be selected from the existing body, and no doubt could be entertained, that when the nature of the jurisdiction was so much improved, it would be found to be most efficient. His hon. and learned friend said, that they had no right to expect the assistance of three efficient Commissioners at one and the

49
same time; and he said—"If a young man were appointed, I should ask, are there other young men with him; if so, then I should say that the commission is inefficient, but if he were to act in conjunction with experienced persons, then the case would be different." But was it fit that they should take the chance of having efficient persons in this way? This was not, however, the only objection—there were others which required, to be equally considered. He had attended cases for seven years virtually, as it was called, before a Commissioner whom he (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) never saw—because he was up stairs in bed during the whole of the time: a second Commissioner was below, and his door was left open, in order that the oath might be considered as having been administered before him. Now this was a most respectable gentleman in every sense of the word, but this jurisdiction was certainly inefficient. His hon. and learned friend said, let the appeal be to the Vice-Chancellor: the cases to which he had referred did go before the Vice-Chancellor. They were not now proposing to establish a new Court, the Vice-Chancellor's being untried; they were not now dealing with imaginary evils: Government was called upon to act in a case, the evils of which were well known to commercial and professional men, and called upon by the existence of such glaring defects in the administration of justice, that they could not refuse to legislate. Therefore, it was a sufficient answer to his hon. and learned friend, that the Vice-Chancellor had been tried, and his jurisdiction in this respect, as at present constituted, had been found inefficient. When he heard it said that there were very few appeals, he referred to a return which was made to that House relative to the number of petitions which were heard before the Lord Chancellor. His hon. and learned friend said, that the average was about one in forty; but in referring to this statement, it must not he forgotten that many of the petitions which were laid before the Vice-Chancellor, were mere matters of course. The whole number of petitions heard before the Vice-Chancellor, in the year 1824, was 150; how it happened he could not tell—but, according to the return, the appeals before the Lord Chancellor in that year amounted to 163. In 1825, 304 were heard before the Vice Chancellor, and 202 before
50
the Lord Chancellor. In 1826, 423 before the Vice-Chancellor, and 223 before the Lord Chancellor. In 1827, 292 be the Vice Chancellor, and 222 before the Lord Chancellor. In 1828, 353 before the Vice-Chancellor, and 148 before the Lord Chancellor. In 1829, 309 before the Vice-Chancellor, and 147 before the Lord Chancellor. There was scarcely a contested matter which was not afterwards made the subject of appeal; those appeals being productive of the greatest delay, expense, and inconvenience, and frequently ending in the total ruin of the parties. This naturally arose from the very great evils of the existing system. Nobody who heard his hon. and learned friend's statement would believe that suitors at present paid fees to the extent of 40,000 l. a-year, a very "great part of which would be abolished by this Bill. Nobody would credit that his observations could be founded on facts so simple as this: the expense of the new Court would be about 29,000 l. a-year, whereas the expense of the present, for the very same matters, was 40,000 l. a year and more; besides which a saving infinitely beyond this would accrue to the public in respect of an expense, which had been calculated by Mr. Montague at 240,000 l. a-year. The question then resolved itself into this: was the proposed Court calculated to remedy the evils which at present existed? It was; because these Commissioners would bestow their whole and undivided attention upon the matters brought before them,—they would not have their attention distracted by the investigation of several cases at the same time, and they would have the means of coming to a satisfactory decision. The consequence of this improvement would be, that there would not be one-half, or anything like one-half, of the petitions brought, forward which were now presented; that was to say, of petitions respecting the same subject-matter. The expense of each meeting at present, as he before observed, was 10 l. Under this Bill it would be 1l., for which sum suitors would have a competent and efficient tribunal, besides the saving which would be made in messages, fees, &c. Thus a great number of appeals would be abolished, and an effectual tribunal created. But would the number of commissions be abolished? There was no question that there would be a much greater number than at present, because the tribunal would be more effectual,

51
and many parties would then be anxious for inquiry, who now abstained from demanding it, because they thought that the case would not be properly examined into by the present jurisdiction. Under the proposed system they would have men of intelligence and experience. If a Commissioner's decision were gainsayed, too, he would have notice that the Court would be moved, in order that he might shew cause why he should not review his decision; on which he would make a report to the Court of what had taken place. Under the present system, if the case were decided by the Chief Justice or any other judge, and a new trial was moved for, that motion was decided upon affidavit and the arguments of counsel, just as a motion would be decided in the Court of Chancery. Under the present system, in case of an appeal, affidavits must be filed at an enormous cost; but, under the proposed system, if a new trial were wished for, instead of a mass of affidavits, there would be only the report of the Judge of what took place before him. How little expensive was this course compared with the old one! He remembered that a mandamus was once moved for, and refused, in a case of bankruptcy, on the ground that the Lord Chancellor had a summary jurisdiction; but, in point of fact, the delays were often such as to ruin all parties concerned. If copies of the proceedings were wanted, parties could have them from a short-hand writer at a far less expense than the copies of the affidavits were now procured at. There was now a multiplication of fees, and all, perhaps, for nothing, as the facts might at length be sent to be tried before one of the Judges at Westminster Hall. Thus the winner was sometimes ruined; the loser always. His hon. and learned friend had reflected upon the Judges that were to be in this new Court, and had said that they would be persons of no weight or consideration. What authority had he for so saying, or how could he reconcile his statement, that this Court would have to decide on questions of the greatest complexity and difficulty, involving property to an enormous amount, with his opinion that it would be considered a trifling Court? The jurisdiction of this Court would be found so important as to carry great weight and consequence with it in the eyes of the country, and, consequently, to offer sufficient inducements
52
to men of reputation to become Judges in it. Instead, then, of bankruptcy proceedings being attended with enormous expense, and lasting for years, they would, in this Court, be despatched at a cheap rate in the course of a few weeks. He agreed with the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes, that the fact of a man being ruined by a commission being taken out against him, even if that commission should turn out to be bad, was sufficient to call for an amendment of the law. The issues to try whether a man had been a bankrupt or not were frequent and expensive from various causes. That evil would be remedied by the fact being at once tried by affidavits and got rid of, and by the decision being made upon the facts before the Court, instead of the parties being at liberty to make a new case. The case of Chambers shewed, in a most glaring manner, the evils of the system in this respect. In that case, the question was brought before the Court of Chancery, and was argued four times. Three verdicts were given on one side and one decision on the other. The case then went before the Court of Exchequer, which negatived the bankruptcy: a new trial was had, which again established the commission; and now another new trial was pending to overturn that decision. This had been going on for four or five years. What, during this time, had been the situation of the customers of that banker? How many tradesmen might not have been ruined by the delay in paying the dividend? How many thousands had not been consumed in costs? His hon. and learned friend opposite complained of the expedition of the Lord Chancellor—complained that those who found fault, when on that side of the House, with the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in bankruptcy, had not been three months in office before they set themselves about remedying its evils—evils which he himself had been considering these twenty years. His hon. friend said, why not wait until a bill for the reform of the whole of the Chancery jurisdiction was brought on. But why should they wait for all before taking a part? Here a Bill was presented, proving the integrity of the intentions of the Government, and its determination to act upon the professions it made upon that side of the House. The hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had said, that it was essential

53
that the Lord Chancellor should have the superintendence of all matters in bankruptcy. This Bill proposed to preserve the superintendence of the Lord Chancellor, without troubling him with matters he could not decide. The Lord Chancellor had always found himself incompetent to decide on matters of fact; and, when questions of fact had come before him, he had sent them to a Court of law. Under this Bill, all matters of fact would be decided previously to their coming before him. The mere question of law would go before him, either in the shape of a bill of exceptions, or of a special verdict, thus saving the parties a vast expense. It had been stated by several intelligent persons, and by none more strongly than Mr. Montagu, that the present system involved a maximum of expense with a minimum of justice. At present, 43 l. was the least expense at which a man could be at before the Commissioners; for there could not be less than three meetings. Under the new system, the creditor would, at an expense of 30 l., be able to have as many public meetings as he might require, and as many private meetings as he might think fit at the cost of 1l. Gentlemen talked about the expense of this Court; but the plain fact was, that the country, instead of paying 70,000 l. a-year, would only have to pay 30,000 l. His hon. and learned friend spoke with an air of determination and positiveness that would almost persuade one he was always in the right; but he could not help suspecting, that he knew as little of the time that would be occupied in this new Court as of the proceedings of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy. Suppose there be 5000 public meetings and 2,000 private meetings, it would give the Commissioners work for six hours a day through nine or ten months in the year. But there was every reason to believe, that when the business could be done at a reasonable expense, and in a satisfactory manner, the increase of business would make the work greater. That such was likely to be the case might be judged from the fact of the Court of Exchequer having twenty times as much to do as it used to have. Another objection made to the Bill was on account of the retiring allowance given under it to the Lord Chancellor, but if it was compared with what was received by Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Eldon, and if the
54
fees abolished were considered, no one ought to complain of it. The 12,000 l. was less than was received in any one year during the Chancellorships of Lord Eldon and Lord Lyndhurst on account of their bankruptcy business, except one year of Lord Lyndhurst's, when it did not exceed 10,000 l. With respect to the objection of part of the expense being defrayed out of the Dead Fund, as it was clear that all the suitors of the Court of Chancery would benefit by the arrangement, very little weight was to be attached to it. And it appeared, from an investigation ordered by the Lord Chancellor, that that fund would still be sufficiently large to answer all demands upon it. Another objection had been raised to this Bill on account of its giving the Lord Chancellor the appointment of the Judges who were to preside in this Court, but he could not see upon what foundation it rested, when, without dispute, he appointed all the Judges in Westminster Hall. Besides, he had already the appointment of these seventy Commissioners, vacancies among whom occurred every year: and it was clear that the present system, costing the public 70,000 l. a-year, instead of 30,000 l., must give a greater annual patronage than could be exercised under the new Bill. It was objected, also, with regard to the period of the appointment of these Judges, that they might be in the receipt of their salaries several months before they commenced their duties. Now it must be considered that they did not at once go into a Court and begin their operations, but that they had to forma Court; and two months was not too much time for the purpose. In short this country had long been groaning and suffering under the most imperfect and inefficient system of law, with regard to bankruptcy matters, that it was possible to imagine, and had paid dearly for perjury, delay, and uncertainty. He had not troubled the House with a statement of the evidence of various witnesses upon these points, for they were notorious and undeniable. This Bill would substitute for all these evils an efficient Administration of justice, and therefore he should support it. He had refrained from entering into various topics introduced by his hon. and learned friend because he did not think it respectful to the House to occupy its time with any matter except the actual Bill.
Mr. John Smith Mr. John Smith rose to support the Bill,

55
the object of which was, to carry into effect alterations which he had urged upon the House many years ago, but without effect. It was in some measure by his humble means that the Committee which had been referred to was appointed by the House in 1818. The evidence given before that Committee convinced the House and the public, that the Bankrupt-laws as they stood were a source of villainy, fraud, and perjury, of the grossest and most odious kind. It was clearly made out in evidence that there were men plying, almost openly, a daily trade at the doors of the Court of Commissioners, and that they were ready, for small sums, to swear to any debts that might be required; that bills of exchange drawn for the purpose were put into the hands of these persons to support the proofs they made upon bankrupts' estates; and that thus the certificates of fraudulent bankrupts were obtained in spite of their real creditors. The opinions of some of the most eminent men in the city of London confirmed the opinion which he had formed, and convinced him that nothing was more injurious to the fair tradesman than the facility which the Bankrupt-laws afforded to fraud, while the delay and expense which accompanied them amounted in many cases to a total denial of justice. He knew many instances in which commercial men often were obliged to submit to great losses as a less evil than applying to the Equity Courts. He had known Lord Eldon reserve his opinion for sixteen years, to the ruin of suitors, though the point at issue was such as the new Court would settle in a few days. The evils now to be remedied, existed and were complained of thirty years ago. On one occasion a rich man refused to pay to the banking-house with which he was connected more than 4,000 l. on his bond of 4,500 l. The house had consulted its legal adviser, Mr. Kay, the solicitor of the Bank of England, who had told him, that the house could undoubtedly recover the money in a Chancery suit, "but," added Mr. Kay, "mind what I tell you, my bill will exceed the 500 l." Under such circumstances the bankinghouse to which he belonged had no other alternative than submit to the loss. Such were the Courts of Equity. It often happened that a man who stopped payment would appear, on his books being inspected by his creditors, to be able to pay 18 s. in the pound; but it was almost certain,
56
that if, instead of a composition by the creditors (which, it was very difficult to effect with the consent of all the creditors) the man was driven into the Gazette his estate produced only a dividend of 2s. in the pound. The new Court, which had been denounced by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden), whose ability and confident manner were calculated to make an impression on persons not as well acquainted as he was with this subject in all its bearings, was a feature in the Bill of which he very much approved. The official assignees, too, of which the same hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved, would, he (Mr. Smith) did not doubt, be the chief means of saving the estates of bankrupts, and making them productive. He had had so much experience of the evils occasioned by assignees, themselves in bad circumstances, getting the bankrupt's estates into their hands, and absconding or failing, that he was glad to see the security of a responsible officer interposed for the protection of the creditors. He hailed the measure as a proof of the earnestness and ability of the illustrious nobleman at the head of the law in this country in purifying the judicial institutions; and he thought a better beginning could not have been made than with the Bankrupt-laws, which were the worst in Europe, and a disgrace to the nation. He gave his most cordial support to the Bill.
Bill read a second time

SELECT VESTRIES BILL.
Sir John Hobhouse Sir John Hobhouse moved that the Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Trevorsaid, that he intended to speak on the principle of the Bill. At the then late hour of the night that would be extremely inconvenient. He suggested that the question for the passing of the Bill, which certainly was of a most important nature, should be postponed.
Sir John Hobhousewas surprised at any objection being made at this stage of the Bill, which he, and he believed every one else, thought had been already fully discussed.
Mr. Protheroethought the Bill, instead of receiving any impediment, should be hastened as much as possible. The present system of vestries was one of great injustice. In numerous parishes, he was sure, taxes would not be paid if the present select vestries were continued.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he was somewhat surprised at the language of the hon. member for Bristol: he appeared to think the House would be deterred from its duty by threats. If there was no other reason to delay this important Bill, the remark of the hon. Member, that the parishes would legislate for themselves, was sufficient to induce the House to do so, and not to pass such a Bill at that late hour.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the Bill had been most fully discussed, besides having been under the attention of a Committee up stairs for several months, who had recommended it to the House: it had been examined at full length before a Committee of the whole House. He could not imagine what useful purpose the hon. Member could gain by now opposing it, for there was no doubt it must ultimately pass into a law.
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, he was favourable to the principle of the Bill, and had no intention of opposing it, but for the violent language of the hon. member for Bristol, who had attempted to overawe the House by threats. He objected accordingly to the third reading at that time.
Mr. Protheroesaid, he had no intention to use the language of intimidation or to appeal to the fears of the House. He knew such an attempt would be wholly unsuccessful. His only motive for supporting the Bill was, to restore to the people the authority that of right belonged to them, but which had been lessened by select vestries at various places.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, any discussion on this Bill at so late a state of its progress could only delay it from passing for a very short time; if the hon. Member, therefore, thought proper to again argue it he would endeavour to meet him. He would only add, that in urging the passing of this Bill he was not stimulated by any thing that was passing out of doors.
Mr. Trevorsaid, he had no desire to impose any unnecessary delay, but he wished the third reading to be postponed until the next day, and he should propose an amendment to that effect.
The House divided on the Original Question. Ayes 38; Noes 8—Majority 30.
The Bill read a third time and passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent by Commission; the Game Laws' Amendment; the Wine Duties'; and the Administration of Justice in Ireland. Brought up from the Commons, and read a first time; the Cotton Factories.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Viscount MELBOURNE, the Censuses for 1801, 1811, 1821, and 1831.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of WESTMEATH, from the resident Justices of the Peace for Galway; from the Earl of WICKLOW, from the Catholic Free Burgesses of the Corporation of Galway, and by Lord CLONCURRY, from Galway, for the extension of the Franchise of that Town to Roman Catholics. In favour of the Reform Bill. By Lord AUCKLAND, from Greenwich signed by 2,500 Persons. By the Earl of ERROL, from the Society of High Constables of Perth. By a NOBLE LORD, from Hanley and Shelton in Staffordshire. By the Earl of CARLISLE, from Sandall Magna, and Market Harborough. By Viscount MIDDLETON, from Dudley, signed by 2,400 Persons. By Lord DACRE, from the County of Monmouth, and Householders of Cambridge. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Portmak, Butterworth, Eastwood and seven other places. By the Earl of Cloncurry, from Ardnarce and Clonakilty. By Lord PLUNKETT, from Grange Gorman. By the Duke of GRAFTON, from Ipswich, signed by 1,840 Persons. By Lord DACRE, from Freemen of Malden resident in London. By Viscount CLIFDEN, from Bicester, Market End. By a NOBLE LORD, from Tippermuir, Creiff, and Comrie. By Lord HOLLAND, from Castle Baynard Ward London; and from the Odd Fellows of Nottingham. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Desborough and Burnham. By the Duke of SUSSEX, from Tipton, signed by 1,500 Persons; from St. Mary, Kensington; and from the Parish of the Holy Trinity, Brompton. By Lord KING, from the Isle of Wight; from a place in Somersetshire; from West Ham, in Essex, signed by 1,100 Persons from three places in Lincolnshire; from a Parish in the West Riding of Yorkshire; and from the Members of the Leamington Political Union. By Viscount MELBOURNE, from a place in Aberdeen. By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from the City of Winchester; from a place in Staffordshire; from the Cordwainers of London; from the Magistrates and Town Council of the Royal Burgh of Ayr in Scotland, and from the several Incorporated Trades in that Burgh. By the Marquis of WESTMINSTER, from the County of Flint. By Earl GREY, from Chelsea, signed by 1,184 Persons. By Lord HOLLAND, from Harwich.—Against the Reform Bill. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from the Bankers, Gentry, Merchants, and other Inhabitants of Bradford. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Launceston. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Isle of Thanet, in Kent. By the Earl of JERSEY, from the Borough of Minehead.

REFORM—PETITIONS.
The Duke of Gordonsaid, as he saw a noble Earl in his place (the Earl of Camperdown), who on a former evening had presented a petition which he said conveyed the sentiments of the inhabitants of Aberdeen, in favour of Reform, he availed himself of the first opportunity to declare, that the petition in question was signed by but few persons, and was got up in the old town, and by no means conveyed the feelings of the people of that place generally.
The Earl of Camperdownsaid, the Petition had been sent to him by a noble friend, upon whose information he had made the statement alluded to. Of course the noble Duke knew the opinions of the people of Aberdeen better than he, but he must at the same time observe, that he had understood the petition was signed by many very respectable persons.
The Earl of Coventrypresented a Petition against the Reform Bill from the city of Worcester, signed by the Mayor, Aldermen, a great number of Magistrates, both of the city and county of Worcester, and by several of the most respectable inhabitants of that city. He begged to take that opportunity to state to their Lordships, that he was determined to vote against this measure. He was bound to no party, and he acted independent of all parties, and in the course which he should adopt on this occasion he should only follow the dictates of his conscience. Nothing that might be said out of doors should deter him from doing his duty. He would vote against this measure, because he thought that it went to subvert the fundamental principles of the Constitution. He had, when a member of the other House, presented

1309
a petition in favour of Reform in 1816, and it was after the most mature deliberation that he had come to the determination to vote against this Bill, as he looked upon it as pregnant with destruction to all the institutions of the country.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Lord Wharncliffehad a Petition to present to their Lordships against the Reform Bill, from the inhabitants of the borough of Ipswich, in Suffolk. The petition was signed by 435 persons, including two of the chief Magistrates there; thirteen out of the twenty-one members of the Corporation, nine Clergymen, by several Merchants, and by the greater portion of the respectable Gentry of that town and its vicinity.
The Duke of Graftonsaid, that the Petition from Ipswich, in favour of the Reform Bill, which he had presented, had been adopted at a public meeting, regularly convened, and that it had been signed by 1,817 persons, many of them the most respectable inhabitants of the place.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that he had the curiosity to read the prayer of the petition which had been just presented by the noble Baron, as against the Reform Bill. The petitioners prayed their Lordships to take the proposed measure into their most serious consideration, and to make such changes in it as might be, consistent with the prerogatives of the Crown, the privileges of that House, and the just rights and privileges of the people. That was the petition which was represented as being against the Reform Bill. He was sure that many of the petitions presented as Anti-reform petitions did not go further than that Petition, and that those petitioners merely prayed their Lordships; to preserve to them their own peculiar privileges, and also to maintain the prerogatives of the Crown, and the rights and privileges of both branches of the Legislature.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he rose to present to their Lordships a Petition against the Reform Bill, to which he begged leave to call their Lordships' particular attention. It came from the undersigned Bankers, Merchants, and Traders, of the city of London, and, that there should be no mistake as to the object, of it, he should move that the prayer of it should be read to their Lordships. The other petitions which he had just presented, and to which reference had been
1310
made by the noble Lord opposite, had been sent to him as Anti-reform Petitions, and as such he had considered them. True it was that they prayed their Lordships seriously to consider this measure, as he had felt it his duty to do, but after giving to it that serious consideration, he also felt it his duty at once to oppose it, as they could not make it such a Bill as their Lordships could pass, seeing that they had been told that no alterations would be suffered to be made in it in Committee. He should not enter into that subject now; but it was in that sense that he understood the declaration which had been made from the opposite side of the House. The petition which he now had to present was directly against the Reform Bill. It had been adopted at a meeting which had been held in consequence of an attempt which was made to represent, that there was an universal feeling in the city of London in favour of the Reform Bill; and in the course of two days, Saturday and Monday last, 800 of the most respectable persons to be found in the city of London had put their names to this Petition. The persons who had put this Petition into his hands, had authorized him to state, that by far the greater portion of the property and wealth of the city of London was represented by the individuals whose names were annexed to it, as a proof that the feeling in favour of the Bill was not so strong now in the city of London, as it had been in March last. He begged to mention a remarkable fact, namely, that there were 9,600 signatures to the petition from London in favour of the Bill in that month, and that to a similar petition from London which had been lately presented there were only 4,700 signatures. The petition in favour of Reform from the city of London in March last, received only 600 signatures in the course often days, while the present petition against Reform, received 800 signatures in the course of two days. That was a proof that the feeling in favour of Reform was not so strong in the city of London as some persons wished to represent it. He would take that opportunity to offer a few observations on the remarks which had been made on his statement of a former evening, as to the change of feeling which he maintained had taken place in the cities of London and Westminster with regard to this Bill since the original introduction of it, and particularly with regard

1311
to the change which he asserted had taken place on that subject in certain quarters, to wit—amongst the inhabitants of Bond street and St. James's street. He thought that the inhabitants of those streets very fairly represented, the feelings and opinions of the class to which they belonged in the city of London, and he would now challenge any of their Lordships to go into the shops in any part of the town in London, Westminster, or Mary-le-bone, and not to find that there was a shrinking on the part of the inhabitants, and a dread of the dangers which they anticipated from this measure, and that blame was universally cast by the tradesmen upon his Majesty's Ministers for having introduced a measure of this description. He held in his hand a paper, giving an account of certain proceedings to which he could not avoid calling their Lordships' serious attention, demonstrating, as they did, that the dangers which were anticipated from this Bill, were neither chimerical nor far distant. The paper which he now held in his hand contained an account of a meeting of what was called "the Birmingham Political Union;" and he would say, that if their Lordships should be obliged, in coming to a decision on this question, to yield to the dictates of such persons as those who had figured at that meeting, the revolution which many anticipated and feared was not only begun, but it was actually over. He would entreat their Lordships' attention for a few moments to some of the sentiments which had been promulgated at this meeting. It appeared that this "Birmingham Political Union" was not satisfied with the reports which the newspapers furnished of its proceedings, but it was in the habit of publishing a report of its own, with a regular medal in front of the account of its proceedings. He would give their Lordships a specimen of the language employed by one of the orators at this meeting, a Mr. Haynes, and if such language was not the language of threat and of intimidation, and if it did not point to the employment of menaces and of physical force with a view to overawe the deliberations of that House, he did not know what species of language would merit that description. This speaker thus expressed himself, and their Lordships would bear in mind that this language was addressed to an assemblage which the person who used it, himself stated to amount to 150,000 persons. 'I thank
1312
God that the days of holy domination are over, and that my youth has been urged to additional exertion by the beholding of a meeting like the present, assembled for the constitutional purpose of offering resistance to political oppression. I say constitutional purpose, for I wish it to be known that English law recognises in the people a right to protest against, and oppose fiscal tyranny. Resistance to tyrants gave our forefathers Magna Charta—resistance to tyrants gave us the happiness of having a King like the present upon the throne—and resistance to tyrants will restore to us and our children all the blessings of which the boroughmongers have so unconstitutionally robbed us.' That was rather strong language, their Lordships would admit, but let them attend to the still more violent language employed by this individual. 'But in apprising you of your right to make resistance, I do not inculcate force. I agree that the power of the people is greatest, not when it strikes, but when it holds in awe—not when the blow is actually struck, but when it is suspended. As Manlius said to the Roman people, "Ostendite bellum, pacem habebetis;" so I say to you, show that you can fight, and you will never be under the necessity of fighting. It is from the calm manner in which the people have exerted their power that their success has been derived. As Mr. Attwood has said, the Leviathan is hooked in the nose, and with 150,000 men at the foot of Newhall-hill, to hold the rope, Leviathan could not escape. When the Reform Bill was carried into the House of Lords, they were surprised like Belshazzar at his unholy feast. They were not, like him, profaning the vessels of God's altar, but they were profaning that which next unto his altar, the Almighty prizes the most, namely, the happiness and liberty of his people. But now their dynasty is nodding to its fall, the hand-writing has appeared against them, they have been weighed and have been found wanting, and if they do not speedily give to us that which is our own, it will be taken from them. The power of the people is triumphant, they cannot stand against it; as well might the devils in hell rise in opposition to the decrees of Divine justice. As you are aware, my countrymen, we are met to the number of 150,000, to petition the

1313
Lords to pass the Bill.' Again he would stop and ask their Lordships whether that was not most violent language, and whether it did not furnish a sufficient, evidence of the existence of a system of intimidation which was attempted to be put in operation for the purpose of controlling and influencing the opinions and decision of their Lordships? This speaker, however, even went beyond any thing that he had as yet quoted from him. 'The question (he said) has been frequently asked, "Will the Lords pass the Bill?" I answer the question by proposing another—Dare they refuse it?' Dare they refuse it?! Such was the interrogatory which this individual put to an assemblage of 150,000 persons, and it was received by them with "loud cheers!" If, when their Lordships were about to take the question of Reform into consideration, they were to be thus told that they should "not dare" to refuse it—that they should "not dare" to oppose it—if language such as that did not amount to threat and intimidation, and to a menace of physical force towards their Lordships, again, he would say, that he did not know what language deserved such a description. If, when their Lordships were about to exercise that constitutional privilege and those constitutional rights which belonged to them, in deliberating upon, and disposing of, this measure, they were to be told by a person addressing a multitude of 150,000 individuals, that they should not dare to refuse to pass this measure—if such threats of physical force and physical violence were to be employed in order to intimidate their Lordships into an assent to this Bill—then he would say, and he thought he should be perfectly justified in making the assertion, that the revolution which they all dreaded was not only begun, but that it was, in point of fact, actually accomplished. When such terms as these were employed—when language such as this was held—when sentiments such as he had quoted were addressed to an inflamed and excited multitude of 150,000 persons—what could be meant other than a resort to physical violence to compel their Lordships to pass this Reform Bill? What was the language employed by Mr. Attwood, who was the head of this Political Union, at this meeting? He stated that 'every honest labourer in England had as good a right to a reasonable maintenance
1314
for his family in exchange for his labour, as the King had to the Crown upon his head.' And he went on to state, that it was with a view to attain that purpose—one that it was obvious was perfectly impracticable—that this Birmingham Union had been founded. 'If' this same speaker, Mr. Attwood, continued, 'he had seen this right secured—if he had seen every honest man in England possessing an undoubted security for an honest bread for his family—if he had seen every honest labourer possessing abundant wages for himself, and at the same time leaving reasonable profit to his employer, he (Mr. Attwood) should never have assisted in the formation of the Political Union.' Was it safe to hold such language as that to an immense assembled multitude, and to make them believe that those effects would follow from the passing of this Reform Bill, which every man of common sense and common information in England must well know could never be brought about by it? Was it not a gross absurdity, a most unfounded expectation, to hold out to the people of England, that the passing of this Bill would be the means of furnishing to every labourer in England adequate wages for the support of his family? When it was well known that the labourer would only get those wages which his labour was worth in the market, was it not holding out delusive and deceptive hopes to the people of England, to address them in the language of this speaker for the purpose of exciting their feelings in favour of this Bill? Such were the expectations with which the people of this country were deluded, while, on the other hand, their Lordships were menaced with physical violence if they refused to pass this Bill. The employment of such language demonstrated what kind of means were resorted to, to delude the people with regard to this Bill, and to make them think that it would do that which every reflecting man in the country knew neither it, nor any other Bill, ever could effect. He had already stated circumstances to prove that the feeling in the city of London was not so universally in favour of the Bill as it had been represented to be, and that the public Press had most grossly exaggerated the feeling which prevailed on the subject in London and its neighbourhood. He had seen several persons who were present at the Westminster meeting, and other public meetings, held to consider of the propriety of petitioning

1315
on the Reform Bill, and they had represented them as absolutely ridiculous, and had stated, that the persons who acted the principal part on these occasions were positively ashamed of them. It could not be denied that exaggerations had been going about as to the state of the public feeling on the question. While he made this assertion, he at the same time willingly added his belief, that a vast majority of the people were looking for Reform. He repeated, that it was his conviction that a great majority of the people of England wished for a Reform in the mode by which they sent their Representatives to Parliament. He was willing to go the length of these admissions, but he must, in doing so, also declare his belief, that there existed in London and its neighbourhood great shrinking, among a large proportion of the inhabitants, from the provisions of this Bill. They dreaded its probable effects. He had not made these statements without foundation, and when a portion of the community entertained these sentiments, he thought it was only fair to be allowed to call upon them to give their support to the side he espoused.
The Lord Chancellorfelt it to be impossible for him, as the person who had presented the petition from Birmingham to their Lordships on the preceding day, to abstain from saying a few words respecting a petition couched in such constitutional language. Before doing so, however, he must take leave to advert to the inconvenience of the course adopted by his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe). His noble friend had, with his customary and characteristic frankness—a frankness which he highly estimated—explained his reasons for opposing the measure of Reform. He had explained himself fully, and he had been attended to fully; he had also been answered, as who had not? He had yielded to the common fate of speakers—that was to say, his speech had come to an end. Able as it was, it had been answered; and surely he did not want to come forward at another stage of the measure to take advantage of a future opportunity—he would not say pretext, for his noble friend was incapable of acting upon pretext, but he would say the opportunity—of making a second speech. [A Noble Peer observed that "he had a perfect right to do so."] A royal Duke had just said that his noble friend had a perfect right to do so.
The Duke of Cumberlanddisavowed the sentiment. "Some other noble Lord had said so."
The Lord Chancellorwould then echo the remark of, "some noble Lord." He would echo it, and would, if it were to become general, adopt the principle. He would adopt it, and illustrate its efficiency and its expediency by his practice. Therefore, if he addressed their Lordships that evening, or the next evening, at considerable length, on the merits of the question—then, in order to try the expediency of this new regulation—if it were his fate to be answered as his noble friend had been answered—and if he were galled thereby, as he might chance to be—although he could not arrogate the right of speaking a second time in the debate—still, by having a petition to present on a subsequent evening, he could claim the privilege of making a second speech, and return an answer to all those arguments that had been advanced against him. [A Noble Peer from the Opposition benches, "To be sure."] A noble Lord said, "To be sure;" but he would ask their Lordships, if that were a mode in which they could continue the debate? If it were, then should he assuredly claim the benefit of the practice. But to pass to the subject which had led to the discussion. The noble Lord had condemned a meeting of 150,000 persons at Birmingham. [Lord Wharncliffe expressed his dissent.] Well, a part of the meeting, or an individual of the number, for using intemperate language. What did it signify whether it were one or more, he only protested against the principle of making whoever was present at the Birmingham meeting answerable for the vehement, unmeasured, and intemperate language of a single person. He would claim the same privilege for them as he would for their Lordships, and venture to appeal to noble Lords who were present last night, if, in dealing forth so hard a measure of justice to the people of Birmingham, if they were held responsible for a speech that had been addressed to them by a noble Earl—a speech which was grossly intemperate in language, which violated every principle of law—which contained a threat not amounting to the language of sedition, but to something very like the commission of a capital felony. He begged for one to put forward a protest on behalf of the men of Birmingham, against acknowledging them answerable for the intemperate

1317
language of one or two speakers, because they were present when it was used. It would be far more equitable to the honest men who had signed the petition which he had presented to that House, to judge of them by their own acts. He would inform their Lordships of one evidence of their disposition on the occasion of this meeting. Their last act was, to take off their hats, and, greeting the Royal name with enthusiastic demonstrations of affection, to pray devoutly for the welfare of their Sovereign. He did not advance this fact as a justification of the conduct of one or two speakers, but he adduced it to show that the meeting ought not to be condemned, as originating or assenting to language which, if publicly applauded, would tend to prove not merely that sedition was beginning, but that a revolution had actually been completed. He would not follow his noble friend in all that he had stated respecting the people of Westminster and Southwark being adverse to the Bill. His noble friend had spoken in a prophetic spirit, as if some demonstration of hostility were to happen within the next five minutes. He did not mean to restrict his walks to Bond-street, or even to St. James's, and he should not be surprised, if, instead of the unanimous voices of Bond-street, they should have, within the next five minutes, petitions not only from Bond-street and St. James's-street, but other petitions from other streets to-morrow, for the purpose of bearing out the prognosis of his noble friend respecting the state of the public mind. Not wishing to profit by the practice begun by his noble friend, he must again remind their Lordships of the inconvenience resulting from these desultory discussions when they were on the point of proceeding to the Order of the Day.
Earl Greywas not well qualified to say any thing on the subject of the Birmingham meeting, not having read the account of its proceedings, but he must concur in the protest of his noble friend, against fixing upon the meeting the crime—if crime it were—of the intemperance of individuals. With respect to any effect that might be produced upon their Lordships, he trusted that the House would not depart from its duty because individuals had indulged in the use of intemperate language. He recollected that, during the debates on the Catholic Question, discussions had arisen, as well on petitions as on the measure
1318
itself; and no topic was more cheered by the opponents of the measure, than the topic of referring to the intemperance of Roman Catholics, in stating the consequences that would result from passing that Bill. He could cite quite as intemperate quotations as any that they had heard that night, from the discussions of that period; but he thanked God that the noble Duke then at the head of his Majesty's Government, and his colleagues, had, notwithstanding, had the good sense to persevere in passing the measure. He would now say a few words as to the feelings of the people of London on the question before their Lordships. The petition presented by the noble Lord (Wharncliffe) had, no doubt, names from many most respectable London houses subscribed to it; but it was too much to suppose, that the 800 persons whose signatures it bore spoke the sentiments of that city. The noble Lord's petition had been voted at the Crown and Anchor, without any previous public notice of the meeting; the petition which he (Earl Grey) had presented, had, on the contrary, been voted at a meeting, advertised in the most widely-circulated journals of the metropolis, for at least a week before it was held. If it did not contain so many names as the petition in favour of Reform last session, it was because the previous petition had lain double the time for signature. Facts would speak for themselves; and he was convinced that they would find hereafter that the people of England were as much in favour of the Bill now, as they ever had been since its introduction to that House. Many who had formerly disclaimed the object of the Bill had now very much altered their tone, and had shown an inclination to adopt some measure of Reform. He could not sit down without adverting to a statement which he had heard during his entrance into the House—a statement alleging that he would admit no alteration in the Bill. Though he had expressed himself plainly and intelligibly on the point, the subject was again agitated. Now, to prevent misconception, he begged to state, that though he was willing to admit any alterations consistent with the principle of the Bill, he would not consent to any thing that might subtract from its original efficiency. He had declared the same thing the other night. He had said, that if the present Bill were rejected, he would not be the person to propose any

1319
less satisfactory measure. He had stated this distinctly, and it had been repeated by a noble Earl opposite on a subsequent evening—a proof that he, at least, understood him. But while he said this, would their Lordships think he could be so disrespectful to that House, so disregardful of its privileges, as to anticipate what alterations their Lordships might decide upon making in Committee? That was a matter which depended upon their Lordships. Into Committee the Bill ought to go, if noble Lords acted consistently with their own opinions. He had heard noble Lords on the opposite side assenting to the principle of disfranchising the decayed boroughs; he had heard them assenting to the principle of giving Members to wealthy and populous towns; he had heard them assenting to the principle of adding to the Representation of counties—indeed, they had assented to the whole principle of the Bill; and all that remained was only a question of degree, which would come properly under the consideration of the Committee. Then let them go into Committee on the measure; and he would tell noble Lords, that when there, if they proposed any alterations that would tend to diminish its efficacy—that instead of being a benefit would make the Bill a delusion to the people—such alterations he would strenuously oppose. He should be prepared to discuss these alterations, and to prove their unfitness to be adopted. He had expressed his determination over and over again, and he trusted that there would be no necessity for further explanation. He never would be a party in proposing any measure falling short of the essential qualities of the present; but he had not said that he would admit no alteration that might be consistent with the principle of the Bill, or that he would never agree to any alterations that might be proposed in Committee.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had thought it right and proper to read his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe) a lecture for having taken the occasion of the presentation of a petition to make a second speech upon the subject of the Reform Bill. Now he appealed to the judgment of their Lordships, and he asked them, if the conduct of the noble Earl (Grey) did not call, and far more loudly, for a lecture than did the conduct of his noble friend? for the noble Earl had not only made a second
1320
speech, but he had done so after the lecture of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; and notwithstanding the fact that, in accordance with the regular proceedings of the House, he would, at the proper time, be entitled to a reply. The noble Earl had made a strong appeal to those who were opposed to the Bill, but he would then make no reply to that appeal, but content himself with simply protesting against its irregularity; for although he had not yet made one speech upon the question, he would not upon the presentation of a petition be induced to do so. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had assumed, and in that assumption he was understood to be joined by the noble Earl (Grey), that his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had impugned the general conduct of the meeting at Birmingham; but in reality his noble friend had done no such thing. His noble friend had complained of the threats held out against their Lordships, and the attempt made to intimidate them; and in illustration of the truth of the charge, his noble friend had alluded to certain expressions used at the meeting at Birmingham. His noble friend had a perfect right to pursue such a course, and he cordially concurred with him in maintaining it. He was not one of those who did not admit the existence of a strong feeling in the great body of the public in favour of the measure, but he contended that that feeling was the result of delusion; and he contended further, that though the great bulk of the educated and intelligent portion of the community were in favour of some measure of Reform, still that the majority of them looked upon this Bill with apprehension and with dread. And how was the validity of that opinion to be tried, or what were the grounds upon which it had been formed? Let their Lordships look at the results of the attempts recently made to get up public meetings in favour of the Bill. With very few exceptions indeed those attempts had been failures. What was the meeting in Westminster? It was a failure. What was the meeting in the city of London? It was not to be compared with the meeting which had been held a few months previously. From the former a petition with 9,000 signatures had emanated, and from the latter a petition with 4,000. He inferred from these facts that there was a doubt in the public mind as to the character of the Bill, that there was a pause,

1321
and from that pause he anticipated a happy return to that wise and deliberative conduct which had so long distinguished the people of this country, and from which they had, unfortunately, lately been swayed.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the question properly before them. His noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had not complained of language hastily uttered in the moment of excitation, but of printed statements, deliberately circulated, and circulated, too, with the seal of an organized Political Union affixed to them. He perfectly agreed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the sins of the few ought not to be visited on the many, and he thought it would be a gross injustice to the great body of the people of England to mix them up with the use of language that was calculated to lead to the destruction of law, order, and property. He was delighted at having an opportunity of expressing his firm conviction, that the great body of the people of this country were strongly attached to the form of government, under which they lived; but their Lordships would recollect, that the mischievous doctrines complained of by his noble friend proceeded, not from a single individual, but from a Political Union—a Union, too, which had been acknowledged by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government—a Political Union which had not only been acknowledged by the noble Earl, but with which the noble Earl had corresponded. He could not, of course, pledge himself to the fact; but although he had not seen the letter from the noble Earl, that letter had been published, and its authenticity had had not been denied. He trusted that this lesson would render the noble Earl more cautious in future, and not so ready to acknowledge or to correspond with Political Unions. With respect to the explanations which had been entered into by the noble Earl, he must be allowed to say a few words. The noble Earl had explained one passage of his speech, and of course he (the Duke of Buckingham), as he was bound to do, gave every credit to that explanation. He could not conceive, however, that it was meant to apply to a passage which he had taken down immediately after it was delivered. The words of that passage were these—"Your Lordships must take this Bill," at which there was a loud cheer; and when that cheer
1322
subsided, the noble Earl again said—"Your Lordships must take this Bill, or some other measure more dangerous, which your Lordships will not be able to resist." Those were the words which had been used by the noble Earl, but if the noble Earl attached any particular explanation to them, he would be ready to adopt it. He did not wish to tempt the noble Earl to make another speech on that occasion, as he would have an opportunity of giving an explanation when the noble Earl replied at the end of the debate.
Lord Plunkettwould ask the noble Duke if he had not heard the noble Earl say, that if this Bill were rejected, he would refuse to bring in one less efficient? Perhaps the noble Duke would admit that he had heard this statement, but that he had also heard the words he had mentioned to the House. When his noble friend said, that if their Lordships rejected this measure, they might have a stronger one proposed to them, that was obviously only the expression of an opinion; but it was an opinion, he must be allowed to say, in which he entirely concurred, and in which every body else, he thought, must concur, who looked back upon what had been the consequence of rejecting reasonable measures. The rejection of safe, just, and reasonable measures had very frequently been followed by the adoption of measures on the same subject which were neither safe, nor just, nor reasonable. Now the noble Baron (Wharncliffe), and the noble Duke (Buckingham), had admitted that the language complained of was to be imputed, not to the meeting, but to an individual, and if the noble Lords were sincere in this admission, he could not see how that language could be a warning to his noble friend how he had any thing to do with the Birmingham Union. The guilt was not the guilt of the Union, but of an individual: and when the noble Baron stated, that because an individual among 150,000 persons had used violent language, a revolution had not only begun but was over, he must say, that the noble Baron made the most magnificent deduction from slender premises that he had ever heard. But this was the manner in which noble Lords were pleased constantly to deduce the existence of that intimidation by which they persuaded themselves that it was sought to deter them from doing their duty.
Lord Tenterdenadmitted the danger of

1323
rejecting just, and safe, and reasonable measures, but the question for their Lordships to decide was, whether the Ministerial measure of Reform was just, and safe, and reasonable; and, in order that their Lordships might come to a decision upon that question without unnecessary delay, he begged to move that the Order of the Day be now read.
Earl Greysaid, that the noble and learned Lord was quite out of order in making such a motion, since there was already a motion before the House. Besides, there were still several petitions to be presented.
Lord Tenterden: I was not aware that there was any motion before the House.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he could not reconcile it with his feelings as to his duty to allow the discussion upon the Birmingham meeting to close without drawing their Lordships' attention to one point. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it would be unjust to attribute to a whole meeting the intemperance, whether premeditated or not, of one man; but he wished to know from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if his correspondent had apprised him of any proceedings to the following effect:—'That a gentleman at the meeting had stated that as a Hampden had refused the payment of Ship-money, so would he, if the Reform Bill was rejected by the Lords, refuse the payment of all taxes. And having made that statement, he called upon all those who were favourable to it, and would support him in it, and would adopt it, to hold up their hands. Upon which a forest of hands was held up amidst an immense cheer. That that being done, the speaker called upon those who dissented from the proposition to hold up their hands, and not one hand was held up.' Was the noble and learned Lord aware that any such proceedings as that had taken place, and, if they had, was he still prepared to characterize the meeting as orderly, peaceable, kindly, and constitutional?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that nothing could have been more natural than his noble and learned friend's (Lord Tenterden's) mistake, in supposing that they had been debating for a couple of hours without a question before them; for it was a thing that they were in the habit of doing continually. But it so happened, most extraordinarily, that there was a question
1324
before them at that instant, and he should avail himself of it to answer the query that had been put to him by the noble Earl who had just sat down. His correspondent, he begged to say, had not mentioned the fact which had just been stated by the noble Earl; nor had he heard of it till that moment. He certainly did not like the fact, but what he had to say about it he would reserve for the debate on the Bill. Undoubtedly it was a disagreeable piece of intelligence; but, nevertheless, as a lawyer, he must say, that all those hands might have been held up, and yet he could not say that there was any breach of the King's peace, or any offence that the law knew how to punish. He could not help it. Such was the law. With respect to the "kindly" disposition of the meeting, that was a new word introduced by the noble Earl. What his correspondent had stated was, that the meeting was conducted as regularly as one of their Lordships' meetings, and that it had separated as quietly as children coming out of a village school.
The Earl of Eldonshould be ashamed of himself, if, after living so long in his profession, he did not take that opportunity of saying a few words. No man could be more ready than he was to admit that a meeting was not answerable for the declarations of an individual; but if by holding up their hands, or in any other way, the meeting had endangered the peace of the country, he knew no reason for believing that they had not already fallen into the situation of being answerable to the laws of the country. If those statements which had been read to the House had really been made, he would take the liberty of saying, that if those statements had come under the cognizance of the Law Officers of the Crown, and if no satisfactory explanation of them had been given, those authorities had not done their duty to the country in failing to bring them under legal notice. But this being the case, he was necessarily disposed to believe that there was some way of accounting for men having presumed to make such statements. As a lawyer, he begged to apply himself to the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and to the noble and learned Lord who, for so many years, had presided over the Court of Common Pleas (Lord Wynford); and he desired to know from those noble and learned Lords whether, if those hands had been held up in

1325
the manner that had been described—and the fact could be proved—every individual in the meeting was not, in point of law, as much answerable as the man who had proposed to them to hold up their hands. And he begged to tell the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor), towards whom he should ever entertain the greatest respect, that his seat on the Woolsack would not be a seat which any one could maintain for six months, if the doctrines which were now circulated throughout the country—which were every morning placed under the review of every one—were suffered to be promulgated any longer. That was his opinion; he alone was answerable for his opinions, and for that he was prepared to answer at all hazards.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose, not so much for the purpose of replying to the observations just made, as for the purpose of preventing his noble and learned friend under the gallery from answering the question put to him. If the matter in question were an indictable offence, his noble and learned friend might be called upon to try it, and, therefore, he would at present feel the impropriety of delivering any opinion respecting the law as applicable to the acts done. It was quite a mistake to suppose that he (the Lord Chancellor) had given the slightest countenance to the Birmingham meeting; he merely said, that no breach of the peace had been committed. An indictment might be preferred for an offence of another nature; upon that he gave no opinion; he went no further than to say, that no breach of the peace had been committed. The Chairman said it was a peaceable meeting, meaning that there was no riot.
Lord Tenterdenwas not ungrateful to his noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack for the admonition received from him, but he could assure the House, that, even without that admonition, he should have refrained from pronouncing any opinion, for the matter might come before him judicially; and if his noble and learned friend had not so addressed to the House the necessary explanation, he himself should have felt bound to explain.
Lord Wharncliffedid not mean to impute the words of the speech to any one but the person by whom it was spoken, or to fix responsibility for it upon any other person; but he desired to call the attention of Government to this, that if they
1326
allowed such proceedings to go on much further, and questions as to the payment of taxes to be mooted in so large an assembly of persons, everything like legitimate authority in the country must cease.
Lord Holland: I do not rise for the purpose of calling any one to order, but I would beg to request the attention of the House, in order that I may be allowed to state the condition in which matters now stand. The question before the House is, that a certain petition do lie upon the Table, and upon this a conversation takes place. Now I have no intention of making observations upon the Birmingham meeting, or upon Political Unions, any further than to observe, that what we heard tonight is nothing more than a repetition of what the noble and learned Lord opposite has often said before upon similar occasions. For example, when the Association in Ireland was under discussion, and also in the case of various other Associations in other places, he over and over again told us, that the country could not last if such things were allowed to continue. I confess it has always appeared to me, that discussions of this nature will neither redound to the honour or dignity of this House, or in the least degree assist our deliberations. However, upon that subject I will not trouble your Lordships with any observations, neither shall I say much upon any other topic; but I cannot refrain from just noticing what fell from a noble Baron as to the feeling of the city of London, and which I cannot for a moment allow to pass without registering my dissent. But as to what fell from a noble Earl on the Cross-bench (the Earl of Haddington), I will assert that nothing more unjust, more unwarrantable, or more uncalled for, was ever uttered. What has my noble friend (Earl Grey) done to call for the censure of the noble Earl? I have heard words quoted by the noble Duke, and attributed to my noble friend, upon which my noble friend has given an explanation, and that the noble Earl described as making a speech. And what do these words amount to?—If you reject this Bill you will soon have another Bill for Reform, though not from the same hands, or from the same Government—which would be a Bill in truth more unpalatable to some of your Lordships, though, probably, more in accordance with the votes of this House. I can think in such circumstances of a noble Lord or

1327
noble Duke who had previously declared that nothing could induce him to form part of any Government which sanctioned a measure of Reform; I can now fancy such a noble Duke coming down to this House and saying—"Things are most materially changed—there is a collision between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I know what war is, and you do not. I told you I had no intention of bringing forward a measure of Reform, but now the state of things is most materially changed; but don't allow large meetings, such as that of Birmingham, to intimidate you—be bold, be stout, be determined. But if the Association be once formed, you must give way; then there is danger of war, and agitators are abroad; and I know what war is, and I tell you, you are in a different situation from that in which you before stood, and I will drag you through the mire, after having before bespattered you." It is just possible that a noble Duke might hold such language. Is it not just possible, too, that a right hon. Gentleman in another place might say something of the same sort? He might say "my opinions are not altered—I am really opposed to the Bill, but there is danger, and it is only to danger that I would yield; and, therefore, I recommend you to make concessions to the dangerous spirit of the times." Surely, my Lords, you cannot fail to ask yourselves this—is it not much more dignified to yield before there is danger than afterwards? As respects this House, the present is now a virgin question. If you agree to Reform now, it becomes the spontaneous act of this House. I ask your Lordships, is not such a course more consistent with the dignity of this House, and likely to prove more advantageous to ourselves, than to concede after rebellion has raised its head? There is no shrinking from this truth—either that you must take the Bill now, or be forced by circumstances to adopt hereafter a measure full as efficient, and, perhaps, less acceptable to this House; whereas, if the proposed change be adopted before the danger arises, all idea of intimidation will be out of the question.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the noble Baron rose, and made a speech to order, and I never recollect a speech more inconsistent with order, or with the practice of this House. On the question, "That the Petition do lie upon the Table," the
1328
noble Baron referred to a debate, going on, I may say, upon a subject now under the consideration of Parliament; and he also referred to a debate on a subject respecting which I rather thought that, for once in my life, I had obtained the approbation of the noble Baron. This discussion has now lasted some time; but, during the whole of it I remained silent. I did not wish to draw your attention to the Bill now on your Lordships' Table, upon an occasion merely of presenting a petition. I have not said one word; I have not uttered a cheer during the present debate, and I do not see how my sentiments can with propriety be brought into discussion. I do not deny that I always felt strongly the attempts that were made to intimidate your Lordships; but for that meeting which has been described in the paper produced in this House, and for all such meetings, I feel the greatest contempt; and I am perfectly satisfied that the House is superior to any intimidation founded on the proceedings of any such assemblages. I feel no concern for all these threats, whether proceeding from Birmingham or elsewhere. I have always thought, and I think still, that the law is too strong to be overborne by such proceedings. I know further, that there does exist throughout this country a strong feeling of attachment to the government of the country, as by law established. I know that the people look up to the law as their best means of protection, and those laws they will not violate in any manner to endanger the government of the country, or any of its established institutions. I am afraid of none of these, but I will tell your Lordships what I am afraid of. I am afraid of revolution, and of revolutionary measures, brought in and proposed by his Majesty's Government. I assert, and I believe that history will bear me out in the assertion, that there has been no revolution in this country, or any great change, which has not been brought about by the Parliament, and generally by the Government introducing measures, and carrying them through by the influence of the Crown. I would therefore entreat your Lordships to do all you can to defeat this measure—use every means of resistance which the just exercise of your privileges will warrant, and trust to the good sense of the country to submit to the legal and just decision you come to.
The Earl of Carlislesaid, that the noble Duke had told them that history bore him out in saying that no revolutions had been effected in England except by Parliaments; and, in saying this, the noble Duke had displayed a great dislike to revolution. He was somewhat startled at this; and should be glad to know if the noble Duke included, in his historical reading, the Reformation of the Church of England, and the Revolution of 1688? He knew of no other great changes in England which could be properly called revolutions; and it was rather new to hear these events represented in Parliament as mischievous and calamitous. Let him entreat their Lordships to recollect that the eyes of the country were upon them; and, recollecting this, to abstain from language which could, by possibility, have no other tendency than that of increasing the irritation which already existed in a very high degree out of doors.
The Earl of Winchilsea, could not suffer the unwarrantable attack which had been made upon a noble Duke near him to pass without notice. He could not allow without notice, that any noble Lord should say of that noble Duke, that he would aim at obtaining office by a sacrifice of principle. A more unjustifiable attack than that which had been made upon the noble Duke he had never heard. Though he differed from that noble person upon a great and memorable occasion, yet he gave him the fullest credit for perfect sincerity, and for an earnest wish to maintain the peace of the country. It was with much regret that he had now to acknowledge that he assisted in removing that noble Duke from office, and putting in place of him and his colleagues a Ministry deserving neither the confidence of Parliament, nor the respect of the country—a Ministry ready to sacrifice the dearest rights and interests of the country, and incur the hazard of overturning all the established institutions, from a too great facility in yielding to clamour and popular excitement, rather than listening to the dictates of good sense and sound policy. The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack had laid down a doctrine to which he (the Earl of Winchilsea) could not subscribe, namely—that to refuse those taxes which the necessities of the country and the honour of the Sovereign demanded, was no breach
1330
of the public peace; he would say it was treason, and if the Government did its duty, it would instantly prosecute the persons accused of such an offence. It would not do its duty either if it did not prosecute those who used libellous language. He hoped, however, that no intimidation would have any effect on the House. Slander was not confined to them, and, could he discover the slanderer to whom he had before alluded, he should run a great risk of breaking the peace. He could not allow the insinuation thrown out against the noble Duke to go uncontradicted while he was present—namely, that he would consent to take the reins of Government for the purpose that had been stated, and he rose to contradict it.
Lord Hollandsaid, that he must protest against the interpretation which the noble Earl had put upon his observations. He had never made the least insinuation against the sincerity of the noble Duke. He had never said that he doubted the sincerity of the noble Duke—he had never doubted the noble Duke's sincerity—and still less had he ever said or thought that the noble Duke was a person who would be guilty of insincerity for the purpose of obtaining or retaining office. All he had said was, that he thought it very probable that they might witness the same issue to this as to the Catholic Question; and that the noble Duke, after changing his opinions with regard to Reform, as he had changed his opinions with regard to the Catholic Question, might be the person destined to carry a measure of Reform through Parliament, as he had carried through Parliament the measure of Catholic Emancipation. He had stated nothing but what was the fact; not only that the noble Duke, but other noble and right hon. individuals, on the occasion to which he alluded, had changed their opinions. The noble Duke, and other members of his Government, stated that their constitutional views were not changed on the Catholic Question, but they felt that the government of the country could not be conducted without conceding it. They plainly stated, that there was a difference of opinion between the Government and the House of Commons; and that they felt it their duty to yield to the opinion of the House of Commons, and the growing opinion of the country. It was said on all sides that their Lordships should do their duty; but he begged to

1331
remind them, that it formed a great part of their duty to consider the consequences which might arise from their actions. That was a part of the duty of all rational men.
Earl Greyassured their Lordships, that he did not rise with any view to protract this discussion, which, he considered, had already gone on too long; he rose in the first place to vindicate himself from the charge of having taken an opportunity, on the presentation of this petition, to make a second speech upon the Bill. He did not recollect, however, that in the observations which he had made he had said any thing which was not directly in reference to the petition, and the statement which was made on its presentation. He rose then chiefly, however, for the purpose of referring to one observation which fell from a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Winchilsea). The noble Earl had, in addressing the House on this occasion, exhibited that degree of excited feeling and fervour which sometimes caused the noble Earl to proceed further than, he believed, the noble Earl intended. He did not mind the attack which the noble Earl made on his political conduct. He might be one of that set of men who were described by the noble Earl as not deserving the confidence of his Sovereign, although the observation was one which was rather stronger than a sense of courtesy warranted. The noble Earl had, however, if he were so minded, a right to say that he was unworthy of that confidence. The noble Earl might also complain, that the measure which had been introduced, though he considered it a wise and proper one, tended, in the noble Earl's opinion, to subvert the Constitution of the country. That was an opinion which he might controvert at the proper time. But when the noble Earl was pleased to assert, that he (Earl Grey) was one of those who would sacrifice the interests, the rights, and the safety of this country for the purpose of retaining his situation, or deferring to popular clamour, he was sure that their Lordships would at once say, that such an assertion was quite beyond the rules of parliamentary order. He hoped that it was a statement which the noble Earl, on cool reflection, would not persist in. And he now asked the noble Earl distinctly, whether he meant to impute to him that he was a person who would deliberately introduce a measure into Parliament,
1332
which he believed would subvert the rights and interests of the country, for any purpose whatever?
The Earl of Winchilsea and the Duke of Buckingham rose together, and the cries for Lord Winchilsea were very general, but
The Duke of Buckinghampersisted in addressing the House, declaring that he rose on a point of order. He believed the noble Earl had been misunderstood. What he believed the noble Earl to have said was, that the noble Earl opposite, in pursuing this measure, was capable of sacrificing what he (the Earl of Winchilsea) considered to be the rights and interests of the country.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, as to the question put to him by the noble Earl, he did not impute to the noble Earl any feeling that could lead him to adopt that which he believed to be subversive of the rights and interests of the country. But this he would say, that the principles which were promulgated, that the excitement and public clamour which existed, and the course which the Government had taken, or rather the supporters of Government (for it was far from him, who felt the greatest respect for the noble Earl individually, to believe that he had urged on this clamour), were calculated to subvert the institutions of this country. He admired the consistency which had distinguished the whole of the noble Earl's political life, and, under other circumstances, such was the respect which he entertained for him, that he would have given him his humble support. He did not say, that the noble Earl would, for any purpose, sacrifice interests which he professed to cherish, but that the public clamour which was raised by the great body of those who approved of this measure, must operate against the interests of the country. He offered this explanation to the noble Earl, because he believed him to be a man who would never depart or swerve from that which he believed to be conducive to the general welfare of the country, although he thought that the noble Earl was very much mistaken in the consequences that would flow from the line of politics which he was now pursuing.
Earl Greysaid, the noble Earl had an undoubted right to condemn his measures if he disliked them. As to the other point, he was satisfied with the noble Earl's explanation.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Lord Kenyon Lord Kenyon rose to move the Order of the Day for proceeding with the Reform Bill, when
Lord Hollandobserved, the understanding was, that they should proceed with petitions until they were exhausted. The noble Lord then proceeded to observe, that on a former evening a noble Baron (Lord Wharncliffe) had referred their Lordships to the tradesmen of Bond-street, as a body who could convince their Lordships that people of their class were opposed to Reform. Now certainly he had not availed himself of the opportunity of making inquiries in Bond-street since the noble Baron had mentioned the fact; but it so happened, that in proceeding to the House this day, he was stopped at the bottom of Bond-street, and requested to present a Petition in favour of the Reform Bill, signed by 101 inhabitants of that street. There were, he believed, about 200 householders in Bond-street; of these, 101 had signed the petition, and he was told, that if there had been time, the whole of the inhabitants of Bond-street would have signed it. The petitioners wished to get rid of the imputation that had been cast upon them, as to their being lukewarm, in comparison with the other inhabitants of London, on the subject of Reform. Many of those by whom the petition was signed were persons of wealth and consideration.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that when he spoke of Bond-street, he alluded to that place merely in exemplification of a general principle. His proposition was, that if an inquiry were made amongst the tradesmen in the different streets of London and Westminster, it would be found that the general opinion amongst them was, that they entertained a fear of, and a shrinking from, the enactments of this Bill.
Lord Holland: All he would say was, that this petition stated exactly the contrary; and if the noble Lord would only mention the particular streets in which he wished this inquiry to be made, he doubted not that he should be able to bring down to-morrow a petition in favour of the Bill from every one of them.
The Earl of Mulgraveexpressed his opinion, that, on inquiry, an express contradiction would be given to the assertion, that the tradesmen of the metropolis were growing cool with respect to Reform
Lord Wharncliffehad never said, that they had cooled on the subject of Reform, but that they shrank from the enactments of this Bill.
Lord Kenyonagain expressed a wish that the Order of the Day should be proceeded with.
The Marquis of Westminstersaid, the question at present was, that the petition from the inhabitants of Bond-street be received, and he would take that opportunity to make a few observations. He had, on a former evening, presented a petition from Westminster, which a noble Baron asserted was not respectably signed, or that it was a meagre petition. That, however, was not the fact. If, as the noble Baron had asserted, the tradesmen of Bond-street, St. James's-street, &c., were hostile to this Bill, what prevented them from attending the meetings at which petitions were agreed to, and opposing them? If what the noble Baron had said were correct, those who were opposed to Reform would, in that case, have overpowered their opponents and gained a complete victory. Instead of petitions for Reform, were the noble Baron's statement accurate, they would have been all the other way.
Petition to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—SECOND READING—AD JOURNED DEBATE—THIRD DAY.
Lord Kenyon Lord Kenyon moved the Order of the Day for the Adjourned Debate on the Reform Bill.
On the Order being read, Lords Dudley and Goderich rose at the same moment, but after considerable confusion the latter noble Lord gave way, and
The Earl of Dudleythen addressed the House. His Lordship was understood to state, that in presenting himself on this occasion he did not hope to be able to add any force to the arguments adduced by the noble Lords who had already spoken. He was only anxious to show that he was not insensible to the blessings which he, in common with the country at large, had enjoyed under the existing Constitution; and he was still more anxious to address their Lordships, lest it should be supposed that he was unwilling to take the full share of the odium which attached to every one who opposed this measure. Unless the House was firm and resolved in rejecting the measure now under its consideration, he could not help feeling that perhaps this was one of the last times when he, or any

1335
one, would have an opportunity of addressing a Parliament collected on the principles on which their ancestors founded the present Parliament, and in the full enjoyment of all the rights which the Constitution now gave to a Member of Parliament. But before he said anything as to the Bill itself, he begged to call their Lordships' attention to the circumstances under which it had appeared, and which seemed to him particularly calculated to excite suspicion and disapprobation. The present Ministry came into power upon the sudden and unexpected fall of the government of the noble Duke. It consisted of persons who, however individually entitled to consideration, had not acted together long enough, or with sufficient harmony, to have conferred and agreed upon all the various and important articles of an entirely new policy. On the contrary, they were known, up to a very recent period, to differ upon some great points—and more particularly upon that on which, at the end of a few weeks after their accession to office, they promulgated an unanimous and most astonishing decision, so that it is not uncharitable to suppose that this coalition was owing to personal convenience rather than to any sincere agreement; and their collective judgment is, therefore, of no value, or, at least, only of the value that belongs to the opinion of the majority of the Cabinet, which had prevailed upon the minority to adopt a creed directly contrary to that which they had always held. Thus united, and thus prepared, these Gentlemen proceeded to the discharge of their functions, and thought it their duty to propose to the King, their master, and to Parliament, several measures, which, if carried into effect, would make an entire change in the Government and Constitution of the country, which had for centuries prospered under their influence. He could not but deprecate the impetuous and misguided conduct of the present advisers of the Crown, who, when they had scarcely taken into their hands the command of the reins of the Government of the country, had applied themselves to effect a change in every branch of its institutions, and that without being able to shew to the House the existence of its necessity or expedience. They had attempted a change in financial government, a change in the law, and, though last, not least in his opinion, they had attempted a change in the constitution of the other
1336
House of Parliament—a change, too, the effect of which would be to give supremacy to the worst power that could be exercised by any state—he meant a democratical authority. The measure of his Majesty's Ministers would, unless their Lordships did their duty fearlessly and conscientiously to their country and themselves, be attended with this consequence—that the House of Commons would be, instead of what it then was, converted into a democratic assembly. What, he would ask, were their Lordships called upon to do? They were required, and that in no persuasive tone, but in an authoritative manner, to stigmatize all the legislative acts of their forefathers, and that, too, with less notice than a county had been ever called upon to cut a canal, and this too at the bidding of persons, some of whom had always been hostile to all reform, and others who had scarcely had time to learn the common routine of their officers. It was not in human nature to order wisely so many great things thus suddenly and without preparation. He could not confide in the authors of these measures, unless he also believed them to be inspired. Never was so much proposed by mortal man in so short a time and upon such imperfect authority. Indeed, this measure had been promulgated more like a chapter in the Koran than any human institution, and if their Lordships might judge by the language of the journals under the control of the Ministers, they must suppose that they meant also to propagate it like the Koran—the book in one hand, and the sword in the other. When he considered the extent of this business, and the havoc that was to be made among innumerable charters, rights, and privileges, how many usages, habits, and feelings, were to be trampled upon—not a hundredth part of which could, till lately, have been touched, without exciting the most vehement and passionate resistance,—no one who saw them all, at a few weeks notice, brought to the very verge of destruction, but must be amazed at this sudden mutability introduced into the affairs of a nation heretofore so little given to change. He did not mean to speak with disparagement of the persons that proposed the measure,—men to whose talents and accomplishments an humble individual like himself must look up with the respect due to superior qualifications; but it was not with humble individuals, nor with ordinary

1337
occasions, that they were to be compared, but with the stupendous magnitude of what they proposed, and when he considered that this Bill proposed to give an entirely new Constitution to the country—when he considered that by it our institutions were to be changed, and the privileges of their Lordships placed in jeopardy, he thought that some higher authority should be adduced, and some more masterly hands should be employed in an undertaking of so much magnitude, than the authority of those persons who now introduced a measure, which, had it been broached some years back by any other party in the House, would have been scouted by them from their Lordships presence. What had been the statesmanlike qualities of the present advisers of the Crown who had introduced the measure to their Lordships' notice? Had they gained character by their financial arrangements at home, or by their foreign policy abroad, sufficient to entitle them to propose such a sweeping measure as that which occupied their Lordships' attention? He would say they had not. In every country the management of the revenue had been considered as a matter of the greatest and most paramount importance, and the success of a Ministry was estimated in proportion as its management of that particular branch had given satisfaction to the people. It had always been necessary for the Government of this country to maintain, on that subject, the perfect confidence of Parliament. Now, what was the case with the present Ministers of the Crown? Not only had they failed in engaging the confidence of Parliament, but they had proved themselves incapable of conducting the financial affairs of the country. It was not merely that they had failed in some measures of finance, but they had actually succeeded in none. Was it becoming then in the Ministers who could not succeed in the adjustment of a single tax, from the duty upon cotton to that upon timber, to lay their rash hands upon the most important institutions of the country, and attempt to make alterations, which, if they were to be made at all, required the greatest wisdom, caution, and abilities? He would not say anything of those parts of the foreign affairs of the country which were still said to be in an unsettled state. But some things respecting them were well known. It was well known that his Majesty's Ministers had
1338
formed alliance with our old enemies, and now were at variance with our old friends. It was well known that they had consented to the demolition of those fortresses which had before been looked upon as the keys of Europe, and had been established at an expense of many millions sterling to this country. That was a result which no one would ever have looked for as the determination of an amicable negotiation. It was rather like the result of a war, in which England had suffered total defeat on sea and land, and her treasury had been exhausted of every guinea, and in which the victories of a French general had eclipsed the glories, and robbed us of the fruits of Waterloo. Was it not an excess of confidence, and a dangerous experiment, to intrust such men with the remodelling of our Constitution, more particularly since they had shewn themselves desirous of converting our limited Monarchy into a purely democratic Government? Was it not natural, he asked, that the failures which Ministers had already experienced should induce their Lordships to pause before they reposed an implicit confidence in their present subversive scheme? If there was nothing in their conduct to induce confidence, why should it be generally reposed in them, as to this Bill, for its effect would be to prompt them to further changes in the Constitution? It was material to recollect that this was not a mere question of Parliamentary Reform, but a question as to a totally new Constitution, and an entire change in the most important branch of the State. Were they not, therefore, bound to consider whether the measure which they were called upon to adopt was a safe and salutary one? This Bill proceeded upon a strange and extravagant proposition, which he had no doubt would in a little time be received with scorn by all—namely, that the country had never heretofore had a good Government, and that the people had always been deprived of their rights. If there was any truth in this position the case resolved itself into this, that since the period of the Revolution our Constitution had been bad, for he denied that there had been any change in it since that time. It was the same in substance and the same in principle which then received the sanction of our ancestors, and which they, from long experience, deemed the most expedient that could be adopted. There was, at the period of the Revolution,

1339
as now, an influence of the Crown, and of the great proprietors, and the same nomination boroughs. If there were any difference, it is, that the influence of the Crown and of the great proprietors has become less, and that of the people greater. It was greater on account of the greater number of persons that took an active influence in public affairs; on account of the greater publicity of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament; and, most of all, owing to the increased activity and influence of the press,—a new power in the State, and always the sure ally of the popular party. All those great party combinations that used to give law to Parliament, and out of the pale of which hardly any active political power was allowed to exist, were now broken up, and every variety of interest and opinion had found a ready way to the House of Commons; the whole tendency of that assembly for many years had been to reflect more directly and more strongly the will of the people. Every alteration that had taken place from time or circumstances, had been of a nature to render Reform less rather than more necessary. The two principal arguments that had been adduced in support of it were—first, right; and, secondly, expediency. Now as to the argument of right, it was, he conceived, ridiculous to say that a man who happened to rent a tenement of 10 l. annual value had more claim to franchise than a man who rented a house of half that money. That was his opinion, considering the question on the abstract principle of right. The Bill, in fact, must stand upon its expediency—upon the good that it does, or the evil that it is calculated to remedy. In judging of its merits, we must, therefore, consider what are those evils—evils for which it is desirable to find a cure? He knew of but one, and that was the distress arising from the excess of the population over the means of employment and of subsistence. This, no doubt, was a great evil, and one as to the nature and remedy of which great difference of opinion existed. Some persons utterly desponded—others thought that some remedy was within the reach of legislation—some proposed a return to paper currency—others talked very plausibly of emigration—but even among the most sang ine, was there any one who believed that there was some healing remedy that a reformed House of Commons might discover
1340
and adopt, which an assembly constituted like the present, could neither see nor apply. Was it suppposed that four county Members, chosen by the householders mixed with the freeholders, could overcome some difficulty which two Members chosen by the freeholders only could not surmount—or that some great secrets of public happiness might be discovered by the philosophers of Birmingham and the statesmen of Sheffield, that had entirely escaped the mock representatives of Gallon and Old Sarum? Reform would not contribute, in the slightest degree to relieve distress, but distress was the parent of the desire for Reform. The boroughmongering Peers and the opponents of Reform were blamed as the authors of the evils of the country; but if these evils consisted of the single misfortune of an excess of population, the Constitution could not be blamed for it? The boroughmongers might, with equal justice, be blamed for the constant occurrence of bad weather. They did not generate the evil by generating the excess of population. He deeply regretted the nature of the inducements held out by the supporters of Reform to persuade the people to give their assent to the change. They were told that the profits of trade would be increased, and that bread would be cheaper, if Reform was obtained. These were the notions which were put into the heads of the people by Reformers; but it was needless to say, that no such consequences could attend the measure. When such inducements were held out, it was not to be wondered at that a strong feeling existed through the labouring classes in favour of the change; but was this to induce their Lordships, convinced, as they must be, that the feeling had its origin in misrepresentation, to give their assent to a measure, the effects of which would be extremely detrimental to their privileges? The mass of the people laboured at that moment, under passion and prejudice, which incapacitated them from discerning what was for their own interests. They were completely in the situation of a man who was persuaded, when in a state of intoxication to sign a deed which granted away his property. He admitted that the grounds which he had stated as influencing a large mass of the Reformers were not those on which the higher classes of Reformers based their support to the measure; at least they disclaimed them, and

1341
he was bound to believe their sincerity in doing so; but he would maintain that those inducements influenced ninety-nine out of a hundred of the supporters of the measure. The higher class of Reformers, he understood, grounded their support on principles of logic and philosophy; but these were things of which the larger mass of the people knew nothing, and indeed, he could not see that either logic or philosophy had any thing to do with a measure which professed for its object a reformation of existing abuses. He, therefore, maintained, that if the Bill were carried, it would be carried by the clamour of a people incapable of judging what was best for their advantage. Now, with respect to the consequences of the measure, it was not to be expected that he could anticipate them all, but there were some to which it was impossible he could shut his eyes. First of all, he asserted, that it would be utterly impossible to carry on the government of the country. He did not mean to say, that the country would have no government, but that it would be impossible to carry on any steady system of government. The Ministers were about to undertake a labour like the task imposed upon the Israelites, of making bricks without straw. They were taking upon themselves to govern, without the means of governing, and to manage a body exulting in the newly-acquired possession of the whole power of the State, with curtailed and scanty means—means which were scarcely sufficient to carry on the business of the country in less turbulent and unruly times. Let their Lordships not deceive themselves. The country was on the eve of becoming a republic. He did not deny, that such a form of government had sometimes been carried on by wise men in a manner to render the State happy at home and respected abroad; but this measure would lead to a democracy, the worst form of government, which would abolish the privileges of the Monarchy and the Peerage. He knew it was the theory of our Constitution that the two Houses of Parliament—the one possessing its privileges by inheritance, and the other elected by the people—were supposed to be equal in legislative power. That was the theory, but in practice, even with respect to the present House of Commons, it was not true. If that branch of the Legislature were engaged in a struggle with the two others, it would prove too
1342
hard for both together. It was only by the abuses of the Constitution, as they were called, that the due balance was maintained, and the evils which would arise from the superiority of the popular branch of the Legislature prevented, or at least mitigated. It was only because the Crown and the House of Lords had an influence in that of the Commons, which was wholly unacknowledged by the theory of the Constitution, that the Constitution had been maintained. It would not be proper for him to enter into all the details of the measure at present; but he would ask first—was the mode of election proposed by this Bill, or was it not, such that no man could obtain a place in the House of Commons without pledging himself to certain principles? And, in the next place, was the House of Commons to be so constituted, that, if an election were to take place amidst such strong feelings and opinions—no matter how absurd they might be—all who opposed them would certainly be driven from office and power; and be deprived of the means of serving their country? Before they adopted such a measure, they should consider, not only what they might gain, but what they might lose; and on this subject, he thought he had a right to complain of the language and sentiments which had been expressed. The supporters of the measure, not content with saying that the Constitution should be changed, represented the whole system as so utterly worthless, that no person of honesty could desire its continuance. He thought it would be more fair to say, that however faulty it might be, still, it had lasted so long, and through such good times, that we ought not to give it up, without considering what we were to get in lieu of it. Instead of this, we were told, that, from the beginning, it was tainted with corruption in all its parts. He maintained, that the combination of the different branches of the Constitution, blended as they were harmoniously together, had, at all periods of its existence, produced the happiest effects to the country. During that period, which had been alluded to by some, only for the purpose of deploring the imperfections of our system, we had risen to an enviable celebrity in arts and in arms; and though it served in this day as a common place for descanting upon our ignorance and our humiliation as a nation, it was the frequent theme of gratulation to statesmen

1343
equal in wisdom to any of antecedent times, and superior in eloquence to any who had been recorded in modern, possibly in ancient times. It was a period remarkable in our history for our advancement in the scale of nations. It was the period of continued brightness which intervened between the triumphs of La Hogue and Trafalgar, and between the signal victories of Blenheim and Waterloo. Surely, in retracing the progress of our aggrandisement through an era of so much brilliancy, it was a venial fault if we looked back to it with sentiments of gratitude to a kind and fostering Providence, even if, in the next hundred years, there were to occur days of equal prosperity, and triumphs equally glorious. But these recollections were to be stifled or obliterated by the intimidating picture drawn of the dangers with which they, as the hereditary Peerage of the country were environed, if they refused to pass this Bill through the House; and that, in such an event, they were sure to draw down on their devoted heads, possibly in the loss of life, but at least in the loss of their properties, the dread indignation and vengeance of the excited people. Such were the representations of the supporters of this bold project of his Majesty's Government; but he would admit, it was more than possible that resistance to this innovation might be attended with danger. To whom, however, he would ask, in the event of that danger arising, ought it to be attributed? To the excited people? Certainly not. To whom then? To his Majesty's Ministers, who had kindled, and fed with continued fuel, that excitement by which they were now threatened to be consumed. His apprehensions were totally of another kind. He would direct their attention to dangers also; but they were those of concession; dangers which he concurred in thinking might lead to the loss of all they held personally dear, or that was valuable in the State. What! were their Lordships, as a great estate in the realm, to be content to sit there and register in silence those acts of that other estate in the realm which was to benefit by the concessions thus wrung from the Peerage by intimidation? Or was it not high time to feel alarm for our venerable institutions when this measure was found to be countenanced and approved of by all who had hitherto looked with undisguised hostility on the present accumulation of property
1344
in individuals, the laws of primogeniture, the privileges of their Lordships' House, and the greater portion of our valuable institutions in Church and State? He called on them now to make their stand, whilst that instrument of self-destruction was lying on their Table; nor shrink from their duty nor quail in spirit before the insolent dictation and domineering aggression of those who were the avowed enemies of our institutions and reckless advocates of all innovation. Were they to allow themselves to be intimidated by an hostility which had kindled against them, not in consequence of any aggression on their part, but because they were unwilling to incur the risk of ruin to themselves and revolution in the State? Their Lordships' opposition to it should not be circumscribed by the mere consideration that the regulations of the Bill were fraught with irremediable loss to those who were now within reach of his voice, but they should be the firmer in their resistance to it, because it had been attempted to be forced on them in the crisis of excitement; so that they must adopt or reject it with precipitation, and without being allowed the chance of appealing from the demands of popular impatience to the public when under the influence of a calmer spirit. The object of the King's Ministers was, to precipitate their Lordships' adoption of the measure. They dreaded, and justly too, the probable return of the country to a state of peace, and to habits suitable to her true interests and her old character. They were little disposed to improve the opportunity now afforded them of attempting to renovate the Constitution by well-founded and judicious improvements, which might insure its continuance for centuries to come. Their Lordships were not to be swayed or influenced by the motives of any Administration, in contradiction to a clear sense of the high duties of their station in the realm. If they, in this important conjuncture, did that which was right and their bounden duty, they would in return possess not only the reward of a self-approving consciousness, but be entitled to be recognized as the true friends of order and liberty by future ages, and draw down on their memory the gratitude of their country.
The Marquis of Lansdownassured their Lordships, that if they had extended to him their attention when he rose to address the House last night, he would not

1345
have abused that indulgence by any lengthened trespass on their time. The delay had given him the opportunity of hearing, though he was afraid very imperfectly, the speech of his noble friend who had addressed himself to the principle of the Bill. He was not about to follow his noble friend into the very wide and excursive range he had taken, but before he offered any observations as to his general argument, he would say a few words on some of the preliminary remarks which his noble friend had made to embrace the whole range of our foreign and domestic policy, with the view of condemning both. He would not object to his noble friend for finding fault with that policy, but he could not allow him to rest any part of his opposition to this Bill on the alleged failure of financial or other measures brought forward by the present Government, for in that assertion his noble friend had been mistaken; and if his noble friend had only studied what passed in that House, or had he attended it personally, which it was well known his noble friend did not always, he would have heard, that measures had been introduced on most important subjects, and, so far from being failures, many of these had passed with his approbation, as far as that could be inferred from his not having objected to them by his speech or by vote. The measures for making some important and valuable changes in the law had been part of these, and to those his noble friend had not objected.
The Earl of Dudleysaid, he had not alluded to any measures for altering the law.
The Marquis of Lansdownbegged his noble friend's pardon. He had understood him to allude to all the measures which had been introduced by Government, and, amongst others, to changes made in the law, all of which his noble friend had said were failures. His noble friend's words, he believed were, not that the Ministers had failed in one measure, but that they had succeeded in none. Now one of these was the alteration with respect to the Bankruptcy Courts, to which his noble friend had never made any objection in its progress through that House. Had not his noble friend now for the first time stated his objection to that measure?
The Earl of Dudleybegged to say to his noble friend, that he had made no such
1346
objection. He had confined himself to the financial measures introduced by the present Government.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that his noble friend had stated, that as soon as the Government was formed there was evinced a disposition to change every thing. Now it did so happen, that many of the measures introduced to effect those changes had passed through that House, and his noble friend had not given to any of them the benefit of his great talents. He had not felt it necessary to oppose them, though they formed part of that system to which his noble friend had now stated his objection. His noble friend had stated that all the financial measures of the present Government had failed, and been withdrawn. Was his noble friend in the House when the bill for doing away with the coal-duties passed—was he in the House when the wine-duties bill was discussed? Was he present when the bill relating to the cotton-trade had passed? Did he know that the alterations which he described as failures had been sanctioned by Parliament, and had already been productive of the greatest benefit to the cotton-trade of Manchester, and was imparting life and vigour to that recently introduced into the north of Ireland? These measures had all passed that House, and yet his noble friend had not felt it necessary to offer a single objection to any of them until now that he came forward with a charge that they—for they were included in those which he described as failures—had been introduced and abandoned. His noble friend had told them, that good measures were like good wine, the better for being long kept. The same could not always be said of good speeches, for these might be kept too long, as that of his noble friend had proved. While his noble friend was industriously employed in his closet, these things to which he now objected were passed with unanimity by their Lordships. His noble friend, with that wit which no one admired more than he did, had spoken with a sneer at the philosophers of Birmingham who might be returned under this Bill, but who were not so well qualified to attend the interests of the public as the members for Gatton and Old Sarum; but if his memory did not misgive him, his noble friend had himself attempted to generate one of those philosophers, and had failed, for he had voted for the transfer of the

1347
franchise from East Retford to Birmingham, in order to give the people of that place the opportunity of electing one of those philosophers, who, there was good reason for believing, would be found as capable of attending to their interests as men whom they did not know, and with whom they had no connexion whatever. His noble friend had told them, that if this Bill passed, public men would find great difficulty in getting into Parliament if they were opposed in any thing to popular feeling, and he illustrated it by stating, that in the coalition between Mr. Fox and Lord North, which he said was more unpopular than the Anti-reformers at present, that difficulty was felt, and that Mr. Fox was nearly excluded; but his noble friend, who was a very accurate historian in other matters, did not seem to have read history down to the coalition in 1782. Mr. Fox was elected in that year for the populous city of Westminster; thus showing that the people were not disposed to forget the gratitude they owed to public men, nor to overlook the claims of talent and character. He would not, as he had stated, then follow the arguments of his noble friend, but would rather refer to those arguments which had been used in the earlier part of the debate by the noble Lords opposed to it. Of that part of the arguments of those noble Lords which did apply to the principles of the Bill, the far greater portion was in support of them rather than against them. He had listened with great attention to the able speech of the noble Earl (Harrowby)—certainly one of the ablest which he had ever heard him deliver in that House; and he could assure him, that if the noble Earl had not told them that he was exerting all his ingenuity to find some good ground to vote against the Bill, he should have expected from part of his arguments that he intended to vote in favour of it. The noble Earl had said, that if he were to collect all the speeches and pamphlets that had been delivered and written against Reform, by those who now supported this Bill, he could make one of the most eloquent speeches ever delivered on the subject. Now he (the noble Marquis) would say, that if he were to select and contrast the omissions, concessions, and he might, he hoped, without offence, say inconsistencies, of those noble Lords who had opposed the Bill on the opposite side since the commencement of this debate, they would furnish no slight
1348
argument in favour of the principle of Reform, and of much of the great principle of this Bill; for it certainly did happen, that there was not one of those noble Lords, in contending that their Lordships should not change because public opinion had changed, who had not, in fact, shown, though in different degrees, that their opinions had actually undergone no slight degree of change on this subject. He felt, undoubtedly, that in discussing this question, he laboured under the difficulty of agreeing with those noble Lords in all the premises which had been laid down by them in stating the reasons for the opposition which they gave to the Bill. He would state frankly and without disguise, that there was no opinion which he held more strongly, than that all political change was an evil in itself, and, being an evil in itself, it was more especially so in a form of society so complicated and so far advanced in civilization as ours. He felt with the noble Lords opposite, that the condition of no society could be safe, in which property did not exercise, if not a commanding, at least a great influence upon the Government. He admitted, with them, that the existing relations between man and man, between the governors and the governed, which have descended in any country from remote antiquity, are more easily retained than the relations which may rise up under new institutions, though much inferior, perhaps, to the old ones, but not so interwoven with the habits of those who live under them. Admitting these principles, closing with these premises, there was still one inference drawn from them by the noble Lords opposite with which he could not close, and which he must deny—namely, that it had been at all times the character of the institutions and of the Constitution of this country, to oppose a rigid and stubborn resistance to all propositions of improvement in our usages and laws. He had read with the greatest care and attention the history of our institutions. If he looked to the Statute-book, he was obliged to ask himself, what were the laws attendant on that first great change of public opinion so strikingly developed in this country by the Reformation—what were the laws which defined, and limited, and restricted the Royal prerogative, under the princes of the house of Stuart—what were the laws which altered the succession

1349
to the Throne, after the Revolution, and secured the descent of the Crown to the house of Hanover—what were the laws which sanctioned and ratified the Union between England and Scotland—and still more, what were the laws which sanctioned and ratified the Union between England and Ireland—what were the laws, inferior to none in force and violence, but equal to all that he had already mentioned in policy, by which three-fifths of the voters of Ireland were recently disfranchised—if he looked at the Statute-book, he was obliged, he repeated, to ask himself, what were all these laws but so many cases in which the old institutions of the country were made to bend to a great, he would even say an immense political expediency, and in which the changes introduced rested upon nothing else save that expediency for their defence and justification. He said, that so far from that rigid and stubborn adherence to existing institutions, which never varied under a combination of circumstances very different from those which prevailed in former times, being a leading feature and a distinguishing characteristic in our Constitution, the real feature of the Constitution, its most genuine characteristic, had been, at all times and in all seasons, to absorb into itself all the political strength of the country, consisting—as that strength always did and always must consist—of wealth and of knowledge—of wealth diffused, and of knowledge diffused, among the different classes of the community. He was glad to learn from the speech with which the noble Duke had closed the debate of last night, that the noble Duke fully concurred in the principles which he (the Marquis of Lansdown) had taken the liberty of laying down to their Lordships on a former occasion. The noble Duke and himself evidently agreed in the principles they embraced, though they differed somewhat in the application of those principles. The noble Duke had represented him to have said, that the strength of the country consisted of its wealth and its learning. He believed that he had not used the word "learning" he believed that he had said "knowledge." If he had said "learning," he did not mean by it academical erudition, or that pedantic acquisition of petty information which sometimes was obtained by students in their closets. He had been speaking of that knowledge which in its diffusion was
1350
power, and of that wealth which, not in accumulated masses, but generally distributed, enabled men to judge of what was most expedient to their own interests. The real characteristic of the Constitution was such as he had described; and if it had not possessed that characteristic of absorbing in itself the combined strength of the community, and of bending to the changes of opinion which took place in the country from time to time, he verily believed that their Lordships would have found, in looking to the various laws to which he had just referred, that if they had not been passed, those institutions on which they now placed so much value would, instead of descending magnificently down the stream of time, as they had descended to us, have been left long before this a mere wreck upon the shore. He would further call the attention of their Lordships to some of those observations upon this Bill which had been offered to their Lordships last night by the noble Duke who then terminated the debate. He had heard, certainly with great astonishment, the opinion which the noble Duke had expressed regarding the declaration—and with all deference to the noble Duke, he must style it the unfortunate declaration—which he had made against all Reform on the first or second night of the last Session of Parliament. He had heard the explanation which the noble Duke gave of that declaration last night, when he said that he made it as a Minister of the Crown, not as a Peer of Parliament. The noble Duke had told them that as a Minister of the King, whatever his opinions might be as an individual—and the noble Duke had not informed the House what his opinions were, neither had he (the Marquis of Lansdown) any right to complain of the noble Duke for not giving it that information—the noble Duke, he repeated, had told them that, as a Minister of the King, he felt himself debarred from proposing any project of Parliamentary Reform; or, indeed, from any other course, save that of preserving the Constitution of the country. He must say, that from the noble Duke he should have expected a policy quite the reverse of this; and until he heard the speech of the noble Duke, he thought that, in the peculiar situation in which Ministers were placed, they would have had the noble Duke's high authority to support them in the line of conduct which

1351
they thought it right to follow. Never, before this occasion, had he given his support to any proposition for a Reform in Parliament. He confessed fairly, and he trusted that their Lordships would believe him when he stated, that no popular clamour, no intimidation, as it was styled, from without, would have induced him now to come to the opinion that Reform was needed, if he had not been conscientiously convinced of its correctness—he confessed fairly, that though he had not been blind to the abuses which had appeared from time to time in our Representative system, he had thought it a safer course to wait until he saw a recommendation coming from the Ministers of the Crown to make some change in that system—a recommendation which would give facilities to the alterations proposed to be made, and would enable the country to know where those alteration were leading it. This was the ground upon which he had formerly abstained from supporting, and upon which he now came forward to support, the cause of Parliamentary Reform. He thought that he had the high authority of the noble Duke to justify the course which he (the Marquis of Lansdown) was then pursuing. For what was it that the noble Duke said, when he came forward to propose his immortal measure for the emancipation of his Catholic fellow-subjects? The noble Duke had said, that he felt himself debarred as a private individual from supporting that measure, because it was not brought forward as a measure which had the approbation of the King's Government. He mentioned this, not from any invidious feeling to the noble Duke, but because he thought that the language which the noble Duke then used was marked by his usual prudence, discretion, and good sense. He recollected that the noble Duke had told their Lordships on one occasion, when he was asked by the late Lord Castlereagh to support the question of Emancipation, that he had replied by asking that noble Lord whether the measure which he was about to introduce into Parliament had the sanction of the King's Government, and that, when he was told that it had not, he had refused to support it until it was introduced with that sanction. The tables, however, were to be turned in the case of Reform. In the case of Catholic Emancipation, as soon as the Royal sanction was obtained to the introduction of that measure into
1352
Parliament, the only thing which Ministers had to do, according to the statement of the noble Duke, was to bring it forward, and to pass it with all speed. In the case of Reform, however, that course which the noble Duke had recommended so strongly during the discussion on the Catholic Question, was the only course which Ministers ought not to follow. He hoped that their Lordships would allow him to state, that this intimation on the part of the noble Duke, of a possible change of opinion in favour of Parliamentary Reform, placed the noble Duke in the list of those Noble Peers who had already avowed themselves the converts to a certain degree of Reform; and that list—strange to say—included the name of every Peer who had yet spoken against this Bill, with the exception of a noble friend of his (the Earl of Mansfield); for every one of those noble Lords—with great caution indeed—with considerable hesitation—with a disposition sometimes to go backward, and sometimes to go forwards, not defining very clearly what they meant, but blundering in the dark about a meaning—had given the House, in the progress of their speeches, the satisfaction of seeing that they were labouring under the melancholy impression that there were strong reasons for moving, and that they could not stand where they now were. They were, therefore, with one solitary exception, all favourable to some plan of Reform. Now, if this plan of Reform, which existed in their eyes, whatever shape it might assume—
"If shape that might be called that shape had none Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb, Or substance might be called, that shadow seemed, For each seemed either."
If this plan of Reform which existed in the recesses of their minds, and in the secrets of their counsels, had indeed either shape or substance, the people of England had a right to complain, that six months had elapsed since the present Bill had been submitted to their notice, and that still no information was communicated to them of that nostrum which was to act as the antidote to the bane which Ministers had been said to have forced upon the country, and to have imperiously required their Lordships to adopt [hear!]. He was glad, that the noble Marquis, (the Marquis of Londonderry)cried out "hear" so lustily, for perhaps the noble Marquis would come forward that evening as a

1353
Parliamentary Reformer, and tell them what his nostrum was. With all deference to the noble Marquis, he would venture to tell him once more, that the people of England had a right to complain, that although the necessity for an efficient Reform had been stated at an early period of the last session—although the dissolution of Parliament had taken place for the express purpose of ascertaining the opinions of the people as to the existence of that necessity—although the present Bill, after long and mature discussion, had passed through the House of Commons—and although it had now arrived at its second stage in the House of Peers—they were still left without the means of knowing what remedy the noble Marquis and his friends had in store for them, and what that safety was, which existed in his plan, or in the plan of his noble associates, and yet could not be found in that of the Ministry. "All that we can learn at present is," said the noble Marquis, "that the noble Lords opposite have made some progress in their plan, and that there are certain things in it which, under certain circumstances, and at certain times, might be for the benefit of the people of England, though they will not vouchsafe to tell us what those things are. So that, when we have embarked on this voyage, not unconscious of the dangers and perils to which we are exposed, and still less unconscious of the formidable degree to which those dangers and those penis will increase by delay, it turns out, that all the noble Lords opposite, save one, have been dropping down with us to St. Helen's, and are lying at single anchor to join with us in such voyage, if it shall appear expedient. I must say, that when it is imputed to us, that my noble friend near me is acting the part of an impostor and an empiric, and is dealing out to the public noxious wares instead of wholesome commodities, it is rather hard, that those who think themselves by prescription the only real State physicians—admitting, as they do, that they see the disorder and are acquainted with the remedy—should keep their great science to themselves, and that the public should still be obliged, in want of a regular remedy, to put up with the quackery of my noble friend because nothing else can be obtained. There have been a great many differences, and of no trifling nature, among all the noble Lords who have yet spoken of a remedy. There has been a
1354
great desire amongst them all to find something to propose for your Lordships' consideration, and every one of them, without exception, has stated some concession he was willing to grant. Nay, even my noble friend (the Earl of Mansfield), who spoke so vigorously against every species of Reform, was at last so moved by the palpable necessity for some change, as to give some small contribution to the new Reform stock, to which all the noble Lords at the other side of the House were now subscribing. My noble friend would do something to diminish bribery at elections. That is the only concession of my noble friend.
The Earl of Mansfield: I offered no opinion at all on the subject of bribery.
The Marquis of Lansdown: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I am sorry that I committed him hastily to the opinion, that bribery is inexpedient. My noble friend then will do nothing; but that is not the case with the other noble Lords near him. They have all a remedy for the abuses of our Representative system, but their remedies differ widely from each other. My noble friend, the noble Baron (Lord Wharncliffe) who followed my noble friend at the head of the Treasury in this debate, in a speech replete with good sense and ability, fairly stated to your Lordships, that he was ready to concede the whole principle of the Scotch Reform Bill. The debate, however, had gone but very little further, when the noble Duke travelled out of his course to discuss the Representation of Scotland, and told us, that that Representation was consonant to a perfect state of society, and that under it Scotland had obtained great prosperity.
The Duke of Wellingtondeclared, that he had not said a word of the kind. What he had said was this, that no country was better governed than Scotland, or had advanced more in commerce, intelligence, and prosperity, than that, country within the last sixty or seventy years.
The Marquis of Lansdown: Exactly so; but when the noble Duke said, that Scotland was the best governed country in the world, he used it as an argument, that the Representation of Scotland was the best in the world, and that it was the cause of that good government, and of that prosperity which had followed in the train of that good government, All that I can state on this subject is, that in all the

1355
observations which the noble Duke has made regarding the prosperity of Scotland, and its rapid advances in wealth and intelligence, I fully concur. No one can witness that improving country without agreeing, that it presents a striking picture of civilization and refinement. There is its capital, which by the industry, and talents, and acute investigation of its inhabitants, has become the centre of northern civilization, and has justly acquired the title of Modern Athens. There is Glasgow, which has covered the banks of the Clyde with its steam-boats, and the waves of the Atlantic with its ships. [Lord Ellenborough reminded the noble Marquis, that he was a member of that Government which had endeavoured to impose a tax on steam-engines and on steam-ships.] The noble Baron is offering us a supplement to the joke which his noble friend near him endeavoured to cut, though with most miserable success, on our measures of finance. I could say something on the measures of finance of the noble Baron and his friends, but, in mercy to them, and to your Lordships, who have already been fatigued sufficiently by the introduction of topics foreign to this debate, I abstain. I was observing, before I met with the interruption of the noble Baron, that there was Glasgow, which covered the Clyde with its steamboats, and the Atlantic with its ships, and I was proceeding to notice what I considered to be the other signs of the prosperity of Scotland. But who is there who will tell me, that all this prosperity is in consequence of the Superiorities of Scotland? The only superiority which I can discover there, is the superiority of education, and the superiority, too, of unrepresented education; that superiority which we wish to introduce into the Legislature, and which the noble Duke would exclude for ever, by adhering rigidly and stubbornly to the wisdom of our ancestors. One great feature of the present Bill is, that it will include in the constituency of the country, its knowledge as well as its power—that it will bring within the pale of the Constitution, those who ought never to have been excluded from it, and that it will connect them with the Representation of the country by the closest and most indissoluble ties. The noble Duke has also expressed his alarm at the amount of Representation which is to be extended to other places which have hitherto been
1356
unrepresented; and, in order to deter us from such a measure, has stated instances of the abuses attendant on the Representation of large populous towns, as they exist at present. He has selected his instances—and very curious instances they are too—from the towns of Dublin and Liverpool." [The Duke of Wellington disclaimed having made any allusion to Liverpool—It was the Earl of Harrowby.] He was sorry that he had attributed to the noble Duke sentiments that had fallen from the noble Lord near him; but he was quite sure, that the noble Duke would not feel himself injured by having any sentiments of that noble Lord put into his mouth. Reverting to the elections for Dublin and Liverpool, he observed, that there could be no doubt, that great abuses had occurred in both places. They had been informed of those abuses on the best authority, for they had been made the subject of inquiry upon oath before two Committees of the House of Commons—and what had been the result? That these instances of corruption, which were intended to deter their Lordships from extending the right of Representation to other large towns, were proved to have been committed only by the freemen of Liverpool, whom this Bill did away with, and not by the householders of Liverpool, whom this Bill introduced into the Representation. His noble friend near him observed, that some of these freemen were also householders. On that he would say a word or two directly. But he begged to impress this on their Lordships once more, that at Liverpool all the bribery attached to the freemen only. In the Representation of Liverpool, which was selected to deter their Lordships from incurring the hazards of this Bill, there was something peculiarly curious. All the householders were excluded from voting. Out of 2,400 persons, who as householders of that town were qualified to act as Jurors, there were only eighty that had votes for its Representatives. All the other householders were excluded. The late Mr. Roscoe, who by his talents and his virtues had given to the town of Liverpool a celebrity which it did not previously enjoy—that great and good man, who, with all his sons, was established in business in that town, had not a vote for its Representatives; but their gardener had. And yet their Lordships were to be told, that it was an argument against this Bill,

1357
that it would disfranchise freemen, who from being in the situation of Mr. Roscoe's menial servant, were exposed to bribery, and that it would enfranchise men like Mr. Roscoe, who were far above bribery. The noble Earl, who had taken a conspicuous part in the debate of last night (Harrowby) had stated his apprehensions and his objections to what he would call the conjectural consequences of the Bill, and had blamed the noble Earl near him (Earl Grey) for having omitted all mention of them in his speech. The noble Earl had stated that one of his apprehensions was, that when the new constituencies framed under this Bill should get to work, they would overawe the House of Commons, and would thus put an end at once to the taxation and to the national debt of the country. He could have wished that the noble Earl, before he had ventured upon that rash assertion, had considered who the 10 l. householders were. He held at that moment in his hand a paper—and it was a curious paper, as serving to illustrate that which he was always glad to illustrate—namely, the great and general diffusion of wealth in England—he held in his hand, he repeated, a paper, which gave a return of the number of accounts kept at the Bank for dividends. He found from that paper, that out of 274,823 persons keeping accounts there, 264,668 were persons having less than 200 l. a-year. He asked the noble Earl, whether it was not a degree of probability, amounting almost to certainty, that these individuals would compose a great portion of the new 10 l. constituency? And if they did compose a great portion of that constituency, what became of his apprehensions? Did the noble Earl suppose, that these individuals, who, he said, would issue such peremptory mandates to their Representatives, and whose voices he described as already thundering in the ears of their Lordships—did the noble Earl, he repeated, suppose, that those individuals would tell their Representatives to do what they liked on other matters, but to take care, above all things, that they touched the dividends? He would put it to the noble Earl, whether such conduct would not be as devoid of common sense, and of common prudence, as that man's conduct would be who should say to his steward—"Do what you will to my estate, but take care that no rents are paid to me?" There was another objection
1358
to the Bill, which had been brought forward by the noble Duke who terminated the debate last night. The noble Duke had insinuated, that as all the members of this new constituency were of one class, they would therefore, on that account, be more accessible to bribery. Now, in making that assertion, the noble Duke seemed to have forgotten, that this new constituency included all householders above 10 l., as well as all householders of that amount; that this uniformity of suffrage included every thing from 10 l. to 10,000 l.; so that, in point of fact, there was no uniformity, but the greatest inequality in voting, and no ground for the supposition, that the whole of these voters would be accessible to bribery.
The Duke of Wellingtonrose to say, that he had not stated that these voters would be particularly accessible to bribery. What he had said was, that there would be a greater spirit of combination among them than was known under the present system.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that it came to much the same thing. There would be no more chance of combination than of corruption among these new voters; for he was happy to state, there would be in the towns more voters occupying houses above 15 l. than houses of 10 l. The noble Duke, in stating his apprehensions on this subject, and in referring to the history of this demand, or, he should rather say, of this wish for Reform, had stated, that the whole, or if not the whole, the greater part of it, had proceeded from the events which took place at Paris in last July. He was inclined to dispute that position. In referring to the history of England, he found that this demand for Reform was an opinion which had been growing up long, very long, in this country. [A noble Lord: Only since the American war.] Only since the American war! Oh no, it had its existence long before the American war. But even if it had received its existence at that time, an opinion of misgovernment which had been growing up for the last fifty years was one which deserved and ought to meet the serious attention of every Administration. The noble Duke had said, that this opinion had advanced neither rapidly nor uniformly. It was in the nature of things that such an opinion should not progress either with rapidity or with uniformity. Those changes which acted on the opinions of large

1359
masses of men, took place by slow and irregular degrees. What Lord Bacon had said of things was equally true of men; namely, that 'when they were moving to their places they moved irregularly, and that when they had got into them they moved regularly enough' [a laugh.] His noble friend was making a joke upon his words again. His noble friend was at liberty to do so as long as he pleased, but laughter was a very bad substitute for argument. The point to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, was that which formed the main source of the present discontent of the people. When the noble Duke said, that the discontent with our present system of Representation, which now pervaded the country so generally, originated from the events of last July, he used language which was tantamount to saying, that danger did not arise out of the gunpowder, but out of the match which created its explosion. Whilst this discontent was capable of being stimulated into exertion by the excitement attendant upon events occurring in foreign countries, there could be no safety for the State, except by removing the cause of its danger—a danger, which was the more formidable, because it was not always visible, and which oftentimes only became visible at the moment when it was almost impossible to avert it. He would not detain the House any longer with his observations. The real principles of this Bill were those to which every noble Lord who had yet taken a share in the debate had given his assent, either in a greater or a smaller degree. The principles of this Bill—and he abstained from entering into its details, though it was the policy of the noble Lords on the other side of the House to direct their attention to its details rather than to its principles—the principles of this Bill, assented to by implication by every noble Lord who had yet risen, were these—the extinction of the nomination boroughs, the extension of political influence to the middling classes of society, and the extension of the right of election in counties to every description of landholder, which had hitherto been confined to one class of landholders alone. These were the principles of the Bill; all the rest of it consisted of details, which would be submitted to their consideration when the Bill went into Committee, and on which it was as much the wish of his noble friend near him as it was of himself, that their Lordships
1360
should exercise their undoubted privileges of alteration and amendment. If for an instant, he could have supposed that his noble friend had been animated by a desire to debar their Lordships from the exercise of those privileges—an exercise, by the way, from which it would be impossible for his noble friend to debar them—he should not have hesitated, first in private, and afterwards in public, to have expressed how widely and how materially he differed from his noble friend. He was as ready and determined as any man in the House could be, to contend for those legal and constitutional privileges, whenever and however they might be attacked, which they had derived from their ancestors, and one of the most undoubted of which was, the right of calmly deliberating and determining on any important measure which might be sent up to them from the other branch of the Legislature. This conducted him to the last point upon which he should have occasion to trouble their Lordships. Though last it was not least in importance. Amongst, or rather in addition to the other objections stated to this measure, it had been said, that it would affect the future existence of the House of Peers. As he saw that this proposition was assented to on the other side, he would, on that account, beg for a few minutes to call the attention of the House to it. When their Lordships should have passed this Bill into a law (supposing that they intended to do so), notwithstanding the assumption of his noble friend who commenced that night's debate, and of many other persons, that their Lordships' privileges would thereby be placed in jeopardy, there would not be one constitutional privilege belonging to the House, described by any author, claimed in any Parliament, which would not remain as much in force as at the present moment. That of which their Lordships would be deprived, if they were deprived of any thing, was a corrupt share in the abuses of the other House of Parliament. He knew that it had been said, and often repeated, "What will this House do, when it shall come into direct collision with public opinion?" His answer was, that they must stand upon the constitutional ground which public opinion assigned to them, on that ground which public opinion claimed for them, and on which they would be stronger than they could hope to be by any illegal influence which they could possibly obtain. Suppose

1361
(and it was necessary for the hypothesis of danger to suppose so) that a case should arise, in which public opinion would be opposed to that which the wisdom of their Lordships should deem to be good policy. And if their Lordships were unable to support themselves in the exercise of their honest and constitutional duties, sitting in that House, which might be called the citadel of the Constitution, did they suppose that they could find defence in the corrupt outworks of Gatton and Old Sarum? Let not their Lordships suppose that the public did not see through so flimsy a disguise. In the exercise of their Lordships' undoubted rights, privileges, and influence, which were revered by the people of this country, if their Lordships should have the misfortune to act in opposition to public opinion, they would meet with support from the people; but they could not expect to obtain that support by persevering in claiming a participation in a system which involved in its ramifications an evasion of the law, and all sorts of iniquity—which was attended in its working with the most pernicious effects.
"—fraudesque, dolusque,
"Insidiæque, et vis, et amor sceleratus habendi."
That was not the character of the system on which he wished their Lordships' power to rest. He entertained the hope, from no selfish feeling, of being able to transmit to posterity those honours which, for the benefit of the public, no less than for his own, he had derived from his ancestors. He believed those honours, not in his own person alone, but in the persons of all their Lordships, to be essential to the well-being of the country, particularly as connected with the state of society and of property existing in this empire. He feared that he had almost exhausted their Lordships' patience, and would not further occupy their attention. After what he had before stated, he hoped that it was unnecessary for him to add, that he did not wish their Lordships to be influenced by public clamour. He hoped that no threats nor intimidation would be used; but if they should be used, he hoped that their Lordships would disdain to notice them. At the same time he thought it would be unwise to disregard the deliberate expression of public opinion; and he trusted that their Lordships would not act an unworthy part, and with the view of shewing that firmness which no man had a right to doubt their possession of, overlook all the
1362
considerations of policy which pointed to the adoption of this measure, because it was connected with changes in society which no noble Lord could deny. By a course of useful legislation their Lordships had encouraged the spread of population, increased the productions of science, and raised up large towns. Would their Lordships deny their offspring the rights and privileges of manhood? By the progress and development of the policy which their Lordships had pursued, the surface of the country had been covered with new streams. Was it possible to turn all these streams to flow in the old narrow channel with all its imperfections unreformed? Having endeavoured to diffuse industry, knowledge, and wealth, and intelligence over the land, he prayed them, not to adopt a real change of principles, but to follow out the policy they had begun, and to incorporate for ever the advantages they had created with the former institutions of the country.
The Marquis of Londonderryfelt himself called upon to address their Lordships after the personal attack which had been made upon him by the noble Marquis, who had wished to know what nostrum so great a Statesman as himself could propose to cure this fear of Reform. He was much surprised at the personal attack which had been made upon him by the noble Marquis, as he was not conscious of having ever given the noble Marquis any personal offence.
The Marquis of Lansdowndisclaimed having had any intention of attacking the noble Marquis.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that as the noble Marquis had disclaimed any intention of attacking him, he would not press the topic further. It appeared to him that the noble Marquis had left all the speeches which had been made against the Bill unanswered. He had indulged in a strain of declamation, but he had not attempted to answer the speech of the noble Earl near him. The noble Earl near him (the Earl of Harrowby), took the Bill, and what did he do with it? Why, he tore it to pieces. He went through it piecemeal. The noble Marquis's speech was full of flimsy attempts, but he had completely failed to put the Bill together again Neither could their Lordships put it together in the Committee. It was a complete rag, it was a mass of anomalies and incongruities which their Lordships could not make into

1363
order. The noble Marquis felt that his colleague committed himself, and he wanted to soften it down. What could be so efficient as the Bill itself, or something almost entirely the same? Would the noble Earl, after his statement on this question, submit to any alterations in the substance of this Bill? Certainly not. And he defied the noble Earl and the noble Marquis to get out of this dilemma. He considered the Bill unjust, unconstitutional, and unprincipled; because it robbed large classes of the people of their vested rights—rights that had been handed down by their ancestors, and which they were bound to preserve for their posterity; because it subverted all the great institutions of the country, and undermined that glorious fabric which had been the work and the admiration of ages; and because, if noble Lords would look to what had taken place in another House, they would see that the Government had departed, in the progress of the measure, from every principle on which they had set out, and had shifted their ground in all ways they thought likely to keep the Whigs in power. The details of the Bill were most ingeniously devised for the great object of its framers, that Whig supremacy should be eternal. In every decision that had been made as to schedule A, and every change in schedule B, the ruling object had been to extinguish and put down all the Tory interests in the country. He would accuse the Ministers of the grossest partiality in all the details of the Bill, and would particularly call their Lordships' attention to the cases of the counties of Durham, Northumberland and Cumberland, which had been so strongly and ably exposed in the House of Commons. There was another point, in reference to that part of the north of England in which he had some interest, which, in consequence of the absence of a noble friend of his (Lord Durham), from the heavy affliction that had befallen him, he was unwilling to notice, and which, from its being personal, he felt some difficulty in adverting to; but it was so strange and so strong a case, that he could not pass it over altogether in silence. There was a clause in this Bill, by which freemen of cities or boroughs residing within seven miles of the places of which they were free, were to retain their votes. Now it singularly happened, that all the freemen in the interest of his noble friend, to whom he had alluded, resided within the seven
1364
miles, and that those in the interest of the humble individual who addressed their Lordships resided only within nine miles, and yet the identical number seven miles had been thus curiously, he ought not to say designedly, fixed on. This, however, was not a singular instance, for there were many such—all, with the shuffling of boroughs from schedule A to schedule B, and from schedule B to schedule A, tending to establish Whig power, with the main view of establishing and upholding the interests of the noble Earl who now supported and ruled the councils of the country. Besides, the noble Earl was making this concession on a plan he much reprobated with regard to the Catholic Question. The noble Earl had said, that if their Lordships had conceded in time to the Roman Catholics all they were entitled to, not the slightest mischief or disaffection would have arisen in Ireland. He urged the House, therefore, to concede in time on this great question of Reform; but did he give the people all they asked, and considered themselves entitled to, even under his fatal and impolitic Bill? The people demanded Radical Reform, Vote by Ballot, and Universal Suffrage, if the cry of the majority of Reformers was to be believed; but did the noble Earl give it? Certainly not. But he called on the noble Lord to answer candidly, if he was not convinced that these measures were behind? [Earl Grey: No, no!] Did the noble Earl imagine, then, that the provisions of this Bill would long satisfy the people? No, they would thank him for the boon at the moment; but in proportion as they received power, they would instantly desire to increase it; and when once established in the first parallel, the Reformers would never be satisfied until they had carried the place. But the noble Baron opposite said, the petitioners say not a word about Universal Suffrage or the Ballot. Certainly not; and in Ireland the cry was all for Reform: not a word was heard about the Repeal of the Union now. But could the noble Lords, with their knowledge of human nature, and looking at the signs of the times, and what was occurring around them, and from the very example of the Catholic Question, be so innocent, so blind, so obstinate, as to believe that this seeming forbearance now arose from any thing but a cunning and deeply-laid policy? Could they be so simple as to believe that the Radicals of this country, or the people

1365
of Ireland, directed as that country was, by one organ, would be satisfied with the Reform Bill alone? the thing was absurd upon the face of it, unless they chose to forget, that before the Reform Bill was brought in, they made various and solemn declarations of their far more extensive wishes. As far as Ireland itself was concerned, he was satisfied that the effect of this Bill would be, to deliver the country up to the power of the Catholics. According to the population returns which he had consulted, he was certain that the Catholics would elect seventy-two out of the 110 Representatives for that portion of the empire. He felt and dreaded the effects of this particular part of the Bill more strongly as an Irishman, and still more strongly as a Protestant, than even the Legislative enactments as to England; for he was satisfied that this was only looked upon as a stepping-stone to the Repeal of the Union, and the destruction of the Protestant Church. There was another circumstance connected with the carrying of this measure, to which he could not, as an independent Peer of Parliament, entirely shut his eyes. The noble Earl, with an energy that did him great credit, disclaimed, as he understood him, any improper motive in the recent elevations to the Peerage, and stated the occasion on which they were made—that it was not meant to overawe the decisions of this House. The noble Earl's remarks on those elevations were quite consistent with what he formerly said, when he spoke on the occasion of the Corn-bill, when it was supposed that the Minister was about to make Peers for a particular measure. He could not help, however, looking upon these new creations as something exceedingly unconstitutional, especially after his Majesty's Speech, urging their Lordships to uphold the authority of both Houses of Parliament. It was unconstitutional in this sense—that an individual who had already voted upon a measure in the House of Commons, should be translated into this House to vote upon it again as a Peer. Such a proceeding surely could never be defended or approved of, and he, for one never thought that the noble Earl was capable of advising such a measure. Allusion had been made to the Charles Grey of former times. He should like to see—not the Charles Grey of former times, but the Earl Grey, who, at a time not far distant, stood forward so manfully in support of
1366
the privileges of his order, and supported those by whose sound policy this country had been carried through a period of unexampled difficulty and danger, almost unparalleled in the history of the world; by whose perseverance and steady resistance of all revolutionary attempts in other countries, the happiness and prosperity of our own had been continued. Happily, despite the dangers of the last half century, this country was still the same England, and God forbid that they should now run the hazard of revolution by adopting such a Bill as this. When the measure of Reform was first introduced into Parliament, it was declared by the noble Earl, that it would be of a moderate nature. How had the noble Earl answered this description of his plan? That measure was lost, Parliament was dissolved, and the voice of the people appealed to; but when that appeal was made, did Ministers shield the King's name in that sacred way which, as Ministers of the Crown, they were bound to do? or did they not rather convert it into a powerful instrument to effect their own views? If he understood the Constitution at all, the King's name ought not to be brought forward in any election contest, nor could the King give his consent to any measure until it had passed through the two Houses of Parliament. He might allow it to be introduced, but further he could not sanction it till it was passed. But at the last general election, in every county and in every town, Ministers placed the King's name by the side of Reform. It was the first instance in the history of the country of such a proceeding having taken place. When did they ever hear before of the King being united with the mobocracy of the country? The present Government, however, had established the precedent; and having assailed the very vitals of the Constitution, they concluded by introducing a measure which would overturn every institution of the country. The noble Earl, however, had said, that they should concede in time. Was it not by ill-timed concession that Neckar, the French Minister, brought his master to the scaffold? While at that very period the British Ministry, amid difficulties and dangers almost as great as those which distracted France, by their firmness and strict adherence to the principles of the Constitution, under the guidance of a Pitt and under the sway of George 3rd, preserved their Sovereign and saved the State. Would

1367
the noble Earl now become the Neckar of England? Was he to be hailed in that character? He would not go at length into this question, indeed, he should not have risen, knowing the superior abilities of so many that are desirous of addressing their Lordships, but for the personal allusion of the noble Marquis, which seemed to demand some answer from him. He was however, glad that he had risen, because he should stand recorded in this debate as having offered his humble, but honest and hearty prayer, that his Majesty's Ministers would weigh well the consequences of the measure which they proposed. Although the noble Marquis and the noble Earl deprecated all menace, still there was something in the noble Earl's (Earl Grey) assertion, that the Bill must pass, and that he would stand or fall by the Bill; which assumed, in his opinion, something savouring much of the shape of menace; and his address, also, to the Right Reverend Bench, carried with it more of threat than of conciliation: he assumed the character of a monitor, and addressed to them, if not a menace and threat, a most extraordinary and unusual, nay indecent caution. That caution was a most unusual and unstatesmanlike proceeding—a proceeding which he had witnessed with the greatest regret. He believed that the right reverend Lords who sat among them, and took a part in their deliberations, would on this, as on every other occasion, act with honour and integrity, and with a conscientious conviction that the course which they adopted was the best calculated to promote their country's good. The noble Earl might have allowed the right reverend Prelates to have gone to a vote upon this question without his caution or direction, and without receiving a lecture at this hands. If the cause was righteous, why should the noble Earl deem it necessary to uphold it by such an extraordinary proceeding? If wise, expedient, and advantageous to the country, why should the noble Earl fear as to the support it would receive? With these observations—standing before his God, his country, and his King—he would declare that this Bill should have his most decided opposition.
Viscount Goderich and the Earl of Haddington rose together. There were loud and continued calls for each.
The Marquis of Cleveland moved that Viscount Goderich be heard.
A noble Lord on the Opposition side moved that the Earl of Haddington be heard.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that yesterday three Peers addressed the House from the Opposition side, and only one from the Ministerial side. It was well known that the noble Earl intended to speak against the Bill. He put it to the candour of the House, and of the noble Earl, whether it would not be most consistent with fairness to allow the noble Viscount, who was one of those responsible for the important measure under consideration, to address the House first.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that it was his intention to make some observations on the speech of the noble Marquis, but he had not the least desire to prevent the noble Viscount from speaking first.
Viscount Goderichsaid, he had been twice placed in the painful situation of being called upon in opposition to two noble friends for whom he had the sincerest respect and esteem; but he was sure that neither of those noble Lords nor the House, reflecting upon his situation, would think him presumptuous in presenting himself to their notice. During the incidental discussions which took place, he had offered no opinion, although there were undoubtedly many things to induce a man to come forward and break silence. Still he had persevered in abstaining from taking part in these conversations, considering that he was acting in unison with the feeling of the House, and believing it was the course best calculated to keep down in their minds every feeling tending to give any other tone to a discussion so momentous, save that of calm deliberation. He did, however, feel considerable anxiety to express his opinions upon the subject, and he was the more anxious to do so at that moment, when he remembered the remarkable words which had been used by a noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) on the preceding evening, in a speech which had received much well-merited eulogy—words which went to attribute to the Ministers a crime of which all their Lordships would be compelled to pay the penalty. If he believed that this was the case, he should not have the face to present himself before their Lordships; but he did not feel guilty of the charges. His conscience told him that he had done nothing disgraceful, that he had done nothing which was inconsistent with his duty to his Sovereign,

1369
his duty as a Minister of the Crown. It was impossible, however, to remain silent under so grave a charge. The noble Earl, in fact, charged them with being the cause of all the excitement which prevailed. It would have been transitory, had it not been for them, said the noble Earl. If they had not kept alive the flame, it would have subsided as soon as the people had the opportunity and advantage of a little calm reflection. If this, indeed, were the right view of the case, or the true history of the question, he should undoubtedly admit the crime with which the noble Earl charged his Majesty's Ministers; but he said, that any man who looked to the nature of the question, and looked to the history of its progress, must take a narrow and contracted view of public feeling, if he considered it founded on any thing so transient that a delay of a few months could change its character. It had been stated by his noble friend, that the question was a new one, but he could not look upon it in that light, for it had attracted the attention of the country, with more or less intensity of power, for a period of fifty or sixty years. It was a strange fact, that when first it was introduced, little comparative disfavour was entertained against it even in the House of Commons. In the progress of its history, however, events arose towards the end of the last century which naturally tended to create in the minds of men great distaste towards all political change. And if he had been old enough at that time to have taken part in public affairs, he should decidedly not have supported any proposition of this nature. But this was a question which, from its nature, might slumber, but could not sleep; and if even it were occasionally to sleep, there was something in the constitution of the human heart that rendered it impossible it could be extinguished. Thus, although for many years after the commencement of the French revolution, there was comparatively a distaste against it, yet there were many circumstances which subsequently occurred that tended to place it in a more favourable position. Many things tended strongly to direct the attention of the people to it, and ultimately to give a great and increased anxiety for its consummation. The increased taxation, the altered state of men's fortunes by the sudden change from war to peace, added to the long continuance of that war, led the people to wish for some change. A great
1370
alteration had taken place in the state of society. The noble Earl had observed, that during the period of time from the battles of La Hogue to Trafalgar, and from Blenheim to Waterloo, the country had enjoyed a degree of glory and prosperity which it might never happen to enjoy again, and most probably not under a Reformed Parliament. But he would tell the noble Earl, that during this period there had been a change, an irremediable change in the state of society. In the midst of all this glory and prosperity, there were symptoms of the unstable nature of that very prosperity, which was produced during that period. And when there came the change from war to peace, there was scarcely an interest in the country, mercantile or manufacturing, which did not suffer and participate in those sudden changes by which thousands of persons actively employed, and enjoying comparative prosperity, were exposed to feel the effects of frequently recurring depressions. What was the effect of this? The people imagined that it was the result of having an unreformed House of Commons. He had not joined in that opinion, neither did he support the present measure because he did not believe that the present constitution of that House was not calculated to work good to the country (for to say that, would be to libel not only the House itself, but all those who had acted with it, and all those who had lived under it); but he would contend, that it was by no means wonderful, when their Lordships looked at the nature of the question, that large masses of the people, exposed to such changes as those he had mentioned, should adopt the feeling, that in the constitution of the Commons House of Parliament was to be found the root of the evils which so vitally affected them, and that in a Reform of the constitution of that House was to be found the only remedy for those evils. When the peace came, men were led to expect the return of many of those blessings of which they thought that the war had deprived them. No one, however, could look at what had since happened, and not be convinced that they were mistaken in their expectations. The peace had not restored those interests to prosperity, as had been anticipated. When their Lordships considered what the importance of the question was, they must feel convinced that it was one which was not likely to be easily forgotten

1371
by the people. It had, however, received an additional impulse from occasional circumstances, until at last it had grown to such an extent, that it was absolutely necessary to look the question in the face and deal with it as prudence might direct. He would ask their Lordships, if nothing had occurred in recent times respecting this question, which of itself was calculated to give further force to the impressions of the public? In the earlier periods of the history of the country, no one could trace the monstrous abuses of the system which had of late years taken place. He meant the buying and selling of places in Parliament. The only place in which any trace could be discovered that such a practice had ever taken place in ancient times, was in a letter written by Lord Chesterfield, and though, subsequent to the time of that nobleman, the practice had been continued, it was for a long period carefully concealed. At length, however, the practice became known, it became as open as the sun at noon-day, and was even defended, as it had been in the course of that debate, on the principle that it was the means of introducing into Parliament persons of the most independent characters. Noble Lords were thus praising the very thing which had been condemned as being unconstitutional. A law had actually been passed, declaring that that very practice which had been so lauded in that debate as being part of the Constitution of their country, which ought to be preserved as being necessary for the maintenance of the dignity of the Peerage, was inconsistent with the rights, the usages, the laws of Parliament, and the Constitution of the realm. When an Act of that kind had been passed, and when people knew that, notwithstanding that law, the practice was still continued with unblushing effrontery—when it had even increased in extent, and was at length held up as a thing to be maintained—their Lordships must suppose, that the people would think that they were not themselves capable of forming a proper judgment as to who ought to be their Representatives if they submitted to such contradictions patiently. The people of England, however, were not fools, and it would not be easy to justify to them the maintenance of that which the law denounced as a crime, or to reconcile to their notions that declaration of the law with the defence of the condemned practice, as if it were a virtue to be upheld and
1372
supported. He knew, with respect to many persons who possessed these rights of nomination, that they presented noble and generous examples of disdaining to soil their fingers with any dirty practices. He had experienced that such was the case, and he sincerely wished that he had not experienced the contrary. He felt that he took some shame to himself by the confession, though he might allege, in alleviation of his having availed himself of the practice in order to have a seat in the Representation, that it was prior to the passing of the Act to which he had alluded. In the face of the existence of this obvious contradiction between the law and the practice of the country, was it very wonderful that the people should wish to dissociate the existence of boroughs and the practice to which he had referred? It had been said, that if this Bill were passed, the government could not go on; but if they had refrained from legislating on this subject, or if they had produced a less extensive measure of Reform, so far from palliating the discontent of the country, they would have prolonged it to all eternity. His noble friend opposite objected to the principle of the Bill, and said, that there could be no more unwise a principle upon which to proceed than that of population, which was the principle of all democracies. He said, that if any principle should be adopted, it ought to be a principle of combined population and taxation. He (Lord Goderich) denied that in the present Bill they had adopted population as the principle in any sense which he had assumed that it had been used. It had been, it was true, stated that certain boroughs were to be no longer entitled to send Representatives to Parliament, on the ground of the paucity of the inhabitants, but that was because it was necessary that they should be limited to some rule. In democracies, however, where population formed the right of Representation, divisions of the country were made; and in whatever place the required numbers were found to exist, that place immediately became entitled to Representation. In the present case, however, the population of a borough was taken merely as an indication of its decay or of its importance, and it was also taken in conjunction with taxation. There were papers already upon their Lordships' Table, calculated to show the relative proportions of taxation, or rather of assessed taxes (for these were

1373
the only taxes which could give any information), which were paid by each of the boroughs which were proposed to be disfranchised. Why were these papers produced? Solely to enable their Lordships to judge of the importance of those boroughs upon the combined principle of taxation and population. He could not conceive what rule they could have taken for their guide if they had left population wholly out of the question. If, as in ancient times, they were to advise the King to omit sending a writ to certain boroughs (and in former times it was as often considered a burthen as a favour to send Representatives to Parliament, owing to the expenses attending it), the Crown would be at liberty to adopt any principle it pleased; but under present circumstances, unless they were to adopt some such principle, it would be impossible to guess what borough ought or ought not to be disfranchised. It was also said, that without the practice of nomination, Government could not go on, for it was necessary to its daily working, and much was said of the inconvenience which would be felt if no places of that description were left, to enable individuals connected with Government, and with the various interests of the country, to find their way into the House of Commons. His noble friend had drawn a beautiful picture, which he felt confident must have touched their Lordships' hearts, and held out to view the benefits likely to result from enabling those who would hereafter arrive at hereditary honours, and would have to discharge hereditary duties in that House, to become initiated in public business in the other House, and by mixing with their equals and inferiors to have their rust rubbed off by the jostling they would have to encounter. He admitted the advantage which would result from this—indeed, if he did not, he must forget the stock from whence he sprang, and the service he had seen himself; but he totally denied that the existence of nomination boroughs was at all necessary for that species of education. Had they no experience upon this subject? How many counties had returned the eldest sons of Peers? At the present moment the county of Northumberland was represented by the son of his noble friend (Earl Grey), and it had once been represented by the noble Earl himself, though at one time he lost it, owing to his public conduct, which, however, he must say did
1374
him honour. That, however, was but a natural consequence of our Representative system. In York, also, and in Lancaster, Derby, Cheshire, and, in fact, in more than half the counties of England, time after time, the eldest sons of Peers had been returned to Parliament, so that it was clear they might still have the benefit of experience in the House of Commons without having occasion to resort to nomination boroughs, or to the expedient of paying 8,000 l. for a seat in Parliament. A great many complaints had been made that the Aristocracy of this country would not have that influence in the counties which it had possessed, should the Bill pass, and that those connected with the leading men of the counties would be disregarded. It was really idle to argue thus, for the people of England would still be influenced by the aristocracy among whom they lived. With respect to the Representation of Scotland—but he would not go into that question—there was a something which the measure would correct; for by the law at present, the eldest sons of Peers could not sit for Scotch places. He agreed with those noble Lords who had spoken of the wealth and the prosperity of Scotland. But was that owing to the circumstance of the impossibility of the sons of Scotch Peers sitting in Parliament for Scotch boroughs or counties? There would be no necessity, as some noble Lords who opposed the measure seemed to think, for the Aristocracy to court mob popularity. Why should they? The sons of Peers and the influential men of the country had something better to rely upon. They had their own talents—they had their own characters—they had a thousand individual ties to bind the people of the country to them. He would contend that the more the franchise was extended, the greater would be the certainty of the influential classes being selected to represent the people in Parliament. He really saw no such alarm that the men of talent, of knowledge, of influence in the country would be cut off from representing the people in the House of Commons, because of the excision of the rotten boroughs. But it was said, that the system proposed, of disenfranchising large towns, and of extending the mode of enfranchisement, would deprive the colonies of that Representation which they had hitherto enjoyed. He did not like to offer conjectures, especially to found arguments

1375
upon them; but this he would venture to assert, that the popular places would still be open to men of the description who had hitherto been considered the peculiar Representatives of the colonies. It was a mistake to suppose that these gentlemen, possessing property of the nature which gave them an interest in the colonies, could have no other means of finding their way into the House of Commons than through borough Representation. He could state, he thought, fifty instances in which they would find their way into the House of Commons through other channels. If a man of character, of talents, with connections as to colonial property, to which he had adverted, now found his way into Parliament for Liverpool, Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Bristol, or any other place of that kind, he wished to know why the people of those towns, because they had an extended Representation, should act as it was supposed, in so monstrous a manner, as to reject such men, whom they had in other times elected? Those gentlemen who had been considered the Representatives of the colonial interest were not ashamed of showing their faces—they were not usually of those retired habits that would prevent them from presenting themselves at the hustings; and it was a mere gratuitous fancy to suppose, that they would feel those difficulties in getting into the House of Commons which appeared to haunt the mind of his noble friend, and the noble Duke who had spoken last night. But then their Lordships were told, that it was a very gross act of injustice to deprive Corporations of their right of sending Members to Parliament. He would not now enter at length into any disquisition upon what were properly the rights of those corporate bodies. He had stated in the course of last year, with respect to these rights, that they were in the nature of a trust. If, indeed, these corporate bodies possessed them as a right, in a legal sense, why then he did not feel disposed to dispute the difficulties which had been urged against taking them away. But feeling that they were in the nature of a trust, he thought he had a right to ask, why the ancient practice in respect to freemen's rights of voting had been departed from? They had heard of the bribery which had taken place at Liverpool, Dublin, and other places, in election matters; and, if he were not speaking in that House, he might say what he
1376
had a personal knowledge of, as to the practice which was well known to be resorted to. He did not mean with regard to those two places which he had named; but if he were walking with a friend in the street, and the subject of such a practice was entered upon in conversation, he would venture to say, half-a-dozen places might be named in which freemen received a sum of money for their votes. He begged to mention to their Lordships one of these cases. There was a place where he had no interest of his own, which he would not name, and at an election there he was anxious to have his friend elected a Member—a man of great talent, of independent character, and who had served his country with honour, and who had distinguished himself in his country's cause. Understanding that money would return a Member, he consulted a professional man who was acquainted with the practice which had been there carried on. To that individual he stated that one thing was absolutely necessary before the gentleman offered himself—that he must know the exact amount of the douceur to be given. Having been informed what that was, he then inquired whether, supposing he should not comply with giving the sum to the out-voters, they would give their votes to him? The answer was "not one." He next asked, supposing his friend should appear at the hustings without complying with the terms, whether he would have any chance? The reply to that question was, "not the least." Many such practices, he doubted not, were very familiarly known to their Lordships. He would, indeed, venture to say that similar instances were innumerable. Their Lordships were told, in general terms, of the fatal consequences which would follow from the adoption of the measure. His noble friend who had spoken last, had gone into the subject of the French Revolution—not the last revolution, of July, 1830—and had detailed some of the horrors of it, which he had attributed to the policy of Neckar. But what was the real fact? Those who attributed to him that Revolution, misinterpreted the history of France, and overlooked the events which preceded that tremendous convulsion. If their Lordships consulted the history of that period—if they examined into the causes which had operated—the events were easily traced. What were the causes which led to those fearful events? They were to be traced to a corrupt Court

1377
—a degraded nobility—a degraded nobility that insisted upon their exclusive privileges over, he might say, an enslaved people. The history of France showed, from the earliest period of the grievances of the people, down to the latest time, a perpetual struggle carried on between the people and the government. It was necessary to look to the causes, and not to the effects, when speaking on this subject. If history were taken as a guide—if the experience of past ages were to be attended to—the events which had occurred in a neighbouring country would afford beacons to light their Lordships in the path which they ought to pursue. With permission of the House he would now proceed to speak upon a subject which was unpleasant to him—he meant himself. If their Lordships had done him the honour to recollect what he had stated on a former occasion on the subject, they would be in possession of his sentiments; and they would also, he flattered himself, believe that he had not adopted his present course without having deeply considered the grounds upon which he acted, and without feeling that he was fully justified in such a course. In taking that course, however, he could not presume to say, as some of his friends had done on another occasion, that he had made great sacrifices of personal interest or of political power, but this he could state, that he had made a sacrifice of many preconceived opinions, of many early predilections, and of many long-cherished notions. He would not have made such sacrifices as these, as their Lordships would readily believe, if he had not been supported by the consciousness of the sincerity of his intentions, and had not he had a conviction of the necessity of such a measure; upon the faith of which opinions he threw himself upon the House and the public, declaring that he would sacrifice every personal interest to that which was paramount to all feeling—namely, the interest and well-being of the country which he loved.
The Earl of Haddingtonrejoiced that he had been preceded by his noble friend, to whom he gave full credit for the principles by which he professed to have been guided in the change of opinion he had undergone; and their Lordships would believe him when he said, that he was equally free from any other bias or motive for the course he should pursue, opposed
1378
as it was to that of his noble friend, than an anxious desire to maintain the unabated welfare and prosperity of the country. His noble friend had entered into a history of the excitement which now prevailed in the country upon the subject of Reform, and had endeavoured to explain its progressive growth. The fact, however, was, that this feeling had not been progressive, that it had only exhibited itself on particular emergencies and by sudden starts, and that it was now mainly to be ascribed to the events which had taken place upon the Continent, and to the imprudent encouragement it had received from his Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount, said that all men now bore testimony to the importance and necessity of Reform, and that all now expressed themselves Reformers. To a certain extent that was true. Many who hitherto opposed all Reform were now friendly to such a measure; but the Reform, and the only Reform in which they could acquiesce, must be a Reform founded upon the known principles of the Constitution. This was no new ground taken up by him, nor was it ground taken up in that debate for the first time. But upon the general theoretical principles of Reform he and all those who would vote with him on the present occasion adhered strictly to their former opinions. He was now as much disposed as ever to contend, and his noble friend, unless he relinquished every opinion he had formerly maintained, must admit, that any change of the institutions of this country, founded upon general theoretic principles, would be pregnant with danger. His noble friend said, that the Revolution of 1688, the Union with Scotland, and subsequently the Union with Ireland, were facts which went to prove the power of the Constitution of the country to adapt itself to circumstances. But it might be observed, that all these changes were founded upon the principles of the Constitution. A noble friend of his (Viscount Melbourne) last night quoted a passage from the writings of Bacon, to show that the object ought to be to secure as much of permanence as possible in institutions founded upon popular consent; and he then proceeded to contend, that permanency in our present institutions was impossible, because the popular consent failed. But his noble friend did not prove, that it was necessary to make this particular change.

1379
The noble Lord asserted that Birmingham had grown greatly in wealth and importance, and that it was therefore necessary to give Representatives to Birmingham. This he believed to be true. But when the noble Lord added that this was the whole question, he denied that it was so. For the noble Lord himself said further, that the whole country having grown in wealth and intelligence, it was therefore necessary to new-model the whole Representation. This proposition he denied. Could it be contended, that because great masses of wealth and population had been accumulated in particular places, that it was necessary to introduce a Bill, founded upon the principle of disfranchisement? But disfranchisement was the principle of this Bill. The Bill began with disfranchisement, and then the grant of new rights followed. Was it necessary, because Birmingham had become a great town, to new-model the whole Representation of the county of Warwick? Was it necessary on this account to trample upon the chartered rights of the freemen through out England? His noble friend, whose health he rejoiced to find had permitted him to come there to defend the institutions of the country—and he sincerely wished that the state of his health would allow him to take a more frequent part in their deliberations, and that share to which his talents so well entitled him in the management of public affairs—the noble Earl (Harrowby) had said in his admirable speech, and justly said, that population was the only principle of the Bill. His noble friend who spoke last said, on the contrary, that the Bill proceeded upon other principles than that of population. This he doubted, or at least he would say, that if the Ministers had taken other principles as their guide they had widely departed from them. He found that additional Members were given to counties which did not pay assessed taxes equal in amount to other counties to which the same advantage was not given. He found also, that some of the boroughs which were inserted in schedule A paid a greater amount of assessed taxes than others which were in schedule B. If this were so, what, he begged leave to ask, became of property as a principle of the Bill? If a population of 4,000 entitled a place to two Members, and a population of 2,000 to one Member, there would not long be wanting persons to
1380
tell them, that a place of 150,000 inhabitants ought to have more than two Members, and a place of 10,000 inhabitants more than one. He was told that this principle was making very rapid progress among the philosophic inquirers of Birmingham and elsewhere, and it was evidently a principle which could only be satisfied by the division of the country into electoral districts. His noble friend had said, that the noble Earl (Harrowby) had accused the Ministers of adopting the pure abstract theory of population. The noble Earl had not said so. He said, that they took the number of the people as a basis, and warned them that others would adopt the pure abstract theory of population, and insist upon having that principle fully acted upon. He held in his hand a very able performance, an article of the North American Review, published here in the shape of a pamphlet, and entitled "The Prospect of Reform in Europe." The writer was, of course, imbued with the principles natural to an American citizen, which he enforced with considerable talent. He looked on at what is passing in this country with surprise, but at the same time with hope—he reasoned learnedly on the operation of the principle of numbers, as exemplified in this Bill. He asked—'What is the plan of Reform in Parliament? It appears to us that it is what it has been declared to be by the most eminent of those who have opposed it in Parliament—a revolution—a great change, carrying within itself a pledge of further change. It has been said of revolutions, that they do not go backward. It may with equal truth be said, that they do not stand still till the goal is reached. The footmarks not only point forward, but they run on to the extremity of the principle.'—Again he said, 'Observe, it is not now a question whether the present system of Representation does not work as well as our system, or as any system; but whether a great change in the present system, called Reform—which begins by wholly disfranchising sixty boroughs, because their population is under 2,000, and deprives of half their franchise forty-seven boroughs more, whose population is under 4,000—can stop there? What reason can be given to satisfy the inhabitants of some of the populous towns, having no Representation at all, and to whom it is not proposed

1381
to give any? As to the present system the answer is ready. The British Constitution does not propose a geographical Representation; it finds certain boroughs, some large and some small, possessed of the right of sending a Member to Parliament, for a long period of years, some of them from time immemorial; the system, in practice, operates well, and it does not profess to be founded on the Rule of Three. But now come the Reformers; they say it does not work well, that the House of Commons has lost the respect of the people; that it is an abuse which cannot be longer borne, that boroughs of less than 2,000 Members should send Representatives, although they may have done it by prescription, as old as any title in the kingdom; and that it is an equal abuse, that boroughs of between 2,000 and 4,000 should send more than one Member. Well, then, cannot all the unrepresented towns in the kingdom, whose population exceeds 2,000, say, that if you discard tradition, and go upon reasonableness and fitness, our right is as good as that of the represented boroughs? Surely they can and will. So too as to the counties. It will appear on the reformed plan, that counties differing widely in population, possess the same share of power in constituting the House of Commons. Will this be endured in a system which disfranchises sixty boroughs for no other reason than that their population is smaller than the others? Those who suffer by the imperfect application of the rule-of-three system—that is, the majority of the people—will clamour to have it carried through; and they will have reason and common sense on their side. Mr. Canning and the Anti-reformists could answer them; but Lord John Russell cannot. The vice of the present system is, that it is the rule-of-three plan, with a blunder in working the question. The question is, if the borough A has 4,000 inhabitants, and sends two Members, how many Members shall the borough B send, which has 10,000? Lord John Russell works the question thus:—as 4,000 is to 2, so is 10,000 to 2. But it is not; as 4,000 is to 2, so is 10,000 to 5'. This able writer afterwards acknowledges, as he well might, that his country derived the spirit of her free institutions from the parent land; and, confident in the superiority of the
1382
American Constitution, and anxious to pay the debt of American gratitude to England, is full of hope as to the workings of this plan of Reform; and looking to our political regeneration, he thus exclaims:—'We shall more than return the inheritance which our fathers brought over with them; and, like the Roman daughter, we shall give back the tide of life to the frame of our political parent'. The Americans, however, with other people, were astonished at our proceedings; they looked with amazement at the course pursued by England. They said to each other, "Here is the country that the world has been looking at with wonder and admiration for centuries; a country which, with a small population and a limited territory, has risen to a height of greatness unsurpassed by any other—which has gone through, with power and success, a contest of a severity unexampled in the history of mankind—a country which boasted itself as the rallying point for all the free and liberal of the earth. What is its people aspiring to? With what are they discontented, that they toss to the winds the institutions which have given them so much fortune and so much power, and launch themselves on the wide ocean of expectation, looking to untried theories as a means of amending that system which experience should have taught them does not require any amendment?" But as to the disfranchising part of the measure, all he wanted to know was, why all the freemen of England were to be disfranchised? His noble friend said, that many of the corporations were corrupt, but it was equally true that some of them were not so. He once Represented a borough which was as honest as any place in the world could be; he meant the city of Rochester. But if some of the boroughs were corrupt, why not apply a remedy by letting in other voters? It was very easy; they might have tenpounded them as much as they liked, but not displaced them for other men in no respect better than themselves. They displaced the freemen, but whom did they put in their place? The men who paid 3s. 6d. or 3s. 10 d. per week for their lodging. He asked if these persons were not as much liable to bribery as the existing class of freemen? There were some places where the occupation of a residence of less than 10 l. a-year made persons be looked upon as paupers; and during the

1383
the present Session there was a bill in Parliament which exempted from the payment of poor-rates all persons so situated. There were now, it was said, a great number of electors who could be easily bribed, and to this class of voters was to be added all the other, those 10 l. voters to whom the Bill would give the franchise. Then they violated all the principles of justice by depriving the children of freemen of their corporate rights. What had the present generation of freemen done, that their children should be deprived of their rights? What had the ten-pounders done, that they should be preferred to the five-pounders? He objected altogether to the principle of disfranchisement. If the freemen were corrupt, a remedy for this might have been found without any violation of right. This was a very serious thing. He had never maintained that political trusts were to be considered the same as private property. Those who did so, attempted, in his opinion, to maintain an ultra opinion and an untenable position. But the political trust being mixed with political rights, which gave value to social position, and in many cases added value to property with political rights which could be maintained in a Court of Law, it followed, that in withdrawing the trust they committed an unnecessary violation of legal rights. This doctrine was laid down in another place by a right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and he remembered having been much struck by his argument upon this part of the subject. This principle of confiscation, combined with that of uniformity of the franchise, another of the pernicious principles of the Bill, was decidedly objectionable; it had no inseparrable connection with the disfranchisement of nomination boroughs, or the gift of Representation to large towns; and he ventured to say, that if the noble Earl had brought forward a measure comprehending the two latter objects only it would not have experienced so determined a resistance. Those who opposed this measure were twitted with not bringing forward any specific measure of Reform. Why it was not their business to bring forward any measure of this nature. A noble friend of his had said, that he never before took part in any discussion of the question of Parliamentary Reform, but that he thought it a great advantage that the question had been brought forward by Government. That might suit those who were favourable
1384
to Reform, but he and his friends were not among those who clamoured for Reform. They were content to remain as they were. He wished they could remain as they were, but he knew they could not. And he felt that he should be acting the part of a bad and unpatriotic citizen if he were to fight upon such a subject an useless and therefore mischievous battle. He could not but advert to the speech of Mr. Canning upon this subject when he thought he was about to depart for India, and when it was supposed that he was addressing the House of Commons for the last time—a speech distinguished alike for eloquence and moderation. At the close of this speech his late right hon. friend paid a just compliment to the noble Lord, the author of this Bill. He said, that it would be the glory of the noble Lord to have brought forward this subject and to have fought this battle, and his to have resisted it to the last. He was not now bringing forward the name of his right hon. friend for the purpose of saying what his opinion would now have been upon this subject. He had no right to do so, and thus to seek shelter under the well-merited reputation of his right hon. friend for the blunders into which he might have fallen. It was also impossible to say how much the very fact of his being alive might have changed the situation of the country. "Ah! my Lords," pursued the noble Earl, "this leads to melancholy reflections." But another Statesman, three years afterwards—a man eminent for wisdom and ability—expressed the same opinions which had always been entertained by his right hon. friend. Another right hon. friend of his had voted in February 1830, for the extension of the franchise to Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester, and having stated other reasons which had induced him to adopt that course, finished by saying, that he did so to resist Parliamentary Reform. He said, 'as to a more extensive Parliamentary Reform—a measure founded upon the principle of a general revision, reconstruction, and remodelling of our present Constitution—to such a general revision, and change of our Constitution he (Mr. Huskisson) had been always opposed; and while he had a seat in that House, he should give it his most decided opposition. He conceived, that if such an extensive Reform were effected, they might go on for two or three Sessions in good and easy times, and such a Reformed Parliament

1385
might adapt itself to our mode of government, and the ordinary concerns of the country; but if such an extensive change were effected in the Constitution of Parliament, sure he was, that whenever an occasion arose of great popular excitement or reaction, the consequence would be, a total subversion of our Constitution, followed by complete confusion and anarchy, terminating first in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, and then in that of a military despotism, these two great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they have been always hitherto seen to observe. He was, therefore, opposed to such an extensive change and revision of our representative system. It might be easy to raise objections to the boroughs, and by separating the representative system into its various constituent parts, to point out evils and abuses in several of them; but it was a waste of time, and a perversion of common sense, to look at it in that way. He would take it as a whole, and, regarding our present system as one aggregate, he was opposed to any material change in it. It might be easy to take to pieces all the parts of such a complicated system, but he doubted that it would be equally possible for human skill to unite its component parts again; and it appeared to him still more doubtful, even if put together again, that it would ever work as well for the country as it had hitherto done.'* These were the sentiments of that eminent person, Mr. Huskisson. He adverted to these principles, and all that was passing around him made him regret the fatal delusion which deprived them of their proper authority. They heard much of the necessity of the change, but nothing of the fixed resting-place. The noble Lord had said, that it was necessary to go much further in order to find a resting-place. But of all the delusions ever practised by sincere and able men upon themselves, that was certainly the greatest which induced them to produce the present Bill as a final resting place. Instead of a resting-place, it almost seemed to him that in this Bill the noble Earl and his noble friend had discovered the principle of perpetual motion, and he was ready to expect an application to his noble friends
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, New Series, vol. xxii, p. 891–2.
1386
on the part of the Board of Longitude. If a public extension of the suffrage were claimed, he was at a loss to know what answer would be given. Mr. Canning could have answered this demand; Lord John Russell could not. But if it were possible that the Bill could be considered as a final resting-place, the noble Lords opposite had taken care, by means of the ten-pounders, to provide a means to propel it further; and in the end it would be found that the Bill consigned all the glories of this country, its wealth, its greatness, and its prosperity, to Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. His understanding was so framed that he could not see principles established without believing that, sooner or later they would work out their proper end. And it was for this reason that he opposed the Bill. The noble Earl had been accused, and he thought unjustly, with not bringing forward some small plan of Reform. The noble Earl could never bring forward a small plan of Reform. The noble Duke—and in saying this he did not mean to find fault with him for not doing so—might have afforded to bring forward a small plan; but the noble Earl, with all his incidents about him, with the memory of his former life, and conduct, and opinions, could never without disgrace and opprobrium bring forward a small plan of Reform. He should never forget the impression produced in that House on the first presentation of the Bill. All parties—with, perhaps, the exception of the Radicals—all parties, Whigs, Tories, and Liberals, were equally frightened. He had met many friends who had always, for a long period, supported the question of Reform, and they all said, that they must support the noble Earl; they could not help it, but they were afraid of the Bill. He warned their Lordships to reflect that the measure was a sudden measure, and that one of the most important of their duties was to give the country time for reflection. There could be no doubt that the debates in the other House of Parliament and in that House would have a great effect upon the public mind. He had no hope that they should be able to satisfy the Radical Reformers, although he certainly would wish to appease even them. He had no hope that they should be able to satisfy the Radical Reformers, but he hoped they might satisfy the rational and moderate men, who valued the Constitution

1387
of the country, and wished to preserve it. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, had advised them not to imitate the example of those who, by delay, rendered measures, in themselves safe and salutary, dangerous and pernicious. There was no one of the vices and follies by which States were conducted to their ruin but what ought to be deprecated, and obstinacy no doubt was one of them. In many cases, indeed, obstinacy and concession combined together. In the case of Charles 1st, the only one to which he would allude, the fall of the Monarch was less to be ascribed to the obstinacy at first than to the concession afterwards. What did that unfortunate Monarch do? He conceded the power of the sword to Parliament. He gave the whole power of the state to the House of Commons, by consenting that Parliament should never be dissolved unless by its own consent. Now this Bill would give the whole power of the State to the House of Commons—to a House of Commons representing the direct will of the people. The noble Marquis (Lansdown) said, that there would be no change of the institutions of the country, and that the Bill left that House in full possession of all its rights and privileges. Nobody said that it did not. It was not that the rights or privileges of that House were to be directly assailed, but that a new and overwhelming power was to be created elsewhere, which would by and by restrict them. He was opposed to the whole principle of the Bill, but he wished, nevertheless, to devise, had it been possible, some excuse to himself for voting on the present occasion so as to procure to that House the opportunity of entering into the details of the Bill. But when he reflected upon the subject, he found that to be impossible, unless upon the conditions that a spirit of concession should have been displayed on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, and that a spirit of Reform should have been exhibited on the part of the Opposition in that House. He had unfortunately found neither. If his noble friend should propose to place the enfranchising clauses first, and then proceed to disfranchise the requisite number of boroughs afterwards, he might have entertained some hopes that a salutary measure might have been accomplished. But how could he expect that the noble Earl would suffer them to knock on the head all the
1388
principles of the Bill after what had fallen from him? He felt that he had not a right to expect this. But if it should be bund impossible to go into Committee upon the measure—if the House should determine at once to reject the Bill—he hoped to God that the noble Earl would take no hasty determination. All the responsibility for whatever consequences might arise were upon him. The noble Marquis had said, that his noble friend had founded all his objections to this measure upon one or two points of detail, and that the true ground of that opposition was hostility to his Majesty's Government. The noble Marquis or the noble Earl had no right to find that fault with him. He now took his part in the sacrifice of his feelings and inclination. He had been anxious to give his support, humble as it was, to the noble Earl. He had no suspicion that the noble Earl was actuated by a desire to overturn the Constitution, but he could not bring himself to think that the operation of the Bill would be other than he had described it. He stood there to act upon principle, and if he thought, and he really did think, that the Bill was fraught with mischief, it was his business to reject it. He was not insensible to the dangers, he would say the imminent dangers, which threatened the country. His great confidence was in the quiet, steady, loyal, and good-humoured character of the English people. He felt satisfied that in time, and upon consideration, the people would be grateful to the House of Lords for saving them from the evils of this measure. He had also his firm confidence in the superintending care of Providence, which would not desert their Lordships if they did not desert themselves.
The Earl of Radnorhad listened to the noble Earl with attention, and yet was puzzled whether he was or was not a friend to Reform. For, says the noble Earl at one moment, "I am friendly to the principles of the Bill;" while in the other he declares himself its veriest opponent. Now, those noble Lords who thus declared themselves in theory friends to the principle of Reform, while they in practice proved themselves to be its enemies by their opposition to the present Bill, placed the supporters of the Bill in an awkward situation. For when they, after stating their plan, called upon their opponents, if they did not approve of it, to come forward

1389
with some scheme of their own, they were invariably twitted with "Why should we? It is not our business. It does not follow that, because we do not approve of your plans, that therefore we should announce one of our own. We do not want Reform." This may be all very true; but it came, he thought, with a very ill grace, and rather inconsistently, from those who, like the noble Earl, say they admit the principle, but object to the particular practical application of it. They who, like the noble Duke, denied the necessity of any Reform whatever, might use such language, but it struck him as rather preposterous when it came from the alleged advocates of the principle of Reform. From the noble Earl such objections, in particular, were inconsistent, for says he, "I admit the necessity of Reform—I approve of the principle of your Bill—but I object to your details. You ought not to have begun with your schedule A. Disfranchisement is a wrong beginning." Now if the noble Earl would rather that schedule B or C should take precedence of schedule A, and that his new alphabet arrangement being adopted, he would consent to the second reading, it was rather too much that he should range himself by his vote among the enemies of every species of Reform whatever, and thus mar a measure of the principle of which he was an approver. The noble Earl said the Bill was alarming, and that when the wheels were fixed on the carriage, away it would go down the hill into Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot. But the noble Earl, who was now on the top of the hill, would himself put wheels on the carriage, and he, therefore, would go down too, though he might not go down quite so fast; but, in fact, it would come to the same thing; and whether the noble Earl, or any other noble Earl, put on the wheels, the danger must, according to the noble Earl, be equally alarming. It was to him inconceivable how any noble Lord could vote against the second reading, and yet be in favour of Reform. The debate which had taken place had been altogether a debate for the Committee. With the exception of two speeches, all the speeches which had been made related to the details of the Bill; and all the objections which had been stated might be obviated perhaps in the Committee. And yet all admitted themselves friendly to the principle of
1390
Reform; and that, too, while they were declaring themselves the opponents of a measure which merely went to carry that principle into effect. But the country would see through such flimsy pretexts. It would see into the motives of those who expressed such horror with the clauses which were to put an end to the monstrous system of nomineeship. The people would appreciate the worth and disinterestedness of the advice to Ministers not to take "hasty steps" should the Bill be unfortunately defeated. The people knew that they were entitled to more than a virtual system of Representation, and that the present mockery of Representation consisting of nomineeship and close boroughs was an insult to their moral sense and sagacity; and they would not be deluded by the senseless cry of "I am friendly to the principle of Reform, but I cannot approve of the plan of Ministers." And here he was reminded of the strange declarations of a noble Earl (Earl Dudley) who had that evening addressed their Lordships. "I have never, I confess," said that noble Earl, "read the Bill. I am wholly ignorant of its provisions, but"—there was always a 'but' sure to follow—"though I am not opposed to the principle of Reform, I will vote against the present Bill." And this was the sum and substance of his logical and most consistent oration, and this indeed was the sum and substance of all the speeches which had been delivered in the course of the debate against the Bill, excepting that of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) opposite. That noble Duke still declared himself opposed to all Reform, and maintained that his being expelled from office had no connexion with his declaration against any change in our representative system. But the noble Duke was in error: all the excitement which occasioned the breaking up of his Administration was produced by his own declaration against Reform. Still the noble Duke was consistent, and in proportion as he was so, were those who professed themselves friendly to the principle of Reform while they expressed their determination to vote against the present measure, grossly inconsistent. He appealed to the noble Duke himself on this point. But says another noble Earl (Mansfield) why should not Ministers wait till the present excitement for Reform has abated?—wait for a couple of years, and then you will be able to discuss the question

1391
with due and calm deliberation. Agreed; but what would the public be doing all this time of repose? Would it be content to await this halcyon season of calmness and non-excitement? Say, would not the delay add to the intensity, and, what was of more moment, to the irresistibleness of the demand for Reform? But did the noble Lord who recommended them to wait for two years, until what he called the excitement of the public mind on this subject should abate, flatter himself that any such result would follow the adoption of such a course of proceeding? The truth was, that the necessity of some Reform was acknowledged on all hands. All the petitions, he believed, that had been presented—as well those which were against, as those which were for the present Bill—were in favour of Reform, with the exception, perhaps of the petition which the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) had presented that evening from the City of London, and which he said he would read, but which he had not read to the House. The petitions which had been presented in such numbers to that and to the other House of Parliament praying for Reform, afforded an unquestionable proof of the universality of the feeling which prevailed throughout the country in favour of that measure. Did the noble Lord opposite hope to put an end to the agitation, of the existence of which he complained, in the country on this subject, by hanging up this Bill for two years, or why did he recommend such a course if he did not think that at the end of that time some Reform should be conceded? Now the present appeared to him the fit time for granting Reform, and the present measure would alone, he was convinced, satisfy the just expectations of the country. The noble Lord had argued against the necessity of Reform, on the old ground that the House of Commons had worked well. Now, the universal feeling of the country was, that the present system of the House of Commons had not worked well; and he was only astonished how noble Lords could maintain that it had done so. It had been said by more than one noble Lord in the course of this discussion, that, in point of fact, the government of the country was to be found in the House of Commons. It was generally admitted that the happiness of a people depended upon the goodness of their government. He did not imagine that the noble Lord
1392
would contend that this country was in a very happy state at present, and that all orders and classes of men in it were in a very satisfactory contented condition. Now if that were the case, and if this country was not in a happy state, it had not had hitherto a good Government, and consequently the House of Commons had not worked well. But the noble Lord said, that matters might have been much worse under a different system; and he instanced particularly the case of the French war. Popular governments, argued the noble Lord, were always prone to war—the last war was a popular war; and it would not have been less so if they had had a popular House of Commons. Such was the argument of the noble Lord; and it was possible that it might have been so; but it was also very possible that it might have been otherwise. That argument brought to his mind a passage in a very clever and able book, which he had been reading—he alluded to "Butler's Analogy of Natural and Revealed Religion." In that book it was truly stated, that all events depended upon such a multiplicity of causes, and the connexion between causes and events was so completely beyond human capacity to fathom or discover, that it was impossible to state what event might not alter any one result that might be expected from a chain of causes. Now it was his conviction that if the House of Commons had been more popularly chosen, it would not have been so prone to go to war as it was in 1793. He was old enough to remember what was the feeling of the country at that period. The feeling of the country at that time in favour of the war was not a spontaneous feeling—it was one that had been excited by books and pamphlets, and if the House of Commons had then been more freely chosen, and if it had represented fairly the wishes and feelings of the people, there was great reason to think that the disposition of the people at that period would not have been so much in favour of the war. The result of what was then done by the House of Commons had been a long and ruinous war, which had been much more expensive and much less satisfactory than it ought to have been. In short the system had not worked well. The noble Baron who moved the Amendment spoke of the dangers of the country, and of the danger especially of having the law of primogeniture repealed, and an hereditary peerage extinguished.

1393
All the difficulties and dangers, however, of which the noble Baron had spoken, had not originated with Reform, and Reform was not in justice to be saddled with them. On the contrary, he would contend, that the existence of such dangers, was in a great degree attributable to the want of Reform. The noble Lord, and other noble Lords who had spoken on that side of the question, had referred to the olden time—had said that these things had gone on formerly, and had asked why they could not continue to go on now. Why, in the first place every thing around them was in a continual state of change—in fact they lived in a world of change. He did not deny that man was the creature of habit, and he might dislike change as much as any one. Indeed, all his feelings were against change, and he was, perhaps, more a man of habit than any other individual in that House. Change might be a grievance; but it was to be weighed against a still greater grievance, and when therefore a greater grievance arose, where was the prudent or the wise man that would hesitate to go to change for the remedy? They were themselves changing every day. He would ask any noble Lord whether there was any, he would not say public but even any private matter, with regard to which he had not changed his opinion at different periods. It would be folly for them, as they advanced in life, not to benefit by experience, by knowledge, and by the opinions of others. If they did not do so, they would continue always the same foolish creatures that they were when they were babies. As change was therefore every day in progress—as improvements were every day increasing—it was absolutely necessary to change the institutions of the country, so as to meet the altered wants, and to supply the necessities of society. To contend against change was to contend against the great necessary principle of existence. It was true that the institutions of the country had been changed; but the misfortune was, that they had been changed the wrong way. While the people of this country became more enlightened, and called for more liberal institutions, and became more entitled to them, their institutions were changed in precisely the opposite direction. Close corporations and rotten boroughs went on increasing in closeness, in rottenness, and in corruption. He was himself the proprietor of a close borough
1394
—the borough of Downton. That was an old and ancient borough, and the place was still shown there where it was said that the Wittenagemote was once assembled. The right of voting there was by burgage tenure, and there were not less than 100 freeholders of that description there 500 or 600 years ago. Now 100 householders was a fair constituency for it at that period—a very large one indeed when it was considered that under the present Bill it would not have a greater constituency than 300 householders. What was the constituency of that borough at this moment? He was the constituency. He was the proprietor of ninety-nine out of the 100 tenures that conferred the right of voting there, and one of the properties that gave a vote was in the middle of a watercourse. That was an instance of the change which had been going on in boroughs towards increased closeness and corruption. Within his own memory, he recollected sharp contests for that borough, and Committees of the House of Commons sitting upon petitions against the return of the Members elected for it. At this moment he (Lord Radnor) was not only the sole constituency of that borough, but he was its returning officer. He mentioned these circumstances to show that those things became close by degrees, and that it was necessary that the institutions of the country should change with the increase of the knowledge of mankind. But the fact was, that if there had been any change it had been all the other way. But it was said, that we were now about to take a too desperate step; he would admit that it was a very long one; but the misfortune was, that we had gone on in the old course too far, without granting a little and a little at a time, as ought to have been done; and now, when they wanted to make up for lost time, they found that it must be by a long jump. But it was said that the Radicals wanted even more than this Bill gave. He did not believe that that was the case. Mr. Hunt, indeed, said that he was not satisfied; but the Radicals, on the contrary, said that they would be satisfied with the Bill. He would not say that, if it should be found that the Bill did not act well, further improvements would not be asked for; but which of their Lordships on finding that a measure wanted improvement, would be foolish enough to refuse it? Surely no one—and, therefore, in

1395
this sense they might all be called Radicals. The question of Reform was not so modern a question as some supposed. In the year 1747, on the occasion of a motion in the House of Commons, upwards of 100 Members voted in favour of Annual Parliaments. But the noble Duke had said, that it was owing to the French Revolution of last year. He was sure that the noble Duke could not mean to say that that Revolution had produced this feeling: it might, indeed, have been drawn out by that occurrence, but it was well known to have existed before. In the year 1819 a million of persons had signed petitions in favour of Reform; and, indeed, if they wanted to lose sight of the time when Reform was agitated, they must go back to forty or fifty years ago? And why, according to some noble Lords, should we not remain as we were forty or fifty years ago? But those noble Lords appeared to forget that it was contrary to the nature of things that one point should stand still while all others were progressing onwards; and the answer that he should like to give those noble Lords would be, to take them to the Gloucester Coffeehouse, about eight o'clock in the evening, and there let them see the six or seven mails that were ready to start for the country. By means of those mails, not only letters but the newspapers of the day were distributed in the course of ten hours over every town within 100 miles of the metropolis. He would take Salisbury, for instance—a city that was eighty miles from London. He believed that it was within the memory of man when the post only arrived there three days in the week, and took six and thirty hours in getting there. Let him illustrate this position by referring to the noble Earl who had spoken against the Bill. Suppose that noble Earl was down at his seat in Scotland, and the post brought him his newspaper according to the present rapid rate of travelling; why, if the noble Earl acted up to his principles, he would say, "Take it away! take it away! and bring it to me ten days hence by the old mode of travelling." This might appear very ridiculous, but it was not so; for if they would have ancient customs in one thing, they must be content to have them in others. So if the noble Earl was to break his leg, he ought to exclaim—"No, no; I will have no Mr. Brodie to tie up my arteries; give me the good old red hot cauterizing knife." But
1396
the fact was, that the march of mind, as it was called, had not only extended to science and art, but had gone on as far as politics. The people knew their rights, and were demanding the possession of them; and their Lordships might rely on it, that one of the greatest Reformers that ever existed was high taxation. Education had made a mighty difference between the mechanic of the present day and the mechanic of fifty years ago: as a proof of which he might state, that he had a letter from a Manchester operative, in answer to one from himself, in which he had desired to be made acquainted how this individual had procured his education. According to the statement of this person, it appeared that though he had belonged to a manufactory from the time he was sixteen, and was then only about twenty-four, he had continued to attend some lectures, and by dint of reading had picked up some knowledge of vulgar arithmetic, Algebra, and Euclid, together with geometrical drawing. And he could tell their Lordships, that when Manchester operatives had time to procure as much knowledge as this, it would not do to treat them as they had treated the same class of persons forty or fifty years ago. Their Lordships might just as well say, "We will not grow older" as attempt to prevent those persons obtaining possession of their rights. Knowledge was power; and those persons were getting more and more knowledge every day. It had been a matter of dispute in the other House of Parliament whether Mr. Canning, if he had lived to the present time, would have been a Reformer; he had no personal knowledge of Mr. Canning; but he would venture to pronounce, that that right hon. Gentleman would have been a Reformer; and he founded his opinion on what fell from him at a dinner given to him at Liverpool—probably that one when it was expected that he was going to the East Indies. Mr. Canning had then stated, as an argument against Radical Reform, that it would overturn the House of Lords and the other institutions of the country—for, said he, I cannot conceive on what ground 300 or 400 opulent individuals should oppose themselves to the declared wishes of the country. Now it was impossible that any delegated Parliament could have better declared the wishes of the country than had been done by the present House of Commons in this instance, He therefore

1397
hoped that their Lordships would consent to the passing of the Bill; and it was for these reasons that he should give it his own most hearty support. No House of Commons delegated by the people could have declared their wishes more fully than the existing House of Commons had done as regarded this measure. All the popular elections throughout the country were in favour of Reform, and all tended to prove to their Lordships that they ought to comply with the reasonable wishes of the people. No intimidation was used—with the exception of the speech quoted in the early part of the evening, he did not remember one instance of any thing like
1398
intimidation; but the people were unanimous in favour of this measure, and was there any one of their Lordships bold enough to say, that he would not let his mind be swayed by the unanimous wishes of the people? He believed that danger and calamity would follow the rejection of the Bill, and on that ground and others he gave it his most cordial support.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the noble Earl had not fairly represented his argument. He had complained that C and D meaning enfranchisement, did not, as they ought to have done, go before A and B, or before disfranchisement.
Debate adjourned.
END OF VOL. VII.—THIRD SERIES