Sitting of 6 October 1831

MINUTES.
New Writs ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, for Drogheda, in the room of JOHN HENRY NORTH, Esq., deceased.
Bills brought in. By Mr. ELLICE, to Repeal an Act, 52nd George 3rd, and to provide for the more Speedy Auditing Military Accounts in Ireland. Read a second time; Consolidated Fund (1,800,000 l.)
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, for an Account of all British and Foreign Manufactured Silks exported during the year 1828:—On the Motion of Mr. WILKES, for an Account of all the Friendly Societies existing in Great Britain and Ireland.
Petitions presented. By Lord INGESTRIE, from Farmers and Occupiers of Land, Roxburgh, against the use of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries:—By Mr. ESTCOURT, from Magistrates, Clergy, and Inhabitants of Lechdale, Fairford, and adjoining Villages, against the Sale of Beer on the premises of Licensed Beer Houses:—By Mr. HUNT, from John Russell, of Wigmore Street, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Hoskins, one of the Marylebone Magistrates.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Mr. Wilks Mr. Wilks rose to present a Petition, which he considered well worthy the attention of the House; it was from the members of certain Friendly Societies, complaining of the laws by which such societies were regulated. One point of it had made some considerable impression on his mind; it was, that by the Act passed in 1829, all such societies were compelled to enrol themselves within three years: now, it, appeared that 10,000 such institutions existed at that time, and, although they had been previously enrolled, they were, compelled to repeat, their enrolment, which was attended with considerable expense and inconvenience, for the Magistrates of various counties would not tolerate the enrolment until the provisions, besides being approved by a barrister, had been examined by actuaries, whose fees were 5l. each. The Act directed that the Clerk of the Peace should

133
file the rules of these societies without any expense, but, by the decision of the Magistrates, counsel and attornies were obliged to be employed, which subjected each society to an expense of about 25 l. This expense was paid out, of the pockets of the poorer classes of the people, and the societies to which they belonged were compelled to incur this trouble and expense to obtain the advantage of placing their funds in Savings' Banks, and of being recognized by Parliament as communities worthy of its attention. He, therefore, thought that it was probable in the next Session of Parliament he should bring in a bill to remedy these defects.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, he had much experience in the affairs of these societies, und as he knew that many of their funds were not in the most flourishing state, he thought they ought not to be subject to the expense mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which could never have been contemplated by the framers of the Act. He believed the expense arose principally from the misconstruction of the Act by Magistrates at the Sessions. He did not believe the practice was general of requiring the rules to be submitted to the inspection of an actuary. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should make himself thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances before he attempted to legislate upon the subject.
Mr. Wilks Mr. Wilks moved that the petition be printed, and on that occasion he begged to be permitted to make some few further remarks, which struck him as being of some importance. According to the last, returns it appeared that nearly 1,000,000 persons were associated in friendly societies; he had, therefore, endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the law and practice on the subject, and he could say, that, some county Magistrates, and he would instance those of Cheshire and Warwickshire, required the rules to be examined by actuaries; other practices also prevailed, which increased the expenses improperly. It was, therefore, important that those hon. Members who attended Sessions, should make themselves fully acquainted with the subject, that the House might have the benefit of their advice in any future proceedings it might be necessary to institute.
Petition to be printed.

THE COMMON PLEAS.
Mr. Hunt 134
presented a Petition from J. J. Stockdale, complaining of the difficulty he found in obtaining the consent of any hon. Member to present his petition against the late Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, which he (Mr. Hunt) supposed was owing to their being prejudiced against that person himself.
Mr. Humesaid, he had been applied to to present this petition, but because it would be an interference with the proceedings of a Court of Justice, he declined presenting it. He was as ready as any man to punish acts of oppression; but he would never take any proceedings upon unauthenticated statements. This petition was offered to him for presentation nearly eighteen months ago, and it was now, he thought, too late in the day to attack the conduct of the learned Judge, the present Lord Wynford.
Mr. Burgesaid, that no earthly object could be gained by the presentation of this petition, and he regretted that the hon. member for Preston had not acted with the same caution as the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Huntsaid, he should never follow the example of the hon. member for Middlesex, of not presenting a petition, unless it were of that nature that a future motion could be grounded on it if necessary. He, however, had not presented this petition without first communicating it to Lord Wynford.
Petition laid on the Table.

TITHES—IRELAND.
Lord Ingestriepresented a Petition from forty beneficed Clergymen of the diocese of Leighlin and Ferns, complaining of the difficulty they felt, in the collection of their Tithes, and praying that some redress might be afforded them. The right of the clergy to their tithes was as strong and as well-founded as that of the right of any gentleman to his landed property. There was a combination in some parts of Ireland against the payment of tithe, and although he knew the difficulty attending the general question of tithes, still he thought, that the Government were bound to provide for the execution of the law with respect to their collection. He did not mean to detract from the merits of the Catholic clergy; but he must say, that, the recent attack of the hon. Member (Mr. Sheil) upon the Protestant Clergy of Ireland was undeserved and unjust. The Protestant clergy

135
discharged their spiritual duties in the most exemplary manner, and all the petitioners required was, that they should be supported in the maintenance of their just and lawful rights.
Colonel Conollyhad been requested to support the prayer of this petition, and he did so with the utmost cordiality. These respectable petitioners would gladly forego a considerable portion of their legal rights in order to secure the remainder; but in consequence of the combination to resist the payment of tithes, the petitioner, were reduced to the greatest difficulty and distress. That this system prevailed in the county of Kilkenny he could state of his own knowledge. The conduct of the Protestant clergy was marked with the most Christian forbearance, and yet they were stigmatized by a party in such language as must shock the ears of decency and humanity. The system of combination was rapidly extending in Ireland, and if the landed proprietors stood quietly by, while the property of the Church was spoliated, he could assure them that their own properties would be no longer safe. He attributed much of this combination to the writings of Dr. Doyle, which had almost sanctified it. He asked if such a state of things could last? They had now a most abundant harvest in Ireland, and yet the Protestant clergy could not obtain their rights, nor even a moderate portion of them: in fact, they could not go upon the farms to ascertain what portion of income they might derive for their sustenance.
Sir John Newportsaid, as the difficulty was complained of by the hon. Member, why did he not suggest some remedy? The clergy had the power of distraining for non-payment of tithes, and they exercised it; but there was no law to compel the purchase of such cattle or corn as might be distrained. The great objectors to tithe were Protestants of rank and station, and not the poorer Catholics, so that the blame should attach to the high in station and wealth rather than to the Catholic tenants, who paid rack-rents. It was well known that on potatoes in the north of Ireland tithes were not paid, while the people were compelled to pay them in the south. And it should not be forgotten that a public meeting was held in the north-west of Ireland some time ago, at which it was determined by the gentry to resist the payment of the tithe upon hay. However, he would in no degree justify any thing in the
136
shape of combination, while he feared that the conduct of many of the clergy, in strictly insisting upon their rights, had excited a considerable feeling of hostility against them. He sincerely felt for the privations of the clergy; at the same time he was convinced, that if the Tithe Composition Act had been more generally agreed to, much of these inconveniences would have been obviated.
Mr. William Peelsaid, that if Church property was not protected in Ireland every other species of property would be insecure. He had been but a short time in Ireland, but while he was there he could bear testimony to the exemplary conduct of the Protestant clergy.
Mr. Blackneywas of opinion, that the Government was not called upon to entertain the prayer of this petition, on the ground that the clergy, by their own conduct, incurred the ill-will of the people, and drove them to resist the payment of their tithes. The system of collecting the tithes by means of their proctors was most vexatious and oppressive; and the conduct of many of the clergy, and more especially of many of those holding his Majesty's commission of the peace, was derogatory to their sacred calling, and calculated to destroy all respect towards them in the minds of the people. Many of the people were unable—utterly unable as was well known—to pay the full amount of tithes; yet they were willing to pay as much as was in their power, and frequently made overtures to the clergy to make abatements in their tithes, but, with very few exceptions, those overtures were spurned by the clergy, and their dues exacted to the uttermost. Instead of showing any kindly feeling towards the people, they not unfrequently did every thing to excite them to discontent and opposition.
Mr. James E. Gordonconsidered that the non-payment of tithes could be traced to the influential writings of Dr. Doyle, who expressed a hope 'that the hatred of the people to tithes would be as lasting as their love of justice.' The Catholic clergy under Dr. Doyle acted upon his advice, and told their flocks to swear their children against the payment of tithes. These appeals produced the combination against the Protestant clergy; and it was high time for the Government, and for that House, to interfere for the protection of the oppressed, and he would say—severely oppressed Protestant clergy.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, he would not prolong this discussion, but he must state, that the poor farmers in Ireland felt greatly aggrieved by the payment of tidies. He knew many instances of persons being put to considerable expense for the recovery of very small sums. The Protestant clergy had, in the south of Ireland, little or nothing to do except on the Sundays; and under such circumstances they should not be too strict in their exactions. He wished that the Tithe Composition Act was more generally called into use, for he knew that whatever charges might be made against the Catholics for not paying tithes, they had less reluctance to pay them than many influential Protestants, at least in his part of the country.
Mr. Lefroyregretted to say, that a strong combination had for a long time been getting up against, the payment of tithes. It was not set on foot by the tenants, but by those who had an object in view, and who, looking to their own advantage, made such statements and disseminated so many malicious and plausible doctrines, that the poor peasantry fell a prey to their designs, and refused to pay their tithes. Amongst the numerous publications which were calculated to cause great injury and dissension, and were of the most reprehensible nature, was a letter addressed by a distinguished Irish prelate to a member of his Majesty's Government, in which the peasants were almost encouraged to resist the law enacting the payment of tithes in Ireland. That Prelate said, 'The Irish people, since their first conversion to the Christian faith, always understood rightly the gospel dispensation. They were always too rational and too acute to submit willingly to an unreasonable—I might add an unjust—imposition; and the law of tithe, whether civil or ecclesiastical, has never had, either in Catholic or Protestant times—no not to the present hour—the assent or consent of the Irish nation; they have been always at war with it, and I trust in God they will never cheerfully submit to it. It was imputed to them as a crime by Giraldus Cambrensis, that they had never paid tithe, and would not pay tithe, notwithstanding the laws which enjoined such payment; and now, at the end of 600 years, they are found to persevere with increased obstinacy in their struggles to cast off this most obnoxious impost. There
138
are many noble traits in the Irish character, mixed with failings which have always raised obstacles to their own well-being; but an innate love of justice, and an indomitable hatred of oppression, which no darkness can obscure. To this fine quality I trace their hatred of tithe; may it be lasting as their love of justice.' He could not but say, that the connection of the Ministers in this way with a person who was a decided partisan, did not go far to add to the respect due to their station. He should have thought that Government would have taken the case of the petitioners, and others similarly situated, in to hand, and by a prompt arrangement, prevented such an example as some parishes had given, being generally followed.
Mr. George Dawsonwas sorry to say, that a combination existed amongst a large body of persons in Ireland, and that the parishioners, in many places, were afraid to pay their tithes. They were perfectly willing to do so—they acknowledged the right that was entailed upon them to comply with the law; but they were too much intimidated to act up to what they acknowledged was right. He had known instances in which the tenants had paid tithes in secret to the clergyman, and begged of him, as the greatest favour which he could grant, not to mention the circumstance, for fear it should reach the ears of parties who would take care to vent their vengeance upon them. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would deem it his duty to stand up in his place and declare that the Government was inimical to the illegal proceedings which took place in Ireland. He must declare that the characters of the Protestant clergy had been most unjustly assailed; and as to the exorbitant exaction of which they had been accused, he must say, that 2s. 6d. an acre was in general the sum, and not 3s. 6d., which was the maximum. Supposing it were 3s. 6d., how many tithe-payers would be content to pay that sum in England, where he believed, in general, tithes were twice that amount.
Sir John Sebrightconsidered that 2s. 6d. an acre was no great sum to pay as tithes to the clergy of the Church to which a man himself was attached; but if the Catholic clergy were to make such a demand upon him, he should not approve of it any more than the Catholics did to pay the Protestant clergy.
Mr. Spencer Percevalsaid, the question was not whether they liked it, or not, but whether they were not bound by law to pay it.
Mr. Sheilwondered what hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite required the House or the Government to do. The petitioners complained that they could not obtain the payment of their tithes. Perhaps so; but then they could resort to measures to enforce the payment, either by proceedings in the Courts of law, or by distress. They might rest assured that there would be objections to the payment of tithes, as long as the Catholics remained Catholics, and the clergymen Protestants. The only measure that he could recommend, was to convert the Catholics into Protestants.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he should not have addressed the House, had it not been for the direct appeal which was made to him by the right hon. member for Harwich. It was, in his opinion, unnecessary for any individual holding a responsible situation in the Government, to signify his disapprobation of proceedings, which went to disturb the peace of the country, and resist the authority and execution of the laws of the land. The right hon. Gentleman well knew, and it was agreed on all hands, that as far as the assistance of Government could be given, it had been afforded. It had stretched the power it possessed to the fullest extent; it had even gone beyond that power in some instances, by employing that constabulary force which was not intended to levy tithes, whenever the least violence or disturbance was threatened. In all such cases the Government would make use of the powers with which it was invested. But what was it that the petitioners required? They came forward, and after stating a case, the hardship of which he did not wish to underrate, asked the Government to do that which was not in its power, without the assistance of the Legislature. The petitioners requested the Government to make the Tithe Composition Act compulsory on all parishes which refused to pay tithes. It was possible the Legislature might at length deem it proper to take that step, but he thought it would be better not to do so until the last moment, as agreements and arrangements between the parties concerned were far preferable to compulsory Acts of Parliament. The next prayer of the peti ioners was one which certainly was not in the power of the Go-
140
vernment. It required Government to pass an Act whereby landlords should be obliged to pay the tithes, which they could afterwards obtain from the tenants, by making an addition to the rent. He did not say, that it would not be a better way to avoid, if possible, all collision between the tenants and clergymen, but he must say, that such an arrangement would not be relished by the Irish landowners; and without the consent of the Irish Members such an arrangement could not be made. He concluded by expressing the readiness with which Government would always assist those who demanded its aid, and its conviction that so important a measure as the introduction of the extended operation of the Tithe Composition Act, which was in force in some places, would require more consideration than could be given to it on a discussion arising from the presenting a petition.
Mr. Walkersaid, he must, deny, that up to the present meeting of Parliament, when he had left Ireland, there was any illegal combination or opposition to the payment of tithes. He knew there was a strong and natural repugnance in the minds of many Catholics to pay them, and he knew there were frequent extortions on the other side. He also knew, that the costs attending the recovery of tithes were the source of much ill feeling. In many instances the Protestant clergy resorted to the most expensive Courts for their recovery, and by that means terrified the unfortunate payers into submission to their demands. As to the amount of tithes on land that must depend entirely upon its quality, the manner of its tillage, and the amount of its produce.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, there were among those who had signed the petition men of the most respectable character in the country, and the statement was, therefore, entitled to the most serious consideration. The subject should be fairly discussed, in order that some measure might be devised in order to put an end to the disgraceful scenes which had recently taken place.
Lord Ingestrie, in moving, that the petition be printed, took occasion to observe, that the Courts of Law were of little use to the petitioners, in consequence of the expense attendant on all proceedings for the recovery of tithes, and some of the machinery belonging to the Tithe Composition Act would not work.
Colonel Trenchsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Walker) had brought vague charges of

141
oppression against the Protestant clergy relating to the payment of tithes, and he also affirmed that there was no combination to resist their payment in that part of the country to which he belonged; in opposition to which he (Colonel Trench) must say, that he also knew the state of that part of Ireland, and could affirm, that many of the clergy had abstained from having recourse to the law, although they had two years arrears of tithes due, and he also knew other instances where they were paid in secret.
Mr. Walkersaid, one case of fact he would mention in justification of his remark. The gentlemen of Wexford had advertised a premium for the best crop of mangel wurzel; a farmer in the parish of Clonmore, which paid rectorial tithes to the Bishop of Ferns, tried the experiment of a crop, and the Bishop immediately demanded tithe for it. The farmer remonstrated, and his Lordship instead of citing him before the Magistrates, where the costs would be only 6d. or before the Ecclesiastical Courts of the, diocese, where the costs would have been also small comparatively, determined to institute a process in the Court of Exchequer, and the unfortunate farmer, for fear of being ruined by the enormous costs, was compelled to abandon his rights. But before he did so, the costs had amounted to upward of 60 l. Now this manner of enforcing payment, even allowing the claim to be just, he called extortion and oppression. Thus was seen the landlords coming forward with premiums to encourage agriculture, and the Church instantly endeavouring to crush improvements by taxing them.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, hon. Members must, indeed, be badly off for arguments when they alluded lo the letter which had been written to him by Dr. Doyle. He could not conceive how those Gentlemen could make him the link between the right reverend Prelate's opinions and the conduct, of the Government to which he had the honour to belong. Was this the first letter that Dr. Doyle had written? Had he not addressed letters to the Earl of Liverpool and the Duke of Wellington respecting the Catholic Emancipation? but no one then insinuated, that because a letter was addressed to an individual, that individual must coincide with the opinions contained in it. He could not refrain from saying, that the late Government had been ap
142
pealed to, day after day, and week after week, for the introduction of that measure, which, if it had been passed in time, would have prevented the evils which were now so much the source of complaint. They had, indeed, the credit of passing that measure, but it was passed too late; he meant too late to enable the unfortunate country to reap those benefits which otherwise it would have reaped.
Petition to be printed.

JUDGE OF THE ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND).
Colonel Percevalinquired of the hon. Secretary for Ireland, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to fill up the office of Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that if it were filled up, it would be in such a way as not to prevent such reductions being made as might appear fitting to the Government.

LORD LIEUTENANTS OF COUNTIES (IRELAND).
Colonel Perceval Colonel Perceval rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of the newly appointed Lord Lieutenants of Counties in Ireland, and to ask its support for a motion with which he meant to conclude. He must first observe, that it was essentially necessary that, some persons should reside in the county with whom the Government could communicate, and what person was more fitting for this than the Lord-lieutenant? It had been thought that no one would have been appointed Lord-lieutenant under the bill but one who resided in the county. This, however, was far from being the case. Lord Duncannon was appointed a Lord-lieutenant. He was a Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, and it was impossible for him to perform both duties. The Marquis of Hertford, an absentee, had been appointed to the county of Cavan, although Lord Farnham, who possessed an estate in the county, was generally there, and universally respected. He considered that this was a great insult to the noble Lord. The noble Marquis appointed to the Lord-lieutenant-ship of Donegal lived at Belfast, which, was seventy miles distant. It was impossible that he could perform the duties of his office in the manner that was required. The noble Earl (Leitrim) had never resided in Kildare, but was generally fifty weeks out of the fifty-two in the year in Cumberland-place. He next came

143
to the counties of Waterford and Wexford, and he must say, that the appointment to the county of Waterford really excited his great surprise. The gentleman appointed was a most respectable person (Mr. Villiers Stuart), but he understood that he had let his house, and had no residence in that county. He knew that a most respectable young nobleman (the Marquis of Waterford) had a very large property in that county, and would have been the most proper person to fill that office. True, he was as yet a minor; but the same course should have been followed here as had been adopted in the cases of the Duke of Buccleugh and Lord Hopetoun, who, while they were minors, had the Lord-lieutenancies of the Lothians placed in commission until they became of age. Why was that most respectable gentleman, Mr. Wynne, not appointed to the lieutenancy of Sligo? Why should the Government have gone to another county to look for a Peer for such an honour? This objection equally extended to the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Wexford, believing him at the same time to be a most respectable Gentleman. He had been assured by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that it would be a principle, that residents only should be appointed to the office of Lord-lieutenant, and there were not less than eight exceptions to this rule. He should, therefore, conclude by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to direct the removal of those Lord-lieutenants recently appointed, who are nonresidents in the respective counties to which they were appointed."
Mr. Youngdid not think it was just, as a principle, to depart from the original pledge of the Government, that residents only should be appointed Lord-lieutenants, for the purpose of appointing those who were politically connected with the Government,
The question being put by the Speaker,
Mr. Stanleydefended the appointments which the Government had made. The hon. Gentleman had first made a general charge of dereliction of duty against the Irish Government, and then referred to one case, in which the Government declined appointing the individual which the hon. Gentleman had recommended. He did not expect, from the motion of the hon. Gentleman that it was intended to charge the
144
Government with doing that which they had not yet done. In the first place, no Lord-lieutenant was appointed for the county of Sligo. In the next place, the rule laid down for the selection of Lords-lieutenant was, to appoint the most respectable persons, whether noblemen or gentlemen, connected with a county by fortune and respectability. The object of the Government in bringing in the bill had been, to appoint persons residing in or contiguous to the counties, who by their influence with the particular district, and by their residence, would be better able to attend to the interest of Ireland. It was certainly said, that the preference should be given to Peers, because they wished to select persons of the highest rank, that there might be an avoidance of jealousies which would have been created if Commoners were appointed when there were so many in one county of equal rank. But in no case was it stated that residence in a county was absolutely necessary; and the principle acted upon was the same as was pursued in England. In Clare, Roscommon, Longford, Tyrone, and Wicklow the appointments were unpopular, and the Lord-lieutenants actually opposed the views of the present Administration. So much for the love of patronage which Ministers had exhibited, and of which so much complaint was made. In the selection which the Government had made they had sought for those who were of the highest rank and influence in the several counties, without adopting a system of exclusion on account of the political opinions of the parties. He thought it was somewhat invidious on the part of the hon. Gentleman to demand the reasons why the Government made such and such appointments, though he (Mr. Stanley) did not deny, that in any extreme case of unfitness the appointment was open to objection. He repudiated the idea that those only were to be appointed who lived in the county; the Bill gave the power to the Vice-lieutenants to act and to receive all patronage during the absence of Lord-lieutenants for Ireland—but not when absent from the county merely. It was considered a very bad precedent to appoint young noblemen under age to the situation of Lord-lieutenant, as it was well known they had most important business to perform during the first six months after the appointment. It was objected that they had appointed Lord Duncannon, whereas there was no man

145
more popular in the county, or more fitted for the important office. In England, in some instances, one individual was Lord-lieutenant of several counties. For instance, the Duke of Beaufort was Lord-lieutenant of three counties—Lord Lansdown for two—and the Duke of Wellington was Lord-lieutenant of Hampshire as well as Prime Minister—offices which might be considered incompatible with each other. The Duke of Manchester did not think it incompatible with his duty to fill the office of Lord-lieutenant when he was governor of Jamaica. With regard to the non-appointment of Lord Farnham, so much complained of, all he had to say was, that that noble Lord, had a strong political bias, and considering the opinions which he held upon many irritating subjects, the Government did not think they could confide in his judgment and discretion. The hon. Member when he charged it on the Government that they had insulted Lord Farnham by appointing another individual to the Lord-lieutenancy of Cavan, might have left it to the noble Lord to complain, if he had any cause of complaint, which did not appear to be the case, judging from the noble Lord's silence on the subject. When Lord Darnley was appointed to Meath, he pledged himself not to dissever his connexion with that county; and the same observation would apply to Mr. Stuart, with whom it was a sine qua non that he should make Ireland his principal residence. In the appointment of Lord Leitrim, it was understood he had a residence in the county; and notwithstanding the charge of favouritism in the appointments, it turned out that in the thirty-two counties there were only six that were non-residents; and he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, without any grounds whatever, should have taken the course he had done, by moving an Address to the Crown. He was ready at all times to defend the whole of the appointments, and lamented that the hon. Gentleman, from party feeling, or from the disappointment of himself or friends, should have brought forward the Motion. There had been no breach of faith on the part of the Government, and no departure from the principle of the Bill, and he should decidedly oppose the Motion as altogether unprecedented.
Captain Maxwellsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had instanced five or six counties in which he said persons had been appointed
146
who were not attached to the present Government, but he wholly overlooked the contrary cases. In Sligo, the people, knowing to whom the office had been offered, felt themselves offended, and he was of opinion, that in the case of Water-ford, the Lieutenancy should have been put into Commission for a few months, till the Marquis of Waterford was of age.
Mr. Blackneycondemned the appointments when they were in opposition to the general feeling and interests of the people of Ireland. The appointments of the Beresfords for years was not pleasing nor palatable in that kingdom. When he asserted that absentees ought not to be appointed, he meant absentees from Ireland, and not non-residents in counties. In the present state of Ireland, he should consider the appointment of a minor as highly objectionable. The only appointments he found fault with were those where the parties were politically opposed to the Government.
Lord Ingestriesaid, that there was just ground of complaint that the Marquis of Waterford had not been appointed to the county of the same name, in which he constantly resided. The appointment of a commoner as Lord-lieutenant, instead of the noble Lord, was very impolitic, and an act of injustice to that noble family.
Sir George Warrenderwished only to express his firm opinion of the impropriety of an interference on the part of the House with the exercise of the important prerogative of the Crown in the appointment of Lord-lieutenants. He was prepared to justify the appointments on the principle which had been usually followed, of only nominating persons connected with the existing Administration, and as he believed, on the whole a fair selection had been made, he should resist the Motion. He rose principally, however, to state, that both the Duke of Buccleugh and the Earl of Hopetoun were endeared to all Scotsmen, and as these young noblemen only wanted a few months of being of age when they were appointed, to have appointed any other persons would have been felt as an insult by every inhabitant of those counties in which those Peers possessed by far the largest landed property of any person in the county.
Sir John Newportsaid, that the Crown was perfectly justified in the appointment for Waterford. Mr. Villiers Stuart, in point of estates, ranked with any man in

147
the county. In the case of Wexford, too, the person appointed, Mr. Carew, possessed a princely property there, and was in all respects qualified for the station.
Lord Tullamoredecidedly condemned many of the appointments, and observed, that in Callow the principal nobility and gentry felt aggrieved and insulted that they should have been passed over, and an absentee, who was never for a week in the county, should have been appointed. Why Lord Downes should have been passed over he knew not, or Sir Thomas Butler, Mr. Rochford, or Mr. Kavanagh. The appointment of the latter gentleman, who was a descendant from the Kings of Ireland, would have afforded the highest satisfaction to the people. In Wexford why should the Government, have overlooked the resident Peers, who had large estates in the county, and have appointed a Commoner who was a Member of Parliament for the county? Lord Courtown would have been a proper person for the office. The Nobleman appointed Lord-lieutenant of Tipperary was bed-ridden, and, though a most respectable nobleman, was quite incapable of performing the duties of his new office. It was an indictable offence for a Lord-lieutenant to influence elections for Members of Parliament, and how could it be possible for that gentleman to avoid it, he being sure to exercise his influence in his own favour. In King's County they had overlooked five Peers—who possessed most extensive property—and had appointed a Commoner.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that there were not five Peers in the county.
Lord Tullamoresaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had proved to the House, by that assertion, how very improper the appointments were, by displaying such ignorance of the residences of the Peers in that county. He thanked the gallant Colonel for having brought forward this Motion, as it had given him the opportunity of expressing his surprise and disgust at many of the appointments.
Mr. Lambertwas of opinion, the appointments in every instance were most wise and politic; and he would declare that, in his opinion, the Government would have acted most injudiciously and censurably if they had appointed Lord Courtown, with his political feelings, to preside over Wexford. The best proof of the fitness of Mr. Carew for the office was, his universal popularity.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that when the Bill was brought, into the House he gave it his support, because he understood it was bottomed on the principle of encouraging the residence of the Lord-lieutenant in each county, and he considered non-residence or absenteeism to be the bane and curse of Ireland. The residence of the Lord-lieutenant in each county would be sure to secure the residence of a numerous and important class of persons. Ministers were palpably inconsistent. Their assertions when the Bill was brought into that House were, that there would be no exclusion on the ground of political opinions, yet, in spite of this, the Marquis of Water-ford was rejected for his political opinions.
Colonel Conollysaid, that he had supported the Bill because it was declared that the Lord-lieutenants would be an effective organ of communication with the Government—a connecting link between the county Magistrates and the Castle of Dublin. But he had been deceived. He deprecated the appointment of absentees, and he particularly condemned the appointment which had taken place for the county which he had the honour of being connected with. He saw that the objects of the country had been lost sight of by the appointment of favoured individuals, who resided as far from the county to which they had been appointed, as the county itself was from Dublin Castle. In alluding to the noble individual who had been overlooked in the county of Cavan (Lord Farnham) he must say, that his Majesty's Ministers should not take credit for impartiality on this occasion, as they had only appointed one Nobleman who was as violent in one extreme of politics as they charged Lord Farnham with being on the other. He would describe this from Horace: "Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt." He did not mean to apply the stulti to his Majesty's Ministers, but he could not forego his quotation merely out of courtesy to them.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, they had recently heard so much of the rights of the people, that he was glad to be refreshed by hearing of the prerogatives of the Crown, which he began to fear were likely to be wholly lost sight of. He had no doubt that many of these appointments had been made from political views, and therefore he should support the motion of the gallant Colonel.
Sir john Millay Doylewas happy to see the Government paying; attention to the interests and wishes of the people of Ireland, which had been particularly displayed by their appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Carlow. He declared it impossible for the Government to have found residents in the different counties, who, if appointed Lord-lieutenants, would have given satisfaction to the people.
Mr. Anthony Lefroysaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made a display of liberality by appointing Lord Lorton to the Lieutenancy of Roscommon, but who else could they appoint with decency? His Lordship was a constant resident, and was surrounded by a most thriving and industrious tenantry.
Mr. O'Connorsaid, that the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Roscommon was most objectionable to the county, from his being actuated by a spirit of proselytism. He was ready to allow that he was an excellent landlord, and a man of high moral character, but this unfortunate spirit rendered him very obnoxious.
Mr. Lefroysaid, the charge made in this case against the Government was, that they departed from the principles upon which these appointments had been originally agreed to. He contended that, in many cases, most respectable residents were passed over, and strangers called in from other counties, to insult the Nobility and gentry who were residents. This was particularly the case in Cavan, Leitrim, Limerick, Watorford, and several other counties. Why, he would ask, was Lord Courtown passed over in the selection for the county of Wexford? That noble-Lord was a resident, a man of large fortune and liberal principles, and when he made application to obtain the Lord-lieutenancy, the only answer he received from the head of the Irish Government was, that the state of Ireland required the appointment of Mr. Carew. This was an indignity which should not have been offered to so respectable a Nobleman as Lord Courtown. He (Mr. Lefroy) denied that the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant for Roscommon was unpopular, for no Nobleman was held in greater respect by, or deserved more regard from, the people.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that every species of material had been resorted to to give, colour to this Motion—books, extracts from speeches, and private letters, and
150
private conversations. But he would not say anything which could savour of personal observation to the hon. Member who introduced this Motion. He would, however, assert, that there was no instance in winch Ministers had departed from their original intentions when bringing in the Bill; that the appointments had been made under circumstances totally disinterested, and the selection was strictly impartial. The Act gave power to the Government to select for the appointment whoever it chose, and there was no direction whatever as to residence in the county, beyond that possessed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had the power of ordering such residence in those instances where he might consider it expedient. At the time of the Bill passing, he supported the appointment of Vice-lieutenants, assuming the duties in the absence of the Lords-lieutenant of counties, because he considered it would insure the residence of the latter persons in the county; but no pledge had been given to impose their constant residence by Government. Out of the thirty-four Lieutenants of counties, only four were non-resident. This was the whole amount of the charge against the Government; and he was sure, if the appointment to Sligo had been made upon the recommendation of the hon. Member, the House would never have heard anything of this Motion. Many applications had been made to the Government by the hon. Member (Colonel Perceval) and many other Gentlemen who supported his Motion. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, however, in making the appointment for the county of Sligo, had exercised the power he possessed, and used a proper discretion, and he saw no ground for objection. He must, therefore, defend the appointments which had been made, and express his opinion, that the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, appeared to consider that no one was fit to hold office in Ireland, unless he were of Tory principles.
Mr. Callaghanwas sorry, at that late hour, that the time of the House should be taken up with the discussion of this question, but he was glad to see the cause of the people of Ireland attended to. The question was, whether the power and patronage should be in the hands of a few who formerly enjoyed it, or whether it was not better that it should be taken out of their hands, and given to those who

151
would exert their influence for the good of the people? He heartily approved of the appointments, and he believed the reason the House was troubled with this Motion was, because those who brought it forward had been disappointed that neither themselves nor their friends had been made Lord-lieutenants. He felt gratified by the appointment of Mr. Fitzgibbon to Limerick, as he was a gentleman of great respectability, of large property, and Custos Rotulorum of that county.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, the measure had been canvassed, and the great objection made by hon. Gentlemen in the Opposition, was founded upon the rejection of those friends they had recommended to his Majesty's Ministers. It was, after all, but natural and reasonable that the Government in its appointments should prefer their own friends, but he believed the appointments had been grateful to the country. With respect to the first appointment (Lord Duncannon) every hon. Member must allow there could not be a more honourable, upright, and straightforward man than that noble Lord. The appointment for the county of Waterford, also, that was objected to, was equally honourable and upright. In some instances, however, he must say, that he thought the Government had overlooked its best friends.
Mr. Walkerapproved of the appointment for Waterford.
Colonel Perceval, in reply, expressed a hope that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would not suppose he had the arrogance to point out any individual to his Majesty's Government for appointment. He had only discharged his duty in recommending Mr. Wynne. He disclaimed all party feeling in bringing forward the Motion. He should, however, always contend, that non-resident appointments were bad. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND).
The Order of the Day was read for the second reading of the Court of Exchequer (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Kennedytrusted the House would bear with him, as the task of explaining the provisions of this Bill had been confided to him, in consequence of the absence of the learned Lord Advocate for Scotland, while he made a few observations. The
152
Bill had been in the Order-book for a long time, without the possibility of having it discussed; and he regretted to observe on the other side of the House, something like a suspicion that it was the wish of the Government to pass the Bill without discussion. That was not the case; on the contrary, those who supported the Bill desired nothing so much as that its merits should be well understood. The Court to which this Bill referred—the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, had, for a long period, and up to a very short time since, been composed of five Barons—one Chief Baron, and four Puisne Barons. A Committee, which was appointed some time since, on the motion of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, recommended that the number should be reduced to four; a struggle to avoid this reduction took place, but in course of time the number of Judges was reduced to four, namely, one Chief and three Puisne Barons; and subsequently, at a much more recent period, in the year 1830, the total number of Judges was to be reduced to two, namely, one Chief and one Puisne Baron; that was to say, when vacancies occurred they were not to be filled up, and they would not make the Judges of the Court above that number. Such seemed to have been the progress of opinion as to the propriety of reducing the number of Barons composing this Court, and now another era in its history arose, when it was justly conceived, that the business brought before it was not of sufficient magnitude to justify its continuance even on these principles. He would state what was the object, and what were the leading provisions of this Bill; the Court at present consisted of a Chief Baron and two Puisne Barons, because, owing to the unfortunate decease of a member of that Court, a vacancy had taken place, which, by the Act of 1830, could not be filled up. When another vacancy occurred, the number of Judges in the Court would be reduced to the amount fixed by the Statute of 1830. The Bill now on the Table of the House proposed that it should be in the power of all or any of the members of the Court to discharge the duties now vested in the whole Court. But in the event of the death or retirement of the Chief Baron and remaining Puisne Baron, it was provided that the duties of the Court should, in all respects, be performed by a Judge of the Court of Session, who should be appointed

153
to discharge all the functions of the Court as it now existed. The effect, therefore, of this measure, would not be to produce a large saving to the public in the first instance, as well as in the result, which would be the abolition of the Court, and the consequent saving of the expenses of the Chief Baron and the one remaining Puisne Baron. He would now briefly state the duties of the Court, and the amount and nature of the business which had recently been performed. The duties of the Court of Exchequer might be divided into two parts, the first consisted of the official duties belonging to the Court, and which related to the revenue of the country. Most of these were questions more of form than of substance, being chiefly undefended causes. From Returns which he held in his hand, and which might be relied upon, he would state to the House the number of cases which were tried in the Court of Exchequer, during the years 1827, 1828, and 1829, those being the three last years of the time during which the late Chief Baron presided in that Court. There were three Terms in the Court—in Candlemas Term there were no defended causes, and five undefended; in the next Term none defended, and nine undefended, in the summer Term one defended and eight undefended. In the course of the next year there were one defended and eighteen undefended; and in 1829 there were two defended, and thirteen undefended; so that, in the course of these three years, there were four defended, and fifty-three undefended causes, making a total of fifty-seven causes. And during the period which had elapsed since the retirement of the late Lord Chief Baron, and during the time that his right hon. friend, Baron Abercromby, had presided in that Court, which, might be stated at eighteen months, there had been one defended cause. So much, therefore, as to the extent of judicial business; he did not mean to say, that these undefended causes did not come into Court—on the contrary, one or two witnesses were generally examined on the part of the Crown; but what he meant to say was, that no party came to resist the decision of the Court, which was founded on the evidence which it was absolutely necessary for it to take. There was another department of the business of the Court, which consisted in hearing the arguments of counsel on points of law, when they arose: within the last eighteen
154
months there had been one of these arguments, which occupied about an hour. This was all the judicial business of this Court—the remaining part of its duties consisted of Treasury business, connected with the taxes in various departments. These suits were, as in England, frequently settled out of Court; but there were some appeals brought before the Barons of the Exchequer, which were despatched by them with great facility, and therefore did not require any material consideration. An Act was passed at the instance of an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, in relation to the corporation rights, with a view to enable trustees to bring their cases before the Court of Exchequer, but which had not had the effect of preventing the existence of many abuses and great malversation. He did not mean to say, that the jurisdiction was not properly exercised; he merely stated the advantages which were taken of it. Indeed, it was not necessary that this expensive Court should be preserved on that ground. Another part of the business of the Court, related to deeds connected with charters, rights of property in Scotland, and superiorities, of which they had heard so much in that House: this jurisdiction must be exercised somewhere or other, undoubtedly. Now this department of the business had, for some time past, occupied the Court of Exchequer about six hours in each Term. Of course, every reform which had altered these privileges had greatly diminished the extent of this branch of the business; and there could be no difficulty, therefore, in this part of the duty being performed by Judges in whom it was proposed to vest the duties of the Court of Exchequer. The expenditure in Scotland by the Sheriffs, had been hitherto discharged from the revenue of Scotland, and supplied from the general revenue of the country. It was now settled that this sum—about 6,000 l. a-year—should be voted by Parliament on the estimates, and it certainly would be a very unfit thing that individuals, sitting as Judges, should be called upon to determine matters connected with a sum of money which was afterwards to receive the consideration of this House; and, therefore, this expenditure would not again be brought under the consideration of the Court of Exchequer. The Treasury business was, in the first instance, substantially conducted by the King's Remembrancer. Under this es-

155
tablishment the amount of the expense that was incurred was known. The establishment was very efficient, but still there were irremediable evils arising from the present system, and the whole of the superintending duty, whether the Court were abolished or not, ought to be put under the direction of the Board of Treasury in London; there surely could be no necessity, when that Board existed, for sustaining the expense of this establishment. The judicial business of this Court had been managed according to the English law. Until lately, there had been four solicitors, or attornies practising in this Court, but in consequence of the death of one of these individuals, the number was reduced to three, and there was no individual rising to succeed these three gentlemen, who, in the ordinary course of nature, must soon cease to practise. Such was the state of this Court as it was left by the Act which was passed in the year 1830. Two courses were left open for the adoption of his Majesty's late Government with respect to this establishment; either to super add to it such functions as seemed to accord well with the character of the individuals placed in it for life, as no doubt they were, like any other Judges; or if it was thought unfit to do so, it was for Parliament to decide whether the Court ought not to be put an end to. He did not mean to disparage the individuals presiding in this Court, but if the Court of Session could discharge the whole of the duties of the Court of Exchequer, and if the Judges of that Court were to retire, there might be a saving of the whole expense of the Court. Various objections to this measure would be brought forward; it had been thought necessary to have an English Baron to interpret British Acts of Parliament, which Scotch lawyers were not supposed to understand; but by the sixth report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into this subject, it was declared, that it was no longer necessary or requisite to keep up the office of the English Baron. Their report contained this recommendation:—'With the exception of one of 'our members we concur in thinking five 'Barons are entirely unnecessary, and 'that the business might be conducted by 'four, as it is in the Court of Exchequer in England, without adding to the labour of the Judges.' In the year 1820, my Lord Sid mouth had been desirous of ascertaining
156
whether it was possible to comply with this recommendation, and, accordingly an inquiry was directed to be made as to the propriety of carrying this recommendation into effect; arid in 1820 a report was made, stating that it was deemed by the heads of all the Courts in Scotland, quite impossible to conduct the business of the Court of Exchequer without five Barons: this was stated in the strongest and most decisive terms. No reduction in the number of the Judges, therefore, was made for some time afterwards, but in the year 1830—he would call the attention of the House to this circumstance, in reference to the charge which had been made against the present Government, of acting without inquiry—in the year 1830, up came the right hon. Baronet, and, contrary to this strong recommendation, proposed to the House a measure by which one half of the Court would be lopped off at once, and without inquiry. He did not mean to say that the matter was not maturely considered, but merely mentioned the fact, because it afforded a complete answer to any charge that might be made against his Majesty's Government, on the ground of proceeding without inquiry. He hoped hon. Members would not endeavour to excite any sympathy in the mind of the House in favour of this Court, on the ground of its being one of the ancient institutions of Scotland, because it was an English Court, for which the Scotch had never had any peculiar love; and its constitution was changed in the year 1830 without inquiry, which was a strong argument to shew that his Majesty's Government might have considered the effect of this measure before bringing it forward. When a member of this Court chose to resign, an individual would be selected from the jurisdiction to which he had adverted, who would be called upon, by a special commission, to discharge the duties of the office. This Bill originated in the other House of Parliament, in which bills for amending the judicial establishment were wont to originate: it had passed the House of Lords without objection, alteration, or comment, and it was now recommended to this House for its consideration.
Question put that the Bill be now read a second time.
Sir William Raewas aware that another opportunity would be afforded for a more ample discussion of this measure; but he would take this opportunity

157
of saying, that he Lad no fault to find with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as far as it went: because, as far as he had explained the objects of the Bill, he had done so fairly and satisfactorily; but there were some words in the preamble of the Bill which certainly had excited his attention, and which would not have been inserted there unless they referred to something not now in the Bill, or to something hereafter to take place. The words were, That it is expedient that provisions should be made for facilitating the retirement of the Barons. He did not exactly understand what was meant by these words; no doubt the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be able to give some explanation of this passage. Before they proceeded to discuss the principle of the Bill, it was important that the meaning of these words should be correctly understood.
Lord Althorpsaid, the right hon. Gentleman having asked the meaning of these words, he would beg to give him the information which he desired —under; the existing law, any Baron of the Court of Exchequer, who had held his office for fifteen years, was entitled to a certain proportion of his emoluments, by way of retiring pension. The object of this Bill was, entirely to do away with this. The Judges who at present presided in that Court had their pensions taken away, and therefore, until they chose to retire, they would have a right to the whole of the salary attached to their office. With respect to the Senior Barons, who had for a very considerable time held these offices, it was proposed to give them the option of retiring on three-fourths of their salary. With regard to the Lord Chief Baron, however, who had been a much shorter time in office, it was proposed, by way of holding out an inducement to him to retire, that he should have the option of receiving one- half of his salary, as a retiring pension. Thus the saving to the country would be one-half of the Lord Chief Baron's income, and one-fourth of the salaries of each of the other Barons. It was true the present Lord Chief Baron had been in office but a very short time; but as the office was granted to him for life, he would of course retain it, if he should not consent to his arrangement. With respect to his appointment in the first instance, he should not do justice to
158
his own feelings, or to those of the Lord Chief Baron himself, if he did not say that the appointment of his right hon. friend to that office did great credit to his Majesty's Ministers, and that it had been fully justified by his conduct and talent. It was certainly very much owing to his representations, that the existing state of the Court of Exchequer had been taken into consideration; and, therefore, it would be quite contrary to all the principles on which the Government of this country proceeded, to deprive a Judge of his office, without giving him some compensation for the loss of it. This was the state of the case; and he trusted the House would think that the circumstances warranted this proceeding.
Mr. Humesaid, the principle on which they were proceeding was the most extraordinary he had ever heard of in his life. His hon. and learned friend had given quite sufficient reason to justify the abolition of this Court three years ago; he had stated, that during the three last years there were only four causes, and yet when he (Mr. Hume) strongly urged that on the House two years ago, he was met by assertions that the Court could not be done away with. What did they do only one year ago? They increased this Court, by placing in it a very fit and competent man, no doubt, but so far from his Majesty's Government receiving any credit for that appointment, which the noble Lord appeared to think they deserved, he (Mr. Hume) condemned it at once, and called it a job, a rank job, for some purpose or other, and if it were done for the purpose of obtaining the support of any nobleman for the Ministry, it was an abominable proceeding, it had been held that, a Judge who was appointed for life should not be removed so long; as he conducted himself properly, and while no complaint was made of him; but were the people of England to be told, that, a Judge who had been one year and a-half in office was to receive, a pension of 2,000 l. a-year? This gentleman had not been in office more than a year and a-half, and yet he was to be put down in the Pension list for 2,000 l. a-year, at a time, too, when they ought to economise. This was a most objectionable proceeding; this Bill came down from the House of Lords without explanation, and they were to be told now at the last moment—at the eleventh hour—what it proposed to do. Why was not this Court abolished at

159
once? Why were they to have any of these half-and-half measures? Why go beating about the bush in this way? There were now two legal Bills in progress; one had for its object the abolition of a Court, the other the establishment of one: why should not the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer preside at the head of the new Bankruptcy Court? Surely, it would be no degradation to him? He would take the office after the Lord Chancellor: and, upon principle, this would be the most likely way of doing justice to all parties. What was there in the Bankruptcy Court for four Judges to do? Why could not three be dispensed with, and the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland preside in the Court? He could not be incompetent to fill the office; for he was for many years a Commissioner of Bankrupts, and was well acquainted with English law. Why, the office was just fitted for him. It would be much better to bring in a Bill to abolish the Court of Exchequer at once. With regard to the other Judges, if they could not be made useful, let them have the retired allowance in consequence of their long-services; but the idea that the Chief Baron, who had been only fifteen months in office, should receive a pension of 2,000 l. a-year, was monstrous, and he hoped the proposition was one which the House of Commons would never consent to. Some alteration, therefore, should be made in this Bill in Committee, and the services of the Judges should be made available elsewhere, instead of placing them on the Pension-list. If the Chief Baron were made the Judge in bankruptcy, the country would save 1,000 l. a-year, or, if desirable, give him 4,000 l. a-year; but really, to talk of four Judges in bankruptcy appeared to him to be quite absurd.
Mr. Robert Fergusonexpected nothing but opposition from the hon. member for Middlesex in questions of this nature; yet he was surprised at the observations he had made. How could he call the saving of 2,000 l. a-year in one instance a job? If there was a man in England who would scorn the insinuation of jobbing, it was the present Lord Chief Baron of Scotland. During the last Administration, his right hon. friend, the member for Bute, obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this subject, but it was ultimately agreed that the Court of Exchequer should remain as it was. In progress of time, however, it had been reduced to a Chief
160
Baron, and one Puisne Baron, His hon. and learned friend, in agreeing to this arrangement, acted with the greatest honour and propriety, because he cut down that which his long services and high station so justly entitled him to. During the former Administration there occurred a vacancy, and he had always viewed with the greatest satisfaction the course adopted by the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government at that time. He well knew the merits of the right hon. Gentleman in question—he recollected the political events which had thrown him out of public life—he remembered well his merits, and he sent to him and offered him the appointment. This was a most honourable trait in the character of his Grace the Duke of Wellington. The present Lord Chief Baron accepted the office, and he went down to Scotland, considering it as a permanent situation, with 4,000 l. a-year; of course he had ascertained that, before he consented to fill the office. Upon that conviction he expended a considerable sum in purchasing a house, and furnishing it from top to bottom. He soon discovered that the Court afforded him hardly anything to do, and then, instead of contentedly receiving this large salary, and doing nothing for it, he was the first to give an opinion in favour of merging that Court in the Court of Session. He knew that it was sacrificing 4,000 l. a-year, but his virtuous mind could not brook the idea of its being kept up as a separate Court, merely on account of his personal interest, and, therefore, he gave the advice he did with respect to it. There was no man to whose acts the term jobbing was less applicable. He was almost inclined to beg the Government not to propose giving him a farthing, but to appeal to a vote of the House on his conduct.
Sir George Warrenderhad not made up his mind as to whether the Court was not useful, or might not be made so, by having additional business thrown into it. He had suggested, on a former occasion, that the duties of the Admiralty Court, and of the Commissary Court, should be transferred to the Court now proposed to be abolished, which would have been much better than transferring them to the Court of Session. These suggestions arose out of a correspondence he had, not only with lawyers in Scotland, well acquainted with the practice of the different Courts, but with high authorities there, and, had those

161
suggestions been adopted, there would have been an ample share of duty allotted to that Court. Undoubtedly, at present, its duties were chiefly executed by the King's Remembrancer, a most active and intelligent Officer, who, he expected, would be continued in the exercise of his functions. They ought not, however, at once to abolish this Court without inquiry into the possibility of making it efficient, and thus save the public the payment of a pension of this magnitude. He fully concurred in what was said by the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, with regard to the right hon. Baronet below him.
Sir William Raewas a little surprised when he heard of the bringing in of this Bill, and recollected that it was not more than a year since the appointment now proposed to be done away with was made; and still more was he surprised when he found that this was a Bill relating merely to one Court; and that its preamble did not even profess to improve the Administration of Justice, but merely to save expense. He should have expected, too, that a Bill of this kind would have been brought forward by the Lord Advocate. His absence was to be regretted as they should have heard from him the nature of the inquiries he made previous to deciding upon the abolition of this Court. He (Sir William Rae) had made inquiries before him, when the question was simply as to a reduction in the number of the Judges. Now this was a much more important question, for it related to the entire abolition of the whole Court, He doubted the Lord Advocate's having made inquiries similar to his; but, at any rate, they ought to have had some information upon which to go, so that they might have been satisfied, first, that the Court ought to be abolished; and secondly, that its duties would be advantageously discharged by their being allotted in the manner proposed by the Bill. His hon. friend opposite represented the Court of Exchequer as one of very recent origin; but the fact was, that the report of the Commissioners who investigated the Courts of Justice in Scotland, stated that it was not known at what period it was established. It was obvious, that some Court of the kind must have existed from the beginning of the Monarchy, and there were documents extant in the Court of Exchequer, bearing date 1300. From that period, up to the time of the Union, the Court of Exchequer
162
continued to be a useful Court; and to shew the regard our ancestors had for it, the nineteenth article of the Union provided that it should have the same powers as the Court of Exchequer in England. From the time of the Union to the present day, no one had ever dreamt of its abolition. With respect to its Juries, they were set forth at great length in the report to which he alluded, but they were briefly these. The Court tried at the bar all cases of offences against the revenue by a Jury; it decided all questions of law arising out of a special verdict, besides which, all questions in which the revenue was concerned were liable to come from the other Courts; and all cases of dispute with regard to the assessed taxes, the appeal went to the Barons of the Exchequer; they examined Sheriffs' accounts, and performed a variety of other duties of that description. The number of cases on the paper of the Court of Exchequer in 1815 was 103; in 1816, ninety-seven; and in 1817, 100. The number of cases tried at bar in 1816, were forty-three; in 1817, sixty-six; and so they went on increasing for several years, till they reached an average of ninety-eight. He should like to have had returns of the other duties performed by the Court of Exchequer, for it appeared extraordinary that this Court, which, at the Union, was declared to be necessary when the whole receipt of Customs did not exceed 35,000 l., should now be declared unnecessary, when the revenue of Scotland was above 5,000,000 l. The hon. member for Middlesex thought it his duty, several years ago, to call for various returns connected with the Court of Exchequer. His motion created alarm in the Commissioners of the Revenue, and the result was, a complete change in their arrangements; and, among other things, it put an end to the system of compounding for offences, which had led to great abuses. Having no interest in this question, he hoped the noble Lord would not put him in the situation of a party opposed to the Lord Chancellor; he opposed this Bill purely because he did not think that an ancient Court should be so unceremoniously abolished without inquiry, and because he was confident that, were proper means taken, an abundant share of business might be found for it. There was one practice of this Court which would meet with the approbation of the House. Where men were too poor to employ counsel, the Judge, with the greatest

163
anxiety, acted the part of counsel for them, watched every part of the proceedings, and if the evidence was not complete against the defendants, directed the Jury to find for them. But if a Chief Baron of the Exchequer was not wanted in Scotland, why was one wanted in England? Why was not the Chief Baron set aside here? Because every one felt that the Court of Exchequer ought to be confided to the ablest and most dignified hands. Whatever might be said to the contrary, he was quite satisfied that the people of Scotland were attached to the ancient Exchequer Court of that country; and would regard its demolition in any other than a favourable light. It was necessary for the Government to institute further inquiries before they proceeded to take a step which would be unpopular in Scotland. A bill for making some alterations in the practice of the Scotch Court of Exchequer, was introduced into this House in June, 1830. He regretted that the hon. member for Middlesex did not make it his duty to attend at that time, and state his objections to the Court. The constitution of the Court was then brought fully under the consideration of Parliament; and the opportunity would have been a proper and a convenient one for the hon. Member to have raised his objections, but he was silent. The present Lord Chancellor, however, at that time a Member of this House, went through all the clauses of the Bill then proposed, and discussed every part of it. Having done so, he (Sir W. Rae) appealed to the House to say whether he did not pronounce the measure then under the consideration of Parliament perfectly satisfactory. It would be remembered, that the Bill was passed in July, 1830; in the November following he left office; but he had previously been at the pains to communicate with the present Lord Chief Baron of Scotland, upon the subject of the Exchequer Court; and, in reply, he received a letter from him, in which he did not throw out one single suggestion as to the propriety of abolishing that Court. The present Chief Baron of England, too, at that time Lord Chancellor, approved of the Bill introduced in 1830, and lent his aid to carry it through Parliament as a proper measure. All these persons, as well as the majority of the Members of this House who were present during the discussion of the measure of 1830, concurred in the
164
statements which were made, and were of opinion that the Courts of Scotland would, by that measure, be placed upon their proper footing. He felt bound to make these observations, to explain the course which he took while he was in office. The Government of that day chose to place confidence in him as their officer. No bills upon the subject of the Scotch law or the Scotch Courts of Justice were brought into this or the other House of Parliament without his knowledge. Whatever he proposed as an amendment of that law, or as a judicious reform of those Courts, was accepted by the Government, and measures were introduced accordingly. Thus he abolished the Jury Court, the Court of Admiralty, and the Consistorial Court, imposed heavier duties on the Court of Session, yet deprived it, as well as the Court of Exchequer, of two Judges each, effecting by all these measures a saving to the public of 23,000 l, a-year. Such a course of proceeding on his part, during the short time that he was in office, might satisfy the House, that if he thought the abolition of the Court of Exchequer would have done good, he should not have hesitated to have come down to Parliament with a Bill to abolish it. The day for patronage was gone by, and the late Government had certainly no greater regard for it than the present. If they abolished the Court of Exchequer, in what way were its various and important duties to be performed? It was proposed to vest them all in one Puisne Judge of the Court of Session. That was a most objectionable proposition. At this moment there was not in the Court of Session a single Judge who ever was present at a trial in the Court of Exchequer, or ever saw any part of the proceedings there. It was vain to suppose, then, that a Judge from the Court of Session could properly be appointed to perform the duties of the Court of Exchequer. Would he be able to direct a Jury? Where Juries were impanelled, it was necessary that they should be properly charged. A Judge from the Court of Session would be utterly incapable of performing that important duty. There was not at this moment in that Court a single Judge who would undertake to do it. It was true, that where money was in the case, men would undertake to do anything; but certainly no man of character and reputation in the Court of Session would undertake the perform-

165
ance of this duty. But, putting this out of the question, how would the Court of Session be able to spare one of its Judges to attend to the business of the Court of Exchequer? By the measures which he introduced and carried through Parliament, the whole of the business of the Admiralty and Consistorial Courts had been thrown upon the Court of Session, the number of whose Judges had, at the same time, been reduced. The result of all this was, that, that Court had now so much business pressing upon it, as to render it perfectly incapable of performing more. Were they then to take away one of its Judges, and to impose upon him the performance of duties of which he knew nothing? As far as he was at present informed, therefore, and as far as his own experience of the practice of the Courts of Law in Scotland enabled him to form an opinion, he was decidedly opposed to the provisions of this Bill. If it could be shewn that expense would be saved, and the administration of justice equally well administered, by the abolition of the Court of Exchequer, he should be perfectly ready to acquiesce in it, but further inquiry was necessary to bring anything like conviction to his mind upon that point. At present the Court of Exchequer was highly useful. It had existed in Scotland from the earliest ages, and had always performed its duties in a satisfactory manner. Was this Court then to be abolished? He felt the more anxious upon this point, because he expected if this measure were carried, that other changes in the judicial establishment would be proposed. He had heard that certain changes were in contemplation with respect to the Court of Session, and the Sheriff's Court, which every Scotchman would admit were most valuable. When these things were attempted, it was necessary that the friends of existing institutions, which, after long experience, had been found to work well, should make a stand and demand of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should not abolish these old institutions until they had first ascertained that their duties could be more satisfactorily performed in a different manner. In all other instances in which changes had been proposed in the judicature of Scotland, commissions had been appointed to ascertain how far they could be made with propriety. In 1808, 1826, and 1827, Commissions composed of the most emi-
166
nent lawyers of the day, were sent clown to institute inquiries before changes were made. In short the practice had been universal. Why, then, should it be departed from in this instance? If the noble Lord pressed this measure, without inquiry, he would be acting most disrespectully towards Scotland, and at the same time holding the former practice of this House in utter derision.
Mr. John Campbellheartily approved of this measure in all its parts. He was totally unconnected with the Government, and acted in the exercise of his independent judgment. His vote upon this occasion would certainly be disinterested, because the office of Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland was one which he was by law competent to hold, and the duties of which, perhaps, without overweening confidence, he might consider himself not unqualified to discharge; and it would undoubtedly be very agreeable if, in his old age, he should be appointed to an office which, with a salary of 4,000 l. a-year, would impose upon him no further trouble than to dispose of five cases in four years. That would indeed be otium cum dignitate. The Bill had been opposed by the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House upon very inconsistent grounds. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that the Court of Exchequer of Scotland ought to be abolished, not by gradual measures, but immediately and at once; and he maintained, that the allowing it to remain by the bill of 1830 was a gross job. With that point, however, the House had now nothing to do. They must consider, not what ought to have been done in 1830, but what they were bound to do in 1831. In reference, however, to what the hon. member for Middlesex had said, against the impolicy of a gradual abolition of this Court, when it was possible to get rid of it at once, he would merely observe, that on financial grounds, its gradual would be better than its immediate abolition—for if they abolished it at once, they must be at the expense of retiring salaries to the Judges, in addition to the salary of the new Judge whom they would appoint. The right hon. Baronet who had addressed the House in opposition to this measure, had mistaken several material points. Undoubtedly, he had strong Scottish prejudices—they had been particularly manifested by the manner in which he had alluded to the Attorney

167
General, whom he suspected of having swollen the number of informations, for the purpose of increasing his own fees. Had the right hon. Gentleman been more aware of the practice in England, such an idea would never have entered into his honourable mind. The right hon. Gentleman had said much about an insult to Scotland, and a violation of the Articles of the Act of Union, by the abolition of the Court of Exchequer. If there was any truth in that argument, the right hon. Gentleman had himself been guilty of both the crimes which he now seemed to view with so patriotic a horror. By the 19th Article of the Act of Union it was expressly enacted, that the Court of Admiralty should remain, yet the right hon. Gentleman himself brought in a bill to abolish that ancient Court. That he was guilty of a violation of the Act of Union, therefore, could not be doubted; and, according to his own argument, he at the same time grossly insulted his native country. He (Mr. John Campbell), however, was grateful to him for the beneficial measures which he proposed and carried in the year 1830; and he only regretted that among them was not included the abolition of the Court of Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the people of Scotland were attached to that Court. They were strongly attached to its offices and salaries, but to nothing more; and when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing so many sweeping measures with respect to other branches of the Scotch judicature, he might very reasonably have found courage to lop off this its most useless limb. My Lord Tenterden, in half an hour at Guildhall, disposed of more business than the five Barons of the Scotch Court of Exchequer did in four years. It was an insult to the country to continue such a Court. Its offices were mere sinecures. It was not very probable that the business of the Court would increase, and there was not sufficient now to give moderate occupation to one of the Judges of the Court; therefore, it ought to be entirely abolished. The right hon. Baronet (Sir William Rae) said, that this Court had existed from time immemorial, and therefore ought to continue to exist. The Court was established to meet certain exigencies, but if these no longer existed, and it could, without detriment to the public service, be taken away, he saw no possible reason why it should be kept up. The right hon.
168
Baronet said, that the Court of Exchequer in England did very little business, and ought, on the same ground, to have been abolished. But the cases were essentially different. The House was aware, that formerly most actions were tried in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, and but comparatively few in the Court of Exchequer: since, however, Lord Lyndhurst had become the Lord Chief Baron of that Court, and the right to practise in it had been thrown open to all attornies, instead of being confined to six, it had become one of the most efficient Courts in Westminster Hall. But in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, the business never could be increased, for private actions could not be tried in it. Nor was there any occasion to transfer to it a share of the business of any other Court. There were no arrears in the Court of Session, which, with its two Chambers, was amply sufficient to transact all the civil business of Scotland. The right hon. Baronet alluded to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, but that was not merely a Court of Revenue, but it was the greatest Common-law Court in that country, for more actions were tried there than in the King's Bench and Common Pleas together; there was also nearly as much Equity business as there was before the Lord Chancellor. This Scotch Court of Exchequer reminded him of Mr. Burke's description of the Board of Trade—a place in which uninterrupted tranquillity prevailed. The hon. member for Middlesex thought that it was most unreasonable that Mr. Abercromby should have a retiring salary. Now, surely nobody would deny that that gentleman had a freehold in his office, and no one could blame him for receiving his salary, for the office was now his as long as he chose to continue to discharge the duties of it. If the hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to censure, he ought to blame the late Government, who bestowed the office on Mr. Abercromby, when perhaps they ought to have abolished it. It must be recollected that Mr. Abercromby gave up all his practice at the English Bar when he accepted this office, and to which there was a salary annexed of 4,000 l. a-year, and it was absurd to suppose that they could, without doing an act of injustice, abolish his office without giving him compensation. If this Bill were thrown out, they would do the public no good, but they had

169
an opportunity of making a considerable saving by passing it. In this instance it was proposed to give the Chief Baron one-half, and the Puisne Baron two-thirds of their salaries; but when the Welsh Judgeships were abolished, the whole of their salaries were allowed to them for life, and no opposition was made to that arrangement. Two of these gentlemen did not receive compensation, in consequence of having entered into an understanding when they accepted office, that compensation should not be given them. This case was, however, essentially different; and as it was obvious that Mr. Abercromby never could return to the Bar, he was entitled to an ample retiring salary. He could not be blamed for renouncing a sinecure with 4,000 l. a year for a sinecure with 2,000 l. But what weighed most with the hon. Member was, that by this Bill Scotland would be freed from the mockery and the scandal of Judges, in their flowing robes and great wigs, taking their seats daily on the bench of justice, and immediately rising because they had nothing to do. An avowed sinecure might be endured; but the holder of an office with ostensible and no actual duties, obtained money on false pretences, and was in danger of incurring odium himself, and of bringing into discredit the institutions of the country.
Sir George Clerkmust protest against this measure for abolishing one of the most ancient Courts of Judicature in Scotland. He was quite at a loss to understand how the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down could have fallen into such incomprehensible mistakes on the question before the House. His surprise was the greater when he recollected the deservedly high character the hon. and learned Gentleman bore for his great legal attainments and extensive knowledge. Considering these circumstances, he ought to have made himself better acquainted with the duties performed by the Judges of these Courts. He was ready to admit that the Court of Exchequer in Scotland was confined to the adjudication of revenue cases, and not, as the same Courts in England and Ireland, open to the trial of all other cases. He did not know what authority the hon. member for Ayr had for making the assertions he had that night made, relative to the administration of justice in this Court, and in support of this measure, which was to make most important alterations in the constitution of
170
one of the most ancient Courts of Justice in Scotland. He protested against being called upon to assent, to any measure of such importance, without ample time being given for its consideration, both by the public and Parliament. The hon. and learned Member said, that he spoke from authority, in declaring that not more than a very few unimportant trials took place in this Court in the course of the year. This was not the case, but the question was whether the Court was advantageous for the administration of justice? This Bill was brought forward by the Lord Chancellor in another place, and it was supported by the Government, but not a single member of the Administration, except that noble and learned Lord, seemed to know anything about the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last seemed to be in the same predicament, and to know just as little of this Bill. His right hon. friend, with his usual ability, had made apparent the very great difficulties that might arise from adopting the course now pointed out. It was clear, too, that, the account given by his right hon. friend of the business of the Court was so very different from that made by the hon. Member, that they must have been obtained from different sources; this, at least, was a proof of the necessity of further information before they proceeded to legislate upon a subject of such importance. Hon. Gentlemen might attach little consequence to revenue cases, but did they remember what a vast variety of suits they comprised, and what important results depended upon them? The hon. Member said, "that the Court, was not mentioned in the Act of Union with Scotland;" and that, therefore, there could be no objection on this ground to make any alterations in its constitution, and that this was not the case with the Court of Admiralty, which was abolished on the recommendation of his right hon. friend now near him. But the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that all the duties performed by the Admiralty Court were transferred to the Sheriffs' Court, where the questions could be decided with equal satisfaction to the parties, and at less cost. The noble Lord said that evening, that this measure was of a pressing nature, and therefore must come on before the West-India Question. He was at a loss to understand what there could, by any possibility, be of a pressing nature in this

171
Bill; he recollected that the Lord Chief Baron was to be one of the departmental Gentlemen for the Reform Bill. It was, therefore desirable to relieve that learned and able Judge from his other duties, and also to settle a comfortable salary upon him, before they sent him on his riding commission over the country. Considerable discretionary power was allowed to this Court in the administration of the revenue laws, and it was obviously a power upon which it was necessary to exercise great judgment; before, therefore, they abolished the Court, they ought to take effectual steps to prevent the administration of the law being affected by it. The noble Lord must recollect the celebrated motion of the present Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Brougham, with reference to the administration of the revenue laws which would go a considerable way in opposition to the present measure. He perfectly agreed that one of the Judges might be taken from the Court of Session to try these cases, but he denied the expediency of doing so. His decided opinion was, that the present measure was nothing but a job, and he would point out some few particulars to the House, which would induce them to agree with him. The case of the Welsh Judges had been referred to, but it must be remembered that that was a decided improvement in the administration of the law, which the country absolutely called for; and those Judges recently appointed were not pensioned off. In this case, however, without any apparent reason, a reduction was to be made nominally, but the public were to be charged with three-fourths of the retiring salaries of the Judges. The Chief Baron was to have half his salary, although he had been scarcely eighteen months in office. Thus with a salary of 2,000 l. a-year, the learned Judge would be enabled to travel about as a Parliamentary Commissioner. He did not know whether provision was to be made in the Scotch Reform Bill for the two Puisne Barons of the Scotch Exchequer. If they were not to be inserted in the Scotch Reform Bill, doubtless there was some other snug job in petto for them. The retiring salary, however, of 2,000 l. a-year, with nothing to do, would satisfy them doubtless, and especially when accompanied with a hope that they would be partakers in some of the good things bestowed so liberally by the present Government. All that had been said
172
on the other side of the House had had reference to the salaries—the suitors had not been consulted as to the abolition of this Court—and not a word had been said as to the questions of importance decided in this Court. These, however, were considerations of at least equal importance, when they were discussing a measure as to the constitution of a Court of Justice. The noble Lord proposed to throw all the additional duties on the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland; but it was not more than an act of justice to them if they gave to them additional duties to perform, to give them increased salaries; and he would here take the opportunity of referring to a subject not immediately before the House. In 1825 an increase was made to the salaries of the Judges in England, but nothing was done for the Scotch Judges. In 1827, on the motion of Lord Goderich, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the abolition of the Scotch Jury Court, some allusion was made to this subject, but the matter was not persisted in. The question was deferred in consequence of some slight difficulties, and was not afterwards taken up. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord would take the subject into consideration, and would, on an early day, bring forward a motion for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the Scotch Judges. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the House could not refuse to give Mr. Abercromby a retiring salary of 2,000 l. a-year for abandoning his professional business, for he could not as a Privy Councillor, return to the Bar. He was not aware that Mr. Abercromby had an extensive business at the bar, and did not object to his having a retiring salary; but he protested against the mode in which this measure had been brought forward and was persisted in. He well recollected the outcry hon. Gentlemen opposite made to the pensions allowed to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst, when they retired from the Victualling and Navy Board, for the purpose of an important reduction being made in their departments, although there was a positive understanding that they should be called upon to supply the first vacancies that occurred in these Boards. And yet hon. Gentlemen, who cried out so loudly against this clause, voted half his salary to the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland, although he had not been eighteen months

173
in office, With what pretence could the noble Lord censure former Administrations with having been guilty of jobs, and making changes purely for the purpose of giving places? He was quite at a loss to see how this conduct could be justified; and nothing had been said on this subject in the least degree approaching to a justification. Whatever was to be done, he hoped that the House would not dwell on a mere statement of the number of causes tried in so many years, and proceed to abolish this Court, without taking into consideration the important duties which it had to perform, more especially when a large majority of the Gentlemen present had not even read the Bill, and very few had stopped to inquire what was the nature of that Court. It had been said, that, the situation was irksome to the Lord Chief Baron, on account of the trifling duties he had to perform; but the question was, whether it was better to have 4,000 l. a-year for doing something, or to have 2,000 l. a-year for doing nothing at all. He trusted that the House would have some inquiry instituted before it proceeded to abolish an ancient Court, and that it would not rest, on the statement which had been made at that hour of the night; and at the very conclusion of the Session pass a measure of such very great importance.
The Attorney Generalthought, that it was a very singular charge to make against his Majesty's Government, that this Bill had been hurried. It had been in the hands of hon. Members ever since the 15th of August, and the learned Lord Advocate of Scotland had always been able and willing to give every information which might be required of him. Hon. Gentlemen talked of inquiry: this subject had been inquired into, and had been put off for the very purpose of inquiry. Nobody had ventured to deny the facts which they had asserted; it certainly would be most extraordinary, if they had mis-stated the quantity of business in this Court, that some Gentlemen did not produce returns to shew their mistake. If the right hon. Baronet had stated to the House, last year, the facts which were now brought forward, it would have been quite impossible to have preserved this Court. Talk of the abolition of this Court being a job; really he never heard such abusive language. A job!—why, if the Lord Chief Baron of Scotland wanted a job, could he have better one than
174
4,000 l. a-year for doing nothing? Imputations were cast forth in general terms, and they would always catch a ready cheer from some parts of the House; but when hon. Gentlemen talked of a job, he would beg them to recollect, that if the Lord Chief Baron had chosen, he might have gone on pocketing 4,000 l. a-year for his life, The Reform Bill had been brought into this discussion; really, there was no subject that could be introduced to the Mouse with which the Reform Bill was not, mixed up, and on which the Representatives of schedule A were not ready to set up a hearty cheer against some one connected with the Reform Bill. So it was on this occasion—because the Chief Baron of Scotland was one of the Commissioners named in the Reform Bill, hon. Gentlemen believed that this Bill was brought, in for the purpose of enabling him, the Lord Chief Baron, to travel about the country to execute the duties imposed upon him by that Bill. Could any one seriously pretend to say that this Bill was necessary, even if such a purpose was in contemplation, which it was almost unnecessary to deny? The Lord Chief Baron might, if he had chosen, have transacted the whole of his duties under the Reform Bill, and still have kept his office, and pocketed the whole of his salary. His late right hon. friend, Sir Samuel Shepherd, a most excellent and much-esteemed man, was not prevented, by his duties as Lord Chief Baron, from attending here; bur, on the contrary they had the pleasure of seeing him here in London ten months out of the year? The Lord Chief Baron Abercromby might have pursued just the same course with regard to his duties as a Commissioner under the Reform Bill. His right hon. friend was looking at a document he held in his hand; he might refer to that Report, but he would recollect that that Report stated that all the five Judges were necessary, of the correctness of which, by-the-bye, they had now some means of judging. A subsequent Commission of Inquiry thought that four would do, and, particularly, that English Barons were not necessary. That was the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into jobs; but, instead of the "job" being put down, it was said, even at that time of day, "Why, really it is quite impossible to do with less than five; we must have five: to abolish them would lead the lieges of Scotland to think

175
that their interests were to be neglected, and that their institutions were to be cut down." The hon. member for Middlesex said that one Court was to be established, and one was to be abolished; "Well, then," said he, "let the Judge who presided in the Court which is to be abolished, preside in the new one which is to be established. The Judge who is appointed certainly must have no other duties to attend to, because the proposed Bankruptcy Court will be always sitting, and always employed." This might be a very good suggestion. It might be remembered that when he (the Attorney General) stated that a learned Judge in Westminster-hall, of great experience and ability, might be prevailed upon to preside in the new Court, he did not say that the fact was certain; he merely held out a hope that he might be induced to do so. He might be disappointed, and, in that case, he quite agreed with his hon. friend, that no better individual could be appointed as the head of that Court than the Lord Chief Baron, and he should be most happy to effect a saving of 2,000 l. a-year. With regard to what was stated as to compounding penalties, it was quite certain that the people of England could not endure it if these penalties were to be enforced to anything like the extent of the power which was placed in the hands of the Crown. He trusted that they should see the revenue cases in England very much reduced in number. The right hon. Baronet condemned the Board being allowed a fixed salary instead of their being paid in proportion to the duties they discharged. In answer to that observation he would beg to say, that the Solicitor to the Customs was paid by a fixed salary. The Solicitor to the Excise was, until within a year or two, paid in that way, but it had latterly been found that the business of the Court of Exchequer had diminished to a very considerable extent. Indeed, they had heard a great deal of the judicial duties of the Court of Exchequer, but they were nowhere to be found. With regard to the antiquity of the Court, that certainly could be no argument in its favour, because they could not refer much further back than the Union. He was quite ready to admit that Judges in Scotland had aright to be placed on the same footing as English Judges, but let not a Court be continued for no purpose, when it was evident that, in the ordinary course, it could not
176
exist for any length of time. The arguments which had been used on the other side went absolutely in favour of proceeding with this Bill.
Mr. Pringle Mr. Pringle moved that the Debate be adjourned. There were many Scotch Members anxious to express their opinions upon this subject, and the discussion could not be conducted in a satisfactory manner at that hour of the night.
Debate adjourned.

WEST INDIA INTEREST.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that in rising to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the West-India Colonies, it would not be necessary for him to trespass for more than a very few moments on the attention of the House, in stating very briefly the object of that Committee. Although that Committee would have for its object an inquiry into the cause of the present distress, his Majesty's Government could not propose it with the view presumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, because, if his Majesty's Ministers supposed they could give relief, it would not have been their duty to move for the appointment of this Committee at all, but to have been prepared to offer some specific remedy for the distress. The Ministers, however, had not been able, from the consideration they had given this subject, to suggest any plan by which that relief could be afforded. It would be in the recollection of the House, that at the end of the last Session of Parliament, a Committee was talked of in that House, but, at the request of the West-India body, was not appointed. Ministers felt it their duty to institute an inquiry, and the result of it was communicated to the West-India body, and to this House, but it was not such as to place it in their power to offer any specific measure to the consideration of the House. At that time, at meetings which took place with the West-India body, it was proposed to them on the part of the Government, that they should consent to the appointment of a Committee to take into consideration the general causes of the distress which existed; that proposal was rejected by them, and they distinctly admitted that they did not wish to have any such Committee appointed. At a subsequent period, however, a Committee was moved for by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, with the view of inquiring into the statement of

177
facts made on the part of the West Indies. On a late occasion, however, it was proposed that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of taking into consideration the commercial state of the West-India body; no opinion was offered on the part of the West-India body, but it certainly did appear to him to meet with a great deal of favour from several hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the subject, who appeared anxious that that course should be adopted, and it consequently became his duty to give notice of the intention of his Majesty's Government in this respect. It was proposed that this Committee should inquire—if the House would consent to its appointment—simply into the commercial state of the West Indies, keeping entirely distinct from that inquiry, the whole question relating to the political state of the West Indies, and the relation between master and slave. The cause of the distress which existed had been too much noticed, and too fully discussed, to require any further observations now. By making every possible inquiry, they had ascertained one of the causes of that distress, without, however, being able to suggest a remedy. Complaints were constantly made on the part of the West-India body, that no further steps were taken for their relief, and as Ministers could suggest none which would not involve general interests, which they were bound to respect and consider, they came before the House to ask for the appointment of a Committee. This step must necessarily satisfy all parties, inasmuch as it must either go far to prove that the view of Ministers was correct, and that no remedy could be found, or be the means of discovering some hitherto unknown mode of relief, at which no one would more sincerely rejoice than his Majesty's Ministers. He should confine the objects of the Committee, as formerly, to an inquiry into the commercial state of the West Indies, and being quite sure that on the part of those connected with the West-India interest no objection would be made, he hoped that Gentlemen unconnected with the colonies would not throw any difficulties in his way. He begged to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the commercial state of the West-India colonies, and to report their observations and opinion thereupon to the House.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, this discussion was one of great moment, and the consequences
178
to which it might lead were of great importance; and, though he felt most anxious in respect of the subject before the House, he was so fatigued, both in body and mind, as to be utterly unable to enter into the question. He could not, however, conceal his surprise at the circumstance of the right hon. Gentleman having thought it right, after repeated postponements, evening after evening, to bring forward, at that hour of the night, a question which, whatever might be its results to the interests of a large body of this country, must deeply and materially affect their comforts and feelings, In the first instance, they had been called upon to decide a measure with respect to the sugar-refiners. Great doubts were entertained by several parties interested as to the working of that measure, and he should have stated some doubts of that description, if he could have found an opportunity of presenting to the House a petition with which he had been intrusted by a most respectable body of merchants in the great and important town of Liverpool; other subjects, however, which had occupied the attention of the House had prevented him from doing so. But would this Committee be efficient to answer the purposes for which it was intended? It would not; because the delay that would be occasioned by such an inquiry would be so great, that it would be impossible to take any measure for some time after that Committee had been appointed. He would not say what motives had actuated the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in refusing the appointment of a Committee when it was applied for, and might have been effective. It was said, that his Majesty's Government were willing to grant an inquiry into the commercial state of the West-India colonies. Could any man believe, that at this period of the Session there could be time to effect an adjustment between two contending interests to make any useful inquiry into the general state of the commercial interests of the West-India colonies, or to adopt any measure for their relief? The right hon. Gentleman could not suppose it possible; he must know, that before that Committee could have before it the evidence on which it would be necessary to make up its mind, the period would arrive at which the House would have adjourned. The Committee would have met once or twice; and that would have been the only progress made in the inquiry into

179
West-Indian affairs. This Motion was either an absolute delusion, or Government must have some object in view in adopting this course of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman said, that if he were prepared to suggest a mode of relief, he would not now ask for the appointment of a Committee. Very likely not; but he did not come down to that House to move for a Committee of this kind, unprepared with a general view of the course which the inquiry was to take, and what was, in his opinion, likely to be the result of it. On a motion like this, they had a right to hear some grounds of justification, and a general view of the case. Whatever might be the views of the right hon. Gentleman, this would be considered by all parties interested as a gross delusion, and as a mode of getting rid, for the moment, of the troublesome and embarrassing questions attending an investigation of the case of this suffering part of the community, who would now add to all those feelings of mental anxiety to which the commercial part of this country must be exposed, the greater disappointment to find, that instead of a fair and honest compliance upon points in which they were deeply interested, the House was about to proceed in this way, without inquiry, and upon party interests. He would oppose any motion that his Majesty's Government might think necessary for the relief of this portion of the community, brought forward at that hour of the morning.
Mr. Keith Douglaswished to state, that the opposition he made was grounded on this fact—that the subject had not been fully argued with regard to the causes of the distress under which the West-India interests laboured. No man who had looked into this subject with any degree of attention, could fail to be conscious of the difficulties under which those interests laboured. What he proposed to do was this—when that House resolved itself into a Committee—to move certain resolutions indicative of the state of distress which existed. He could not refrain from saying, that a subject of this importance ought not to be brought forward at a time like this, when every indication had been given of an approaching termination of the Session; and when, in point of fact, it would seem as if this inquiry were to be instituted by Government, without any serious intention of applying a remedy.
180
It was true there were great difficulties in this case, and there might be every disposition to meet them fairly and honestly. It was extremely difficult for the former Government to bring forward this question, and so it was for the present; not so much in respect of removing the distress, as in removing those party feelings which interposed and mixed themselves up with the question. The late Government were disposed to accede to a proposition that was made to them to refer to the House of Lords the question of the whole state of society in the West Indies, in order that the public might be informed of the real situation of these colonies—information which might have the effect of doing away with a great deal of the existing feeling on the subject. The matter had been postponed by his Majesty's Government from time to time; but he would put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether, if he really wished to improve the condition of these interests, the Government had not better allow the question to come before the House of Lords, where unfair prejudices might, by investigation, be removed, and this House be placed in a situation to meet fairly the commercial difficulties that attended the question?
Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. Gentleman assumed, that because they were anxious to proceed with this subject to-night, therefore the Session was near a close. He hoped it was not. But even supposing the hon. Gentleman to be right, his experience of the business of Parliament must convince him of the advantage which would arise from the appointment of this Committee. Therefore, in proposing it, and pressing it upon the adoption of the House that night, they were not guilty of the delusion which the honurable Gentleman attributed to them. Every body must admit the distress of the West-India colonies. The hon. Gentleman said, that the reason why they had not proposed a remedy was, because they were actuated by party feeling. Such an accusation ought not to come from the other side of the House. When he proposed this Committee he did so with the most sincere views of doing good.
Mr. Irvingsaid, that supposing this Committee to be appointed, its proceedings could not, by possibility, give rise to any benefit to the colonies this year. He agreed, however, with the noble Lord, that its inquiries might ultimately prove advantageous; and therefore, in opposition

181
to many hon. Members on that side of the House, with whom he had usually acted, he should give his vote for the appointment of this Committee.
Mr. Burgecould not be a party to the final adjustment of this question at such an hour as the present. If the noble Lord was right in his supposition that, the Session would yet continue for some time, where was the necessity of pressing for the appointment of this Committee at such an hour as three o'clock in the morning. He begged to move that the Debate be adjourned till the next day.
Mr. Bernalregretted extremely the light in which his hon. and learned friend viewed the proposition for the appointment of this Committee. He regretted also, that an incidental discussion of this kind should have arisen upon the question, because it was calculated to convey any other than a favourable impression to the minds of the parties interested. He could not perceive the policy of resisting the present proposition of the Government, although he certainly agreed with those who thought that the best means of eliciting the causes of the West-India distress, would be by a Committee appointed by the House of Lords, because a Committee selected from that body would investigate the subject with greater calmness and temper than could possibly be expected from any body of Members selected from that Mouse, However, as information upon the subject was necessary, and as a means of acquiring it was now offered, the West-India colonies would not entertain a very favourable opinion of the sincerity of that House to remedy the evils under which they were suffering, if that, offer were rejected. He would not inquire whether the Committee was likely to sit for a month or for much longer; but he saw no earthly reason why the question of its appointment should be postponed. As for discussion, he himself could speak for five hours upon the question, and many others could do the same; but this was quite unnecessary. As to the assertion that the members of the Government had this night deliberately stood up in their places to submit a proposition for the purpose of deluding such great interests as those of the West. Indies, he would refute it as unfounded, and as utterly unworthy of those who had advanced it. Knowing his noble friend, in pressing for the appointment of this Committee to be actuated by no other than an honest sincerity
182
of purpose, he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. Humedid not understand his hon. and learned friend to object to the Motion for the appointment of the Committee, but merely to its being brought forward at this hour of the night. He wished to know whether it was intended that this Committee should take into its consideration the propriety of sending out certain Orders in Council to the West-India colonies? What he complained of was, that the Government, by their interference, instead of doing those colonies any good, were, in point of fact, bringing about their ruin; therefore, he wished to know, whether certain Orders in Council, which his Majesty's Government had in contemplation to issue, would be delayed until the appointment of this Committee? As to the noble Lord's sincerity, he did not doubt it for a moment; he believed him to be as anxious as any man living to relieve the distresses of the colonies.
Mr. Courtenaysupported the motion of the hon. and learned member for Eye, for the adjournment of this Debate; at the same time, he perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Bramber in the propriety of appointing the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman had moved for, even if this Session should very soon terminate. His reason for supporting the Motion of his hon. and learned friend behind him, was, that in all his experience he never know a Committee of that House, appointed without previous debate, which did not fail of attaining the object for which it was appointed. This was the result of the experience of many year; therefore, without the slightest hostility to the noble Lord, or to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had submitted, he concurred in the propriety of postponing the further consideration of the subject till next day.
Mr. Burgevindicated himself from a charge which he thought extremely unjust— namely, that, in proposing the adjournment of the Debate upon this question, he was not acting with fairness towards the Government. He never accused the noble Lord of delusion; but understanding that it was his intention to bring forward this Motion to-night, he had intimated to him the inconvenience of doing so, in consequence of the absence of many who were anxious to make some observations upon

183
it. He did not object to the appointment of the Committee, but to the Motion being pressed forward at that late hour.
Lord Althorpsaid, that when he thought of the appointment of this Committee, it undoubtedly did not occur to him, as a desireable course, that they should previously have a long debate on the affairs of the West Indies. All that could be advanced in such a debate would be much better reserved for the consideration of the Committee, by whom it would be treated with greater calmness and temper. It was upon that ground that he postponed the Motion for the appointment of the Committee till that evening; it was upon that ground that he persevered in the Motion now. In answer to the question which was put by the hon. member for Middlesex, he would state, that it certainly was not his intention to enter into the question between master and slave in this Committee. That was a separate question, and demanded a separate consideration. Therefore, as the Order in Council to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, applied principally to that question, it ought not to come under the consideration of this Committee.
Sir Charles Forbes, as a friend to the West-India interests, could only say, that he should be grad to see this Committee appointed. It would be a pity that any means of inquiry, particularly when offered by the Government, should be resisted.
Mr. Ewartexpressed his full concurrence in the propriety of the Motion for the appointment of this Committee. It was highly desirable that an inquiry should take place.
Mr. Irvingasked the noble Lord, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to send out to the West Indies the Order in Council which had been lately prepared, either now or in the course of some short time? He asked, because he was convinced that, whenever it might be sent, the colonies would not submit to it.
Lord Howickthought this no convenient time to discuss an Order in Council which had not yet been prepared. It was the intention of Government, with the shortest possible delay, to pass that Order in Council, with such alterations and improvements as might seem necessary, and then to recommend it to the adoption of the colonies.
Mr. Humesaid, if the Government were anxious to excite a civil war between the
184
colonies and the mother country, they could not do better than adopt this Order in Council. He had not seen one individual connected with the West Indies who did not protest against such an Order being sent out. With respect to the question more immediately before the House, in his opinion it was most improper to press so important a matter forward after three o'clock in the morning. He joined with those, therefore, who wished to postpone the further debate upon the question.
Mr. Burgesaid, if he had abstained from entering into the question of thi Order in Council, it was not because he was insensible to its importance, and to its impropriety, but because he thought that the present was not the most convenient opportunity for discussing it. His only object in rising now was, to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the Debate upon the question of the appointment of the Committee proposed by the noble Lord. His sole object in doing so was to prevent the possibility of its being supposed that he would stand in the way of any inquiry being made into the state of the West Indies.
Amendment withdrawn.—Main Question agreed to, and Select Committee appointed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Brought up from the House of Commons and read a first time; the Vestries Bill; the Whiteboy Act Amendment Bill; the Public Hospitals (Ireland) Bill; the Customs' Fees Regulations Bill; the Payment of Wages in Money Bill; and the Payment of Wages in Goods Repeal Bill. Referred to a Select Committee; the Cotton Factories.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform. By the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, from the Incorporation of Weavers, Cupar; and of the Inhabitants of Auchtermuchty:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of Berks:—By Earl GOWER, from the Inhabitants of Invergordon and Giggleswick, and from the Staffordshire Potteries:—By Lord ABERCROMBIE, from Inhabitants of Dundee:—By the Marquis of WESTMEATH, from the Inhabitants of Kildalkey:—By the Earl of FIFE, from Keith, in Banffshire:—By the Duke of ARGYLE, from Campbeltown, Argyleshire:—By Earl GREY, from Glendall Ward, Northumberland; Staines; Seven Oaks, in Kent; and from High Street, St. Giles's, signed by all the Inhabitants except five:—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Huddersfield, signed by 7,500 Persons; from the Ward of Bishops'gate:—Buglanton; Deddington; Dunkeld; Selby; St. Giles, Camberwell; the Protestant Freemen of Galway, St. Clement's Danes, Anstey and Chorley:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Rothsay, in the Isle of Bute:—By Lord DACRE, from Cheshunt and Amersham. Against Reform. By the Marquis of SALISBURY, from Hitchin, praying that the Reform Bill may not pass without due securities being taken that the Constitution shall remain unimpaired:—By the Earl of FINGAL, from the Corporation, Clergy, and Justices of the Peace, Galway, praying that the Galway Franchise Bill may pass into a law:—By the Marquis of HEADFORT, from the Protestant Freemen of Galway Corporation:—By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the resident Protestant Free Burgesses of Galway:—By the Marquis of WESTMEATH, from the Town of Galway:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the resident Freemen of Galway.

FEES IN COMMON LAW COURTS.
The Earl of Shaftesbury The Earl of Shaftesbury moved the third reading of the Fees in Courts of Law Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, if any sound objection could be made to this Bill he should have no objection to have it reconsidered. According to a statement made last night by a noble Earl, this Bill would unjustly affect the interests of some of the Welsh Judges, whose case he should not object to have considered.
Earl Cawdorsaid, that the Law Commissioners were not authorized to grant compensation for fees which were not enforced by Act of Parliament, or by a prescription of fifty years. Now it was notorious that fees were received and considered legal which did not come within either of these heads. The emoluments of some of the Welsh Judges depended entirely on such fees, and by this Act they would not be entitled to any compensation, which was not, he supposed, intended by the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorthought there should be some limit of time fixed, and if

59
injustice were done, a Special Report might be made by the Commissioners. He thought the Welsh Judges did not come within the meaning of the Bill.
Lord Tenterdensaid, in order to arrive at a proper understanding with respect to this Bill, it was necessary to consider the circumstances which rendered its adoption necessary. The Common-law Commission having determined that the abolition of certain fees was desirable, and that a compensation in lieu should be made to those entitled to receive them, a Commission was consequently appointed to determine those points, and that commission considered that under the Act 1 Will. 4, c. 58, which had been passed for the purpose of regulating the receipt and appropriation of fees and emoluments receiveable by the Officers of the superior Courts of Common Law, they were bound only to entertain the claims of such persons as could shew they were entitled to these fees by authority of Parliament or some other legal authority. This necessarily led to considerable difficulty, and it was, therefore, thought adviseable to bring in the present Act, in order that such fees should be established as legal fees when there had been an enjoyment for a given period; and that period, after much consideration had been fixed at fifty years.
Bill read a third time and passed.

REFORM—PETITIONS.
Lord Kingpresented Petitions in favour of the Reform Bill, from a parish in Halifax, Yorkshire, signed by 1,100 persons, from the Out-dwellers in the port of Dover, who expressed themselves willing to resign their existing rights, in order to facilitate the passing of this Bill, and from several other places. The petitioners also prayed that the office of Warden of the Cinque Ports might be abolished, as the influence of that officer was opposed to Reform.
The Duke of Wellington, referring to a passage in the petition from the Dover voters, said, that he did not think that the office of Warden of the Cinque Ports had anything to do with the rights of the freeholders in Dover or elsewhere. An Act of Parliament was in existence which prevented the Warden from having anything to do with the election of a Member of Parliament, and he could not see what the office of Warden had to do with this Bill. The Warden of the Cinque Ports had the command of all the fortresses on that
60
coast, and had important duties, pregnant with advantage to the country, to perform. He did not know whether the abolition of such duties would be one of the necessary changes expected from this Bill, but it was very likely that it might be one of the results of it.
The Earl of Glengallpresented a Petition from Tipperary in favour of the Reform Bill. He wished, in doing so, to take the opportunity to state his reasons for voting against the second reading of the Reform Bill. He was a decided friend to a Reform in the Representation of the people of England, but he conceived that a very wide difference existed between voting against Reform in general, and voting against this Bill. He for one was most desirous to see a moderate measure of Reform introduced, and he was sure that such a measure, if it were brought forward, would meet not only with the general approbation of that House, but with the approval of the great majority of intelligent persons in the three kingdoms.
Lord Belhavenpresented a Petition from the corporation of Haddington, in favour of the Reform Bill. The petitioners were persons who were interested in the present state of things, but they were willing to sacrifice such interests for the public good.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that he had been long aware that there was a desire in Scotland for a Reform of the Representation there, but the Bill now before the House had nothing to do with that part of the United Kingdom. He was anxious to state on this occasion, that which he had intended to state last night, but which he had omitted to mention—namely, to express his conviction of the necessity of Reform in Scotland. He had never had, at any time, a doubt that if the principle of Reform was to be adopted at all, its application to Scotland was essentially necessary. He had on former occasions resisted Reform for Scotland, because he was of opinion that it would be impossible to introduce it without its being followed by a Reform of the Representation in England. If Scotland had remained an independent kingdom, and had flourished as it had done, the present system of Representation would never have continued there. It was now absolutely and essentially necessary that some kind of Parliamentary Reform should be

61
introduced into Scotland, so as to give the counties there a national system of popular Representation, founded, unlike the Representation proposed to be introduced by the Bill now before them, really upon property, and to open the franchise in the close boroughs in Scotland to the inhabitants generally of such places. He was anxious to state his sentiments on this point, that they should not be misunderstood by his countrymen.
The Earl of Camperdownwas glad that the noble Earl had made this concession. It was true that he had before admitted the necessity for some concession; but he had never before made the admission in such distinct, strong, and direct terms. One thing was certain, that the people of Scotland made no distinction between their own Reform and the Bill now before their Lordships. They understood perfectly that the fate of this Bill would decide the question of Reform as to them; and therefore, if this Bill should be rejected, the rejection would be received by them with alarm and dismay; and the noble Earl might be well assured that they would look more to that rejection than to his declarations, and would be filled with alarm and dread that the present system would in substance be continued. When the Bill of Reform for Scotland came to that House—if ever it should come there—he would be ready to meet his noble friend on the subject of its details. The noble Duke (Wellington) opposite had, on a former night, adverted to the state of Scotland, and had truly said that it was in a most flourishing condition; but if the noble Duke meant to say that this was owing to the state of the Representation in Scotland, that position would lead to the extreme point, that the best Government was that where there was no Representation at all. While Scotland remained a separate kingdom, it was well known in what a wretched condition it was under its own system. But when it became united with England, it acquired the benefit of the English Representation, which, with all its faults was far superior to that of Scotland. However unfavourable the terms of the Union might have been to the people of Scotland, they unquestionably gained an immense advantage in the English Representation. Before the Union, Scotland was distracted with religious parties. But after the Revolution, and about the time of the Union, the question
62
of the established form of Church-government had been settled. The clergy had, ever since the Reformation, on the whole, done their duties admirably, and by forming a connecting link between the highest and the humblest classes, they had strengthened all the ties of society. The parish schools had also been most efficient in diffusing the blessings of education. What had been the result of all this? The knowledge diffused among the people made them see clearly the faults of their system, and, therefore, they felt more intensely than the inhabitants of any other part of the empire the necessity for Reform. The old system might have been good for the time; but was totally unsuited to existing circumstances. He thought it his duty to make these few remarks on the observations of the noble Duke with respect to Scotland.
The Duke of Wellingtonconsidered it was quite irregular to allude, on the presentation of a petition, to what he said in the course of a debate on a former evening, which was to be resumed this night, and when any noble Lord would have the more regular opportunity of replying to what had fallen from him. However, as the noble Lord had spoken of that part of his observation which applied to Scotland, he would beg leave to inform him, that what he said was, that Scotland was the most prosperous part of his Majesty's dominions; and a country exceedingly well governed. He did not advert at all to the state of its Representation, as it had been under the Government of his Majesty, in common with the other parts of the United Kingdom, and of the King's dominions, and under the protection of the Parliament, the Lords and Commons of Great Britain. No doubt it had advanced in prosperity in a greater degree than almost any part of the United Kingdom, but though he had stated that, he had taken care to avoid giving an opinion about its Representation, or whether there should be a Reform in Scotland or not. He had admitted, that when the subject of Representation was under consideration, that of Scotland must be included as a part of the whole empire, but he made no admissions for Scotland to the exclusion of any other part of Great Britain.
Lord Belhavenbegged to remind their Lordships, that the petitioners did not pray their Lordships to pass the Scotch Reform

63
Bill, as that was not now before them. But as to Representation, Scotland had no Representation at all. It was mere nomination. His noble friend (the Earl of Haddington) had said, that he was anxious to have an elective franchise founded on property, and not such a franchise as it was proposed to establish by this Bill. Well, then, his noble friend ought to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and endeavour to amend it; and then, if his noble friend could prove to him that the system proposed by this Bill was not founded on property, he would not vote for its passing in its present state.
The Earl of Haddingtonhad spoken of the Scotch Bill, and not of this.
Lord Belhaven: well, then, if his noble friend could prove that the system proposed to be established by the Scotch Bill was not founded on property, he would not vote for it.
The Earl of Roseberywished to take that opportunity, as being the earliest which had presented itself, of corroborating the opinion of the noble Lord near him, that any prosperity which had fallen to Scotland might fairly be ascribed to other causes than the state of its Representation. It might be most justly asserted, that it had reached its present pitch of prosperity, not in consequence of its Representative system, but in spite of it. If any proof of that assertion were requisite, it might be selected from the fact, established in the pages of its history, that so long as its inhabitants were living exclusively under the form of Representation which they now joined in condemning, no country in Europe exhibited greater wretchedness or more intolerable misgovernment than Scotland. If it had subsequently increased in knowledge and wealth—if it had of late years greatly accumulated the elements of social happiness—it was only because of the union of its political destinies with England, a land to which nature had been more bountiful, and which had the fortune to be blessed with more liberal institutions.
The Marquis of Londonderry The Marquis of Londonderry rose to lay before their Lordships a petition against the Ministerial measure of Reform, but in favour of some more safe and expedient plan, from certain of the Gentry, Clergy, Merchants, Bankers, and Residents of the town of Belfast and its neighbourhood. The noble Marquis begged to state, that when their Lordships heard the
64
petition and the circumstances connected with it, they would find that there were no grounds for asserting, that there had not been a considerable degree of reaction and difference of opinion in the public mind respecting the Reform Bill since the dissolution of the late Parliament, and even since the opening of the present. The petition he held in his hand had not been agreed to at a meeting assembled for the purpose of voting it, but, on the contrary, it was assembled to vote a petition favourable to the Bill. A noble Marquis, to whom a great part of the town of Belfast belonged (the Marquis of Donegal), and a noble Earl, the predecessor of a noble Duke in the office of Postmaster-General (Earl O'Neill), were the dispensers of wealth and favour in that place. It happened that these noble Lords, up to a late period, always professed the sentiments of Orangeism, and their influence tended to keep down the free, liberal, and independent opinions of the town of Belfast. Changes, however, unfortunately would at times come over the best of characters, and over these noble Lords had passed a very rapid change indeed, for he believed that they ranged on the side of the late Government when Toryism predominated. They had now, he believed, become converts to other doctrines, and ranged on that which was called the liberal side of the question, and, as was natural under such circumstances, they endeavoured, as far as was possible, to collect a numerous meeting, with the view of getting up a petition in favour of the Reform Bill. What, he would ask, had been the result of the meeting summoned by the sovereign of Belfast, a near relation of the noble Marquis, who had also changed his sentiments on the measure? That gentleman came provided with all the power his situation afforded, and the meeting assembled in the great square of the town. Well, what, did the inhabitants of that notorious, Radical and democratical town? What was the result of the requisition, numerously signed, requesting a public meeting to vote a petition in favour of the Reform Bill? He would inform their Lordships of what had occurred, as reported in one of the local journals. The noble Marquis proceeded to read a Belfast newspaper, which stated, that the mass of persons at the meeting had answered the interrogatories of the Chief Magistrate's speech as to the

65
duty of Lords and Commons with respect to the Reform Bill, by clamorously declaring, that the former would throw it out, and, that the latter ought to have done so. Noble Lords, continued the Marquis, would see, from what he had read, that there was a strong feeling of dissent abroad with regard to that description of Reform proposed by Ministers. The petition he had the honour to present prayed for moderate Reform. It further intimated, that there was a strong body of the community in favour of such Reform; but while it stated that, it also advanced the most emphatic reasons of opposition, point by point, to that most Revolutionary Bill. The petition was then read by the clerk, and the noble Marquis observed that, after hearing these sentiments, noble Lords were not to assert, that there had been no reaction with respect to the measure before the House.
The Earl of Gosfordhad not been in the House during the speech of the noble Marquis; but he had heard the petition, and felt called upon to express his sentiments on the subject to which it referred. He had the best opportunity of becoming acquainted with the state of public feeling in Belfast; and he knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the wealth and respectability of that town were decidedly and unequivocally in favour of the measure of Reform.
Lord Templemorebegged pardon for intruding on the House, but after the remarks that were made on a near relative of his, who owned the chief part of the property of the town of Belfast, he must say, that it would have been more consistent if the noble Marquis opposite had given some notice of his intention to allude to his noble relative.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he had written to him that morning.
Lord Templemorethought, that the noble Marquis was bound not to make those statements in the absence of the person whom he thought proper to arraign; but he would leave the character of his noble relative in the hands of the House, as he felt that his political conduct needed no defence from him. He could further say, from some knowledge of the town of Belfast, that the sentiments of the majority of its inhabitants were in favour of the Bill, though, at the same time, he begged it to be understood, that he did not throw any imputation on the names that were
66
subscribed to the petition presented by the noble Marquis.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas convinced, that the petition he presented contained the true sentiments of the town of Belfast on the subject of Reform. He admitted that the people were in favour of Reform; but there was a great difference between a Reform and that contained in the present Bill. He did not mean to throw the slightest reflection on the relative of the noble Lord; but he had stated the circumstances he did, to show that, though the noble Lords he alluded to at one time endeavoured to keep down the liberal feeling, they were at present doing all they could to excite it in favour of the Bill. Being on his legs, he begged leave to say, that he had received a letter from Bristol, informing him that the communication he had received from thence, and read to the House when an illustrious Duke presented a petition in favour of Reform, was written under n misrepresentation, and that its assertions were unfounded. He felt it to be his duty at the time to read the communication to the House, but he felt equal readiness now to admit that he was misinformed.
The Duke of Sussexfelt satisfied, that whatever statement the noble Marquis had made was derived from some individual in whose accuracy he had confided.
The Earl of Eldonbegged leave to say a few words before they went into a debate upon the Reform Bill. He must state, that one principal reason he had for not going into the measure was, that they were called upon to decide as to England, without knowing what was to be dune with Ireland and Scotland, for no man could deny, that a change in the Representation of England must have a great effect upon the other portions of the empire, inasmuch as the Peers and Representatives of the three kingdoms were now combined in one united Parliament. On this question, therefore, he wished to observe, they ought not to come to a hasty conclusion with one part, without knowing how it would affect the whole question; he regretted, therefore, that their time should be consulted by arguments relating to the Scotch and Irish Bills, taken separately. They had matter enough regularly before them, and it was not wise for them to enter into arguments upon questions upon which, constitutionally speaking, they were uninformed.
Petition to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—SECOND READING—AD- JOURNED DEBATE—FOURTH DAY.
The Earl of Falmouthwas well aware of the disadvantages under which he rose to address the House, after the excellent speeches of other noble Lords who had preceded him, but he was anxious to record his opinion upon a subject of such unprecedented moment. He felt a due respect for the talents of those who had followed the noble Earl at the head of the Treasury, in supporting the Bill; but he did not think they had added anything which ought to induce such an assemblage as he was addressing, to let it go to a second reading. A noble Viscount (Melbourne) seemed to confess, that the difficulty in the way of finding seats for members of the Government was, under such a Bill, insuperable, for he talked of a supplementary measure as the remedy; and here was One of the proofs given by the Government itself, that it would be final! Then a noble Marquis (Lansdown), to whom he had often listened with admiration and instruction, had avoided, with superior skill, the real point at issue—namely, whether anything like such a change was warranted by experience or example. He had told its opponents, indeed, that they had adopted the principle of Reform, and that their supposed projects were mere quackeries; but he had given no authority, from the past or the present, in favour of the Bill, and he had not shown, that his own panacea would cure the alleged evils. Another noble Viscount (Goderich) followed, but he, too, in what might be very good merely as a speech, had made a similar failure, and had been becomingly answered by a reference from his noble friend (Lord Haddington) to the recorded opinions of their joint leader, Mr. Canning. And then came the noble Earl (Radnor), who had closed the debate of the former evening. Having listened to his remarks attentively, he really could not believe they had any other object than to keep the House in good humour, and relieve the tædium of Debate, for they appeared to him to quarrel with each other irreconcileably, though the confusion that prevailed in a part of them, between the moral and the physical, certainly made it somewhat difficult to remember and reply to them. First, he disliked all changes, but this dislike led him to advocate the most sweeping changes ever proposed.
68
Then he was convinced, however, that all things in this world must change; for instance, we must all grow old. Now he (Lord Falmouth) would not contradict that, but he hoped their Lordships were not to be put in another schedule A, and utterly annihilated, merely because they might be growing old. Then the noble Earl said, the Radicals would be satisfied, but in the next breath he told the House, Mr. Hunt would not be satisfied. If he had seen the noble Earl in his place, he should like to have asked him whether he himself was satisfied; for he had said, when the Bill was first brought, forward, "I am a Radical, and nothing but the Vote by Ballot will satisfy me." He would tell the House why the noble Earl would not be satisfied. The noble Earl had written a letter, not long ago, to a Mr. Whittle at Manchester, which he held in his hand as printed in Cobbett's Register. In that letter he said, that he approved of every thing Mr. Cobbett had ever declared upon the subject, and that he had intended to have brought him into Parliament for Downton; that borough of which the noble Earl said, that he himself was the constituent unit, and where he had a part of a ditch that gave a vote. Did he then mean to compliment his friend by making him the Representative of a ditch? But Mr. Cobbett, unfortunately for the noble Earl, had addressed the people of Manchester in print. The noble Earl entirely approved of Mr. Cobbett. How far Mr. Cobbett was satisfied might be seen by that address. The noble Earl advocated the Ballot, yet the noble Earl assured them, that both himself and the Radicals were satisfied with this Bill, which, with all its radicalism, had not gone quite so far as the Vote by Ballot. He could only look upon the noble Earl's speech as one of propitiation towards his noble leader, who some weeks ago had given him a pretty severe lecture, when he distinctly said, he was dissatisfied, and could not be otherwise without the Vote by Ballot. With regard to the speech of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he had heard it with astonishment and regret, as containing all that could be urged in favour of the violent and dangerous measure, for which he had confessed that, he more than any other man, was responsible. He never heard a more striking illustration of the difference between an oratorical effort, and that sound reasoning which it ought

69
to contain. That younger politicians, unused to power, should think themselves qualified, when suddenly thrown into office, to write down old Constitutions, and create new ones, or that those who had at once consented to abandon the principles of the deceased lender, towards whom they had professed an almost, filial affection—that these politicians should rash into mere experiments, even upon the most vital subjects, might not be very surprising; but, although he had searched in vain in the mass of debates elsewhere for a single statesmanlike argument to recommend them, he had to the last been unable to persuade himself that the noble Earl too, scholar as he was, historian as he was known to be, would not be able to point out a single example, ancient or modern, of such a constitution as the Bill, if passed, would engender. True it was, that the arguments used elsewhere, had there put on their gawdy gowns; they had been clothed in the language for which the noble Earl was so distinguished, and which might well form a veil impervious to common eyes; but to their Lordships it would not be impenetrable; and he would confidently ask them, whether, when stripped of the eloquence in which his speech had been arrayed, it was not, like all the rest, a speech of unsupported theory, and unproved expediency. Where were his statesmanlike appeals to history for so sudden, so desperate a change? Where were his precedents? In England, in the seventeenth century, or in France, in these our days? In the past or in the present? In the records of nations, or even the opinions of eminent individuals? He had quoted. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox as friends to Reform; but had he ventured to say, that either of those great, men had ever dreamt of such a measure as that? He should have shown, that an assembly exclusively democratic ever did or could work well in conjunction with a Monarchy and an Aristocracy; that the power of the public purse alone in the hands of such an assembly must not inevitably destroy the necessary balance. Had he done so? or, by way of perfecting his admirable invention, did he mean, that that House should share in the control of the public purse? His whole course of reasoning was obviously incompatible with the existence of the British Constitution. He (Lord Falmouth) would say, as you want a republic, in God's name have one, but do not affront the understandings
70
of rational men, by asserting that this Bill is, for the preservation of a system composed of King, Lords, and Commons. America, the darling example of the demagogues, had a Republic about as old as the noble Earl's (Grey) political life. They had in England a Monarchy in its present form (dating from 1688), about three times as old. He would say, choose between them if you please, but as to the anomalies that are so objectionable, recollect, America has also her anomalies. In the American Constitution, before any change could be even proposed, the assent of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress most be obtained, and afterwards it could not be adopted without the concurrence of three-fourths of the federal States. Here, then, was a conservative principle in a pure democracy. The framers of the American Constitution knew well the principle of change to be found in the fickleness of the people, and that violent changes are the greatest of national calamities. Though they preferred a Republic to the Monarchy under which they were smarting, they guarded against entire dependance upon popular feeling; they adopted the principle of settlement, and they did wisely. But what would this Bill do here? Would it settle any thing? would it not unsettle every thing? he was astonished that any man could read it without seeing a principle of mutability in every page of it. What did the Americans themselves say of it? His noble friend (Lord Haddington) had read some passages last evening from an American work, published in July, at Boston, and called, The Prospect of Reform in Europe, proving, that this Bill had either no principle at all, or that it was founded on what had been aptly called the Rule of Three system. Those passages were unanswerable, but if he had gone further he would have found others still more applicable to the question as affecting the Monarchy, the House of Lords, and the Church Establishment. It was a republican book, of no common ability, remarkable for deep observation, and the closest reasoning. He would therefore beg permission to read from it a little further than his noble friend had gone. [The noble Earl then read several passages, which forcibly argued that this Bill would be destructive of the three branches of the Constitution, observing, that the work should be good authority, as coming from an American, so competent in all respects to deal with the

71
subject, and that whilst this American rejoiced at the prospect of Reform in England, he ridiculed the assertions that a Republic must not be the natural and inevitable consequence of passing such a Bill.] It would be useless to comment at length upon the details of the Bill. Like other noble Lords, he should avoid doing so, because it had been clearly demonstrated, both in the preceding debates, and in some of the ablest pamphlets ever written, that the whole was one mass of injustice and inpracticability. The disfranchising clauses it was impossible to justify; but supposing them to be tolerated, there was a striking vice in the enfranchising clauses. Had the noble Earl shewn, that a delegated Representation was ever a part of the Constitution? One of the essential features of ours was, that it was general, but this Bill, if passed, would make it almost entirely local. This was further lost sight of in what he would call the departmental Frenchified provisions; and were they to be duped or frightened into imitating what had produced one continued scene of change, confusion, and misery in revolutionised France? Rather let them profit, whilst it was not yet too late, by her baneful example. The noble Earl had quoted the oases of the Scotch and Irish Unions to justify disfranchisement. He was afraid it was not easy to defend all the details of those great measures, but their sins were perhaps unavoidable; they had consolidated the interests of the British empire most advantageously; and after all, the noble Earl's whole argument on this point went only to justify injustice by injustice. He had referred to our ancient history to shew, that this Bill proposed a return to the old usage of the Constitution; but he did not shew how or when. He could not do so, for he must well know, that when the king, in those times, issued or withdrew his writs, they were often petitioned against by the enfranchised towns; that population and wealth never were the only guides for enfranchisement, and that writs were often granted as favours to individuals. The fact was, that the Constitution, in its present, as he (Lord Falmouth) would assert, enviable form, had its proper date in the events of 1688. Since then it was, that the charters had been held sacred, and, as their Lordships knew, there had been no instance of disfranchisement without a proved delinquency—not delinquency established
72
by the dictum of the noble Earl, but proved at the bar of that House; and if it was not so to be proved, he would ask, what became of the great principle of British law, that all men are to be held innocent until proved to be guilty? As to the franchise being, not property but a trust, he would take it to be a trust; but it was a beneficial trust; and he would ask, whether they were prepared to take every such trust, for instance, the advowsons of church livings, by so arbitrary and unjust a Bill? But then, said the noble Earl, in substance, it is the will of the people, and he had given a history of the period since he entered upon office, by way of proving how calmly and rationally the people had determined upon it. The noble Duke (Wellington) had, to be sure, given rather a different version of this history, and he too would say something upon that head. Were the late returns to Parliament, indeed, the result of calm deliberation? What was the fact? Was not the exercise of the royal prerogative, which the noble Earl advised at such a moment of unprecedented excitement, of all others the least likely to produce the results of calm deliberation? Promises of cheap bread and high pay were held out to a distressed and unemployed populace. The King's name was used, or rather abused, to an extent before unheard of; and the farmers were told, that they should have from the Reform Bill, not a composition or a commutation, but the abolition of tithes. This might not have been authorised by the Government, but it had not been counteracted, or even discouraged, as it ought to have been. He should always think the advice to exercise the royal prerogative at such a moment, the most unjustifiable ever given by any Minister of the Crown. Ostensibly it was to ascertain the feelings of the people, as if that had not been expressed through their Representatives in a constitutional way. Really, by the most industrious excitement, by the Press, by the most inflammatory speeches, coming from men who, with the support of Government, appeared to have its authority; and by all other means that party-spirit could suggest, a popular cry was unnaturally invited and promoted, and the people were thrown into a state of insanity by the most shameful delusions. What was the result? The return of tried, experienced Commoners, who had not only by property

73
the largest, stake in the welfare of the State, but whose known integrity, talents, and long services, were unimpeachable? No! Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir Thomas Acland, Mr. Bankes, the father of the House of Commons and many others, whose characters could not be raised by any eulogy of his, were rejected; and men more in the situation of pledged delegates than independent. Members were sent up to support so violent a change. Blindly and recklessly had they gone to their work, disfranchising large county-towns against the principles laid down by the Government itself, and refusing to discriminate in the face of all consistency, equity, and reason. But after all, what had been the immense majority of votes in these calm deliberate elections? Was it a third, or a fourth, or a sixth, or an eighth? Would it be believed, that notwithstanding the violence and delusion practised upon the people, the majority in the fourteen counties that had been contested had not been one-twentieth of the aggregate votes. The comparative numbers were 16,280 for, and 17,866 against, the Bill, together 34,146; the majority being about 1/21 of the whole. Upon this fact all comment was unnecessary. Then, was there no re-action? If the last elections were to prove a feeling for the, Bill, were those that bad since taken place of no value against it? Why, every one of the recent elections, Dublin, Weymouth, and others, had gone against it, and the fact would, ere long, be proved beyond a doubt, that the cry for such a Bill as that was not the result of calm deliberation, but of the most unnatural excitement. Then, if the noble Earl had not proved that his Bill was the uninvited, spontaneous desire of the people, was there anything else to justify it? Was it to be found in the exclusion of the commonalty from every preferment to which their talents or their services could entitle them? He saw near him his most respected and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon), whose eminence through a large portion of his admirable and most useful life belied the supposition. He would appeal to the learned Lord (Brougham) on the Woolsack, who, at least, he presumed, would not contradict him in that, appeal; and when he looked to the Right Reverend bench, he was only reminded how superfluous it, was to say one word more on this part of the subject. The vices and grievances of the system had been artfully held
74
up to entrap the honesty of those who were unmindful that nothing human could be perfect; but the principal vice was not in the system, it was in the vanity and presumption of those who lived under it—that vanity which taught men to despise the admirable institutions they enjoyed, and treat the memory and the work of those who had gone before them with the most arrogant, ingratitude. They were trifling with the rich inheritance which their fathers had handed down to them, and like reckless gamblers, were hazarding upon one desperate throw the rich accumulation of their laborious lives. He was one of those who thought it more for the comfort and happiness of mankind, that, Governments, though necessarily imperfect, should be considered as settled, than that the vagaries of theorists, and the wickedness of desperate men, should be let loose upon them to work perpetual change and discontent. But did he not know that the British system of Government was the best that had existed in any age or country? The noble Earl had not even attempted to deny that, and yet would he unsettle it, and with it every thing that constituted its perfection and security. He would ask, was it by such an arbitrary despotic act as that, that his Government intended to promote the interests of freedom? Was it by such legislation as that, they would set an example of honesty to the people? Or was it by such a Bill that, as a part of the State, they would protect and uphold the Protestant Church? The noble Earl had appealed to the right reverend Prelates, as if he would work upon their apprehensions rather than their consciences. He (Lord Falmouth) would not believe, that any of them would support such a measure. His own attachment to the Protestant Church would not be doubted, and even if any of that right reverend bench should be induced to vote for such a Bill, he was convinced it would be from an error of judgment alone; but the right reverend Prelates knew too well the essential connection between the Church Establishment and the balance of power in the State, to be drawn into so fatal a delusion. They could remind him better than he could them of the admirable conduct of the Bishops in the time of James 2nd. The Prelates of that reign gave a tone to the feeling of the people, and taught them to preserve the equipoise of the three estates: not the theoretical

75
equipoise of the noble Earl, but that which had proved its value by the test of practice. They had then shewn, that they would preserve a Constitutional King, they would preserve now a Constitutional House of Commons; they could not, they would not, support that unprincipled Bill. Well might the noble Earl say, that he introduced it with feelings of unusual awe—well might even his powers of language be suspended, as they had been so unusually at the outset of his address. He had indeed taken upon himself a most fearful responsibility. He had said, he would stand or fall by that Bill; and, for the sake of his manly character, it was to be hoped, that this declaration was to be taken in its plain and usual meaning. Such a Bill as that was strangely framed to show his love of liberty. He could not mean to prove his regard for the freedom and independence of that House by the further intentions which had been, no doubt erroneously, attributed to him. A noble Lord had most unhappily given them a foretaste of a Reform Government, by saying that it had discarded patronage. Did the dealing out peerages by wholesale prove, that the noble Earl had scorned to resort to patronage? He had heard nothing so playfully severe upon the noble Earl's (Mulgrave) own friends as that remark, excepting, indeed, the slip of the noble leader himself, when he had talked of bartered peerages. But the noble Earl was to stand or fall by that Bill, and the most charitable wish he (Lord Falmouth) could offer him was, that whether it were passed or rejected, it might not bring him down in sorrow to his grave. There was one part alone of the noble Earl's speech that had his concurrence, and it carried with it conviction, not because it was eloquent, but because it was true. The noble Earl had told them, in language which he would not attempt to imitate, that the House of Peers could not be separated from the people. They were in truth a part of the people, and they could not prove this more strongly than by rejecting that Bill, since, if it passed, it would be destructive of the real interests of the people. For himself, he would say, let them shew him the necessary reforms in the law, and he would support them—let them point out the imperfections of the Church Establishment, and he would support the correction. In both instances he had already done so. Even
76
upon the subject before the House, if a measure were brought in, really founded upon calm deliberation, he would consider it maturely, with the sincere hope that he might find it consistent with the noble Earl's solemn promise to preserve the settled institutions of the country; and with his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, recommending that they should be held inviolate—but he would not vote for the second reading of that Bill—he would not consent to destroy the British Constitution.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, that after the very long discussion which this great question had undergone, not only in that House but elsewhere—after the serious consideration which every reflecting mind had given to it, from the period of its first announcement down to the present moment (and particularly as the House must be nearly exhausted with the debates which had already taken place within those walls relative to it)—he felt that he should be acting in a most unpardonable manner towards their Lordships, if he did not, in entering into the views and feelings which influenced him to support the principle of this measure, or, in other words, to give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, confine his observations within the shortest possible compass. In doing so he must beg leave, in the outset, to state, that he was not originally a friend to a Reform of the Representation in Parliament; and he mentioned this merely to show, that if he had any prejudice to overcome, it was a prejudice against Reform. He had, however, after much reflection, been brought to the irresistible conviction that this measure was called for by the necessity of the times. At this particular period a great and specific measure was called for. His opinion on the question of Parliamentary Reform had been for a long time this—either that Parliament should adopt a certain principle for a gradual but progressive amelioration of the Representation of the people, or, if imperative circumstances arose which rendered it necessary to entertain the whole question, that it should be entertained under the guidance and direction of the Government, and that a full, extensive, satisfactory, and comprehensive measure should be introduced. The opportunity of acting under the first of these principles had been entirely lost, and particularly it had been lost during the period when the late Government held

77
the reins of power. When the dissolution of that Government took place, and when all the circumstances which led to it were considered, he thought that the new Ministers would not have acted with proper respect towards the Crown, nor with good faith towards the public (whose feelings were fixed, and whose minds were agitated on the subject), nor with a due regard to all the great interests of the country (in the prosperity of which, peace, order, and content were the principal constituents), he thought that the advisers of the Crown would not, under such circumstances, have acted fairly to the Crown, or justly to themselves, if they had not introduced a great and comprehensive measure of Reform. He must be allowed to say, and he would say it with the highest respect for the character of the noble Duke who was at the head of the late Government, and with that eternal sense of gratitude which he, in common with all his countrymen, felt for the great services which the noble Duke had rendered to his country, but still he must say, that the noble Duke and his colleagues might be fairly considered to be the real authors of the present plan. By their decision against the improvement of the existing system, they left no alternative but the proposition and adoption of some large measure like that to which they were now hastening. It appeared to him, that those who did not, at the present moment, see the necessity of introducing a great and comprehensive measure of Reform, either did not mark the very great alteration which had taken place in the state of society in this country, or they were ignorant of the best means of effecting the necessary changes in our institutions. Those who described the present measure as one bordering on revolution, seemed to him to judge incorrectly. He was the more inclined to think so when he looked to the sources from which, in these days, revolutions were likely to arise, and had, in some instances, arisen; and he conceived that the course which Ministers had taken was the best that could be devised to avert revolution, and to preserve the constitution of this country. He, however, could assure their Lordships, that he was not a blind supporter of this measure. He was not actuated, in the course which he was taking, by any special confidence which he placed in his Majesty's Government, or by any personal attachment which he might feel towards any of the members of
78
that Government. He would show to their Lordships, if this Bill went into a Committee, that he was prepared to act with the utmost impartiality. He would prove that he was perfectly free from party feeling, by giving his best consideration to the different clauses of the Bill, and by opposing such parts of them as he might deem it necessary to have altered and amended. He had already stated, that he was no blind supporter of this measure because it was introduced by his Majesty's Government; and he had no hesitation in stating, because he never would conceal his opinion from their Lordships, when he rose to address them on any public occasion, that there were parts of this measure which, originally, he wished not to have been there; but he felt that it would now be more injurious to withdraw them than to allow them to remain. There were other parts of the Bill which appeared to him to be susceptible of improvement in the Committee. Therefore it seemed to him to be desirable, that the Bill should be carried one stage further, and then their Lordships would be enabled to see in what respect it might be improved. With regard to the general objects and principles of the Bill, he would say, that unless Ministers had introduced to Parliament a measure, the great outline of which would be to do away with the nomination boroughs, to increase the number of county Members, to give Representatives to the great manufacturing towns, and the new interests which had grown up in the country, to make a considerable alteration in the elective franchise throughout the country, and to effect a decided change in the Representative system of Scotland, they would have deceived the Crown, betrayed the people, and lost that confidence which was now, and he thought justly, reposed in them. That must inevitably have been the effect of their introducing a less comprehensive measure, which would merely irritate, because it would be of a temporary and unsatisfactory nature. To leave such general observations and come to the consideration of the Bill then before their Lordships, and of the most prominent objections that were advanced against it; they might, he thought, be reduced to two, which involved all the others. The first was, that this measure appeared to those who opposed it to be fraught with danger; and next, that it was totally unnecessary. The danger which was principally

79
apprehended as likely to arise out of this Bill was, that it would allow too large a scope to democratic influence in the Constitution, which influence was calculated to overturn the weight that now belonged to rank, station, and property, and which was essential to the well-being of the monarchy. With the view, however, which he took of this Bill, he denied that it was likely to produce any such effect. It was true, that the measure would annihilate the political power now possessed by certain individuals in this country, but it was equally true, that it would leave them in full possession of all the influence which they derived from property; while, at the same time, he maintained that it would bring into beneficial action a vast amount of influence and property, which was either wholly extinguished or overshadowed by the power of which he had spoken. If he thought that this measure would produce the destruction, or even the weakening of the just influence of the aristocracy or landed interests of this country, the maintenance of which he thought essential to the order, stability, and good government of the monarchy, he certainly would not defend it. But he was of opinion, that the aristocracy of England would gain as much influence, if not more, as a body, than they now possessed, by the passing of this measure. They would, by the operation of this Bill, acquire a legitimate influence; whereas the influence which they at present possessed, was enjoyed in a manner disreputable and odious; it was wrong for them to desire to retain it, and it might prove destructive of the peace of the country if they determined to do so. Again, it had been said by a noble Duke, a few nights ago, and the observation was repeated by the noble Earl who had spoken last, that this measure would be the means of changing the other House into an assembly of delegates. If he thought that the Bill was calculated to convert the Representatives of the lower House into a body of delegates, to be chosen in such a manner as must subject them to the sway and influence of every breath of popular clamour, or, as would compel them to be guided on all occasions by particular instructions, he would be the last individual to support such a plan—he would be the last man to argue that such a change would be adapted to the circumstances, and suitable to the situation of the country. But
80
he thought that no such state of things was likely to arise. Looking to the provisions of this Bill, and to the experience which all their Lordships must have had, with reference to those who heretofore had been Representatives of large and populous places, he was led to believe, that neither the provisions of the Bill, nor the experience of those elections, could justify any one in concluding that individuals elected for populous places, either counties or boroughs, must necessarily be placed under the direct control and dominion of those who sent them to Parliament. But when he spoke thus of delegation, he thought that those who opposed the Bill on that ground, did not act fairly or consistently towards themselves. He begged leave to ask, what were the majority of those Members who were elected for nomination boroughs? What were they, generally speaking, but delegates? But there was a great difference between delegation from private nomination, and delegation from populous places. To delegation from private nomination there was this great objection—namely, that the power was not exercised for the furtherance of any public object, however absurd, but for the express purpose, either of obtaining pecuniary benefit, or some other personal advantage, which was of importance to the individual who wielded the power of nomination, and most probably injurious to the community. It was also advanced as a very great objection to this measure, that it was very likely to paralyse the proper influence of the executive Government, and to introduce a system which would do away with all that power which Government now possessed, through the medium of nomination-boroughs. He could not, however, suppose that it would have any such effect. He thought the measure would rather tend to disembarrass the Government, by severing it from a description of influence and power by which it was too frequently assailed, and which Ministers could not always meet in a manner consistent with what they might believe to be their duty on public questions, and with reference to public interest. The next general objection to the plan was, that it was not warranted by the necessity of the case. He was surprised at this objection, and the more so when he found that it was urged by those who belonged to the late Administration, because the necessity must be notorious to them. The necessity

81
was apparent from this fact, that, the late Ministers found it impossible to conduct the Government of the country, in consequence of their refusal to introduce any proposition of Reform to the Legislature. They might now admit, that it would be impossible to carry on the business of the Government without some degree of Reform; they denied that when they were in power, and the consequence was, they were obliged to withdraw from office. Technically, such was not the reason assigned; but he believed that the whole country knew that the Ministers were obliged to retire because they had declared themselves hostile to any sort of Reform. It might now be said, by those who never thought of such a thing before, that it would be well to grant, a certain measure of Reform, but not that Reform which this Bill proposed. Now he was of opinion that before they refused the second reading of this Bill, which involved a negation of its principle—a principle which embraced a specific and comprehensive Reform—he thought before they took that step, their Lordships ought to ascertain, with more precision than they had yet done, what this other system of Reform was. If they did not do so, this danger might be the result of their deliberations, that the public might be led to think, and perhaps some of their Lordships might be led to think, in the absence of specific information on the subject, either that no Reform was intended, or such a Reform as would prove delusive and unsatisfactory. If the present measure were rejected, the public would ask, as he now asked, "What measure do you mean to adopt in the place of it?" If they would not agree to the second reading of this Bill—the principle of which embraced a comprehensive and efficient plan of Reform—if they did not suffer it to go into Committee, where an opportunity would be afforded for the consideration of those alterations which noble Lords might think adviseable—then their Lordships might depend upon it, that whatever opinion might be entertained in that House, there would be but one opinion throughout the kingdom—namely, that their Lordships either meant to do nothing, or meant to propose a measure which would only delude and deceive the country. No one, certainly, could deny the right of their Lordships to negative this Bill: and he was sure that there was not
82
one of their Lordships who would more warmly support every power and privilege which they possessed, than he would, thinking, as he did, that those privileges and that power were given to them for the preservation of the just influence of the Crown—for the security of property—for the maintenance of public peace and order—and for upholding the best, interests of the community. But he confessed, considering the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced to their Lordships, he had some doubt whether they would not be travelling out of the limits assigned to them by the Constitution in rejecting it. He would beg leave to trouble their Lordships with some of his reasons for entertaining that opinion:—In the first place, this was a Bill introduced into Parliament by the Ministers of the Crown, considered to be necessary by the unanimous sentiments of the Cabinet, and of a Cabinet, too, some of whose most influential members had heretofore been opposed to Reform, but who now were only convinced of its necessity by the irrefragable proofs of that necessity which the state of the country afforded. Next, this Bill was sent up to their Lordships by an overwhelming majority of the Commons House of Parliament, and supported by a unanimity of feeling in the country such as no public measure had ever before received. But it was said, that the feeling of the country had undergone a considerable change on this subject. Where, he would ask their Lordships, was the evidence of that change? Was it to be found in the petitions which had poured in to their Lordships from every part of the country—certainly not all in favour, but of which a preponderance so great was in favour, not only of Reform, but of this very plan of Reform, that, and he said it with no disposition to exaggerate, it must be evident to their Lordships, who had seen them presented, left the petitions on the other side in a most miserable minority. Of those petitions which purported to be against the Bill, it was found, when they were examined with more than the attention usually bestowed upon them, that many of them did not pray against the principle of the Bill, but asked their Lordships to do that, which he asked of their Lordships as sincerely as any of the petitioners—namely, to give to the subject before them their most earnest, calm, and deliberate consideration. Was it, then,

83
singular that he should say, that it would certainly be inexpedient, and he ventured to affirm, even travelling out of the limits of those duties which the Constitution had intended their Lordships should perform, that when a measure thus recommended by the Crown—adopted by an immense majority of the House of Commons, to which House alone its enactments related—supported by the almost unanimous wish of the country—they should be the only persons in the State, acting as a body, who opposed its progress? The noble Lords opposite, who had strongly objected to the Bill, seemed to lament chiefly that the Bill should exist—though they could not deny, that the necessity for it did exist, or that, as a remedy, it would not be sufficient to avert the threatened danger. In a constitutional point of view, then, it did appear to him that it would be useless and highly inexpedient for their Lordships to reject this measure. But suppose they rejected the Bill, or (to use the more courteous mode of disposing of it, which its opponents, on second thoughts, had adopted) succeeded in the motion, "that it be read a second time that day six months," did they think that, ere long, another Bill, containing the substance and leading principles of the present measure, would not be passed by Parliament? There was no doubt that it would, but with this deduction from the merit and advantage of it—that it would not give the same content and satisfaction—that it would not stop agitation, or arrest the danger of tumult as effectually as it would do if it now received their Lordships' sanction. This Bill, if it now received the approbation of their Lordships, would put an end at once to all agitation and excitement, and would afford the relief which was required. But all these graces and advantages would be taken away by a tardy, and, as it would appear to a large portion of the community, a reluctant concession. A noble friend of his who spoke on the first night of the Debate—with great sincerity, as he always did, but on that occasion not with his usual acuteness, or with the fairness and candour for which he was distinguished on other occasions—suggested that this measure should be postponed for two years. But, in what he did not consider a fair or candid tone, his noble friend added, that it would not suit Ministers to have it pass now, as they
84
wished to hang up the question for a time for the sake of agitation. Was it, he would ask, fair of his noble friend to taunt Ministers with a desire to keep up agitation for the sake of continuing in power, at the moment when they were using their utmost exertion to pass a measure by which agitation would be set at rest? An appeal had been made to them to discharge their duty as Peers. He, for one, would answer to that appeal, but he thought that in the first instance it became them to consider calmly and seriously what that duty was; and he would ask, could they consider it a duty to reject a measure recommended by the Crown, adopted by an immense majority of the House of Commons, and supported by the general voice of the country? Could it be their duty to say at once that they would not adopt the principle of the measure, or that they would not even inquire how far its provisions might be modified, so as to make it beneficial to the country in the estimation of those who were opposed to much of this Bill, but not to the principle of Reform itself? Was it their duty to reject it, when even by its most determined opponents it was admitted, that it would be impossible to delay much longer the adoption of some measure of Reform? He had given this subject much attention, and was impressed with the necessity of now passing a measure of Reform, and with the advantage of the general provisions of this particular Bill; but, even if he had not so favourable an impression with respect to it, he should still consider it his duty to act in a friendly manner to a measure so introduced, recommended, and supported, and to give it at least the benefit of a fair and impartial examination. He would do that with respect to it which the courtesy of private life would require. Even if he did not approve of much of it, he would act with civility to it. He would not reject it at once, but would so far attend to the wishes of the people whose voices had been raised to recommend it, that he would inquire how far its principle might be improved in the detail, and whether it might not be possible to make it—to change it, if they would—into a measure that would satisfy the wishes of all parties. He would, therefore, even if he were opposed to much of the Bill, give his assent to the second reading. This was all he now called upon their Lordships to do. The vote to which they were about to come would pledge

85
them to no more. They would afterwards inquire how far the principle which they admitted could be modified so as to make the measure in accordance with the feelings of the majority of their Lordships. He could add many other considerations which suggested themselves to him at that moment, but, considering the long discussion that had already taken place, and the great attention with which he had been heard, and for which he begged sincerely to thank their Lordships, he would not now trespass further on their indulgence.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that being extremely anxious to hear, if possible, all the grounds and arguments which Government could urge for the important change now proposed—a change so extensive that, with the exception of two parts, it might be well called the formation of a new Constitution—he did intend to wait until all the members of Government in that House had delivered their opinions, for certainly up to that moment he had heard no statesman-like view taken of the question. He did not mean to say, that the speech of his noble friend at the head of the Government, in introducing this Question to the House, was not replete with his accustomed eloquence, and was not distinguished for great talent and ability; but it did not embrace that Statesmanlike view of the case he had looked for—it did not detail to the Mouse, as he had expected it would, the practical evils which required so vast a change, and the practical benefits which might be expected from this Bill, and what would be the general operation of the whole measure. Never, in his experience, had a bill been introduced to that House, of the practical effect of which so little had been said. Why, in a common turnpike-road bill their Lordships might naturally expect to hear something of the state of the road which it was proposed to improve—of the necessity for its repair, and of the advantage that might be derived from its improved condition. Not having heard any thing of this kind with reference to this Bill—not having heard any statement of the practical defects of the present system, and of the manner in which those defects were to be remedied by that which was proposed in its place, he was disposed to wait until all the members of his Majesty's Government in that House had delivered their opinions; but after the discussion had been so much protracted without affording him that opportunity,
86
he was afraid that if he did not then address their Lordships, he should not have sufficient strength to do so at a more advanced stage of the debate. They had, however, gained one step in the discussion, by the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down. Hitherto they had been given to understand that the question was not, whether it should be Reform or no Reform, but whether the Reform should be that particular plan which this Bill recommended; but now the noble Earl had invited them to consider whether it was the specific plan which ought to be adopted, or whether it might not be modified so as to meet the wishes of their Lordships as well as of the country; in it word, whether they might not make it such a measure as would satisfy the people. Now, unless their Lordships were prepared to come to the conclusion—unless they were prepared to leave the Bill nearly as they found it—would it not be an insult to the people in their present excited state, to say to them, that their Lordships would admit the principle of the Bill in the first instance, but would afterwards so alter it as to make it a totally different measure? Would it not be more fair, and manly, and consistent, to say to the people at, once, that the Bill was such as they could not agree to, than to hold out hopes to them which could not be realized? His noble friend had stated, that their Lordships had a perfect right to reject the measure if they pleased; but he added, that, in doing so they would step out of the limits of that duty assigned to them by the Constitution. And why?—Because, in the first place, the Bill had been recommended by his Majesty's Ministers—by men who had never before agreed upon the Question of Reform, but who, now that they did concur, had a marvellous unanimity; by those who at all times heretofore were strong against each other on this subject, but now, after three short months' deliberation, they were united upon it as one man—
——— "in unum
"Consentire omnes et ab uno sidere duci."
He did not mean to impute any thing wrong to the members of the Government for agreeing now on points on which they before differed. For some members of the Government he entertained a sincere affection—for all a high respect. All of them were, he believed, actuated by the most patriotic motives in the discharge of

87
their duties to the country. To all, then, he gave full credit for the purest motives. Of his noble friend (Earl Grey) at the head of the Government, he might say, that he had always looked up to him as a man not more distinguished by the splendor of his talents and abilities in public, than by the greatness of his virtues in private life; uniting in himself in both capacities, that manly candour, and that great firmness, which insured him the respect and admiration of all who knew him. He felt it but an act of justice to say this, as he had been accused on a former evening by his noble friend, of some bitterness, in objecting to the Government for mixing up with the question some cavils at points which could make no real difference at either side in the result. He made the objection at the moment, because he felt that his noble friend was only grasping at a straw, to use it for a walkingstick. He repeated, then, that for the members of Government, as individuals, he had the highest respect, but he differed from them on this question of Reform so much, that he could scarcely convey, in words not personally offensive, his objection to their plan, and to the manner in which it was attempted to be forced upon that House and the country. His noble friend who last addressed the House, had put the adoption of the Bill on a footing on which, certainly, he was not prepared to hear it urged. He had put it as a question of courtesy between Gentlemen. This House, his noble friend contended, would not, he was sure, out of regard to civility, reject a Bill which had been recommended by the Crown, adopted by a large majority of the House of Commons, and supported by the general wish of the country. The Bill, he said, was sanctioned by the Crown, and introduced by his Majesty's Government. This was using two phrases to express the same thing. His Majesty was, of course, advised by his Ministers, and the act of the Crown was no more that of the King in this instance, than any other act of the Government in which the name of the King was used. There was no doubt that the recommendation from the Throne was entitled to their calm and most serious deliberation. But were they not giving to the question before them that deliberation? Were they not sitting there day after day, in order to consider the measure with the most serious attention? But his noble friend would have them go
88
beyond this, he would have them sanction the second reading; but for what? Was it that they might now definitively adopt the measure? Yet if that were not likely to be the result of allowing the Bill to be read a second time, would it not, he asked, be deceiving the country with false hopes, to assent for a time to a plan which their Lordships believed could not be adopted without producing the most serious evils, and even subverting the Constitution, and which they must, therefore, ultimately reject? He was disposed to approach the question calmly, and without fear. He said without fear, not that he thought the discussion of the measure was unaccompanied with danger, but because the only way in which the danger could be met or avoided was, by doing their duty honestly but fearlessly. That was the only safe course they could steer. He was ready to admit that the people were in a state of great excitement; but that excitement, and the dangers arising from it, would be doubled and trebled by any concessions made through fear. He would not say that his Majesty's Ministers had used to their Lordships the language of intimidation; but, except their account of the state of excitement and irritation in which the country was placed, he had not heard from them any one reason for the adoption of one of the greatest changes that had ever been made at once in the constitution of a State; and certainly, whether their wish was to intimidate others or to show that they themselves were afraid, the only note he heard from them on this occasion was the note of fear. But if the Government was afraid, their Lordships, he was sure, were not. If there was any danger, they would, he had no doubt, meet it, as the danger had been met in the reign of George 3rd, when Mr. Pitt, by his wise and statesman-like policy, gave a safe direction to the passing frenzy of the people. He approached the discussion without any personal fear, and he spoke on this subject without any feeling of personal interest; for there was not a borough in the United Kingdom of which he could influence the return. He had no interest, therefore, in this question, beyond that which was possessed by every man anxious to uphold those ancient institutions under which the country had so long prospered. He might, perhaps, obtain influence under the new system, though he could acquire none under the old, but that could not make

89
him partial to any violent and sudden change, more particularly a change which would convert our monarchical form of government to a democracy. He had no reason to suppose that the change proposed would be more permanent than many other changes their Lordships had witnessed. Their Lordships had seen abundance of changes in the governments of Europe within a few years. They had had French republics by the score, they had Ligurian, Helvetian, Cisalpine, Transalpine, and other republics of all sorts and denominations, the creations of the day's fancy, and the victims of the morrow's spleen. Each of those republics had more care and more philosophy employed in the construction of their constitution than had been devoted to the clumsy Bill he held in his hand; yet what had become of them? They had all passed away, leaving behind only the bitter recollection and great misery of the people. With the experience which their Lordships had of these frequent changes of government in other countries, and their results, were they now prepared, at so short a notice, at this unusual season, when they were even chided by the petitions of the people for the delay that had already taken place—were they, he asked, prepared to adopt at once this most extensive change in the whole system of the Representation of the country? But this was not the principal ground of his objection to the motion then before them. He objected to the second reading of the Bill, because he had not yet heard any one argument to show that this great change would be productive of any practical advantage to the country. Ministers indeed asked, could there be any necessity for discussing such a question as this in the 19th century? Of what use, then, was the introduction of a measure of this kind if it were not to be discussed? But a year and a half, or two years ago at most, and far into the 19th century, it was well known, and was so declared by members of the present Cabinet, that there was no necessity for Reform, that the question even was considered so much a dead letter that the people would give themselves no trouble about it. The whole of the present excitement then on the subject, had been the growth of the last year and a half, which had been fertile in changes of government in different parts of Europe. Revolution abroad had produced agitation at home. The greatest
90
excitement, if was well known, had been produced in this country from time to time by changes abroad. Any one who remembered the French Revolution as he did, must recollect the excitement it produced in this country. He knew the Whigs of that day, and here he would say, let no man charge him with any change of opinion; he never gave a vote in the Whig Opposition of that, day; he supported the general measure, of Mr. Pitt's government until the rupture of the peace of Amiens, when Lord Grenville made a cooperation with Mr. Fox, and he then joined that party, but he had never made common cause with them on the subject of Reform. Indeed, from that time to the present, it had not been made the watchword of a party, and was considered an open question, on which each man was allowed to exercise his own judgment and form his own opinion For his own part he always thought, that Reform to be useful, ought to be gradual, and when any crises of corruption in boroughs arose, he was disposed to apply a remedy, for in this way alone could Reform be safe. He was, therefore, not prepared to take that sudden and violent leap which was proposed in this Bill. But it was asked by his noble friend who spoke last, and by the noble Marquis (Lansdown) who spoke last night with much ability, what would those noble Lords who opposed the Bill do, what, nostrum were, they ready to supply if this quackery should not be found applicable? But who were those who asked the question? They were his Majesty's Ministers, united for the first time on this question, with an attachment which was ardent because it was new, and who would persuade their Lordships to swallow this love-potion which they had provided, and which had made them so amicable to each other. With no great consistency of argument the noble Lords contended, that because they themselves were agreed upon the plan they proposed, all those who opposed it must also be agreed upon the grounds of their opposition. But why call on the opponents of that Bill for any plan of Reform, when the Ministers themselves would notor could not inform the House of the practical effect of their own plan? That, however, like the details of the plan itself, which were kept a profound secret till the Bill was laid before Parliament, was a mystery that time only was to reveal.

91
When those details first burst upon the ears of the public, it was astounded. Certainly, the present Administration was entitled to whatever praise belonged to being the most close and least communicative which the country had seen in modern times. The details of the Reform Bill were first so well concealed, that no one even got a glimpse of them until they were made known in Parliament. Its practical effects were still a hidden mystery; so was the Budget. These two secrets were so well kept, that no one out of the Cabinet knew of them, and no one in the Cabinet could understand them. And after all this, it was gravely asked of noble Lords who opposed the Bill, whether they had agreed upon any plan of Reform. The noble Lords opposite, indulging in taunts which became them of all men the least, said, that each of the opponents of their Bill must be prepared with a new constitution at an hour's notice, and not only with a new constitution, but also with the same new constitution. Now, with all deference to these noble Lords, this was demanding a little too much from his side of the House. He would put a familiar illustration to their Lordships, to show the absurdity of this demand. He would suppose that his noble friend opposite should have occasion, as no doubt he might have, to engage a new cook, and that, having engaged him, he called his friends around him to dinner, in order that they might favour him with their opinions as to the merits of this new artiste. Suppose that his friends, when called upon for their opinions after dinner, should say, "As you have called upon us to declare frankly our opinions as to the state of your dinner, we feel ourselves bound to tell you, that except a little dish of college pudding, there was not a single dish on your table that we could eat:" would they not then be surprised to hear his noble friend reply to them in this strain, "You are discontented with every dish from which you have eaten, go therefore into my kitchen, and cook me another dinner." Would they not on hearing such a reply say, "If you impose this duty on us, my Lord, give us possession of your kitchen—let us go into it with our own nutmegs and our own spices, and if then we don't provide you with a dinner to your taste, you may then, but not till then, complain of our want of skill and invention?" The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for the Home Department, told
92
their Lordships that this measure was almost too large for one debate. So perhaps it might be: but if that were the case, it was strange that it had never struck the noble Viscount that it was also too large for one Bill. Indeed, it was large enough for a dozen bills; and some of its clauses were, in point of importance, equal in themselves to as many bills. Indeed, one of his objections to this Bill was, that it made a Constitution, and it was quite evident that no Constitution could be made by a Bill. In making that assertion, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he was no enemy to a Reform made wisely, temperately, and gradually, resting on experience, and defended by reason and analogy. He had been often asked to what extent he would go in such a Reform, To that question he answered, that there was no point at which he would attempt to arrest human improvement; but then he must be convinced that what was proposed to him as an improvement was really an improvement, and when that was done, he would give it his ready and willing assent. Having already assured his noble friend (Earl Grey) that he had always felt for him the strongest regard and affection, he might address himself to some expressions which fell from him on the first night of this Debate. Whether his noble friend alluded to any expressions which fell from him on former occassionsin favour of gradual and progressive Reform, and whether his noble friend included him in the number of the most "diminutive nibblers at bit-by-bit Reform, "he knew not. He had no pretensions to be considered a Statesman, and, therefore, it would be no matter of surprise to him if he were ranked among the small fry of Anti-reformers. This he could say, that there was no degree of diminutiveness that his noble friend could attribute to him that would not, in his opinion, exceed his dimensions; but in compassion to his insignificance, and in order that they might discuss this great question upon something like equal terms, he would prevail upon his noble friend to shrink his greatness, if he could do so without disparagement, for a short time, and, excelling even the notorious conjuror at the Haymarket, let them endeavour to put, not, only one man, but two into the space of a quart bottle. When there, we will argue this great question of Reform, and the merits of the proposed change in our Constitution. Here he could not pretend

93
to raise his nerveless arm against his acknowledged power. He could not affect to compete with his noble friend in this place in eloquence or in argument. To equal him he must, in fact, be the same, since "none but himself can be his parallel; "but he should at least have a better chance if, for a brief space, his noble friend would consent, to reduce himself to his insignificant dimensions, and if they proceeded to moot the point on the footing only of two of the celebrated sages of Lilliput. Nevertheless, when speaking of the high talent of his noble friend, he could not bur recollect with pride the glorious constellation of genius and eloquence with which his noble friend and he were contemporaries in another House of Parliament—a constellation exceeded in number and lustre at no period of the history of any country of the civilized world. There was a Fox, a Pitt, a Wyndham, and a Burke; and he well recollected, that even in their days the noble Earl was always reckoned mighty among the mightiest. He had recently had the good fortune to light upon one of the most eloquent speeches which he had ever read, made in defence of a bit-by-bit Reform, not by Charles Grey, but by Earl Grey, on the 13th of June, 1810, when he brought forward a motion in that House on the state of the nation. His noble friend, after stating to the House that the question of Reform had long engaged his most serious contemplation, proceeded to observe, that, after a lapse of twenty years, he was not inclined to look upon it in all respects precisely in the same light as he had done at an early period of his life, when he pursued his opinions with all that eager hope and sanguine expectation which were so natural to the ardour of youth. His noble friend then said—'Though I am disposed soberly and cautiously to estimate the principles of the Constitution—though, perhaps, I do not see in the same high colouring the extent of the evil sought to be redressed, and am more doubtful as to the strength and certainty of the remedy recommended to be applied;' would to God that his noble friend had still entertained some doubts as to the certainty of the remedy which he was now going to apply to the disease of the Representation! But his noble friend proceeded—'still, after as serious and dispassionate a consideration as I can give, to what I believe the most important question that can employ your Lordships' attention, it
94
is my conscientious opinion, that much good would result from the adoption of the salutary principle of Reform, gradually applied to the correction of those existing abuses, to which the progress of time must have unavoidably given birth; taking especial care that the measures of Reform to be pursued should be marked out by the Constitution itself, and in no case exceed its wholesome limits.'* It appeared from this extract, that when his noble friend exerted the powers of his eloquence to recommend what he considered a judicious Reform, he advised their Lordships to proceed gradually, step-by-step: but new, when his noble friend thought proper to exert his powers of ridicule, he laughed to scorn any plan of Reform that was to be accomplished bit-by-bit. But he was sure that the House would agree with him that a step-by-step Reform, and a bit-by-bit Reform, though they might be different in metaphor, were the same in substance. Again in the same speech, his noble friend said—'I am ready to declare my determination to abide by the sentiments I have before expressed, and that I am now, as I was formerly, the advocate of a temperate, gradual, judicious correction of those defects which time has introduced, and of those abuses in the constitution of the other House of Parliament, which give most scandal to the public, at the same time that they furnish designing men with a pretext for inflaming the minds of the multitude only to mislead them from their true interest. To such a system I am a decided friend: wherever it shall be brought forward, from me it shall receive an anxious and sincere support. But as I never have, so I never will, rest my ideas on salutary Reform on the grounds of theoretic perfection.'† He (the Earl of Carnarvon) had not yet done with this subject. High as was the authority which he had already quoted in favour of his system of bit-by-bit Reform, he had to quote a still higher authority to the same effect. It was no disparagement to the noble Earl to state, that the authority to which he was then going to refer, was higher authority, because, in the first place, it was his own in the maturity of his experience, and the perfection of his talents, and next,
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. xvii, p, 559. 560.
† Ibid. p. 560.

95
that authority was the united authority of the noble Earl himself, and of his political preceptor, Mr. Fox. Mr. Fox, it was well known, had said, that sudden changes could not be beneficial to a State; but that gradual changes might be admitted, and that it was expedient to admit them when they could be adopted with safety. His noble friend, in alluding to this dictum of Mr. Fox, had observed in the same speech—'If, in the political creed of Mr. Fox, there was one article which he held more stedfastly than another, it was, that while a system was practically good he would always abstain from mending it by theories. And never, my Lords,' continued his noble friend, 'can I forget his powerful observations, when in his place in Parliament he stated his conviction of the absolute impossibilty of providing for all the variety of human events, by any previous speculative plans: for, said he, I think that if a number of the wisest, ablest, and most virtuous men that ever adorned and improved human life, were collected together and seated round a table to devise à priori a Constitution, for a State, it is my persuasion, that notwithstanding all their ability and virtue, they would not succeed in adapting a system to the purposes required, but must necessarily leave it to be fitted by great alterations in the practice, and many deviations from the original design.' Beautiful as this passage was, he would not go on with it. ["Hear, hear," and "read on."] If noble Lords wished it, he had no objection to read on. His noble friend on that occasion further said—'This opinion he was wont to illustrate by the familiar but apt example of building a house, which, notwithstanding all the study and consideration previously bestowed upon the plan, was never yet known to supply every want or to provide all the accommodations which, in the subsequent occupation of it, were found to be necessary. Nay, he used to remark, that however fine to look at a regular paper plan might be, no house was so commodious and so habitable as one which was built from time to time, piece-meal, and without any regular design.'* He hoped, that from this time forward the noble Earl would cease to nibble at his (the Earl of Carnarvon's) bit-by-bit Reform, and would be content with his own meal. Again, in the
*Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. xvii, p. 562.
96
same speech, his noble friend said—'To those principles of practical Reform, so wisely enforced by that great Statesman, I am determined to adhere; and the acquiescence of your Lordships it is my duty also to solicit, again repeating that the remedy I seek shall be limited by the existing defects, shall be marked by the Constitution itself, and not launch out into any extravagance of theory, which even appearances may recommend." Now if his noble friend adhered to his former principles of practical Reform, we must have a step-by-step Reform, a piecemeal Reform: nay, however much his noble friend disliked it, a bit-by-bit Reform. He did not call upon his noble friend to adhere to those opinions at this crisis; he only quoted them in order that he might stand justified in the eyes of his noble friend, if he could not receive the same degree of intellectual light which had brightened the vision of his noble friend, and which enabled him to discover the folly and absurdity of his former doctrines. The noble Lord who had preceded him had said, that their Lordships ought to go into Committee upon this Bill, unless they wished it to be understood that in voting against the second reading they were deciding the question of Reform or no Reform. But the present was not a resolution recognizing the necessity of Reform, it was a specific plan of Reform, and he begged to remind the noble Lords opposite, that though they had not said they would admit of no amendment in the Committee, they had said that they should not look upon any reform as efficient that did not contain all the principles of this Bill. Unless, then, their Lordships were prepared to alter all the Representation of the country at one fell swoop, they ought not to consent to the second reading, and it would only be a waste of time as well as a public delusion to go into a Committee on this Bill. By agreeing to go into a Committee, they might, from the exultation of the moment, produce illuminations and bonfires in every town and village in the country; but then, when in the Committee they had pulled the Bill to pieces, and deprived it of all its noxious enactments, the disappointment of the people would be proportionably great, and there would be no limits to their indignation—no end to the charges against their Lordships for
*Ibid.

97
having broken the promises they had solemnly made them. He did not wish to seem to make them any promise; but, he assured their Lordships, that if he thought there was any one class of his fellow-subjects—most of all the poorest class of his fellow-subjects—who had been taught that they should derive great benefit from this Bill, and who believed that opinion, he would support it, if he did not think they were deluded in that opinion. He did not speak in that manner of the noble Earl, for he was fully convinced of his sincerity; but he believed that there were those in every part of the country who supported this measure, and who addressed the people in exposition of this measure, and who assisted in supporting the delusion. He said, that if he did not believe this measure would involve the people in great difficulties and distress, such as have now reduced almost to starvation the emancipated people of Paris and Brussels;—if he did not believe this, but thought that it could be a benefit to them, there was no sacrifice he would not make—hardly any risk he would not run, even to the extent of the two schedules, to gratify them. He had been told by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that, if he, (the Earl of Carnarvon) had been acquainted with the secrets of Ministers, he would have entertained the same sentiments of approbation for this Bill which they entertained. What he wished to know was this—did that noble Lord—did any noble Lord—did the House in general know any thing at present of the plans of the Ministry? Had the Ministry disclosed their secret, or had they still some great mystery to be developed on this subject on the last night of the Debate? When he saw a Bill introduced which altered the right of suffrage in almost every town in the country, he felt himself imperatively called upon to advise their Lordships to get local information respecting every town and county for which they were going to legislate, to ascertain the condition of the constituent body in each and all of those places and districts—to consider whether the mode of arranging that constituent body which was proposed in this Bill was such as was best suited to the interests of each particular place, and to delay proceeding till they had obtained that information. If the Ministers had condescended to lay their views before him, and to ask his opinion, he should have
98
told them that this was a great question, the consideration of which should be approached without delay; but that, as they should lose no time in considering the question—a question as complicated as it was great and full of danger and peril—so they should lose no time in getting information, practical local information, with respect to every one of those great towns and counties, the representative principle of which they proposed to change, and so to arrange the constituent body as to promote in the greatest degree the public interests. This was the advice he should have given to them. Above all, he would say, "You should consider it without delay, but act not with haste, for to act with haste is rashness." He should think that Reform, in the feverish state of excitement in which the revolutions around them had involved the country could not be considered with that calmness which was necessary. He should therefore say to them—before you act,
—"Sed motos præstat componere fluctus."
He did not know whether they would have attended to him—perhaps not—their old habits, a spirit of restlessness, might have induced them to be deaf to his suggestions; that spirit might have directed them, as indeed it seemed to have done, "to ride the whirlwind," and be directed by "the storm." The noble Earl and his colleagues seemed in truth to have adopted this course—
"Eurum ad se Zephyrumque vocant.;"
but when they called the storm, did not seem to consider that they could not send it back to its cavern again, nor did they reflect, that when they wanted a breeze they might get a hurricane, and that when they had fatally evoked the hurricane, and made the tempest fearfully howl about our ears, it would not longer obey them, though it was the creature of their own contrivances. When he said it was their creature and their contrivance, he did not mean that it was their contrivance from any evil or mischievous design, but that they were rash and improvident men, and acted with all the blindness of enthusiasts. It might be said, that it was presumptuous in him to arraign in this manner men of their great and commanding talents. He admitted that they were men of the greatest talents—they had talents enough to overturn any country. Would to God that they had one grain of common sense and common calmness—common integrity

99
he did not mean to say that they had not—and then they would have all that was necessary to save their country. The only hope of the country rested upon the firmness of their Lordships—and that hope was, that their Lordships would give it that breathing time which it required, and to the Ministers, who had no temper left, that temper, which would lead them to consider solemnly the situation in which they stood, and the determination not to render it more desperate for themselves, more dangerous for the people. If their Lordships should reject this measure, because, though it was not bad in parts, its whole was of such an obscure and complicated nature, that its perplexities could not be unravelled without exciting great disappointment in the country, and if the Ministry would then bring forward a plan of Reform less sweeping in its nature, and more temperate, gradual, and judicious, he would not be found in the ranks of their opponents. Ministers might depend upon it that if, instead of indulging in vapouring speeches about standing or falling by this Bill and by no other, they would apply their energies to the formation of a more cautious and more judicious measure, they would be infinitely more certain of success. The noble Marquis, who addressed the House at such length the night before, had amused the House very much by his very eloquent and entertaining speech, and yet he must say, that knowing the great talents and varied information of the noble Marquis, the noble Marquis had much disappointed his expectations. He had been waiting for some time in expectation of hearing an explanation of the reasons why they were to destroy the Constitution of their ancestors at a single blow. He had expected that he should have received that explanation from his friend, the noble Marquis; but no, his noble friend, instead of touching on that subject, proceeded to an examination of the speech of his noble friend near him (Lord Harrowby), and after commencing his observations by a threat that he would refute all his arguments, concluded without refuting one of them. His noble friend had told their Lordships, that his Majesty's Ministers had been bold enough to put to sea, in spite of the dangers and perils with which their voyage was threatened; and he really believed that the noble Marquis was halt seas over, when we poor frightened
100
mariners had only dropped down as far as St. Helen's. The noble Marquis had proposed to set sail in that frail, fatal, Admiralty barge, "built in the eclipse, and rigged with curses dark," which had been unfortunately capsized in its first expedition. To put to sea, and to embark the Administration, with all its future hopes and fears, on board of that perfidious vessel, was, indeed, a bold project on the part of Ministers. In spite of all the entreaties of their friends, and all the ominous warnings of the wind and weather, they had set sail on their adventurous voyage, determined to cling to that vessel till she sank. He believed that they would cling to her, according to their avowed declaration. Yes; they would cling to her, but not as the royal standard, which made her the envy and admiration of all beholders; they would cling to her, but not as the rudder, which had conducted her victorious in many battles through the broken lines of hostile fleets, and which had steered her repeatedly in safety through winds and storms into the harbour of safety—they would cling to her like barnacles—yes, like barnacles to a vessel, to impede her navigation, until the good ship lingered behind the breeze, though she had formerly been accustomed to run before the storm. Yes, they would cling to her until she sank in depths unfathomable, never to rise—never to float again. But if such should be her destiny, whilst she had on board all the prosperity of her country, would a spectator looking from the shore on her shattered timbers sinking in the troubled elements, which her crew had created, not be forgiven for wishing that she had been placed under a more cautious captain, and kept in till the storm was passed, safe at her ancient moorings at St. Helen's, still bearing aloft in splendor the royal standard. He would not enter into the numerous objections which had been made by his noble friend near him, all which yet remained unanswered; but there was one objection which seemed to him so forcible, that he could not avoid referring to it. The basis of population had been adopted as the criterion, both for disfranchising and enfranchising boroughs. Now the basis of population was no ingredient in the basis of the British Constitution. If Ministers had appealed to property, or to taxation, as a criterion of property, they would have appealed to a principle on which the safety of the

101
country might perhaps have rested. But the principle of population, taken as a basis of a system of Representation, must, as a matter of course, lead to revolution. It was the basis on which the enemies of the Monarchy and the Peerage rested all their hopes of destroying both, by opposing numbers to property. He lamented excessively that Ministers had adopted this basis: by adopting it they had sold themselves to the spirit of discord, and, according to the usual termination of such legendary tales, that spirit was to be their tool and instrument for a session—and they were to be his slaves for ever. With regard to the nomination boroughs, he would frankly avow, that he was no friend to that system; and if any plan could be devised, by which the three orders of the State could be perpetuated in safety without them, he, for one, should be glad to get rid of them. What, however, he objected to was, that Ministers proposed to sweep away all the practical institutions of the country at once, without having any tried and definite measure to propose in their stead. The responsibility of Ministers could not be secured unless there were certain means of their obtaining seats in either House of Parliament. It might be said, that the right of impeachment would still exist. Impeachment never could be applied to an ambitious Minister in the plenitude of his power; but could only be used as an instrument of vengeance against the fallen. Had any of their Lordships read, in the history of any time or country, that an ambitious and able Minister, aiding a usurping power in the Slate which was inconsistent with the liberties of his fellow-subjects, was ever arrested in his career by the fear of death, not to occur in the progress of his acts, but to arrive by the slow and doubtful process of subsequent impeachment? At the same time, it was impossible for the most able Minister and most ill-intentioned man the country ever saw, to do much injury to the country, or materially to trespass on the rights of the people, if he were subject to be daily questioned in Parliament. The noble Earl said, that Ministers who possessed the confidence of the country, would be sure to obtain seats in the House of Commons, by menus of the elastic power of the Constitution. The noble Earl, however, abrogated this elastic power by the Bill, It was by the nomination boroughs alone that the presence of Ministers in Parliament,
102
and, consequently their practical responsibility, were secured. It was not, however, by that alone that the liberties of the country were secured. The liberties of the people had, at all limes, and in all countries, been endangered by men of great ambition and ability, as well out of power as in office. It generally happened, however, in this country, that men of such an aspiring character found their way into she House of Commons. Thus the battle, which in other countries might have desolated the land with blood, was fought bloodlessly in the arena of that House, and the contest became a mere war of words, instead of swords, and of argument and reason instead of muskets and cannon. This provision for the admission into the Legislature of the persons to whom he alluded, existed in our Constitution less by the contrivance of politicians, than by a happy chance. When an ambitious man entered the arena of the House of Commons, he was not fool enough, whatever his opinions might be, to overthrow the theatre of his own display. Since the system had existed, Whig and Tory had united in maintaining the privileges of Parliament, and, by so doing, they had maintained the real liberties of the people. If the abuse of this system could be got rid of by the substitution of a better system, he would give his support to the work. He would, however, resist this Bill, because it went a great deal too far, and because he thought, that it was not beyond the province of the House of Lords to dissent from the House of Commons, and to reject a measure which Ministers had proposed, and the people approved of. Indeed, he thought that it was the peculiar province of the House of Lords to resist precipitate legislation. He did not wish that their Lordships should have and practise the power of permanently opposing the wishes and feelings of the country; but he thought, that time should be allowed for consideration—that the people should not, be hurried from one general election to another—that they should not be tampered with by the delusions (not put forth by Ministers, because he believed them to be honest) which were practised at every general election. A general election was always a period of unusual excitement. He would appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. He would wish the people to have an opportunity of calmly considering, not whether they deserved

103
Reform (that, he believed, was all which the sober-minded portion of the nation wished for), but whether they would have all the enactments of the Bill involving a change, which put at the hazard of a single cast of the die the very existence of the Constitution. It was in order to afford the people time for consideration, and, if he might be allowed to say so, to give the Ministers themselves an opportunity of cool reflection, if they would avail themselves of it, that he implored their Lordships not to pass the Bill. Upon the subject of nomination boroughs, he would take the liberty of directing the attention of their Lordships to an observation which was made by one of the French Ministers previous to the late disasters in that country. M. Martignac being asked whether he thought the French charter could be much longer maintained, replied, "How can you ask that question;—how is it possible for us to contrive any thing to stand in the place of your close boroughs? and without that being done, it is not possible to carry on the Government." Before their Lordships came to a vote, he would ask them, whether the history of the world afforded any evidence to prove, that a Constitution composed of King, Lords, and Commons, the one voting on its prerogative, the other on their privileges, and the third on their constitutional rights, derived from popular election, could or did co-exist? Did they ever do so in this country? He thought not. If we looked back to our old history, it would be found, that there was a perpetual collision between these powers. At one time, when a vigorous King reigned, he possessed almost absolute power—at another period, when a weak King occupied the throne, he was imprisoned and murdered. Sometimes the Aristocracy were the masters of the country, and individuals of noble families were the setters up and pullers down of kings. To advance a little further into the examination of our own history, when the House of Commons obtained greater power, we found the Monarchy destroyed and Peerage set aside. Up to the time of the Revolution, which used to be called the glorious Revolution, and differed very much from the revolutions which were now frequently occurring around us, there was a constant struggle between prerogative and privilege. Since that period the collision had ceased, and the people had
104
enjoyed real practical liberty. The people were free, and the best proof of that was to be found in the impartial administration of justice. Did any man, who was to be tried by a Jury, now regard what the wish or opinion of the King might be? Such, however, was not the character of our legal tribunals when a Jefferies sat on the Bench. No: they had acquired it only since the much abused system of anomaly had been established. The supporters of the Bill said, that the existing system might be made more perfect. If they could improve it, he would say "in God's name do so;" but not by adopting a plan which appeared specious enough at the first blush of the question, but which, if it should fail, would ruin the country for ever. If their Lordships should adopt only such parts of the plan at first as appeared safe, they would have it in their power to proceed further: in legislation it was easy to proceed, but difficult to turn back—
——"facilis descensus Averni
Noctes atque dies patet atri janua Ditis;
Sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras,
Hoc opus, hic labor est."
With respect to giving the large manufacturing towns, such as Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham, a share in the Representation, he was willing to take that point into serious consideration. As an evidence of his sincerity in this respect he would state, that he had himself witnessed the inconvenience which resulted from those places being without Representatives. He knew, however, that, indirectly, and practically, these large towns enjoyed Representation under the existing system. The progress which they had made in wealth, the great capital and immense population employed in them, compared with similar places in other countries, must satisfy their Lordships that their interests had never been neglected in the present House of Commons. The most theoretical Reformer had never contended, that the manufacturing towns required Representatives because their interests were neglected. His quarrel with the Bill was, not because they enfranchised these places, but because it disfranchised all their wealthy inhabitants. How did it do this? In the first place, the indirect avenues to Representation were closed against them. It would be said, however, that they would obtain direct Representation.

105
But were the supporters of the Bill certain that the three shilling and tenpenny weekly constituency was calculated to afford protection to the capital of the great towns? were they enfranchising the wealth or the poverty of these places? Let the supporters of the Bill consider whether they would not disfranchise and nearly annihilate the wealth and intelligence of those towns?—whether they would not give power, not to the frame-makers, but to the frame-breakers?—whether they would not establish such hot-beds of sedition and violence, as would compel wealth, capital, and talent, to disappear from their present abodes? It was not in the power of legislation to fix capital to any particular place. He might apply to capital, the lines which the poet had penned upon a more agreeable and poetical subject. Capital—
—"free as air, at sight of human ties,
Spreads its light wings and in a moment flies."
These were his reasons for hesitating to give power into the hands of those who would expel or destroy the capital from which alone they derived their subsistence, and leave themselves in a state of perfect destitution. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Radnor) said, that the Bill would be a final measure—that the Radicals wished for nothing beyond it. Where the noble Earl had looked for the facts upon which he founded this opinion he knew not; nor did he know whom the noble Earl denominated Radicals. Had the noble Earl read (he thought he might) the address of William Cobbett, to the electoral body which the Bill proposed to create in Manchester? That most able writer (for a most able writer he was for his own purposes) was not likely to address to those whom he expected to become his constituent body, pledges and opinions which he knew would give them offence, and prevent any one from voting for him. Could the language of Revolution be more strongly expressed than it was in that address? Noble Lords said, that when the Bill should be passed, they would oppose the Vote by Ballot. How could they do so? A rising man, who had been brought forward by the Bill, and was to be one of its future supporters in the House of Commons—whose powers of eloquence all who knew must admire—had addressed his opinions to the new constituent body at Leeds, and pledged himself, in opposition to all the pledges of
106
the Government which he supported, which perhaps would not avow his opinions, to support the Vote by Ballot. A member of the Administration, and the leader of the House of Commons, had declared himself an admirer of the Vote by Ballot. Let not Ministers suppose that they had by their wonderful contrivance leaped at once beyond all the expectations of the Reformers, and left the Question of the Vote by Ballot so far behind that it could never overtake them. Let them look to what was going on around them, and they would be soon undeceived. He distrusted the sincerity of those who said, that they would resist further concession, for if they were sincere, they did not possess power to carry their intentions into effect. The three-and-tenpenny and 10 l. voters, were precisely the description of persons who, from their being condensed in populous places, and from their being employed in manufacturing towns in similar occupations, were most liable to be improperly excited. They were persons on whom agitators and itinerant orators were most likely to exercise an improper influence. Above all, they were persons who had lately formed themselves into Political Unions and Associations, the very existence of which, for any length of time, he believed to be inconsistent with the existence of any government whatever. These associations had their origin in the political Jacobinical clubs of France at the period of the Revolution in that country, whose blighting influence nipped in the bud the hopes of liberty, and prevented them from blossoming during a period of not less than forty years. Of the danger of these associations their Lordships could entertain no doubt, when they saw the state to which France was at the present moment reduced by even the ghosts of her former clubs. When the great, boon of Emancipation was granted to the Catholics, it was the unanimous opinion of their Lordships, that it was necessary to put down such associations in Ireland, but now it was proposed to give to the great towns a mass of constituency which would throw them into the hands of the Unions, which no steps were taken to put down. Ministers did not even propose to withhold the elective franchise from every man who might be a member of these associations, or had continued one for a certain time. The measure now proposed would lead to a Republic more dreadful than that which

107
had been established in France. That, at least, was one and indivisible; but the first result of the carrying of the Bill would be the Repeal of the Union with Ireland, and the dismemberment of the empire. This great State would be divided in to two several small Republics, which would probably soon become the provinces of some greater Power. Never, while he had a voice to raise in opposition, would he give his consent to a measure so pregnant with mischief. He begged to call the attention of their Lordships to what was called the liberal party in other countries, and would ask, whether it was a war or a peace party? The noble Earl concluded abruptly, saying, that though he had intended to address some further observations to their Lordships, he found that his strength was exhausted, and must therefore sit down.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that he was induced to obtrude himself on the attention of the House, with the view of attempting a reply to the very able and powerful speech of the noble Earl who had just addressed the House. He should in some respects differ from the course taken by the noble Earl, for he would attempt to argue the principle of the Bill. With every respect, for the noble Earl, and paying the full tribute of admiration to the talents which he had displayed, he must assert, and before he sat down, the House would be able to judge whether he was justified in making the assertion, that he had left the principle of the Bill untouched. The noble Earl said, that he had reluctantly entered into a discussion in which he was opposed to those for whom he professed strong esteem and regard. The noble Earl had also stated, that he had listened to the arguments in favour of the Bill, with a strong desire to be convinced by them. Had it not been for these direct assertions of the noble Earl, which he was bound to believe, and did believe, he should have supposed, from the tone of severity and the strain of sarcasm which pervaded his speech from the beginning to the end, that the noble Earl's reluctance was not so very strong as he had led the House to imagine that it was, and that something more than a logical difference on the subject had dictated the noble Earl's observations. He really could not recollect one objection which the noble Earl had made to the principle of the Bill. The noble Earl had said, that Ministers were building a new Constitution. He had also said, that
108
the Bill, if carried, was one which would render it impossible for his Majesty's Government to be carried on. These were positions which the noble Earl had adopted and not laid down himself for the first time. They had been, reiterated from the commencement of the discussion up to that moment; and now that the noble Earl had ceased to speak, they remained as they did before he began to speak, resting only on mere assertion. It had been stated of this measure, which had been brought forward by Ministers, and sent up to their Lordships, backed by the authority of the other House of Parliament, that it was founded on fanciful theories, that the grievances which were complained of were ideal, and that the Bill would destroy a system which was working well for all purposes of public utility, and endanger the Constitution of the country. To every one of those assertions he would take upon himself to give a positive denial. He would not rest on his mere denial, but would state further, that the theory which was opposed to the Bill was improper, and at direct variance with the ancient established and acknowledged principles of the Constitution. The persons who complained of injustice being done to them were themselves the usurpers of the power of the realm. He believed that the rejection of this remedial constitutional measure, which had been sent up to their Lordships from the Commons of England, would be attended with dangers not imaginary, remote, or trivial, but immediate, vital, and overwhelming. All considerations personal to himself were lost in the deep and anxious alarm which he felt upon this subject. There had been a degree of personal rancour accompanying the attacks which had been made upon the Bill and its authors, which proved that something more than apprehension for the Constitution influenced the opposition to the measure. Assertions and attacks, such as he alluded to, must not rest upon the authority of those who made them, or on the pertinacity and perseverance with which they were reiterated. They must be tried by the test of reason and argument. There was one circumstance to which he could advert with some degree of pleasure—namely, that the tone originally assumed by the opponents of the Bill had been abandoned. He could not avoid observing, that the opposition to this measure had descended from that high tone which it

109
had assumed at the commencement; and he found that this measure of Parliamentary Reform, which had been at first encountered as an audacious measure of corporation robbery, and as directly tending to overturn the State, was now met by an admission from every person who had spoken from the other side of the House, with one single exception, that Reform, and in some considerable degree, too, was necessary ["no, no."] He certainly thought, that, the only person who had denied that Reform was necessary was a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Mansfield) ["no, no."] The noble Earl was the only person, of all who had spoken on the subject, that entertained such an opinion ["no, no."] It was, of course, impossible for him to conjecture what was passing in the minds of noble Lords opposite, but among the persons who had taken part in the present debate, or spoken on the presentation of petitions, the noble Earl was the only person who had avowed himself the uncompromising foe to any kind of Reform whatever. The noble Earl to whom he alluded, and of whom he wished to speak with the greatest respect for his talents, had certainly taken a very whimsical course in establishing his position against all Reform, and against this specific measure in particular; for, after joining in the general cry of its tendency to overturn the monarchy, and all the institutions of the State, he proceeded further, and said, that the present measure would have the effect of establishing the Ministers in their places, and that by Reform of Parliament they would be enabled to carry on all their injurious measures against the interests of the country. The first use, said the noble Earl, which Ministers would make of their new power, would be to go to war with Portugal; and the next step to be taken by Ministers was to commit the equal outrage—as he believed it would appear in the estimation of some noble Lords—of not going to war with France. Then the Ministers would proceed to put an end to all the rights of primogeniture, of hereditary property, and, in short, to adopt every one of those measures which were perpetrated in the wildest days of disturbance and folly that ever afflicted the French nation. This really appeared to him to be a sweeping course of objection, and one which he was not quite prepared to follow. He was only prepared to argue this measure of
110
Reform on its own grounds and principles. With the exception of the noble Earl, all the noble Lords who had spoken on the other side of the House, had declared themselves friendly to some degree of Parliamentary Reform ["no, no," from Lord Falmouth.] He really thought that the noble Lord had, in part of the speech which he had delivered that night, ex pressed himself in favour of some kind of Reform; but he found that he was mistaken, and he certainly had no wish to fix on the noble Lord so odious an imputation.
The Earl of Falmouthexplained. He admitted that he had said, that if any bill of Reform was brought into the House, he would endeavour to give it due consideration; but he had said nothing which implied that he thought a measure of Reform necessary.
Lord Plunkettcontinued. He said, that it certainly had caused him some surprise to find, that though so many noble Lords had expressed themselves in favour of some measure of Reform—their various tendencies being in different degrees—yet, somehow or other, they all joined in an uniform declaration that they would vote against the present Bill; and they all joined in the uniform cry which had been raised against it, on principles and arguments which equally applied against every kind of Reform. This somewhat abated the confidence he might have been disposed to place in the professions of the noble Lords opposite, and disabled him from drawing those happy auguries from them which he otherwise should have done. One noble Earl, who he regretted most exceedingly was about to divide against this measure, and who had spoken with such powerful ability on the second night of the present debate, had argued this question in away which the noble Earl (Carnarvon) alleged had not been answered by the noble Marquis near him (the Marquis of Lansdown). He certainly thought that the noble Lord was correct in stating that the noble Earl's arguments had not been answered by the noble Marquis; and the reason was perfectly obvious: it was because the noble Earl argued, with a powerful ability to which he could not pretend, not against, but in favour of most of the propositions which the noble Marquis had to contend for. The noble Earl had, in fact, stated, that he would have supported a measure

111
of Reform founded on the destruction of nomination boroughs; he had also admitted the principle of enfranchising large towns, and of enlarging the county Representation, as well as the necessity of some substantial measure of Reform; and he had expressed his regret that some modified measure of that kind had not been introduced by the noble Duke, late at the head of the Administration. The noble Earl went further, and admitted that the particular objections which he had to the machinery of the Bill might be satisfactorily discussed in the Committee ["no, no."] He therefore thought, that after these admissions of the noble Earl, it would have been quite preposterous for the noble Marquis to get up and meet arguments which might tend to induce the House to go into Committee on the Bill. He must say, that the way in which this Bill came before the House did appear to him to entitle it to be received with more courtesy, calmness, and mildness than it had received. He must say, that there never was a set of persons less exposed to the imputation of having intruded themselves on the notice of the public, or of having sought for the situation which had imposed on them the necessity of bringing forward the present measure, than his noble friends behind him. He believed that it could not be out of the recollection of the House and of the country with what a degree of self-devotion those noble persons, session after session, and year after year, sustained the Administration of the noble Duke opposite, and stood by him, as the supporters of those measures which they conceived to be for the public good. He thought their conduct a singular instance of self-devotion, though he admitted that the noble Duke was entitled to their support when he introduced the measure respecting the Roman Catholic claims. The noble Duke on that occasion entitled himself to the lasting and interminable gratitude of the country. He had always entertained that opinion, and he now expressed it with perfect sincerity; and in any observations he should offer, or any reference he should make to words which had fallen from the noble Duke, he hoped that he should not be considered as doing anything inconsistent with a feeling of the greatest respect towards that distinguished individual. In the month of November last, the noble Duke found it necessary to retire from the situation which
112
he then held at the head of the Administration. Undoubtedly, the retirement of the noble Duke was connected with the subject of Parliamentary Reform ["no," from the Duke of Wellington—"Hear," from the Marquis of Londonderry.] He thought that the negative had been uttered in so loud a tone as not to require the echo of the noble Marquis. Fie did not wish to misrepresent what the noble Duke had said; but he understood the noble Duke to have stated, "that it was a great mistake to represent that he had retired from office on account of the question of Parliamentary Reform: he had said no such thing: what he had said was, that finding that he had not the confidence of the House of Commons, and apprehending that if the question of Parliamentary Reform were to be brought forward "—
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington rose to explain what was the statement made by him on the occasion alluded to by the noble Lord. What he had said was, that finding that he did not possess the confidence of the House of Commons, he had determined to retire from his Majesty's service, and he fixed on the day on which he retired as the period for offering his resignation to his Majesty, on account of a motion having been made and carried in the House of Commons at that particular time. He had stated plainly, over and over again, that he did not wish that persons being in his Majesty's service, and possessing his Majesty's confidence, should go into the House of Commons not possessing the confidence of the House, and be outvoted on the question of Reform.
Lord Plunkettwas at a loss to know the difference between his statement and that of the noble Duke's.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the want of confidence of the House of Commons was the cause of his resignation.
Lord Plunkettknew that it was the want of confidence of the House of Commons; but he understood that that want of confidence was also accompanied with this circumstance—namely, that in consequence of that want of confidence, the noble Duke thought it highly probable that he would be defeated on the question of Parliamentary Reform. ["no, no."] He understood from the statement of the noble Duke, that finding he did not possess the confidence of the House of Commons, in consequence of the division on the Civil List, and apprehending

113
that he was liable to be defeated on the question of Reform, he did not choose to expose the Government to that risk.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the case was simple enough. He certainly had no intention of resigning until after the division on the Civil List; and fixed on Tuesday morning after the debate as the period of his resignation, because he did not choose to expose the Government or the country to the inconvenience of a discussion on so important a question as Parliamentary Reform, that Government not having at the time the confidence of the House of Commons.
Lord Plunkettexpressed himself satisfied with the statement of the noble Duke, who had given an explanation of certain expressions which he had used, exactly in the way in which he (Lord Plunkett) had meant to state them. He would not say what were the precise words made use of by the noble Duke, but the impression on his mind was, that the noble Duke had resigned his situation in consequence of his apprehension, that not possessing the confidence of the House of Commons he might be liable to be defeated on the question of Parliamentary Reform. What he had stated, he had stated on the authority of the Parliamentary Reports, and he would refer to the same authority for a declaration made by the noble Duke on another occasion. He there learned that the noble Duke took an opportunity of declaring, that "with respect to Reform, he not only was not prepared with any measure of Reform, but that he could not form part of any Administration which would propose that question to the consideration of Parliament." [cries of "no, no."] He really wished, that if he was misrepresenting the noble Duke, noble Lords would allow him to reply to the misrepresentation himself. It was perfectly impossible for any person to proceed with his argument if subject to such repeated interruptions.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to speak to order. He had been indignantly taken to task, occupying, as he did, the place of Speaker in their Lordships' House, for not interposing with that which he alone had a right to tender—his suggestions and advice—and he now begged leave, for the sake of the order of their Lordships' proceedings, to suggest that there was one, and but one, orderly mode of setting a noble Lord right, if he should
114
misrepresent the sentiments of another noble Lord, either wilfully, which was not to be presumed possible, or from misunderstanding. The only time, according to the strict order of debate in Parliament, for a noble Lord so misrepresented to set himself right, if he chose so to do, was to explain after the speech was closed; but it was the constant and most convenient course, in order to prevent an argument being founded on an involuntary misrepresentation, to allow a slight interruption to be given for the purpose of correcting the error. But then this interruption must have a limit, or the consequence would be, that the greatest confusion would be introduced into their Lordships' proceedings. He was sure that the noble Duke would see the disorder that must arise from these repeated interruptions, and would bear in mind, that a time would arrive for him to explain, after his noble and learned friend had concluded his speech. But it was, above all things, contrary to order, and could not be endured, that for the purpose of setting right a supposed misrepresentation, the by-standers who had not been misrepresented, and who were no parties to the business, should interfere when the principal himself did not choose so to do.
The Duke of Wellingtonassured the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that he felt the justness of his observations and the necessity of adhering to the orders of the House. He had, however, thought that it would not be improper to correct the noble and learned Lord opposite on a point of fact connected with his retiring from office last year; but he begged to assure the noble and learned Lord, that he might go on without further interruption from him, as he should have an opportunity to set himself, if necessary, right with their Lordships, and he only begged them, therefore, to suspend their judgment with respect to the circumstances which had just been alluded to.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that his only wish was, to state clearly and correctly what had fallen from the noble Duke; and it would be much more painful to him to misrepresent the noble Duke, than it need be to the noble Duke himself, What he understood the noble Duke to have said—and the thing was the more strongly fixed in his recollection by having remarked the different language used by the noble Duke in that House, and his right hon.

115
colleague in another place—was, that he was not only not prepared with a measure of Parliamentary Reform, but as long as he held any place in his Majesty's Councils, he must oppose any such measure that might be proposed. As he had just stated, the observations of the noble Duke were fixed in his memory by the different language made use of by a right hon. friend of his, who in another place did at first explicitly state, that certainly the question of Parliamentary Reform had something to do with the resignation of his Majesty's late Ministers; and then went on to say, that the then Cabinet, not being prepared with any measure on the subject, and not wishing, after their defeat on the question of the Civil List, to go out on the question of Reform, accordingly resigned their situations. There was a marked distinction between the expressions of his right hon. friend and those of the noble Duke. His right hon. friend—
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby rose to order. He said, that it had always been held disorderly to comment on words which had fallen from any Peer in that House; but the noble and learned Lord went further, and proceeded to draw conclusions from a supposed difference between what was said in that House, which he might have heard, and what he imagined was said in another House of Parliament by an individual who was not then present. He was satisfied that the noble and learned Lord would, on reflection, see that this was a mode of commenting, not on the conduct, but on the words of Members of Parliament, which must be attended with the greatest possible inconvenience, and was equally contrary to the rules of both Houses of Parliament. He really trusted that the noble and learned Lord would feel that it was not necessary, in the discussion on the present measure of Reform, to make a detailed comment on words, the authenticity of which it was impossible to ascertain.
Lord Wharncliffeconfessed that he did not see any thing disorderly in the noble Lord's referring to the words spoken by a right hon. Gentleman in another place in a former Session of Parliament. Those words were now matter of history: where the noble and learned Lord found them, he knew not; but they were matter of history, and it was the common practice of their Lordships, and of the other House of Parliament, to refer to debates which had
116
taken place in former Parliaments, and argue on particular expressions used in them.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he referred to the language used by his right hon. friend, as to a matter of history, He was not going to make an inquiry into the conduct of the noble Duke, or of his right hon. friend, but he wished to point out the difference between their expressions. It appeared to him that a studied mode of expression was adopted by the right hon. Baronet; for he said, that the late Cabinet were not then prepared with a measure of Parliamentary Reform, and Ministers, under those circumstances, having been defeated on the question of the Civil List, and apprehending what might be the result of meeting the House of Commons on the question of Reform, did not choose to encounter the event. Their Lordships would observe, that the right hon. Baronet said, "that the Cabinet were not prepared with a measure of Reform;" while the noble Duke said, "they were not only not prepared with a measure, but that as long as he formed part of his Majesty's Cabinet, he should feel it his duty to oppose any proposition for Reform." The result of this was, that the late Administration was broken up under the impression that in the circumstances in which they were placed, they were not able to meet the question of Parliamentary Reform in the House of Commons. This was the inference which he drew from the declarations made by the late Ministers, and he thought it a very important one. Upon the dissolution of the late Government, the present Administration came into office, avowedly on the principle that some measure of Parliamentary Reform was absolutely necessary; and that the government of the country could not go on without it. This was all he wanted to establish. The noble Duke and his colleagues unanimously resigned office, because they could not meet Parliament in the then state of feeling on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. The head of the Government was determined to oppose all Reform as long as he continued in the Cabinet, but his right hon. colleague only said, that he was not prepared with a measure of Reform. They both, however, resigned, and it did not appear that any measure of Reform, of however modified a nature, had been suggested to their Sovereign, in the possession of whose confidence

117
they at that time stood. Therefore, he had a right to say, that their retirement from office, and the coming in of their successors, were connected with the question of Parliamentary Reform. Was it any ground of attack on his noble friend at the head of the Government, that when called upon by his Sovereign—whom his former servants, he would not say had abandoned, but had declared their inability to serve any longer, to form a Government—he did not refuse to obey that call, and did undertake to carry on in that difficult crisis the public business of the State, on the known and avowed principles on which he had been in the habit of acting? His noble friend had, in the first instance, explained the principles on which he accepted office, and amongst them were, the principles of economy, of non-interference, and, primarily and particularly, of Parliamentary Reform. In consequence of the declarations made by the noble Earl, a measure of Reform was introduced to the consideration of the late Parliament. The noble Lord who had just sat down had said, with respect to Parliamentary Reform, "that the breeze had been fanned into a hurricane by the noble Earl," from whom he was so unwilling to differ. Did the noble Lord conceive that the noble Duke opposite was likely to be moved by such a breeze? He rather inferred from the change of Government, that the breeze had previously assumed the character of a hurricane, and if his noble friend, now at the head of affairs, in endeavouring to allay the hurricane, rode on the whirlwind, he could not be said to be directed by the storm. A measure of Reform, the same in substance and for efficiency of purpose as the one now before their Lordships, was introduced into the late House of Commons. It was there canvassed in all its parts by friends and enemies; it underwent a most severe scrutiny, and the principle was adopted by what he could not call a very large majority, for it was carried by a majority of one only. His Majesty's Ministers afterwards, finding that they were about to be baffled, took his Majesty's pleasure upon the subject, whether, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the people, not with respect to that particular measure (but still it so happened that that measure was in the singular position which he had stated), the Parliament should not be dissolved. The people, thus appealed to, expressed their
118
opinions with a degree of assent amounting almost to unanimity, and though the entire subject of Parliamentary Reform had been opened, their opinions applied to that particular measure which had been so rigidly canvassed in Parliament, and they exercised their suffrages so directly in reference to that measure, that their Representatives had been termed delegates. He appealed to those noble Lords who recollected what had passed in the country, whether they ever recollected elections to have been conducted with a greater degree of order and regularity? With respect to Ireland, he was sorry to say, it was difficult to mention at random any period of the history of that country, during which a state of perfect tranquillity might be found; but still there had been no disturbance there since the dissolution, connected with the elections. The same thing might be said with respect to England. He mentioned this circumstance, because attacks had been made in connection with this measure of Reform, not merely on the Government, but also on the people of the country, who had been accused of unfitness to form the basis of free Representation. The elections having been conducted with such tranquillity and propriety, the discussions in the House of Commons having been conducted, on the part of those who introduced this Bill, with as much deliberation as any debate in the history of Parliament, and the Bill having passed, after some amendments, by an overwhelming majority, it certainly did surprise him to hear a noble Baron (Lord Wharncliffe) take upon himself to say, that, after this specific measure had been submitted to Parliament, and the opinion of the people taken on it, when petitions were presented declaring their approbation of this measure, those petitions only meant to convey approval of Reform generally. On what authority the noble Baron made such a statement he did not know; but he was sure that if the petitions referred to any measure, it could be no other than the one before the House. This measure having been brought forward under the sanction of Government, and under the sanction of his Majesty, as implied in his authorizing the Government to propose it, and having passed through the House of Commons, certainly was entitled to be treated with a great degree of courtesy by their Lordships. He did admit that their Lordships were

119
fully entitled to canvass the measure in all its parts, freely and fearlessly, in the exercise of their duty. But although their Lordships were in the exercise of their undoubted privilege in the present circumstances, they were to recollect that they were sitting in judgment on the people of England, and on a subject peculiarly—and so far as any subject that could come before their Lordships could be, exclusively—relating to the privileges of the other House of Parliament. He, therefore, could not too anxiously implore their Lordships to consider well, before they adopted the desperate experiment of rejecting this measure, what were the consequences which might result from that rejection. He was satisfied their Lordships would think, that whatever might be the ultimate fate of the measure, it was entitled to receive the most respectful attention of that House. A good deal of sarcasm had been thrown out in that place against the people of England. He again said, that there had been some smart sarcasms and polished epigrams thrown out against the people of England; the noble Lord opposite had got up a great deal of pointed irony and polished epigram, though he had omitted to touch any real part of the subject, at the expense of the people of England. But he (Lord Plunkett) would say, that that people, whose petitions had been sent up in such numbers to their Lordships, and whose rights were involved in this question, were no light, giddy, and fantastic multitude—no rabble labouring under a temporary delusion, but a great nation, intelligent, moral, instructed, wealthy—a nation as much entitled to respect, and with as many claims to favourable consideration, as any nation in ancient or modern times. Therefore, when noble Lords attacked this measure, and said that if it was carried, it would give the people of England the means of overthrowing the Throne and the Church, and abolishing all our venerable institutions, he would ask those noble Lords, if such were the effects to be apprehended from the measure if it were carried, what would be the effects if it were not carried? But he affirmed that the charge was totally untrue. The people of England had no such objects. They were too sensible to indulge any such rash schemes. But if our institutions were such that they could not be sustained without repressing the just complaints of the people, why, he would say, they were not worth the tax we
120
paid for them. But he again said, that the charge was a libel upon the people of England; it was an attack upon the character of the country, which was as dangerous as it was untrue. Then the matter for their Lordships' consideration was, whether they had reason to think that this was a mere popular burst, which would soon die away, and that all would become calm again in (as a noble Lord said the other night) about two years; that they were consulting the interest, and the tranquillity, and the safety of the country by rejecting this measure; that the Commons House of Parliament, which had passed this Bill by a large majority, was ready to recede from the measure, and that the people of England were disposed to abandon it. If their Lordships rejected the measure, and they got locked in the wheels of the other House of Parliament, so that they could not go on, what would be the consequence? The noble Lord had said that the only consideration for their Lordships was, whether this was or was not a right measure, and that they were not to look at consequences. This was a doctrine almost too monstrous, he should have thought, for a sane man. If the wheels of the Government were to be stopped in the way he had mentioned, how could the Government go on? The noble Baron did not argue the principle of the measure, but he went into the details, and contended that the inconveniences of the measure being certain, their Lordships were bound to shut their eyes against the consequences of rejecting it, and to stand secure amidst the wreck of elements—
"Should nature's frame in ruins fall,
And Chaos o'er the sinking ball
Resume primeval sway,
His courage chance and fate defies,
Nor feels the wreck of earth and skies
Obstruct his destined way."
Those lines of the poet exactly described the feelings and conduct of the noble Lord. But he (Lord Plunkett) would affirm, that they were bound to consider consequences; and he would call the attention of their Lordships to what the consequences would be if they rejected this Bill, under circumstances which would prevent the introduction of a measure of equal efficacy. Where, he would ask their Lordships, were they to look for strength, on the dissolution of the present Government? The noble Duke opposite was one of the first persons to whom the eyes of the public would be directed in

121
such a case. It was with reference to this that he had been so particular in endeavouring to ascertain the exact words used by the noble Duke on a certain occasion. But if the noble Duke was then unable to go on with the government of the country, because at that period he had lost the confidence of the House of Commons, and was apprehensive of what might be the result of that loss of confidence, did the noble Duke conceive that he was now restored to the confidence of the House of Commons, and that he had a better chance now than before of parrying the question of Reform? He (Lord Plunkett) did not think so; and great as might be the misfortune to the country, that the noble Duke should be prevented from carrying on the business of the country, he did not conceive how the noble Duke could join other members of his own party who had declared for partial Reform. As to the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), the noble Duke could not calculate on him, because he had not got into the kitchen. He would ask their Lordships' whether they seriously thought there was any chance of safety to the country if this measure were rejected? When noble Lords made violent appeals, and called upon the Reverend Bench to attest their solemn appeal to Providence, he hoped they would ask their own conscience, at that retired hour, when the still small voice of nature was heard, and then consider whether they were satisfied with their own conduct, and were convinced they were pursuing a course which was likely to be productive of safety and benefit to their country. Let him (Lord Plunkett) not be accused of offering a threat; it would be presumptuous in him to hold such language. No threats were likely to influence their Lordships; no threats of popular violence or insurrection should have, or ought to have any effect upon the noble Lords in that House. He trusted that any one there would be ready to join heart and hand in giving assistance to the Government of the country, in resisting every thing tending to insurrection. But the danger was, that things might come to such a pass that the Government could not go on—that we should be reduced to a state of utter anarchy. These were questions which noble Lords, who made those appeals to the Reverend Bench, should put to their own minds; for though they might withstand a sudden explosion of popular fury, there was a deeply-seated
122
sense of wrong, ready to burst forth in the hour of danger, which impressed minds of most fortitude with a sense of terror. Many of their Lordships, he thought, might be reconciled to the measure, if he could find arguments to show that it was necessary to the security of the institutions of the country, He should, therefore, in pursuance of the promise he had made, now proceed to call the attention of their Lordships to the nature, of the case before them. What was their Lordships' place in the Constitution? They were invested with noble and high privileges as a branch of the Legislature; they were the hereditary counsellors of the Crown; they were the highest judicial Court of appeal in civil and criminal cases, and, from their character, growing out of their station, rank, and place in the country, they were entitled to the respect and reverence of the country. Their Lordships must not believe that he flattered them, when he assured them, that they stood as high in the opinion of the country as any branch of the Legislature. Then, were any of these high privileges assailed? No; but what they claimed was a share in the Representation of the country. There might be cases in which, for the sake of avoiding mischief, and in discharge of their duty to themselves and to the Crown, they ought to resist the demands of the people. But was this one of those cases? If a struggle took place, could their Lordships resist the right of the people to a full and fair Representation in Parliament? "Do as you would be done by," was a simple and sublime maxim which vindicated its divine origin; "Do as you would be done by," and he would ask their Lordships if the people claimed any of the privileges of the Crown or of the House of Lords, if they interfered with their Lordships' hereditary titles, would their Lordships be disposed to submit quietly to the invasion? Suppose they had got possession of those privileges, and an Act of Parliament was introduced for restoring them to their rightful owners, would their Lordships think themselves fairly treated if the House of Commons, standing on no other plea than their power to do so, threw out the bill? Their Lordships in such a case must submit; but would it be a sincere, a cheerful submission? They would submit, but it would be only because they could not help submitting. Then the two cases ran exactly parallel: the people of England were as much entitled

123
by law to a full and fair Representation in the House of Commons as their Lordships to their seats in that House. The principle contended for by noble Lords was an unintelligible principle it was a claim on the part of an oligarchy—to what? to a right to return a part of the democracy. The principle was wholly unintelligible; and he defied any phrenologist to point out an organ which could comprehend such an anomaly. He did not think that the accidental circumstance of some Members of that House having got possession of a few places in the other House of Parliament, was any reason why their Lordships should consider it unjust to restore them. He had thus got rid of the objection as to any operation of this measure against the privileges of that House. He then came to the rights of the Throne. All knew what the rights of the Throne were. This measure did not interfere with any of the rights of the Throne. He was not aware that any language had been used to deny the rights of the Throne, the prerogative of dissolving Parliament, or calling up to that House those in whose favour it might, think fit to exercise that prerogative. There was no doubt that the King had the right and prerogative of making himself known to his people and erecting a throne in their hearts. He thought that what had been said upon this subject was unconstitutional trash. The King's name was not to be used to impute personal blame and responsibility. The King could do no wrong; but, to say that the King of England, the representative of the House of Brunswick, which had been invited to this country to protect its rights and liberties, had not a right to make himself known to his subjects as their father and protector, was trash. The King of England was not like an eastern monarch; we were not to look at a king as an abstract idea; he was entitled to make himself known, and to show that a King of England could be the father of his people. He had said more than was necessary on this point, because so much had been said respecting the dangers which threatened the rights of the Crown, and history had been resorted to for no other purpose than to pervert facts. Our kings in former times had issued their writs, calling on certain inhabitants of counties to return Members to Parliament, in order to advise the King as to what taxes should be laid on. A right had been
124
given to places to return Members, and other places had ceased to have Representatives. An instance of the latter had not occurred since Richard 2nd, but the former practice continued till a much later period. All this, however, had no concern with the subject, and it was throwing away time to discuss it. But, although the prerogative of the King was not affected by the abolition of nomination boroughs, yet it was said, if the Government could not be carried on without them, what was to be done? He should like to know, how the power of buying and selling seats, and the sellers putting the money in their pockets, could have any bearing on the King's Government. Was it quite certain, that though one set of buyers of boroughs might be well disposed to the Crown, and might combine together for the King's service and the public good, there might not be other combinations not quite so pure? If the King's Government could only be carried on in that, manner, he thought it would be quite as well that the King should carry on his own Government. But it was not necessary for the King's Government. But it was said that these boroughs were not only a necessary protection against the King, but against the people; for, that if the people were fairly and properly represented, the Government could not not go on, and the House of Commons would swallow up all power. This was a most extraordinary doctrine. It came to no more nor less than this—that this was not a Representative Government; and he would ask, if that was a thing to be received by the people of England with acquiescence and satisfaction? Ours was essentially a Representative Government. In such a Government the people had no right to intervene in the duties of the Executive Government; if they did, that would be a democracy; but they had a right to be fully and fairly represented. If the people were altogether excluded, the Government would be an aristocracy; if they regulated the whole government, and interfered with the executive, that would be a democracy. A full and fair Representation of the people, united with an aristocracy and an executive with which the people did not interfere, was the true nature of our government; and one element of that government, without trenching on the others, this Bill restored. It gave a full and fair Representation to the people adapted to

125
the present circumstances of the country. It had been said by noble Lords opposite, that, this was a new Constitution—that Ministers were unmaking the Constitution—and they were indeed doing so, if the doctrine he had referred to was not correct. It was said, that if the people were fairly represented, the King would not be safe on his Throne; but the doctrine was too monstrous to be maintained. It was not at that period of enlarged knowledge and reflection, that, such a doctrine could be promulgated without the danger of arousing in the country, from one end to the other, the deepest excitement. So far from innovation, they were reverting to the old and established, and acknowledged theory of the Constitution, and those who opposed the change were hostile to that established theory. When the noble Earl (Falmouth) called on the Reverend Bench to defend the present system, he called upon Christian prelates to defend a system of hypocrisy; but he (Lord Plunkett) called on that bench, by the same strong and sacred obligations, to join him in supporting that which was the real Constitution. If their theory was the true one, where? was it proved to be so? For it was not one of those truths which lie upon the surface. None of our own writers; some foreigner had discovered it. How the noble Lord had come by it, it was not possible to imagine. Here were gentlemen buying and selling places in Parliament for 5,000 l. or 12,000 l., which enabled them to come in there, and move on the axis of their own particular interests. They revolved in cycles and epicycles, with more satellites about them than any planet discovered by Gibers or Herschell or any one else; and when it was intended to deprive the favoured inhabitants of A and B of the light of those luminaries, it was supposed that the laws of nature were about to be repealed. These were the men who, in defiance of the King and of the country, would uphold this system for the exclusive benefit of themselves, and oppose a measure which had received the sanction of the House of Commons and of the country. And now one word with respect to the allegations—for to call them arguments would be bitter irony—of noble Lords, founded on the great changes which the Bill, according to them, would introduce into the established institutions of the country. "These institution," say they, "have been framed by our wise and venerated
126
ancestors to last for ever—the country has flourished under their influence, and oh ! beware, you puny moderns, and do not touch with your rash hands what has received the sanction of time, and been formed in the spirit of the wisdom of antiquity." Now let him ask these sapient expounders of the wisdom of our ancestors, whether the world had grown older or younger since our ancestors followed their ancestors to the tomb? To believe these noble Lords, the world was every day growing younger, and the old age of the world was its infancy. With them, groping in the dark was light and wisdom; and experience but another name for youthful ignorance. Indeed, he was sure that if he divided the House on the question, whether the world was not actually younger and less experienced in the year I than in 1831, he was sure that many noble Lords opposite must vote in the affirmative. What, if our ancestors were as blind worshippers of their ancestors as noble Lords, wise in their generation, would fain just now persuade us to be of theirs, was no advantage to be taken of increased knowledge—of increased experience—of the relations of society being better understood because contemplated under a greater variety of aspects? Were circumstances, the growth of time, and change, the growth of both, in the habits of thought and action in the people—and the increased and increasing diffusion of knowledge—and, above all, was time, the great innovator, of no influence? And what was the change? Why, that change should be effected in the machinery of a branch of the Constitution. Pray, what was the history of the Constitution? Were noble Lords who objected to all change, at all read in that history? It should seem not, for otherwise they must know that the history of the Constitution was nothing but the history of its changes, and the English Constitution might be shortly denominated a succession of legislative changes. Such it would be found by any man who went about writing its history. But of all these changes, the most numerous and most extensive—that is, the chapter of the history of change, which would be found to be most various and diversified—would be that of the change of the constitution of Parliament. Why, the very Peerage, as at present constituted, was a change from its original character under our infallible ancestors. Were noble Lords aware that

127
their original right to sit in that House was derived from a species of tenure, of which the whole peerage now contains but one instance—a tenure derived from the possession of certain lands or tenements? If so, must they not admit that their right to sit there, being different from the original one, their actual constitution was a great departure from the wisdom of our ancestors? Was not, he repeated, the whole history of Parliament a history of change? Was not the sweeping away some thirty mitred abbots from that House by Henry 8th, a great change? Then, was not the addition of sixteen Representative Scotch Peers by the Union with Scotland, and of twenty-eight Representative Irish Peers by the Union with Ireland, great changes? the rather as the nature of their tenures of seats in that House were wholly different, not only from that by which the English Peers exercised their functions, but also from each other. The English Peers were hereditary, that is, they sat there by descent and possession; the Scotch Peers sat there by neither descent nor possession, nor for life, but for a single Parliament; while the Irish Peers were elected to sit for life, but, as with their Scotch brethren, not from descent or possession. Look then again at the rotation system of the Irish Bishops, so different from that which regulated the English Bishops, with respect to the right to take a part in the proceedings in that House—in itself a great change from the original constitution of our ancestors. Again, let them consider the numberless changes which had been made in the oaths taken by Members of Parliament since its first constitution, all showing, that the history of the English Constitution was the history of a succession of legislative changes. But, say noble Lords, "This is all very true; but these changes in the Constitution were gradual and imperceptible, while that now proposed by the noble Earl was of unparalleled rapidity." The answer was simple: rapid was a term of degree that was relative to circumstances, and change was a term different in its meaning from restoration. The Bill proposed no change not rendered imperative by circumstances, and only effected the removal of abuses which had been the growth of two centuries. The circumstances which at present justify the change explain the rapidity. But then, again, say noble Lords, "admitting the necessity
128
of some change, and that it should even be a rapid one, why should it be so extensive? Was not such extent fraught with danger to all existing institutions?" His answer was, that the safety was to be found only in the extent of the measure. For mark the reasoning of these noble objectors to an extensive measure of Reform; "We all," say they, "admit the necessity of some measure of Reform; not, be it understood, because we conceive that justice or sound policy recommend it, but because the public demand is so pressing, that, judging by the signs of the times, we cannot help making some concession." Now was it possible for the veriest enemy of the institutions of the country to teach a more dangerous lesson than was contained in this admission? Does it not teach the people, that though nothing would be granted on the score of justice, much would be yielded to importunity? And was this the language befitting a British Statesman? The duty of a statesman worthy of the name was of a far other character. He was not to be merely watching and veering about with every breeze of the popular will, to borrow a metaphorical illustration from the noble Earl, and to merely shape his measures as the popular vane indicated. No, a statesman should take his stand upon an eminence, from which great general principles and lofty views revealed themselves at every step, from which he could, uninfluenced by mere temporary exigencies, clearly see the people's rights and his own duties, and, while seeing them, perform the one by granting the other. From this position he should only descend to counsel and to decide, to see that the people should enjoy their right, and if he found himself capable of effecting this good, he was bound not to await the bidding of the public voice, but to raise the standard of political improvement in the advance of the people. His duty it was, to devise for the wants of the people, to advise them, to moderate them, to be their leader and conductor to freedom and happiness. This was the duty of a statesman, and he who was incapable of it, or who neglected it, however he might win favour with noble Lords so—if we took their own word for it—infallible, disinterested in their judgment, would be held in just contempt by an enlightened posterity. The statesman who had discharged his duties in the manner which he had just glanced at,

129
alone could turn round to the people—in the case supposed by the noble Earl (Harrowby) opposite—and say to them, should they unfortunately be induced by mischievous advisers to exceed the limits of discretion, "I have been no ill-natured spy upon your actions; I have honestly endeavoured to execute the trust confided to me for your benefit. I stand here as your friendly adviser, and tell you, for your own sakes, to arrest yourselves in your progress, and thereby enjoy the blessings which Providence has bestowed upon you." Such an appeal would be irresistible. He felt confident in the good sense of the people of England, and was convinced that such seditious papers as those circulated at a Westminster meeting some years ago would, so far from influencing the people to mischievous ends, recoil upon their promulgators. And now he begged to touch upon one other topic before he sat down. It was an old argument with the opponents of Reform, that the Constitution worked well, and could not be bettered. This was partially true, so far as it applied to many of the institutions of the country—it was false as it applied to the subject matter of the present Bill. It was true, that the Constitution worked well, if by the term was understood the several institutions of the country; it was equally true, that it worked ill so tar as the Representation of the people was concerned. He entirely subscribed to the several panegyrics which had been made upon the practical working of most of our institutions. The laws were sound, and ably administered; the Judges were learned and honest; Juries impartial; Magistrates upright; the Clergy pious and well informed; the finances judiciously managed; and the several offices of State ably filled; but, with all that, the people were not satisfied; the great good was wanting of contented subjects, and they could probably only be made so by receiving that share in the Constitution which was by law assigned them. All these eulogiums, then, had nothing to do with the question before them, which was, whether the people were or were not duly represented? No man pretended to deny that our Representative system required some amendment, so that it could not be said that the "work-well" eulogy could be predicated of it. It was true, that a noble Earl (Carnarvon) opposite maintained that it could, that the representative branch of
130
the Legislature did work well in practice; and he quoted passages from speeches of Mr. Fox and his noble friend (Earl Grey), delivered many years ago, in order to show that they also had been of the same opinion. But the noble Earl strangely overlooked the very important fact, that, the speeches to which he referred as containing eulogies on the British Constitution were actually made for Reform in Parliament, and that these eulogies were a part of the argument for that Reform. It was plain, then, that some of the institutions of the country might be, or they actually were, very good in principle and efficient in practice, while others, the Representative one, might be neither one nor the other. It had been asked, but what, after all, would be gained by this Bill? He answered, that the people would be satisfied, and that hardly a greater benefit could be conferred upon a nation than to remove all sources of dissatisfaction. Need he add, that no dissatisfaction could be more dangerous than that of an enlightened and wealthy people with those who would deny them the means of a pure system of Representation. The truth was, that no argument could be more fallacious than the work-well one, for it would be found that beneficial results had grown up under circumstances of a most baleful nature, to which it would be absurd to attribute them. For example, the Irish Parliament, for thirty or forty years before its gross and scandalous profligacy led to the Act of Union, was a mockery of the very name of Representation, containing as it did 200 Members, over whose election the people of Ireland had as much control as the people of Siberia, and who had no principle but venality, and no occupation but sordid self-aggrandizement; and yet that Parliament, perhaps he should say in spite of it, owing chiefly to the exertions of a band of patriots and orators, of whom Lord Charlemont and Mr. Grattan were the leaders, was instrumental in raising Ireland from barbarism to comparative civilization—from poverty to comparative wealth, and in enabling Ireland to make the most rapid strides towards commercial importance. That profligate Parliament passed wholesome measures with respect to trade—repealed bigotted laws—removed several of the penal disabilities against the Catholics—and yet, surely, not even the noble Marquis (Londonderry), who was so eccentric in his political idiosyncrasies,

131
would venture to say, that the Irish Parliament was a faithful Representation of the people. The Union put an end to that monstrous system of profligacy, and, as completed by the admirable measure of Catholic Emancipation, for which the friends of Ireland never could be too grateful to the noble Duke opposite, had effected much towards improving the Representation of the Irish people. But much remained to be done which only a measure like the present could accomplish. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to observe, that though he had, when early in his political career, raised his voice with vehemence against the measure of the Union, and though he was far from regretting his conduct on that occasion, he, now that the measure had been completed, would resist its repeal to the last moment of his existence. Notwithstanding its monstrous abuses, the Irish Parliament effected some good as, notwithstanding the monstrous absurdity of the present Representation of Scotland the people of that country had advanced in wealth, intelligence, and national prosperity. But would any man deny that the people of Scotland were dissatisfied with their Representative mockery of a system? Could he deny that they would be thrown into a state of frenzy and fury by having their hopes of Reform disappointed? It required no very minute acquaintance with that country to be able to answer the question with confidence; all that was wanting was, a knowledge of the ordinary workings of human nature. That knowledge showed, that the natural result of increased wealth and intelligence was an increased anxiety for the possession of that right without which these advantages lose half their value, namely, political freedom. There were other topics which he was anxious to touch upon, but felt unwilling to trespass longer on their Lordships' attention. [Loud cries of "adjourn," "adjourn," amid which]
Earl Grey Earl Grey rose to move, that the Debate be then adjourned till to-morrow. As it would be impossible to finish the debate that night, and as many noble Lords were anxious to express their sentiments, and as he wished himself to say a few words in reply, he thought it would be expedient to stop then for that evening.
Lord Wynfordwas most anxious to explain his views of the Bill before the debate terminated, and felt disposed to do
132
so then. If, however, the noble Earl would say that their then adjourning would be a matter of personal convenience, he would not resist the Motion, and postpone his statement, which he promised them would be decisive against the Bill, till tomorrow.
Earl Greydid not feel, that he had a right to make his own personal convenience the guide of their proceedings, and was only anxious for the adjournment for the reasons he had stated. They might meet at an earlier hour than usual and continue up to five-o'clock to receive petitions, when the debate might be resumed.
Debate adjourned.