The Sun. — London, England, 1831-07-05 00:00:00

„ revolution to the problem. The d be would, not contrary, affirm the most satis ;Mg system solve t promote what !h to frame any le prosperity of complimenting , declined to fol ntenting himself which appeared :t. In the first 'ernm9nts neces- Nat, and did call , atiording, per man nature Was e had been re st bad F o often hat House Were rents prevailing :ion Were to be deliberate and - id according to nly one in that ke forbore fully its constituents not labour to se favour and evil impressions e their votes ? ealous advocate ristol was con questionably he a that any thing ors say, that till ular point they t of their votes? I conversations, hustings ? and would be incon o have answered he hustings, and ) support or op between a con o restraint upon House. On the opinion ; and if justification for ;o deliberate and n opinion upon his ears to state • His Afajesty om the Throne, ;eneral election, I was upon that le of England their Sovereign, vocally given a tee who had ex apressly for the purpose which :heir sentiments 'ard in another !ssion of which ly less conside r any Meml:er in that great goes free government aking place on testion that the d had opened a Whoever might lot immediately r, or of popular putable, that to arose from an establish un actions that had result in itself vould say, not. o the contrary, I was, that all t, and that all in their turns, iuld be required Hear, hear)-- ide this appeal ie Hon. Gentle delusion pray- Vernber of the seat in Parlia support of the !re scenes taking much to be de- many were restored to their ancient privilege : and witl respect to this he would observe, that consi lerine; tt u s pen s ion of the former, awl the restoration of the latter the spirit of the Conititution must have been grossly Viii lateJ, if it was true (which he (iebied), that the exten Dion of the franchise to one set of boroughs, and the al, straction of that right from another was a breach the Constitution. Neither on this point nor on any othet did he wish to quote the names of great men as au thorities: he would not do so even with the name of AIL Fox ; and, therefore, in mentioning that of Mr. Pitt, it could not be supposed that he was acting with Out view but at all events it would be the means of showing that that great and able man took the same view of the subject ; arid, indeed, he could not conceive that any one could doubt that the plan which was now proposed was, it effect, the renewal of the ancient pt inciple of the Consti tution. It was not his intention to go far back to the times of antiquity, nor to meddle with the period of the Plantagenets ; but with respect to what had fallen from the Honourable Gentleman with reference to the right of boroughs once having sent representatives always to send them, he begged to remark, that surely the Honourable Gentleman could not doubt that formerly the right to summon was inherent in the Crown ; surely the Hon. Gentleman could not doubt that there more than 45 boroughs and one city (that of Ely,) which had formerlv been summoned to send Members to Parliament, but which had not exercised that privilege for centuries ; and he would further beg to ask the Hon. Gentleman by what means those boroughs and that city were to appear at the Bar of that House, and claim their right ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Ile believed that it would he fsamd, that even a Court of Law would reject such a claim, and that it would presume, after so long a lapse of years, that some for feiture or sacrifice, or surrender of the right had taken place. But his argument did not require this position. He viewed the case as Mr. Pitt had viewed it. The principles which were embraced in three of their sche dules of the 13;11, and which it was their object to effect, was the disfranchisement of those boroughs that had fallen into decay, and the enfranchisement of such towns as had grown into importance. Both of these principles were in accordance with the ancient practice. He would not take upon himself to say whether the case of Boston might or might not be an exception to the general rule, that all great towns were to send representatives to Parliament. When the famous case of Newark occurred, in the time of Charles 11., it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have provided a law of equality of representation, by which means the arrangement would have been gradual, and no shock would have been produced. If it had then been provided that every borough which contained a cer tain number of houses should be entitled to send Members, and that in the event of its falling below that number the privilege should cease, the whole principle of Reform would from that moment have been in operation. Why was the Government now told that it was going too far, and that it was cutting too deep ? Gentlemen would not remember that all this time the Government was only going on the old principle; and that, in what it was proposing, it was following the footsteps of all the eminent Reformers of late days•—:(Hear, hear)—and that the great plan laid down in the five schedules was as distinctly laid down in Mr. Pitt's speech in 1765, as in the Reform Bill that was at that moment before the House.—(Hear, hear.) In fact it was impossible for Parliament to transfer the right of election from a corrupt to a sound borough, without at once establishing the whole principle of the measure. It was impossible to conceive any sort of Reform—it was im possible to acknowledge any amelioration of the Constitution, without admitting this. But it had been asked, " Will you point out any present expediency that demands so great a change? Will you show us any evils that have arisen of sufficient consequence to call for such alteration? It works well." If he were of this opinion he should be the last man in the world to derogate from the present state of the English Constitution—a subject, the study of which had engaged the greater portion of his life—(Hear.) But the reason why he would Reform the English Consti tution, was because he loved it; and because reformation, in his opinion, afforded the most probable means of making it the perfect thing which he wished to see it.—(Hear.) But in answer to the cry that it worked well, he would show the House how, during the eighteenth century, it hail not worked well. It was during that period of years that the system was adopted which silently worked out of the hearts of the people all regard and affection for it. It was during this period of years that they were silently but surely taught to distrust the rulers that were chosen by means of this system. The people, perhaps, were not capable of balancing the advantages of the whole result against the details of the fraudulent means which came to their knowledge, and in so doing they did right, for they preferred the innate feelings of morality to abstruse questions of Government, which were beyond their comprehension. If he might he allowed to say so ..-the very excellence of the Constitution had contributed to its destruction ; for the morality that its principle had awakened in the minds of the people had inspired those feelings that had at length undermined it. If any one would look at the lists of the House of Commons under the Stuarts, he would find that they were generally filled with country gentlemen, and the younger sons of opulent gentlemen in the neighbourhood ; and nothing was to be seen of candidates coming from a distance to seek the re presentation of et place, so that contests were very little known. The introduction of a different system had necessarily been attended with the growth of those prac tices which, it was now on all hands acknowledged, per vaded every class in the community. But while the Aristocracy had thus been gradually losing the respect of the people, the people were also gradually becoming better informed, and consequently more shocked at those scenes to which the elections gave rise. In the mean time other great events arose, by means of which the people were still better able to appreciate their power, and their comments upon the state of the representation of the country became still more 'narked and observable. The lion. Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had in the last Parliament, when the Reform Bill was before the House, contended that all these feelings were merely transient ; but certainly the Hon. Gentleman had taken a very curious method of proving that statement. The Hon. Gen tleman, in referring to the question of Reform, as agitated towards the close of the last century, said that it was at that time attempted to instil into the minds of the people that they were nut well governed under the present representative system ; but that, notwithstanding the forcible description entered into by Mr. Burke, the sensation that was produced subsided. Why, so it did. But the next stage of the transaction, had the Hon. Gentleman inquired into it, would have confuted his posi tion ; for though it subsided then, it was revived in 1782 and 1783, and 1785 and 1793, and 1797, and at last in 1830; so that, so far from there being flashes of transient feeling, they might rather be looked upon as symptoms of a deep-rooted disease, which, though occasionally checked and stifled by great efforts, continually returned with re doubled strength and vigour. What could better prove this than the fact of every error of the Government, every commotion abroad, and every distress at home, being traced by the people to the one cause—of the want of Parliamentary Reform? This was, perhaps, open to some exaggeration ; but what was to be concluded from this cir cumstance? That complaints were distorted by the na ture of the disease—that the country was sure to be agi tated in the most violent manner from a cause which was certain to re-appear, whatever might I;e done to keep it down for a time; and that the most dangerous state in which a community could be placed, was that in which one strong party imagined they were withheld from their just rights and privileges by another strong party of the State.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware that he was tres pssing too long on the patience of the House, but having been prevented by a variety of circumstances from deliver ing his sentiments when the Reform Bill was last before the House, he trusted its indulgence would be extended to him for a short time longer. He would now just call the attention of the House to the observations of one of the ablest opponents of the Bill—he meant Mr. Henry Drummond—who in his address to the freeholders of the county of Surrey (and a most able document it was, coin ing from a gentleman who could not certainly be charged with excessive partiality either towards the Bill or the Ministerial side of the House), gave a short history of the question of Reform, and made use of the following re mark :—" The declaration of the late Ministry against Reform proved their ignorance of the national feeling, and drove the people to despair."—(Hear.) This was the judgment pronounced as to one of the causes of the agite • troll of the people, by one of the ablest opponents of the Bill. It had been said, as an argument against the mea sure, that the power of the people was already great, and that the Press gave them an immense additional influence, although they had not all those legal rights which the sup • porters of the Bill said that they ought to have : it was a l s o contended, that i the people o f t h i s country had greater power tha%lnthetir'oese countries where greater political privileges! fav o ur, in point of form, existed. But, tl • in hi s opinion, .iat very state was the most perilous in the picture of a county w hich a community could be placed—(Hear, hear)—for which was inhabited it exhibited the by a ' P ee r and ex owerful f rom y their possession of strength and intelligeaF e) atdag b ai e r e rs a t us t e he t a h r e i y stowcerraecy—alienated from the Constitution , aspe r ex cluded from their rig h ts. He h e ld i t to b e a max i m Gove rn ment to at tac h to the commonwealth, of sound by legal ties, all those that w ere Powerful either from W ea l th, intelligence, or numerical strength—(Hear, bear, hear)—and every thing that professed to exclude such slaimants was at variance with justice. and of a moo. dastard and destructive nature.—(Hear, hear, hear.) A, soon as they saw a body of the people rising to opulence, and contributing to the State, they were bound imme lia.ely to attach that community to the State—(Hear) — old when it was said that the people of England had tlready great share and weight in the public opinion, that vas to him only an additional reason for endeavouring, for the safety of the State, to bind the great body of that people to the Constitution by formal as well as by substantial rights. The Hon. and Learned Member for Borough midge, during the last Parliament, had dwelt with great acuteness and facetiousness on the term " Corporation robbery," as appred to this Bill. But he (Sir J Mackintosh) begged to ask, whether the two Unions with Scotland and Ireland were Corporation robberies? By the Union with Scotland the sixty-five boroughs of that country were reduced to fifteen—that is, each of the sixty-five was reduced to one-fifth of its former value. If it was a Cor poration robbery to take away the whole of a franchise from a place, certainly it was also a robbery to take away four-fifths of the franchise.—(Hear, hear.) He, there fore again asked, whether the Union with Scotland was to be called a Corporation robbery? The same question, might be put with respect to the Union with Ireland though he did not intend to enter into the whole history of the representation of that country. At the time of tie Union with Ireland, a Parliament of three hundred Members was reduced to one hundred; and the number was reduced on the strict principle of Parliamentary Reform, for one hundred of the closest boroughs of that country were disfranchised, on payment of a sum of money, not to the corporations of these boroughs, but to the mana gers or proprietors of them,who had trafficked in them already to a considerable amount, and who, if common fame was not wrong, had obtained other advantages still more repugnant to one's feelings as to what ought to arise from the repre sentation of a country. Unless, then, the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was prepared to throw on all the authors of both these Unions the term of corporative robbers, he was not in a condition to contend that these disfranchisements were any robbery at all. Another argu ment against the phrase emphiyed by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was, that when he talked of disfran chisement being a corporation robbery, he must mean the taking away of the right of election ; and then, whether this right of election was taking away from a single borough, or front all those set down in schedules A and B, the robbery was equally the same ; it would be in vain, too, to talk of guilty or innocent boroughs ; individuals might be guilty, but tie b rough could not be ; there could be no trial—there could he no conviction on oath— there could be no legal conviction : and therefore any taking away of the franchise must, according to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, be an act of lawless violence. But why was the very contrary of this really the case ? Be cause the right of supreme power was extended to Parlia ment in this case, for the very purpose of taking away this trust when abused, and vesting it in the hands of those who were likely to use it better.—( Hear.) Thus, in the cas • of the Union with Ireland, it was merely for the means of convenience that the elective franchise was so extensively withheld, but it was not on the principle of any trial or any conviction that the disfranchisement took place : for if so, by what principle of equity were those who were unborn to he punished for the misdemeanours of those now living? And why were the minority to he punished for the crimes of the majority ? In the time of Charles, the right of renewal of the elective franchise was in the Crown ; but this was not owing to the Union with Scot land ; for thirty years took place between that event and the celebrated Newark case. Since that period 160 years had elapsed ; and owing to there not having been intro duced at any time any provision for Reform, they were now called upon to pay the arrears of the Constitution which had been accumulating during a century and a half ; they were now called upon to ba lance the accounts of the Constitution with the people on tire score of elections. That period of 160 years had witnessed more prodigious changes in the affairs of the country than the previous 300 years ; and yet no change in the representation had taken place, while Elizabeth had added 60 Members to the House, and the house of Tudor had in all added 150 ; and from the acces sion of Henry VIII. to the time of the case of Newark, 200 had been added. The present Reform Bill, then, was no more than paying the arrears which had so long been-due to the country ; arrears which, if they had been avoided on principle at the time of the Newark case, would no now he due; and it was our ancestors who had be queathed us the task, by allowing the real principle of the Constitution to fall into disuse. But one of the argu ments that was most to be relied upon as decisive against the Bill was, that its effects would be the destruction of property. But who was it that would venture to make such an assertion Wire was it that would endeavour to persuade the people that real property, justly acquired, was to be weighed in the same scale, and placed in the same rank with the property of Gatton and Old Sarum ? For his own part, he could not conceive a doctrine, against the promulgation of which he would more hear tily, and with all his soul, warn every one. The Revo lution of 1688 had determined that they were not proprie tors, but trustees of the elective franchise. If man could be the property of man—if there were any remains of that odious principle lurking in any man's bosom, that indivi dual should remember that the maintenance of that doc trine bound him to place the heir of the house of Stuart— if, indeed, such heir could now be found--on the throne of these realms, from which James was driven for support ing that very doctrine. But it bad been said, that all property was a trust : so it was, as far as a man was an swerable to God and his conscience for the right disposal of it ; but as regarded the law and the 111agistrate, to them he was not responsible for the management of his property ; but with respect to the right of voting it was quite different—that was a trust in the strictest sense of the word, and could in no way be legally converted into a property ; for though it might be true that there was an incidental benefit arising from it, that benefit was small, and lost in the more important consideration of the gene ral object for which it was given. He had felt it to be his duty to set this point more fully before the House than perhaps might have been agreeable to some ; anti he bad done so because he did not feel sure that, in times so eventful as those in which they lived, they might not have to consider this question frequently and attentively. What the Commons must perform in such cases must appear to the people a mere farce : when the persons who were called their representa tives introduced measures in which they had no con cern, they were told a falsehood, for falsehoods could be told by acts as well as by words ; and when they saw the Constitution every day so caricatured, so disgraced, and so brought into contempt, by these continual violations of propriety, they naturally lost all confidence in it. Under such circumstances, when real nomination was substituted for pretended elections, more was done to undeceive the people, and to deprive them of all love for the Constitu tion, than by the open and less injurious practice of buy ing and selling votes. He looked on both as great evils, and in this sense he said the Constitution worked ill ; that its advantages were turned aside—and that it was deprived of the effects of those excellent results of its spirit and its principle which were calculated to attach the people to it, and they were thus alienated from what was in it self admirable. He might be told, as he had been told before, that the Schedules of Disfranchisement would destroy a positive good. In an able publication it had been asserted that the close boroughs were the most unex ceptionable part of the Constitution ; yet they were a breach of the law, for the sale of boroughs was as much a breach of the law as the sale of votes, and this breach that, they of the law it regar d e d as t h e b est part o f t h e C ons titution. f —(Hear.) Thi s was so a b sur d t h at i t sta t e d, as th e ground Reform, tli t h a tt things w sioeuld ex clude existedr which ey were told, why theret variance should t off withe thesetoh Constitution. boroughs, e experienced and rich men, as well as young men of talents, who now found their way into the House ley means of the borough s t h at were placed in the schedules. That principle went too far, and he had once heard it pushed torts proper e xt reme o f prevent i ng a ll c h anges i n the Constitution. There was formerly a gentleman in that House of great eminence in the city of London, whom he respected more for his talents and his probity than for his great wealth—he could not mention his name .—but that gentleman had always argued upon this prin ciple, that t h e y ought not to disfranchise any one borough. The boroughs they were told were t h e means by which the mercantile and manufacturing interests got represented in Parliament, arid those only were consistent opponents of Reform, who, calling these boroughs the good parts of the C ons tit u ti on , maintained that it was w ron g to disfranchise any of these boroughs, which were the means of supplying g the House with its best Members.--(Hear? hear.) Let th em see b y the argument, if followed out, in what the doctrin e which was laid down would end. Let them suppose that the colonial interest was found to grow in number s an d in crease in wealth, 'as he heartily wished it might, an d let them suppose that the geratlernen connected with the co lonies found themselves hampered for seats in Parliam ent , that there were no nomination boroughs for sale or for sale at a much higher than the usual price; suppose that —and he should expect that they would come forward with a counter Reform—he should expect that they would appear at the bar and allege that the price of boroughs had risen in Suffolk ; that they were dearer than they had been in Wiltshire, and that ti ey could no longer order the repre sentative of a borough up from Cornwall as they ordered a pipe of claret from Bordeaux. According to the doctrine of the opponents of the Bill, this might be alleged as a grievance; and if that doctrine was correct, it was ab• surd to punish people for doing what promoted good. What a mockery, what an inconsistency it was to punish unfortunate voters for what, according to the advocates of the present system, was the chief means by which tvise and enlightened men obtained seats in that - House. Ac cording to this doctrine, then, instead of respecting the law, it was wise and proper to do what the law pro diiited—an inconsistency which he should recommend them to get rid of, by at once acknowledging the pro priety of dealing with boroughs as a commodity, or adopting the Rill. He had been somewhat surprised at the line of argument which had been taken by the Hon old Learned Gentleman on this point, as he had been surprised to hear on a former occasion the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) quote the great names of the persons who had been introduced into the House as the representatives of boroughs. But what did that prove? Nothing more than this—that there was in this intelli sent and well-informed community a great multitude of men well qualified by their talents to take part imm public affairs, who would always find access to Parlia ment through whatever channels were open, and who. finding the boroughs open and easy of access, came in through them. The argument of the Right Hon. Baronet would he an equally valid defence for the Court of the Star Chamber—a Court which had been de fended by the greatest of great men, the Lord Chan cellor Bacon, who had called the Star Chamber a Court of Equity, which he considered as the most elorious part of the English Constitution ; and what the Right Hon. Baronet said of the boroughs would equally apply to that Court, when such men had sat in it a' Sir Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor Bacon, the most comprehensive philosopher of any age ; as Lord Coke, the great patriarch of English Law; such men as Walsing ham and Burleigh, who, of all English Statesmen, was perhaps the most admired and reverenced ; all these great men were members of that great tribunal, and when it was done away, it might have been said, after pronounc ing a panegyric on this Court on account of the great men who had sat it it. " What, will you in these times of danger—when the rage of innovation is abroad—(Hear, hear)--when all minds are tormented with a desire of change—(Hear, hear)—when agitation prevails through mmut the world, when we are threatened with a rebellion in Ireland, when the regal authority is insulted and almost openly condemned—(Hear, hear)—will you abolish a tribunal which is the great guardian of the regal power —(Hear, hear)—and the great organ of the Royal autho rity ?"--(Cheers.)—He could not call to mind a single in stance in the progress of reformation where there was not a cry opened against Reform similar to that now set up against this Bill. He did not know what the forty Barons could have said against Magna Charta ; but to have urged some similar topics, they must have said, " That it was an untried scheme—that it was a scheme levelling all distinc tions—( Hear)—that it was giving power to burgesses and merchants, a set of fellows who were yesterday slaves, and it was raising them to a level with the Plan tagenets in the power of making laws—that this was not their business— and they might ask, what could be expected from putting power into the hands of recently emancipated villeins but that they would be more turbulent than they had been before, and seek to obtain more power by means of the power then to be put into their hands.--(Hear, hear.) Such, at least, must have been the objections taken by the opponents of the Bill if they had lived at that period.—(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gen tleman who had urged these topics had now the benefit of experience, and he must know that these people were not intoxicated by their newly-acquired power, or by being brought into a high station ; and he must know that they had blended into a harmonious union with the other classes, which had continued with the greatest ad vantages to the present day. What would the Right Hon. Baronet say to the period of the Reformation ? Let any man read the controversies of that time, and he would find them abounding in predictions of evil—predictions, too, some of which had been accomplished—but in reading them, he could not avoid concluding that the greater part of them had never been realised, and that the dangers and evils of the Reformation have been much outweighed by advantages. He would come to matters of a later date —he would refer to the Petition of Right, to the abolition of the Star Chamber, to the discussions which took place, and to the abatement of the King's prerogative before the civil war; and, in all these cases, he always found that the same arguments had been used. But there were the same predictions of evil, and the same threats of danger that were uttered at the present time. There was one cir cumstance he would mention, as it must be gratifying to the feelings of a Noble Lord, who was, he believed, in the House ; and this was, that when Lord Shaftesbury, who was the real author of the Habeas Corpus Act, first introduced it to the House, these topics were strongly urged against it; and not only urged, but were very influential ; and it was now known, from the confidential correspondence of Charles the Second and James time Second, that they thought themselves deceived by Shaftesbury, who bad con trived and invented this law, for the purpose of compelling them to govern by means of the army ; because the exis tence of the habeas corpus was incompatible with all civil government. They put faith in the assurances they re ceived, that this excellent law would emancipate the people from all order, and release them front the controul of all law. We, however, had now the experience of 160 years, during which the greatest order had prevailed, though when the law was passed it was stated that it would be destruc tive of all order. This was believed by Charles the Second and James the Second, for the fatal effect of absolute power was to corrupt the judgment, and make those who exer cised it suppose that nothing but absolute power could pre serve order in society. The advocates of the Bill were then asked what evils the measure would avoid—that they were attempting a great alteration, without knowing what good it would do. To that he would reply, that it would remove the matter of discontent, which, as Lord Bacon said, had this wisdom that it took away tile cause of griev ance. It would remove all the condemned machinery of the nomination boroughs, and it would get rid of that abomi nation, the open sale of seats in Parliament.—(Hear.) He might be told that the sale .of seats was not so bad a thing ; hut if that were not so, why not sell the seats in a Court of Justice? There could be no difference, and no thing but custom warped the judgment, and made them ap prove of that in the one case which they condemned in the other. The practice of selling seats in the Courts of Justice had existed in France ; and when it existed there were not wanted clever men to apologise for it ; but now it had been swept away it was universally condemned, and was every where considered intolerable. But if it were wrong to sell the seats of justice, when the Judges were only called on to give decisions for a small portion of affairs, must it not be worse to sell the seats of those who were called on to make the rules which regulated all the con cerns of life? To introduce venality into Parliament was worse than selling the judgment seat ; it was as bad as selling a judicial decision.—(Hear, hear.) That was his opinion, though to some it might appear fanatical ; and he could not bring himself to think that a Bill which had the great advantage of removing this stain from the Con stitution would not remove a great evil—an evil which, if continued, must drag down the whole Constitution to ruin. It was said that the great proprietors would lose their influence from this Bill. lie saw no probability of that, except that they set themselves up against the people and were determined to treat them as enemies. If they distrusted the people indeed, the people would place no confidence in them ; but he did not fear that the people would not be influenced by generosity, and would not be grateful for kindness. If the great proprietors should dread the people, and should act on that dread, they would sow the seeds of permanent discord, and make that Bill the source of strife which was intended to be a treaty of conciliation and peace. He had no fear that they would, when he recollected the character of these great proprietors, and remembered that the most illustrious of our nobility—those persons whose possessions were most ample—had always shown themselves the most ge nerous and confiding, and the warmest friends of the liberties of the people.—(Hear.) He could not conceive that any danger could arise from a measure which bad already had the effect, as was stated hy his Noble Friend the other evening, of inducing all classes, the highest and the lowest, to make a cheerful sacrifice of individual ad vantages for the general good.—(Hear.) No great danger could possibly result from a measure which had already had such beneficial effects, which might be taken as a sign of what it would hereafter produce. A sympathy had been excited between the. different classes, and they had shown themselves willing to act for the greatest public advantage. If, therefore, the great proprietors and the higher classes opened their arms to the people—if they gave the people a signal proof of their confidence—if they put their trust in the people, that trust would be re turned; if they showed by signal and striking acts, not by the coil formalities of laws anti by unmeaning forms of words, that they were willing to rely on the fidelity, the honour, and the conscience of the people, they might be assured that they would not lean on a broken reed. It was not true to say, though it might be one of the wise saws in use, that there was danger in trust and con fidence, and that policy and generosity were at vari ance. That he held to be a fatal and a mischievous error. It was true lather what Burke said in his se -sod speech on American affairs. In the beautiful pa_ oratioei to that speech he said—" Magnanimity in pc t _ tides is not seldom the truest wisdom; and a great em pire and little minds go ill together. If we are con scious of our situation, and glow with zeal to fill our place as becomes our station and ourselves, we ought to auspicate all our public proceedings on America with the old warn ing of the Church, Sursum corda ! We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us." The only question before 'he House was, the comparison between the safety and :he danger of the three plans which were offered to the acceptance of the House. The first was an industrious adherence to things as they are ; the second, that of gene rous concession; the third was that of evasive Reform. But what would the people think of such a Reform, com ing from persons who, if they were consistent, must resist he smallest proposition for Reform, and who would not sacrifice a single borough to give the elective franchise to liirmingbana—( Hear, hear)—a capital of the industrious world, and from whose hands the people would expect no 'hing but a scheme that was to be fallacious and deceitful? If such Reform were proposed by such persons, distin !uislied for their hostility to Reform, it would only drive the people to despair. Could they repose confidence in min as sincere . Reformers who considered all Reform an evil, and who, if consistent—and he believed them to be sincere and co nsistent—could only take up such a measure in order to fritter away what they were unable to oppose? The question was of comparative Reform. The oppo nents of the Bill said there was danger in Reform —was there, then, no danger in not reforming ? They treated it as an unilateral question not having two sides ; but if there was danger in reforming, there was certainly great danger in not reforming—and the only question was, which would be productive of the greatest evil? In his opinion: of all the three plans, there would be most danger, and certainly there would be most odium, in giving only niggardly Reform. The spirit of the times and of circumstances made a large and liberal Reform ne cessary; and a niggardly Reform would only keep the people in suspense, and naturally excite their resentment against what they would regard as intended to deceive them. The opponents of the Bill made it one of their strong arguments against it, that its extensive changes would cause great danger ; but in appealing to the history of the world, he could confidently say that late Reforma • tion, that dilatory Reformation—(Hear, hear)—that the refusal to make just concessions at the proper time, that allowing the critical moment to pass—and it might pass irrecoverably in the twinkling of an eye—be could confi dently say, that the refusal to grant concessions had been the great cause of all the convulsions of society.—( Hear. ) He did not wish to go back to any very distant period, but the Right Hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion quoted Cicero, and had done him the honour to refer par ticularly to him. He might, therefore, be permitted to refer to the opinion of Cicero as to the power of the tribunes. His brother had referred the delay of Rome to the power of the tribunes ; but what was Cicero's an swer ? " Con Tessa plebi a patribus ista potestate arms ceciderunt : restincta seditio est : invent= est tem peramentum, quo tenuiores cum principibus 2Equari se putarint : in quo uno fuit civitatis salus." It would not be said that Cicero was a Radical or a demagogue; and he did not say that the Tribunitian power—that most formidable power, by which the five men could, by their veto, stop every law—Cicero (lid not ascribe to them the energy and the spirit of the Republic, but its safety and its security. They protected the weakest, and all were rendered one harmonious body. " In quo uno fait civi tatis solos." He quoted Cicero, not as an authority, but a witness. The ancients were better acquainted with de mocracies and the effects of demagogues than we were; and he quoted Cicero as a witness to the effects of popular institutions ; and that the security of States was to be found in confiding in the people, and granting their just demands. All history was full of proofs. What prevented Philip the Second from remaining master of the Nether lands ? Not because be granted the wishes of the people, but because he would not ; and because he would nut even allow his subjects to remain in the enjoyment of their rights. What was the course of Charles I. before he lost the confidence of his people? If he had adhered to the petition of right, if he had forborne to persecute the Puri tans, could any man believe that he might not have reigned over England all the days of his natural life, and brought that reign to a prosperous and happy conclusion ? They might read in the first volume of Clarendon the proceed ings which took place in his time, and they might see that similar causes led to the destruction of James 11. The people would have borne with James had he not leagued with Foreign Powers; and had he not assailed the liberty of the people, his posterity might have reigned over this country to this day. What but op pression, too, prevented the United States of America from beim , . British colonies to this day? Was it not probable that if we had not refused them that confidence which was the cement of society, they would have con tinued under his Majesty's Government till now ? And was it not certain that, with justice and wisdom, they would have continued united to Great Britain till the latest time ? The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to some more recent examples, of which the results were not yet known from experience, and of which he could not, therefore, positively speak, but of which he had no hesita tion in saying that they had been brought about by obsti nanee inflexibility rather than by generous concessions. Those who opposed Reform inflexibly, with steadiness and firmness, held out no other option to them but Reform or Revolution. Ile would not do more than allude to one Hon. Gentleman, who had expressly declared that he was preparing for the worse who looked only to increasing the restrictions on the people, to those restrictions exciting dis satisfaction, to still stronger measures, and then to the scuffle which, at last, must take place. The Constitution might be endangered by Reform ; but of one thing he was quite certain, that safe and sound the Constitution could not come out of such struggles ; and though it might stand under successive Reforms—under successive conflicts, it must go to ruin. The opponents of the measure dwell much on the danger to result from Reform, and lie did not think this an unfair argument ; but when the advo cates of the measure pointed out the danger of not re forming, they were told that they used threats, and they were cautioned est to employ menaces.—( Hear, hear.) The opponents of the Bill had therefore different weights asd measures ; one for their own arguments, and the other for those of their opponents. lie was clearly of opinion that to reform the Parliament afforded the greatest probability of preserving, for a long period, the funda mental institutions of the country. But it was said it would not be final. What was final of human affairs ? The same arguments, he remembered, were used against conceding the Catholic claims ; and the same answer which those arguments then received might now be given to them. It was said that the people would not be satisfied, and that they would only use the Bill as a weapon to get more power. He denied that now, as lie denied the same assertion when made as to the Catholics, and he should always deny that just concessions would lead to unjust en croachments. He denied that for the people of England. He would appeal to experience, and would call on any men to lay his hand on his heart, to consult his understareiing, and say what evils or what mischief had been brought on England by her just concessions to the Irish Catholics? He would only say, speaking with sober truth, and much within what he thought was really the case, and looking to the events which had happened in Europe, that eman cipating the Catholics had materially improved the con dition of Ireland and the condition of England. The only reasonable sense in which the measure coe'el be final was, that it would satisfy the great majority of the people. That was the test of its goodness. It might not satisfy the violent, there might be sotne who would not trust the Bill, bet they would be overborne by the acquiescence cf the greater number, who would find it fully equal to their wishes. After it was passed, if the people desired more they would desire that what they asked should be calmly discussed in a re formed Parliament ; an d h e wou ld as k w h et h er it were better that their f uet h er c l a i ms s h ou ld b e di sausse d i n Par liament, or they s h ou ld give up to agitation elsewhere? Let it be considered that in this case, as-in the case of the Catholics, the Parliament did 11,0 t bestow etrength that possp4sed all whiele the Patliamenebestowed, determined, ail whi c h it could determine, was allvh ,sae W f a o ll e iri t Ce n h a'l a iy n t d the manner in which that strength should be exercised, and it was for the Parliament to say„ by sharing political power with those who had the strength, whether the discussions should he carried on quietly in subordination to a scheme of general policy, or should agitate the whole land.—(Hear.) The receptien which the BO haul met with induced him to think it would content the people, and that they would not desire further concessions. Looking at the petitions, he found them nearly all in favour of the Bill, the exceptions being just enough to show that epiLion was unfettered. If the dis sidents were numerous—if there were any great mass of the people opposed to the Bill, why did they not show themselves? H e had no fear of the di ss id ents ; they were not enough t o d o harm to the measure, b ut they were ' enough to convi nce t h e wor ld t h at t h e peop l e h a d f orme d their opini ons i n perfect freedom. If, then, there was no other option butef granting Reform or of encountering phy sical force—if they were to decide between concession and bloodshed, and if it were cowardly to be afraid of the latter, he would own himself a coward. If it were cowardice to fear that, he pleaded guilty; and if it were a menace to remind them of that alternative, he must confess he was wrong; but when he considered the scenes likely to arise...when be looked it the general state of Europe, and remembered the agita ion of the times, he saw many reasons for deprecating ompuleory measures, many reasons for laying aside the distrust of the people, and many reasons why trust and confidence should be reposed in them. When lie costern. plated the chalice of the comer ) . twine exposed to the dan ger of excessive convideiiins, he telt iiiinself a coward, and he should not show respect to the (louse if he concealer' its apprehensions, and did not use his utmost exertions to nduce them to pass the Reform Bill. He must wart , them openly and solemnly against adopting the argument, that politicel privilege was property ; for if they embraced that, they must take with them all its logical consequences; and if privilege were property, property would not he more inviolable than political privilege, and a sinecure could be as safe as a legal estate. Let them, then, le careful to make and enforce th:s distinction, for if they nade privilege a property, they would surely enable the •poiler, who was looking for his prey, to sanction by their arguments his insatiable ambition. He conjured them tr 'seep asunder what nature had separated, and not to let in .onfusion by confounding privilege and property. Mr. BRUCE, in rising to address the House, requested heir indulgence to a new Member. He was desirous t, ecall the attention of the House to the real question be `ore it ; namely—not whether or not there should be any Reform in Parliament, but whether or not the Bill which had been introduced by his Majesty's Govern ment should be adopted.—(Hear, hear.) To that Bill he eave his uncompromising opposition. To allow the system of representation to advance with the advance of society— to extend the elective franchise to all those new and im portant interests which were growing up in the country, were objects to which he was decidedly friendly. But ht , was as decidedly hostile to so rash and so irrevocable a measure as the present; a measure which threatened the destruction of the soundest principles of the Constitution and the most valuable institutions in the country.—(Hear, hear.) He was happy to observe the spirit of conciliation which had manifested itself on the part of the authors ce the Bill in the important alterations which they had intro duced into it ; but notwithstanding those alterations, hi maintained that the Bill was entirely unworthy the sanc tion of the House. Its tendency was to extend the elective franchise to large classes of the people, who were minors than any other classes obnoxious to that corrupt influence which it was the professed purpose of the Bill to diminish or de stroy. The great excellence of the present system of repre sentation was the variety of the suffrage—the combination of riches and numbers. The tendency of the Bill was to put an end to that variety and combination. It was cal culated to bring those who had property, and those who had none, into violent collision. It was calcul ited for the present constitutional variety to substitute a uniform qua lification. To that he was most strongly opposed. It was calculated to introduce the domination of the mob. It was calculated to exchange an aristocracy of rank, wealth, and talents, for an aristocracy of demagogues, and base and hireling political writers. But his greatest objection to the Bill was its flagrant injustice; and the sweeping manner in which it disfranchised a number of the smaller corporations. While the principles of justice were immu table; while there remained any difference between right and wrong, he should object to such a proceeding. It might be thought by some to be expedient. He could not so consider it ; but even if he did, he could never consent to sacrifice the legal vested rights of bodies or individuals to[any considerations of mere political expediency.--( Hear.) If such a principle were once admitted, who could tell where it would stop? If Corporation rights, and the rights of property, all held under long legislative sanction, were thus to be swept away in a mass, who could tell where the work of destruction would end ? All the argu ments which had been so ably urged in that House and elsewhere to show that a mixed form of the elective franchise was indispensible to the very existence of our Constitution remained unanswered, and were, in fact, unanswerable. The efficiency of the present system, in the introduction into that House of men of talent and in formation, had been abundantly manifested. It was true that popular elections might frequently be the means of admission to such persons ; but where would be the advan tage of excluding th6se men of talent and information who might be averse to popular election ? Under what other principles than the present would the great Aristocracy of the country be able efficiently to protect their legitimate interests? And with respect to abuses, there were some maintained in the proposed measures which might be very advantageously got rid of. If the Scotch Reform Bill went into a Committee, he would state some curious facts, that by some elective attraction all the franchises would go to the Whig party.—(Hear, hear). As to the presumed influence of the Peers, he was of opinion that the just authority of the Peers required to be aided rather than assailed. That authority had been established and consoli dated by the wisdom of past ages, and ought not to be rudely and inconsiderately sacrificed. Attachment to the people was, in his opinion, perfectly compatible with at tachment to the Aristocracy. To that Aristocracy the people of England were indebted for many great and glo rious services to the cause of freedom ; and it ever, goaded by a violent and disaffected Press, an attempt should be made by Ministers or others to invade the privileges of the Peers, he trusted that many a loyal hand would be raised in that House —aye, even unto the death—to their sup port; and he was convinced that the great majority of the country would stand by thern.—(Hear, hear.) He knew that there were some high and honourable minds who were shocked by the interference of the Aristocracy in certain elections. But he thought that, if those indivi duals looked at the great infusion of late years of popular feeling in that House, they would be more moderate in their opinions. He also knew that there were many high and honourable minds who abhorred bribery at elections. He abhorred bribery as much as any man, whether it as sumed the shape of money, or of unconstitutional pledges. —(Loud cries, of " hear, hear.") As a nation, we haul the greatest cause for gratitude to that Providence which had conducted us with safety through so many imminent perils— " From seeming evil still educing good.'" Of all the people on the face of the earth, the people of this country were most bound to guard the Temple of Freedom from being disturbed and polluted, either by despotism on the one hand, or by anarchy on the other. —(Hear, hear, hear.) They had been told by the Press and by Government that the proposed measure was so unanimously approved by the country that Par liament had no choice hut to pass it. He confessed that, judging from what he knew, he very much doubted the existence of that unanimity.—(Hear, hear, hear.) For instance, he had read in many of the newspapers that every village and town in Scotland was favourable to the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Now, that he knew to be grossly and notoriously untrue. The great farmers were opposed to the provision giving the franchise to leaseholders of Q.i. a year, the ten dency of which they considered to be to cut down large farms. The small farmers—from 5/. to 301. a year— were averse to the Bill, as calculated to intro:ince the bane ful system of middle-men. The proprietors (with the ex ception, perhaps of the great aristocracy) were apprehen sive that their interests would be prostrated between the la voters on the one hand, and the 501. on the other. The smaller boroughs, although they liked the Bill in the first instance, began to feel thnt is would operate upon them as a disfranchisemeat ; for that, voting ire they would, in, alf;As cases, be in a hopeless minnrity. As to the (!:,r i tit:es, whom the Lord Advocaie proposed to nizawry, they had forbid the baths.—(Hear.) Scotland was desirous of a well-considered Reform, although not of the present tneasnr. Even that desire was not of ancient standing. But a year or two ago, Scotland cared little for Fteloi•in. Now, however, th;xo was an unani mous desire on the subject, and he was glad of it. He roust say, however, in justi.:n to the upright and intel,li gent individual, no !palter in that House, who was hitely a Member for Edinburgh, that that Hon, Gentleman's statements of the indisposition of the people of Scotland towards Reform were perfectly well grounded ; inasnmeh as at that perio,d this change had not occurred.--,,,,',Mueb coughing.) He begged to assure Hon. that phc , was not to be put down in that r.xinner. He had ad dressed as numerous and reapoctable assemblies, and had always been heard w' i th courtesy. With respect to the measure undo; consideration, what had thcrc. been in the comlnet of his Majesty's present Ge,yrrnment to inspire the House with confidence in, any proposition which pro ceeded from them Let them be judged, by the',-; acts. The;r unanimity was extraordinary. Befar4a they carne into office, they were unanimous mn calling for the reduction of the Civil List. As sekao as they came into office, they were unanimous is rejecting the recommenda tion of the Committee. Before they came into 0.7 4 c,e, they were unanimous in calling on his Maiesti'a late Go eminent to economise. As soon as the.y came into office they were (very wisely) unanimous in refusing to act on the principles of economy which they had previously ad, vocated. Before they came into office they were unani • mous in condemning the course of foreign policy which had been pursued by his Majesty's late Government. As soon as they came into office, they were unanimous in the adoption of the banle course. They were unani mous in the maintenance of every point of that mo nument of financial wisdom, their Budget. Soon after, they were unanimous in withdrawing every point of it from • public observation. They were unanimous in reprobating the appointment of a plu ralist Bishop of Exeter. Scarcely, however, had the sound of their virtuous indignation ceased, before they appointed e i n 'i t u h r a a t ii l s b t e D en e' o n n ' e 'f of ri 'urtnti.iintouls" contradiction.—(Hear:) Ind was the House to listen to 'be suggesti , ns and re anmendations of men like thes e ? Although they might 4! hacked by the whole revolutionary Press of the c entry —although they might be cheered on by Cobbett—',y in- Fuld Taylor—by the whole congregation of . the Rotunda, Lad hoc genus ()owe, he trusted the Legislatur e wia l ld cause before it was influenced by their advice. The ge -1..ral eagerness to beein the work of spoliati on , was No hably founded on the Horatian max , m— Dimiditim facti, qui czopit, habet. 1-le trusted, however, that the discontented and worthless ::; i s r t t r i a c t lc i , , s of which that m,wa : composet p i, illar of Rand, would notbe tle p t enn pr i e t s t e e n d t t A . dhm avie ny weight in influencing the decisions of the House "Hear, hear.)—[We repeat that, owing to the circum ,ance which we have already men'ioced, our report of the II in. Gentleman's speech is very imperfect.]—lt would ,i,cupy much more of the tine of the House than he had a right toolaitn, to state one-tenth of his objections to this atisiird Bill; but in what he had said he had discharged iy duty to his country, his constituents, and himself. Mr. C. FERGUSSON began by complaining that the last speaker bad anticipated a debate yet to be entered upon, regarding the principle and details of the Scotch teforin Bill, which did not, in any way, belong to the present discussion. Speaking of the part of Scotland with ../bich he ("Mr. Fergusson) was best acquainted, h e cou ld . . give the Eton. Me; bet's statement a flat contradictirn. lmong the freeholders, indeed, there had been a difference f opinion, but all the other classes were nearly to a rraU in favour of Reform.—(Hear.) He was no friend to pledges—he thought them in general unconstitutiond he had given none, and none had been required of him ; but if ever there was an occasion when the constituent body had a right to demand them, it was at the last lection.—(llear, hear, hear.) This was a Bill upon which the electirs were as competent to judge as the elect ,4l.—(oh, oh.) Without arguing that proposition, whi c h he cobsidered almost self•evitlent,he would proceed to that most important branch of the question—disfranchisement. It was abrulutely necessary that something should he done to get rid of rotten boroughs ; and these who thought the existence of such places as Gatton and Old Sarum a libel upon the Constitution,would do right to vote in support of the Bill to disfranchise them. For fifty years the questi , ai of Reform had been bandied between the House and the people: it was undeniable that more than 150 Members were returned without the voice of a single elect,r—anti tit Members were the representitives, not of nine hundred thousand people, hut of nine Peers.—(Hear.) The ques tion then was, whether it was fit that the House of Corn mons, instead of representing only the Commons, should re present also the Lords ? If it were said that the people were not good judges of who ought to represent them, it might be a'ked in return whether the Peers were better judges. Some objected to this measure, because it was not final— ..—.— . (Hear)—others because it was not gradual—(l-lear) in short, no Reform could satisfy those who were resolved to be dissatisfied, whether the plan were the general reno vation so long contemplated by the Member for West, tniuster, or the more particular scheme of disfranchising boroughs proved corrupt, formerly advocated by the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell). The people at the present moment were disgusted—the house had lost their confi dence.--(" No, no," and cheers.) Without the confi dence of the people no Government could stand, and the Members of the House were regarded by the great mass of the population, not as their guardians and protectors, but as their worst enemies. —(Hear, hear.) He admitted that he should not have had the courage to propose a measure of such bold and extensive Reform, but he should have failed to satisfy the just expectations of the nation.— (Hear, hear.) What sense was the House of Commons, properly constituted, to speak, if not the sense of the people ? and Mr. Pitt long ago had said, that between the representatives and the people there ought to be the closest union, and the most perfect sympathy. Let any man turn his eyes to the House of Lords, and see how many had been raised to the Peerage on account of their influence in the House of Commons: formerly, any man who had three or four votes at his command, must be worse than " sand hlind"—lie must be " high gravel blind"—who could not find his way into the House of Peers. He would not proceed to that part of the Bill which ex tends the elective franchise ; and here he might observe, in the first place, that the fitness of communicating the power of sending Members to large, populous, and flourishing towns, was not disputed on any side. The Hon. and Learned Member for Boroughbridge had said that nothing could be more honourable than the connec tion between Member and nominee. In his case, no doubt, it was so ; but he (Mr. Fergusson) did not think that even he could be an independent Member of Pat lia ment. It was a matter of honour that he should not vote against his patron ; and it was impossible for in dividuals so circumstanced to tell whether they were or were not biassed. Much had been said on the extension of the franchise to ten.pound householders, and it was asked upon what principle it was founded ? His answer was, that it was founded on the common law of England. (Hear, hear.) The common law right of voting in this country was in the resident householders paying scot and lot. What, then, were the inhabitant householders rated at 101. a year? Did it not include persons of every class and occupation? It was urged that it did not include pot-wollopers; but the fact was, that clean or unclean, washed or unwashed, they were embraced by the measure, and non-resident freemen were the only persons abso lutely disfranchised. At present the yeomanry, farmers, and tenants in general, were unrepresented ; whereas, by this Bill, the right was communicated to them. In future the number of county Members would form two fifths of the representation ; and how could such a meae sure be fairly termed revolutionary ?—(Hear, hear.) It was high time to concede to the reasonable wishes of the. people, and it was true wisdom not to delay concession too long ; all the greatest misfortunes that had befallen nations had arisen from postponing concession too long. Lord PORCHESTER complimented Lord J. Russell on the excellence of his writings, which had, however, led him (Lord P.) to a conclusion widely different from that of the Noble Lord. All his early prejudices and personal partialities had been in favour of Reform. To that mea sure, which the Ministers showed themselves determined to carry at all events, without respect to the circumstances by which they were surrounded, and without modifica tions—a measure which, if passed, he believed, would leave us little of our ancient Constitution—to that measure he must offer his most unflinching opposition.—(Hear, bear.) He did not deny the authority of Parliament to make this great change, but still he thought that such a measure as the present could only be justified by the most urgent necessity. He did not believe the people were not satisfied, and would not be satisfied, without a measure of this most extensive kind; he was sure the people were not bent upon having this specific meesure.—(Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition, answered by Hear, bear, hear, from the Ministerial Benches.) The measure, in the first place, was one of the most extensive disfranchisement. In support of that, the seise of the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland were appealed to ; but that example did not satisfy him of the wisdom or justice of the present mea sure, It was true that the Irish freeholders were called ins to forego an invaluable right : but, in compensation, they were granted a boon beyond all prior --(Hear, hear, hear.) It was true by that Act they were depressed in the scale of representation ; but then, at the same time, they obtained an Act that repined their country in the scale of nations,—(Cheers.) Be thought that those Members on his side of the Mouse had a right to complain of the partial effeoa of this measure—while the interests of voters ,11 large towns were respected, but in the small beereughs no friendly arm was raised to protect the humble "voters.—(Hear, has'.) Having spent a great portion of his life abroad, he should perhaps, be pardoned if be made some iew observations upon foreign countries ; and be could not avoid remarking, that while all the representa 'o five Governments which at different times were attempted to be established in them had been shaken to pieces, that of Great Britain flourished as Fondly as ever. In Cor sica, iot Portugal, and in Belgium, Constitotions had been s teamed upon the British model, and bow had they suc— ceeded ? Where were they now ? All had failed, and their failure was so be attributed, according to some, to the diffeeee.ce of national feelings, to the different distri butiesu cf property, and to other merely local causes con ' netted with the habits and prejudices of the people. He, however was of a different opinion. He had no doubt that there were peculiar circumstances in each par ticular State which exercised a certain degree of in ., fsuenee, and contributed partially to the failure of. Ithese Constit u ti ons; b u t t h e f a il ure was to be at tributed to other causes. The framers of these foreign; i Charts:is hadodopted the forms of free States; they thougni they had a good capacity for Representative Government,, and they took the Constitution, not because it was - attest for them, but because they found it upon paper they" adopted it, not as it was in reality, but as it would be if . this Bill were to pass.—(Cheers.) Hp would call the se tendon of the House to the State of Francs,. it wee framed by a Monarch who was no stranger to our Con son; o ti r tu y tio ra n Le an c d om in po i Did it work well ? In theory it appeared to do so , —it aa smeditaotifonKoifngi,t he Lords,bad ft a . a n n d t eti c a . , C ..a. los o r n te s . 1- peared even better than ours--but iss practice it seas much worse. It did not calmly reflect the opinion of the French community, but was blown aside by every gust of feelitte, and fluctuated with every fluctuating passion of the lutli,