The Sun. — London, England, 1831-12-19 00:00:00

z" - ' --'t. P i i the 'as e no one To , lddoubt the exp e diti on of Alinisters, or o i , c e l er i ty of tneir movements ; indeed all those move ;it'l "tent s than their dependence to be more on their v ia i t l ior : f t on their heads.—(Laughter.) For the satisfac jd thin 0 the out-of-doors people, they had hurried forward Ivo ?'ea , gore of Reform in a manner so absurd that its It _a,defectiveness was really insulting to those by whom it ~,, a 1 7 • to he discussed. The Hon. Member for Caine ,: in illustration those who sought in foreign history for examples Ica, ltri,uinllustration of their arguments ; he thought with that 10 1 o ti ver . Member that there was no necessity to go half-seas ual , it , r to Florence or Venice for illustrations, whilst in this , f tri 4 _' r n a l for he would go no further—there were examples st s! w _° ll.c apt than could elsewhere he met with. Now he t , p u s ii . go no further back than the times of Charles the i nch I. "' ts in which times the radical party overturned the Go „Of the of " No.") Yes, they did overturn gad the F ki our e t r h nzn i t o , v a e n rt d nr t n heradjeals of the time of William the Government again. The Hon. 4 Ate., o f fr e ., "mar for Caine had warned the House not to resist ex. tt/ a 4".ernent, and in support of this warning referred to the' 010, b id consequences of resisting excitement, which tenni , bt iot 4tel in the civil war of 1642. But let him ask . that 0/0 that 'Member, did he mean fur one moment to insinuate t aao til _al. e there was any analogy, any comparison even to be fe e 4 2° between the times of Charles the First and the pre tiao lent period? Had the illustrious House of Brunswick, et/ e 4 r ' e °,l tu th e moment of its accession to the throne of these 0 ,1 4 4 ' a up to the present time, ever excited the animosity It, ti _t r he people by acts similar to those which had drawn t he!' "‘ . ti vengeance on the heads of the Stuarts? Had tl 0/4 0 I tli ti e b3rt s of . William . IV. to complain of any such tyranny as le ra il st Imposition of ship-money, or of the arbitrary cruelty ,' O ,lO, t „ 5 Star-Chamber? If history be resorted to for 0 1 l ' l :a m inples, surely was it not worse than folly to disregard V I se r , ' s examples, and to neglect the lessons of prudence t ii4 o Li : 'eh it inculcates ? His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Croker) .0' , d quoted in support of his able arguments, last even t i ti so 4, largely from history. Now lie would venture to add oldttl_otlier quotation to those, but it would not be selected o ld i 2fn the pages of an historian. He should avail him t,tiol a ,7 1 1 1 .r 0f the . words of a poet, w * lnlae dealings were quite i i c lir : tif . 4 ge in practical good sense and solid wisdom as those I a t ,, , t , .any recorder of by-gone' events. His Right Hon.. ' h od: trletia (Mr. Croker) had drawn a parallel between the t a t a .. te ''grls of Charles I. and William IV., but his picture et'''. to have been more finished if he lalso had adverted to t r o - t e, ; e Manner in which at both periods the Bishops had been . e' l 'il ed. TI • at . 1 , th e .. They were then, as now, styled malignants— ,4 tt,'! h . ) Were then, as now, decried and vilified, and Butler " t'' " Put 14that treatment upon record, where he says thas 1/0' " Oyster-women locked their fish up (? q _ c , ""And trudged away to cry .N o Bishop op ty op!'" OC' 4 l t i l l . ti cheering and laughter.) I n th e presen t ti mes 1 "..j i , i:' treatment has been no less un cere mo n i ous . N o ; at:h i ! r a til bg_ since a fl ag was exhibits(' at a large county meeting, 0-ll'ol 44}1Wih}71idivas represented a prostrate Bishop, with a mitre (Hear.) The reign of Charles I. was elm itif"jel ttil'ettteriseeda by the appearance of a political prophet, but ',,a1 , 1 a, sd _P r rophet was a poor pretender compared with him of • ',• 4 l' p ts ,.',: days, the political prophet of William IV. That t lt s ly st f:;: n t, in a speech on the subject of Reform, uttered a lit tle ; o (T l ou g_ to the Bishops—" to set their houses in order." / A i, a it V• gn d cheers.) Not the boldest Radical, not the most 10; ei is 44.1.e.ant Roundhead of the vents of Charles I. ever aa It) f 1 any thing so furious, or red upon a prophecy lo ti ,f 4 4 e arless.—( Loud cheers.) That prophecy was meant o' la the sedativ e to public excitement, and within one month ins t als i, a t I, l llace of a Bishop was in flames.—(Cheers.) Could O r e li te as Member for Caine—the Ariel of Calne—whom ' at l happy to discover behind the Chair—could, he re- Ill rd a l ittet, , the Ariel behind the Chair point out a parallel So 01 4 tient from the times of Charles I. to the fact which L i f e e . l „. :, t tig ( i ii. , C. W.) had cited ?—(Hear.) . Well, indeed, i jo' ckie„,. it _ I e said that it was difficult to stop excite l;e,e, i t4l4 _, He entirely agreed in the difficulty, more par 'lea, i „ su r t i c Y when excitement rushed in a torrent from 4 1 1 0 . ( ii t e whence not a drop ought to have flowed ; "'cit indeeel da M ated , , was it to stop excitement when ;i i, ,aa t fo lla _ e foith from a quarter where not c a spark ought "!' o , , w existed.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Who could blame Ye te ti a , tr, t l) ,°,l 3l e for being excited, when their passions were ite ff ts k ill c alled forth by the blessed leader of this blessed con 'lo,l lt, tu i 've Ministry ?—(Cheers.) After this, could the col !a \I. th : t i? . f this political . prophet assert their blamelessness aid the ti _ , t Was not their fault if they could not resist a tide, ra lu A ijh e ,. °l) l-gates of which they had themselves let loose ? ,grrii,ikllie:aeretuthet_ raisers . of the excitement by which their b '' ' i Iked Under" carried, and now they basely, meanly, t ila N it the plea that the excitement created the ne t...01,4,4Y f or passing their measure.—(Hear, hear.) Thus a 1 7;(1k,„ .. ' o fhat a law which reason refused to sanction was to at, o t , rted by intimidation. He did not blame the op ces'; k sti _ e° of an Episcopacy ; he thought differently to them : he t ' s( th e "Night Episcopacy necessary for the prestivation of J ur, l l :, of Pope, l :to zayelig_ion. His opinion accorded with that line where he sa as " Even in a 3r Ashop I can spy desert"— liturir d o , ; Itaiiiiiideatroy the props, and away goes the edifice : do away 10 0 0 : , . li t tet, e Episcopal Establishment, and away too will go be r` S o lion of the country.—(Hear, hear.) The French a l ', lt ; . t it l i t ' ol uti a o ‘ n u , r too, had been brought in to hear witness for i 1 0 1 ; I:titt7tiotti been lately I h t ut i was that revolution . finished ? Had not a mooted . in that country, whether the /Is' 44t'th:t formulaa o e f y public worship on the Sabbath should 0 0 4,, ~ abolished 7 Let . that . Ministry who listened to insults ,f4' , ;rats;':,t,to that dignitaries of the Established Church r a, ?, ' . ta st `,..t . h t the whole body of Members who belonged e cttw oo l,skinert;harch were insulted. The Hon. and Learned to la ri s er then proceeded to draw a picture of the state of ,f 5,," all , at present, alluding more particularly to the state colt'; l l' i t t o4 ° t " ii ll; and he ended by holding forth an argument to a 4t . at th e lower orders of France were universall • al is bed With the results of the three . glorious slays, even y ihtlif,t;; t „ t h e hot! (banished their hereditary Monarch, and 0 ,. ‘ t„ th _ . ectite Monarchy. Similar results would at ic:ii, t, t , t f h t ;_a ,, ttainment of Reform in England, for it would , P . ,,, s t . t h e i e ° , it but the people, finding only disappointment 11:' .r, 1 , : :, p to,s _h . opes of having all their evils remedied when it the advocates for it only in the "lad l e h e t °f e4" ho an t d s h viewing generis," would turo round and . tl r i ~I r t: s 4 ntto their feelings n . ani in a manner of which he had I in _ .4 ~, 14 ' de given a description. The present Bill was, in the et& ' tis gree as the last, a revolutionary .. and plundering ' il e .. l ' i tt l t Li h i :' ,. and the . same Jacobinism which had character ,;:t, it ata ts wait Bill was also a distinguishing attribute of the Not s ,',ati st., It was, equally with the last, a measure of re derf°ol '' A lltl pie and robbery—(Cheers)—as Jacobinism was the I 0 t 7 , as, t , of the last, so it was of the present Bill,— % ea It ' i, h o4t 1 11 He would again in-ist that it was a change a et rt„ etemty or use; for the Constitution, as itstood I):. w ,„, ,p,, .. 0 1 IL: t "r, as equally preservative of the liberties of the , f t,Ol i„:4",i, acid the prerogatives of the Crown.—(Hear.) , t I , I,„fli te 'e sat down—(" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial r, I .. q)i t 1' answered by cheers from the Opposition)— yts o , t .' 1 4 1 %0 ` 4 ! sat . down he would say that both the Noble a t N t t aPosite had - failed to answer the speech of his Hon. or , : k s tt,,, l4 t , ed Friend the Member for St. Mawe's, and that, if! .. : Qah e . "e had heard—and he had listened to Ministers t 01 : r. '" o pOrtell with attention—the principle and pro the 0,0 I)t 4n " , nof the Bill remained to that moment alto , Os , explained.—(Cheers. 11 1 . 7, ' t l l,' ' ti 7 3 l " : _4l , •NLEY said he was not emulous of imitating _t_ t a :6, 0 7" a example of the Hon. Member for Oxford, L''', yt h , n s by observing he had long waited for something '. 4 „ ti ka a dvocates of the Bill which deserved answering, ..., , h fo ' r 4,,to it ) r nO s .Withstanding, sat down, and left altogether ', O 1„, ea, as had also the Hon. and Learned Gentleman / ' N i ' e ddretised them, the admirable and argumentative S e p Of h• has. ,'' Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for a Vi a '0 that able and eloquent d speech, and its argu -41; i.' s 4 4(i th _a . s . y a l t la . b_le had f been o ressed b . y woy . of reply. i° ,o : :\14 151y t, . 4 : 0 1 t. hour o the night he felt irresistibly called v o 4, , l ' at me parts of the speech of the Right Hon. still ql eg _ , e Secretary to the Admiralty. Whatever had i Iti gh vg O S the charge of his Majesty's Ministers b le o ° 4 it i ll t il i k , re t vs li e On t . i Gentleman, there was one instance a y t to ,ilia ti osia t• c es the pamphlet alluded to—" Whig Fraud i t ,sl, l r Folly" be believed it was called—in which lb' ki , s ° ne injustice to his Majesty's Ministers; for he t ll e 6,4 4 " re him, for himself and for the rest of his O h , %tett, except, perhaps, the Noble Paymaster of the k t d tt, the pamphlet to which he alluded had never i kNa e eyes of one of the Ministers (Hear, hear.) r ° I tt 'e a Ot n concur in the compliment which the Hon. I4t b rlie tt ' t d Gentleman 41 l t, . who spoke last paid to the two l brr , N I Mel), he said, his Noble Friend near him (the on'' i:h t ort . 7 of the Exchequer) had failed to answer. For as);', Qi h'ever, he (Mr. Stanley) f e lt it t o b e hi s d uty toe 4'11t,. Si !' said) to reply to some part of one of those ?I's , tt illor, It had been complimented for many qualities, r i i o n All: o - t g'tlfie!n, for one which . he .. should never have s i .a. * o _ a pplying to it — extreme accuracy.—(Cheers.) spa '' la 'lid not be induc , e v d ith to ti g ia o t q in u t e l i t o h n ose the d ß et i a g il h s t aa s, °: , tts ,, 4 , 11 / 4 ` ) ,) ;_aybore upon the . question of . Reform. Ot: iy i , r,l aia tlt , eirn lY unconnected b° ,`' p e ' an had attacked the Government in a ton c_a r f! , 4 1., t 5 1u t' 4...... 0f which he (Mr. Stanley) would only say this e V' lifirea a mong the unions which the Hon. Gentleman ,tees ''N•a,' ll ° ' the radical meetings which he so much held bo a 111 , L e e, Would language be heard so vituperative as th e t 'd ...,t",,, i ch the Right Hon. Gentleman himself in- IP , t hei r t ,'heers.) As to the conduct. of the Government, a t at .t Nod, difference to thepeace t he I le . 4 . G en ., _ of the country, if the :0 ~, n it° „ 'lemon had any charges to make he ought ' l alr co the House and make them by a specific motion IS ii sa, ' f ," e mnation. But if the Right Hon. Gentleman :4,1; 'par t tha t that HOuse he would have no chance of \ tribunal in a pledged House—(Cheering on ',r) 1 • °,- --th t . to step forward ought to ea)l upon some Noble Friend and bring an open accusation in the other House of Parliament, instead of confining him self to taunts and insinuations, which there was no op portunity to answer. He could not say what tight the Right Hon. Gentleman supposed he had to take upon him self to accuse the Members of that House as the tame mutes of a despotic Government.—(Vehement cheering.) If, as the Right Hon. Gentleman said, the Government were not their own masters, he (Mr. Stanley) would say that he never found himself less so—he never felt equal indig nation, or an inclination equally difficult to resist to call upon the Right Hon. Gentleman to retract what he said— (Oh, oh ! and cheers)—as at the moment when he so slan dered the Members of his Alajesty's Government. 'When the Right Hon. Gentleman charged the Ministers as the authors of the present excitement, by bringing in the Reform Bill, and asked, why (lid they not take the same plan and project, and pursue the same course as in 1819? he would answer, because they were in 1831, and not in 1819.—(Cheers.) Had the motion of his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) been acceded to in that year, they might by slower, and, perhaps, more safe degrees, have arrived at the same result a little later.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend had for twelve years been endeavouring to force Reform upon a reluctant Government; and he had been taunted and told that the country was indifferent to Reform, and that no change was necessary. So far Government then opposed Reform, that they refused to give Members to Manchester and Halifax ; nay, more— when his Noble Friend moved a resolution, that it was expedient to improve the representation of the people, he was met by a direct negative.—(Loud cheers.) Were the present Ministers, then, to be taunted with the present excited state of the country ?—(Cheers.) Was there no excitement when, hardly one year ago, that fatal declaration was put forth that the wishes of the people should be met by no delusive gratification, but by a direct negative ?—(Cheers.) Was there not then produced a state of things such, that the chief Minister of the Crown represented to his Majesty that he dare not trust his per son in the metropolis?—(Much cheering.) What, then, would those gentlemen opposite propose to do ? Would they give no Reform, or a little Reform, or a great Reform ? What would they do, suppose, for the argument sake, that they could succeed in throwing out the present Go vernment and the Bill ?—(Cheers.) Would they bring in a Reform Bill themselves, or abide by their negative ? Let the country understand their answer, and let them take the consequences?—(Repeated cheering.) Why, one gentleman had admitted to-night that he began to see some reason for making some concession. The Hon. Member for Oxford might have heard even an Archbishop admit that some Reform Was necessary. With what horror must he have heard this, and that he was abandoned by a Bishop, too ! This was the most unkindest cut of all.— (Loud laughter.) He really felt for the Hon. Gentle man when he heard his Learned Friend beside him admit that he saw reason for some concession. Well, then, were they ready to play the game which they had played be fore ? Having voted against the measure to the last, would they take the places of those whom they had defeated on the question of that measure, and then adopt it them selves to its utmost extent ?—(Much cheering.) If so, let the country know it. But he would tell them that neither they nor their measure would obtain or deserve the confidence of the people.—(Repeated cheering.) But if the present Government had proposed such a Reform as should have conciliated their opponents, and should pro - ceed so slowly as to quiet their alarm, it might be pos sible to ►nake it so efficient as to give Members to Leeds and Manchester some tch , re about the year ISM— (Laughter.) If there were excitement now, it was the opposition to this Bill, and not the conduct of his Ma jesty's Ministers, that had occasioned it. The gentlemen opposite were, when in power and place, the originators of it by their misconduct, and they were answerable for it all. He would tell them, if the Bill were a less pniple or satisfactory concession to the people, the excitement then would have been ❑ot as it was now, in favour of either the Ministers or the measure.—(Hear, hear.) It was true they had not entered much at length into detailed argu ments on the principle, because they thought, and rightly, the principle had been argued even to satiety. They con sidered the question as to principle to have been settled by the votes of the two several Houses of Commons, and that it was no longer a matter of discussion there that " Re form in Parliament the Commons of England must have." —(Cheers.) Some gentlemen complained that the Bill was more democratical than the last, and others, that it was not different from the last. They were told by the Hon. Gentleman that such was the resemblance that this Bill bore to that of last session, that it might be said o them— facies non omnibus tina, Nee diversa tamen : qualem decet esse sororum." A less trite quotation, and more applicable, in his mind, was that familiar to most— ,. Mater pulehra : fa. puichrior." —(Hear.) But there had been io fact no departure from the principle. The disfranchisement of schedule A was maintained to an equal extent. The enfranchisement of the large towns was retained to a greater extent, and the 101. franchise was not violated. They were now told that they had taken no intelligible rule as the guide of the dis franchisement. But had it not been imputed to them that they had been influenced in the choice of the boroughs to be disfranchised by private motives, and looking to indivi dual interest ? Now they were charged with producing to Parliament certain calculations, without being prepared with even the names of the boroughs to be disfranchised according to those calculations. They bad been charged with abandoning their favourite principle of population as applicable to the boroughs and the return of the y ear 1821. The truth was that population never had been the principle of the Bill ; it bad only been resorted to as a test, and the readiest test by which to ascertain the relative im portance of the boroughs. But when objections which seemed to have some foundation were taken t o it as being liable to abuse,the Ministers had determined to take a test composed of the ratio of the houses and of the population in those bo_ roughs. Even the present test went far to prove they were not materially daceived in the application of the former ; for the result of the application of the new test was that, of the 56 boroughs which originally stood in the schedule, 51 still remained there—(Cheers)—and notwith standing all that had been said of the injustice done to Saltash, that borough was one of those which, tried by the combined tests of the population in 1831, the taxes which it pays, and the number of 101. housed, was proved to be worthy of its place in the schedule, and it still stood within the line of demarcation..—(A laugh.) Objections had been made to the anomaly of the principle of schedule B in creating single returns; and it had been strongly ar gued last session that they had no right to diminish the number of Members in that House. Minister's had yielded to the latter argument, and in this Bill they had proceeded to fill up the vacancies created by the schedules in the representation, by granting a proportionate increase of Members to the great towns. The equilibrium was thus exactly maintained between the two great interests in the community. As to the 101. franchise, thouch it would be the snore proper time to discuss it in the Com mitt,e, he must say new that it combined two most desir able advantages. It extended the right of representation to property of the lowest class, and went as far as it was possible to go, consistently with safety to the State. Although he was not of the opinion of the Hon. Members for Westminster, that every man had a right to be represented, yet it was the duty of the Legislature to extend the right as far as it could be extended, without injury to the commonwealth.—(Cheers from both sides.) An Hon. and Learned Gentleman told the House that he knew from good authority that the measme was not satis factory, from a correspondence upon which he could rely; no doubt it was not satisfactory to hie correspondents at Boroughbridge.—(Laughter.) The objections which Hon. Gentlemen opponite made to the ten-pound franchise were so contradictory that he could not tell which to an swer ; they refuted each other. It was by one denounced an innovation which would create an aristocracy of shop.. keepers ; by another as an oligarchy of ten-pound house holders ; again as unrestrained democracy--as universal suffrage ; but the climax of all, in his mind, was, that it was described by one Honourable Member as a system of nomination.—(Laughter and: cheers.) The web they wove in this manner was so intricate and perplexed that it was impossible, in answering one of the opposers of the Bill, not to fall foul of the other. The Hon. Gentleman, to whom he bad before alluded, had charged the Govern ment with rashness and precipitation in taking but ten days to form a Constitution anew for this country. Would it not have been more fair to say that the Government, having all the necessary information prepared, and before them, with the documents, for some considerable time, on the 24th of November gave them into Lieutenant Drum mond's hands merely to cast up the tables, and to make the numerical calculations on which the disfranchisement of the boroughs was to depend? Such was really the fact that had been so misrepresented. He was not the only opposer of the Bill who dealt in misrepresentation ; for the Right Hon. the late secretary had misquoted, sup pressed, or garbled history to suit his purposes—nay, he had not hesitated even to describe occurrences as effects of certain causes ; which causes, upon examination, were, in fact, preceded by the effects or events attributed to them.—(Cheers and laughing.) The House would re collect the use of the Right Hon. Gentleman bad made of his historical knowledge on that occasion. He said, in a tone expressive of no mode rate exultation, " Look to what concession led to in 1640, when Charles 11. yielded to his Parliament, and made the offer of Triennial Media merits, which was the first step in that bloody tragedy, in ,'- A the course of which Strafford was impeached and be headed, and next the long Parliamens was assembled."— (Cheers-) The Hon. Gentleman, having examined Hume, no doubt, with due diligence and care, came down to the House to answer the Hon. Member for Caine, with his quotations already marked, and the whole history at his fingers' ends. But he produced information such as the House had never heard before; and when the whole argument was so unsound, and the facts so misre presented, he (Mr. Stanley) would feel himself inex• curable if he omitted to answer them even at that lste hour, and on that particular night. Did he not know, or, knowing, did he shrink from stating—(Much cheering from both sides)--did not the Right Hon. Gentleman know that 1640 was the year when Charles was compelled, by his own wants, to depart from his flagi tious and unconstitutional conduct, and to truckle to the Commons of England? That be then, for the first time, after eleven years had passed by without calling a Parlia ment together, called together the Parliament in question, which was not the Long Parliament, and had nothing to do with the Triennial Bill.--(Hear, hear.) Did the Right Hon. Gentleman not know too that after this, the longest suspension of Parliaments that ever had been ventured upon since we had a Constitution, and not until the King had, in this manner, violated the fundamental laws of the realm—after attempting to force Episcopacy on Scotland—after having carried the abuses of oppressive monopolies to the most alarming excess, in defiance of Parliament, and repeated declarations of the Commons, de nouncing such practices as illegal and oppressive ; levying heavy stamp and other duties, enforcing ship-money from his subjects, and in every way straining the prerogative, as if, es his Hon, and Learned Friend the Member for Caine had said—he thought it became a Prince of the House of Stuart to attempt that which had been done so often by a Prince of the line of Tudor ;—that, when extortion would go no further —when he had reduced the finance of the country to the lowest ebb, and his Exchequer to absoltoe beggary, then, and not till then, (lid that tyrannical Monarch, appalled by the spirit of a people he could no further oppress, turn at last for succour to that Parlia ment which, whilst he could safely (10 it, and had the power, he insulted, spurned, and trampled upon ? When he called them together again what did he ?—he honoured them with some soft words—some flattering expressions, which they knew too well to trust to. When they talked of grievances and abuses which had gone on rapisily in creasing (luring the long interval which had taken' place— having at length met together to deliberate upon those grounds of complaint—he spoke to them of subsidies. A little longer did this system of extortion go on—corrup tion and abuses were openly encouraged—for what? Al! to carry on this unsuccessful struggle against the liberties of the people of England. But again the Monarch was defeated—again he had to how to that Parliament he had spurned, and a long course of arbitrary tyranny soon afterwarbs ended—as tyranny will always end sooner or later—in base, timid, and despicable concession. —(Loud cheers.) But this long Parliament—for it was the long Parliament—not the first short one, as the Hon. Gentle man snpposed—passed the Triennial Act. And yet the Hon. Gentleman had attempted to show the House how mar vellously exact the parallel was in all its circumstances. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the two cases so per fectly coincided, that really they seemed to have been made purposely for each oilier, and in support of this asser tion he read to the House an extract from a celebrated author. He (Mr. S.) could not help thinking that the quotation would have been more appropriate if the Right Hon. Gentleman had read the passage immediately pre ceding. "By this Bill," said Hume—no great friend, it must be admitted, to popular liberty----" some of the noblest and most valuable prerogatives of the Crown were retrenched ; but, at the same time, nothing could be more necessary than such a st ttute for completing a regular plan of law and liberty. A great reluctance to assemble Parliaments must be expected in the King where these assemblies, as, of late, established it as a maxim to carry their scrutiny into every part of Government. During long intermissions of Parliament, grievances and abuses, as was fount by recent experience, would naturally creep in, and it would even become necessary for the King and Council to exert a great discretionary authority, by acts of state to supply, in every emergency, the legisla tive power, whose meeting was so uncertain and precarious. Charles, finding that nothing less would satisfy his Parlia ment and people, at last gave his assent to this Bill, which produced so great an innovation in the Constitution." Then the Right Hon. Gentleman went on to infer that Charles hav ing conceded these paints,`liis concession was fatal. But the Right Hon. Gentleman very ingeniously read a passage which referred to another Bill, dated twelve months afterwards, and would have the House to understand that this Bill was the cause of the events which afterwards ensued. Was this the exact parallel to the present case ? Was this the Bill which was forced upon a reluctant House of Lords to the invasion of their privileges? Why, what was the fact with respect to this Bill? What say Hume and Claren don ? " The Bill passed rapidly through both Houses, though it met with some difficulties on the part of the King"—difficulties which were probably easily accounted for by the doctrine of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself. It was very true that, as years rolled on, and oppression and grievances multiplied, and as the people found they were wronged and deceived, and as they deemed the Mo narch was injuring them more and more, the Members of this House broke out into excesses, which no man could defend, and of which God forbid we should again ever see the like ! When was this ? When the King had sub scribed the declaration of the army offering to guard him against his Parliament—when he attempted to exercise an improper controul over the deliberations of this House nay more, when five of its Members had been attempted to be seized by the Crown—then, and then only, did this House assert its dignity; and God forbid that, under the British Constitution, it should have adopted any other line of conduct ! When the Crown ceased to re spect the privileges, and dared to violate the sanctity, of this House of Commons, did any man be lieve that the insulted House of Commons, or the people of England, would continue to respect the pri vileges of the Crown itself ?—(Loud cheers.) One more passage, and one more only, before he concluded his exposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman's parallel—a pa rallel about as accurate and as fitting as that which he at tempted to draw between the state of this country and of France. He said he knew not what they wou'd have in France ;—they had a flee representation—a I,beral Re forming Ministry—and, with a sneer, he added, they have a patriot King. He knew not whether this were the pa rallel which the Hon. Gentleman meant to draw—if it were, he would say that it was certainly as accurate, if not more so, than the parallel which he attempted to draw between the days of 1640 and the times at which we were now arrived —eventful periods both. His Hon. and Learned Friend had truly said alai; the history of by-gone times was written for our learni ng ; a nd to examine into the history of those times partially was, like a little learn.. ing, a dangerous thing. What was the natural and neces sary deduction to be drawn from the history of the years —not from 1640 to 1645, but from 1627 to 1640? If he wished for a parallel, let him look at the delay that oc curred between 1627 and 1640, and then let him compare it with the delay which took place between 1819 a nd 1830. But to return, what was the deduction ? That a concession of the Crown in time—a concession to reason and justice —to the advancing spirit of the age, and the altered con dition of society, were the firmest supports of, and the best basis upon which the Monarchy could rest, and that the people would not tamely see a Monarch en deavouring to trample upon their liberties, and invade their rights, without at last compelling him to acknow ledge the force of the iron hand of necessity which was upon him, and basely to truckle to the power that he would have crushed.—(Cheers;) He (Mr. Stanley) was about to read one more short passage ; and, although he had already trespassed on the attention of the House at some length, he trusted h e m i g ht b e perm i tted to d o so , because it might tend t o b ear out t h e op i n i on he had ex pressed with regard to the danger of delay, and the ne cessity and advantage of early concession. Clarendon, in speaking of the alte red circ ums t ances o f t h e t i mes, t h e Parliament necessity of the being ca ll e d t oget h er , an d their behaviour when the King was again compelled to meet them, used this language:—" There was observed a mar vellous change in the countenances of many of the Mem bers since they before met together in the House—some, who six months before were of moderate temper, and who only wished that general remedies mi g h t b e app li e d with out opening the wound too wide, and rather to cure what was amiss than at once to institute an inquiry, now in another tone spoke of things and persons; and said that they must now be in another temper than they were dur ing the last Parliament; they must not only sweep the House clean both above and below, but they must pull down all the cobwebs that were to be found in the corners, so that they might not breed dust, and make a foul House." This was one of the lessons that was written for our learning, if we chose to read them. There was no man, he thought, who, having done so, would venture to deny, whatever might be his opinion of the danger of this Bill, that it might not, in one, two, or three years, be aggravated to a considerable extent ; nor could be deny that, if the course of Govern ment should go on for so long, delay could still be perse vered in without producing a convulsion, which no Ad ministration could remove--which all must lenient— which might be foreseen, but could not in that ;;; be avoided. He must say that he thought his lion. and Learned Friend had been treated rather harshly by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, who really misrepre sented the observations which fell from him, and con demned him for making use of an argument, not less able and eloquent than true and instructive. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman truly told us that as the march of society went on, and as century succeeded century, and as increasing intelligence succeeded to the intelligence of former days, so the Government must shape their course according to the feelings, temper, and opinions of the times; and even those who best guided the political ma chine were themselves driven onwards by the power of a mighty and irresistible current, whose course, although they might guide, they could never stop. In the propriety, truth, and force of the argument so beautifully and power fully urged by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he should have imagined all who heard him would have concurred. He would ask the House whether this observation was sufficient to justify the Right Hon. Gentleman in saying that his Hon. and Learned Friend admitted that we, who endeavoured to guide the great political ma chine down the stream, were nothing but the use less creatures of a mob, hurried forward by a course which they could neither resist nor controul ? that we were passive tools in the hands of others ? Ile could only say that he, for one, could not agree with those Honourable Gentlemen who seemed to consider that the passions of a mob were the proper ad measurement of our feelings or our wishes. His Hon. anti Learned Friend had truly told us that the form of Government must give place to the form of society; that Governments were made fur men, - not men for them; and that it would be equally dangerous for the Princes of the House of Hanover to attempt to govern us as the Stuarts had formerly, as it was for Charles, who, determined to stretch his rules to the utmost, endeavoured to sway the sceptre of England as others had years before, and who, finally, thought that men in the seventeenth century possessed the same feelings, and that society was in the same state, as when the race of the Tudors wore the British Crown. God forbid that we should not have sufficient foresight, sufficient wisdom to save the country by going along, not with the mob, but with the country itself, by timely repairing institutions, the necessity of some change in which few men denied, and by complying with the demands of the people, which, as they could not be silenced—as they could not be concealed —as they could not be overcome, must finally prevail, to the danger of those ' who had delayed gratifying them. We had here our choice, whether we should legislate temperately or usefully, for the benefit of the Constitution and all classes of his Majesty's subjects, or whether we should promote scenes, the nature of which he would not venture to predict, and which God forbid any man should live to see !—(The Right Hon. Gentleman was loudly cheered at the conclusion of his speech.) Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, at this hour of the night, and in this stage of the debate, when so short a time is left, before, according to the prevailing feeling of the House, it would wish to proceed to a division, I should have most earnestly desired to have been enabled at once to address myself to those argumen's in favour of the me t sure which are supposed to be still left standing, without reference to any topic of a private or personal nature. But, Sir, in the course of this discussion the Honourable and Learned Memb e r for Caine, on the third occasion of his taking a part in it, has thought proper to introduce some topics unconnected altogether with the merits of the ques tion, and has addressed himself to me personally, in a man ner to which I should be unworthy of the situation which I hope I hold within the House, if I could permit this de bate to close without making some reference. I should have thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman having three times made a speech on the subject of Reform, and having each time taunted me with my conduct on the Catholic question, might now have left these topics alone, and not have come down to the House, after an interval of two months, with all the " sweltered venom" he has been enabled to collect during the time which has elapsed since his last attack upon me.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman charges me with some unworthiness, or some ingratitude, for the course lam now pursuing towards Ministers ; he thinks I had contracted some obligation which imposes upon me the necessity of returning the compliment which I re ceived upon the last introduction of the Catholic question. Says the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, vs-hat a contrast between your conduct and the conduct of Ministers ! When you proposed Catholic Emancipation, they agreed with you, and handsomely supported you : when they pro pose Reform, why don't you cordially and handsomely sup port them ? Why, simply on this ground, because they agreed with me on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, and because, unfortunately, I differ from them on the sub ject of Parliamentary Reform. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman charges me with what amounts in substance, though not in phrase, too little less than gross and almost corrupt apostacy. He insinuates that I, having opposed the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and opposed Catholic Emancipation, came forward for the purpose of securing my continuance in office, and appropriated to my self the honour which belonged to others. Sit, I have long remained silent under these charges. In the first place, I thought the time had hardly come when it was right, with reference to the public, that I could attempt to place my conduct in its proper light; and I felt the snore confident in leaving these charges unnoticed because I knew that the time was come, when, although I might be chargeable with an error in judg ment, my defence, in point of integrity in undertaking the settlement of the Catholic question, should be put beyond the possibility of doubt. I did not undertake the settle ment of the Test and Corporation Acts—for I take the first of the charges of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. As Minister of the Crown, I opposed the question when brought forward by the Noble Lord. I was beaten and left in a minority on that occasion, and being left in a minority I did not attempt to defraud him of any of the honour which belonged to the settlement of it ; but privately believing, after the vote of the house, that it was better the question should be settled, I attempted an amicable and satisfactory settlement. But, says the Hon- Gentleman, having out of office opposed the question, and having declared from that place that you would continue to oppose it, why, when your opinions did not prevail, did you not resign? Such is the blind hostility of the Hon. Gentleman that he cannot make an attack upon me with out wielding a two-edged sword which wounds some friend. Is it an imputation on Ministers that when they cannot carry into effect their own measures they must ne cessarily resign ? If it be, why do the present Ministers re main in office? I make no charge upon them for remaining in office, but it is not fair to infer improper conduct be cause Ministers remain in office; but I will appeal to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and I will appeal to any man when I relate the whole truth, whether I was not justified in remaining in office, although my opposition to the Teat and Corporation Acts did not prevail? I was called to office on the 9th of July, 1828. There haul been three changes in the King's Government. Lord Goderich's Go vernment had existed for eight months. There were three parties in the State—the Tory party, the Whig party, and the friends of Mr. Canning. In Lord Goderich's Govern ment two of those parties had been united. That Govern ment broke up. You talk of men abandoning their posts, and who quitted and resigned office in the face of difficul. ties, in Ib2B. Why did Lord Goderich's Government break up ? I never yet heard the satisfactory cause. It failed not in consequence of opposition in Parliament ; it failed to meet Parliament, and in the month of January the Duke of Wellington and myself were called upon to form a Government. We were obliged to postpone the meeting of Parliament for one week, and we were told to form a Government in the interval. We met Parliament. On Feb. 26 came on the question of the Test and Corporation Acts. I opposed it, and we were beaten. Does any man suppose it would have been fit for a Ministry, one mbnt}i after two other parties who composed the Government had left, to leave the King upon the settlement of that question ? That is my defence against the accusation relative to the Test and Corporation Acts—the impropriety of leaving the King without a Government one month after the two other parties in the State had left. Now, upon the sub ject of the heavier charge of the Catholic question. For several years in this House I had taken a most active part in opposition to that question. I had so taken it from the great doubt I entertained, whether the removal of Ro man Catholic disabilities would restore tranquillity to Ire laod- I maintained that opposition in an uncompromising manner, avoiding, as far as was possible, to provoke aspe rity by my conduct ; but a t the same time offering decided and unqualified opposition. In the year 1828, having offered that opposition in office, I was again left in a minority. There were circumstances, which the time has not yet come fully to explain, that did leave the strongest impression on my mind that there was more danger in con tinuing resistanc e to, than attempting a settlement of, the sqi usnt question. icoen mr at i en a o v ed t o iun i n t uc e e n h at ons unchanged—not be off _ o t h ffn a , t or et m y opinion up on t h at d ,my but opinion doubts t and d apprehensions that the evils of Ireland were not attribut able so much to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from offices in the State, as to a state of society which placed the great mass of the population in opposition to your reli gious institutions which gave property to the few, and numbers to the many. I always entertained great appre hensions that the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities might not fulfil the expectations which were entertained ; but I thought that, in the divided state of the Protestant Church—Parliament having time after time—not on the first agitation of the question, as in the case of Reform, but repeated and successive Parliaments having been qually balanced—after a conflict of years—l thought it was hopeless to maintain the contest ; hut this I lid feel at the same time, that nothing_ could he more unfortunate than that I should be the individual to undertake the settlement of the question. It was not for the sacrifices I might personally be called upon to make because those sacrifices I always meant to make ; but I did feel this, that it was unfortunate I must necessarily lose the entire confidence of the party with ' whom I acted ; and I did feel it unfortunate for the cha racter of public men generally, that I, who had maintained a most decided opposition to the question, should be the individual to introduce the very measure I had so long op posed. Sir, I happened to be from London in the sum mer of 1826, and I wrote my opinion to my Noble Friend on the subject of the Catholic question —o n the policy of attempting to settle it, and my view of the impolicy of my being the individual to originate the subject. I stated to him—" I have thus written to you without reserve upon the first and great question of all—th e po li cy of seriously considering this long-agitated question with a view to its adjustment. I have proved to you, I trust, that no false delic icy in respect of past declarations of opi nions—no fear of the imputation of inconsistency will pre vent me from taking that part which present dangers, and the new position of affairs, may require. lam ready, at the hazard of any sacrifice, to maintain the opinion which I now deliberately give —that there is, upon the whole, less of evil in making a decided effort to settle the Ca tholic question, than leaving it, as it has been left, an open question—Government being paralysed and unde cided, and the consequence of that indecision being on many occasions injurious. I must, at the same time, ex press my strong opinion that it would not conduce to a satisfactory adjustment of the question that the charge of it in the House of Commons should be committed to my hands. I put all personal feelings out of the question ; they ought to be matters of subordinate consideration; and I give the best proof of my disregard of them by avowing that I am quite ready to quit office, and to support the measure of concession. INIy support will be more useful if I give it with the candour with which it can be given out of office. Any authority that I may possess in attempting to reconcile the Protestants to the measure, will be in creased by my retirement. I have been too deeply com mitted on this question, and expressed too strong an opi nion in respect to it—too much jealousy and distrust of the Roman Catholics, too touch apprehension of the imme diate and remote consequences of proceeding to remove the disabilities under which they labour, to make it advan• tageous to the King's service that I should be the indivi dual to originate the measure." I read this letter for the purpose of showing that I did not undertake the settle ment of the question with a view of depriving the Hon. Gentleman of the credit. I remained in office, not intending to come down and propose the measure till the month of January, 1629, under the impression that I should be enabled to take part in it in my private capacity alone; but in the month of January it was proved to me, by evidence which will carry conviction to every mind, that my retirement from office, with the opinions entertained by the King upon the Catholic ques tion, would preclude the settlement of it, and I wrote a letter to my Noble Friend, in which I stated to him that I still earnestly hoped—that it was the earnest wish of my heart—that I should avoid the painful situation—not only painful to myself, but disparaging to the character of pub lic men. But knowing the difficulties with which he was at that time surrounded, 1 said—" I will have no reserve. I know all the difficulties of your situation—l know how these difficulties arise. If say retirement should prove, in your opinion, after the communication which you may have with the King, or with those whom it m y be neces sary for you to consult, an insuperable obstacle to the im mediate adoption of the course which upon the whole I believe least open to objection, under all the circumstances —in that case you shall command any future service that I can render." These are the original documents. 'The memorandum on the letter is this—" On the day I wrote this letter, the Archbishop of Canter bury and the Bishops of London and Durham had an interview with the Duke of Wellington, and propounded arid declared to him that they must give their decided opposition to the proposed Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics." That was the 12th of June. Had not the opposition of the Bishops made it impossible to carry the measure, unless Leon sented to remain in office and incur all the odium of proposing it, no consideration upon earth should have induced me to stand in that place and propose the settle ment of the Catholic question ; but if my retirement placed insuperable obstacles in the way of its settlement, I appeal to every man of honour whether, when I advisee the King 4Cgive up his own scruples—when his Majesty said to me,.." If you ask me to make this sacrifice, will you refuse to make it ?" Could I, as a subject of the King, and for such an object, have refused ?—( Hear.) These were the circumstances under which I undertook it, and I think I have shown that if I did undertake it, it was not for the purpose of robbing the original proposers of the honour. Then the Hon. Gentleman proceeds to attributu all the consequences arising from the rejection of the Re form Bill to my pertinacious opposition to Reform. But before I state this, I must repeat again that the conduct or the party which originally proposed and advocated Catho lic emancipation, in giving we their cordial support dur ing the whole of the debate on that question, and abstain ing from a course which might have thrown difficulties in the way of its settlement, was conduct dictated, I believe, by pure and honourable motives, and entitling that party to respect and gratitude. I said so at the time, and I retain that opinion ; but does the Honourable Gen tleman think that because that party gave me their support, I contracted any obligation which compels me ‘• With 'bated breath and whispering humbleness," to shrink from disscussion in this House? Am Ito re turn the compliment by abating my opposition upon Reform ? Ant I not to labour to point out errors in the conduct of the King's Government, if I think there are errors, and to give to the question of Reform my most strenuous and persevering opposition ? If I thought I was disqualified from doing so, I would abdicate nay luns thins in this House, and not stand here to offer a sham opposition —to compliment the Government, and with weak arguments oppose them. I feel that lam at liberty to take what course I please upon the subject of Reform, and that I am not at liberty to fritter away my oppositior, in return for the support I formerly received. Great part of the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman turns upon this question ; not, is this measure calculated to benefit the complicated interests of the country ? but, who are the parties who have produced the present excitement ? There is an enlarged view of its adaptation to present circum stances. The assumption is that there is a pressure of ex ternal force which cannot be resisted. We roust give way not to our own deliberate reason and judgment ; but there is no alternative left but to satisfy the cravings of the people, whether rational or not—and you, says the Hon. Gentleman, are the cause of all this. Says the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " Ten years since, you that had eyes could have seen, you that had ears could have heard, and your that had legs could have walked." It it be really a question of importance to settle the rela tive proportion of the claims of the different parties, will the Hon. and Learned Gentleman have the goodness to ask the Marquis of Lansdowne why he, ten years since, having eyes to see, ears to hear, and legs to walk, neither saw, heard, nor walked, but was, I believe, a quiet oppo nent of Parliamentary Reform? It is unfortunate for gen• damn to commit thetnselves by such appeals. Why, in the year 1827, did we see the Marquis of Lansdowne, together with other Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite— (Cheers)—taking part in Mr. Canning's Government, after he had declared, to the last moment of his life, he should be opposed to Parliamentary Reform ?—(Cheers.) And on this point I find a passage in " Mr. Stapleton's Memoirs of Mr. Canning," stating that all the Cebinet were united in saying that the question of Parliamentary Reform would not be supported by any Member of the Government.—(Cheers.) I see this, then, that men differing from myself upon other questions —men ac tuated by no dishonourable motives, but taking what are supposed to be large and comprehensive views of the affairs of this country,—dreaded the opening of the question of Parliamentary Reform. The Noble Lord was asked why he objected to accede to his former small motions of Re form ? But can he ask this question, after having hiinselt told us that to those who made the slightest concession he would address himself in the words of Cromwell— (Cheers)—" The Lord has delivered them into my h and ?" —(Cheers.) I must say that I think it rather h ar d t h at the Noble Lord should in this manner exonerate those who have even refused to make the slightest abate ment, arid fasten himself upon me, because 1 believe I once stated that I should be willing to transfer the fran chise of a second Grampound to Manchester. Neither do I feel that I have been fairly dealt with by the Hen. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Alacauley), who had taken occasion to compliment me on having sung my Palinodium. Mr. MACAULEY—I did not mention you ; the term was directed to the Right Hon. Ex-Secretary to the Admiralty. All that was meant was, that the Right Hon. Baronet's party took the whole credit to themselves of measures for the improvement of our systems of juris prudence, commercial laws, and foreign policy, which had been forced on their reluctant conviction by the party now in office. Sir ROBERT PEEL.—No; the Hon. and Learned Geuti•man did not mention me, but the sarcasm was not the lees pointed.—(Cheers.) But I can assure the House that, so far from having taunted the Government with adopting my principles in their new Bill, I hale al; e tdy •tated it as my opinion that the essential principles or the Rill unchanged. What I did say, on a former 'tight was, that I thought the country was in a better si tuation by being afforded the opportunity of re-considsTing tnie measure ; for which reason I considered that we kiti! lead a great escape, and felt thankful to the House of Lords for having acted as it had done.—(Cheers.) 1 repeat again that we have had a great escape in the rejection of the last Bill. The Lords believed it to be pregnant with evil consequences, and, therefore, rejected it. They did r•ght. I rejoice at the conduct which they pursued. I believe that it was better for their own dignity—better for th e security of their order as a constituent part of die constitutional body—and better for the permanent interests of the country at large, than if they did suf fer any feeling arising from the circumstances of the times to warp them from the on!y ., ,correct cou rse which they could pursue. But, as far as I can see, not only do I rejoice in this, but the Noble Lord ought also to rejoice, for it has given him an opportunity of improving Ins Bill, and of congratulating himself upon the superior beauty of the daughter over the mother. We have heard the boast of the opposite side, this evening, of "Mater pulehra, filia pulehrior." lam sure the Noble Lord's gallantry must lead him to rejoice that it is the daughter and not the mother which he was to embrace.—(A laugh, and cheers.) But, after all, when it is considered that I live in the very neighbourhood of those meetings to whom I have been denounced as " the whisper of a faction"— (Cheers)—to whom I have been held up by the Press of the country as a fit subject, not for arguments, but for brickbats—(Cheers)--I think that it is a little too much to find fault with me for vindicating a course which an honest and honourable party pursued, and by which they have afforded an opportunity for what the Government thinks an improvement in the Bill.—(Cheers.) I think, however, that after what we have heard in the course of this debate we must no longer hear of the principles of this Bill being argued on the ground of the Constitution. The Noble Lord dissents from this, I see; but has he not himself said this evening that, if it had been his fortune to have lived at the perio I of the Revolution, he himself would have voted for Roman Catholic exclusion, and fur the maintenance and continuance of the small En roughs.—(Loud cheers.) But surely, if these small bo roughs are now contrary to tile spirit of the Constitu tion, they would have been equ illy so at the time of the Revolution, and it would, consequently, have been out of the power of the Noble Lord to have voted in their support.—(Hear, hear.) Respecting as I do the constitutional and legal knowledge of the Noble Lard, I heard with surprise the allusion which he made to the Bill of Rights, and the interpretation which he put upon the words contained in it—that elections should be free. That declaration by no means referred to the small bo roughs, but to the circumstances mentioned in the pre amble, which arose out of the interference of King James 11. with the election of Members, and which is particu larly described by Reresby, who gives an account of his being desired by the King to stand for York, to which he assented on condition that the King should put out of the Corporation of York all those Members to whom he (Reresby) objected, and which James accordingly did; so that from this it appears clear that the declaration in the Bill of Rights in no wise applied to the small boroughs, in favour of which the Noble Lord would have fought on his stumps had he lived at that time. The Hon, and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Macauley) has asked whether the Constitution, because it was good a hundred years since, is never under any circumstances to lie subjected to change. I sin ready to admit that, if there does not exist an elastic spirit in the Constitution so as to meet the tern - per of the times, there is something wrong—something that requires alteration—and that, if the boroughs are torde of such iron stuff that they will nut yield to the im pression of improvement, the attempt to put them down is justifiable. But will any one, after looking at the progress of the Legislature since the year 1827, say that the animus of this House is behind time improvement of th e times ? Is it not rather before it in what it did on the Ca hone question and on that of free trade?—(Cheers.) Rut another error, which, in my opinion, the advocates of Reform have committed in their arguments is that they have discussed the question as if it only applied to this country, quite forgetting the immense colonial pos•essions of the empire. But, if it be said that the population of India is of so low a grade of intellect as not to understand the nature of good government, I think that will only serve to make the case worse ; for if they perceive that change is taking place in England, without being able to perceive the justice of that change, it will only le ul them the more doggedly to require a change, in th it own condition. Another fault is that the Bill makes no Inference between nomination and small boroughs. It •nay be very well to say that the nomination boroughs ,nust he got rid of; but that shows no cause for destroy ing the small boroughs also.—(Cheers.) Besides, the real fact is, that this Bill does not destroy those very wroughs at which it is said it aims. Look at Midhurst : we have been told over and over sgain that the repre sentation of that place belonged to a hole in a wall ; but, after all, that very hole in (the wall is to retain its right. It is true that the constituency is enlarged but the place itself continues the same. Does the Noble Lord really think that the 101, householders in this country- Ire alile to form in opinion upon the vast and com plicated interests of the countless millions who inhabit our colonies and foreign possessions? I hold in my hand an address width has been agreed to at Withill, in contem plation of the passing of this Bill, and of the franchise tieing conferred by it ❑pon the 10/. householders. I allude to it for the purpose of showing how lithe this class of persons have i❑ mind any of the interests of the colonies. It commences in these terms—" The reign of oppression is neatly at an end—the fiat of the people of England has gone forth, and a compact has been sealed by a patriot. King, that might shall no longer triumph over right."._ The belief of these persons is that they are fulfilling the wishes of the King by agreeing to addresses of this kind, and by demanding a change of whatever has been long established. In the instance to which I am now antra ,ng the parties wish for the repeal of the corn laws—the abolition of the monopoly of the East India Company, and of the traffic in human flesh and blood—for the protecting shield of the ballot, and for the limitation of the duration of Parliaments to three years, Now, I do not mean to ay that all this is not very honestly intended, but what lam afraid of is, that when we get a popular Parlia ment we shall find it jumping to conclusions—conclu sions that may be right, but which, from the great variety of interests they embrace, require the nicest caution and consideration in their management.—(Cheers.) In the same way, with respect to property, I am in no fear of its destruction by confiscation; but I am afraid that steps will be taken, the ultimate tendency of which will be to shake the confidence of the country ; and that confi dence once shaken, there will be an end at once to the chief stimulus which induces men to amass property, and which -in England has hitherto been productive of that wealth, commerce, and power, which have given her so high a station among the nations of Europe. Let us for a moment look at the state of France. What is the condi- Lion of the working people there ? Why, although they have not to meet the heavy taxation which exists in this country, their state is most deplorable ; and it is found that in every part of that kingdom the situation of the in- dustrious classes is such that it almost becomes a question whether they will ever be able to recover their former vigour, and re-assert that position which the industry of everp country ought to procure for it.—(Cheers.) By the last intelligence, which has been published in the Times newspaper, we are informed that " the mercantile distress in France (to which the correspondent had repeatedly alluded) is unhappily not confined to the manufacturing districts of the kingdom. At Havre, and in the other • commercial sea-ports of France, the loudest complaints are made of the state of suffering depression to which the shipping interests of the kingdom have been reduced." With an increased army, and an increasing revenue, such is the condition of the country which has adopted and acted upon the liberal notions of the day. Do I say that the French were not right in re -dating tyranny ? No ; but I s.ty that the effect of ail such changes in Government is to suspend commerce, to derange industry, to put a stop to credit, and conse quen•ly to injure in the highest degree all the manufac turing and labouring classes. 1 have alluded to France as an example bow dangerous it is to shake the confidence of a country by sudde❑ and sweeping changes; and I was the more anxious to call the attention of the House to that sub ject, because I feel that the destruction of this country is sealed the moment it is known that public property is not secure. I fear that the IN. householders will not view with the considerate circumspectio❑ which is necessary those questions which tend not to the confiscation of pro perty, but to the shaking of the proper confidence which should be connected with it. I say, therefore, that I vote against the second reading of this Bill, not because I anti cipate that my opposition will be successful, but because I wish to guard myself from the possibility of being involved in the responsibility of having taken any part or share in (nuking the greatest and most precipitate change which ever was made in any Constitution, and which ought not to be made in the best Constitution that ever existed is the annals of history. You should well consider the ultimate and immediate dircts of 'the change you are about to accomplish on the three 'parts of the em pire. Look well to the proportions text were esta- 3 ip 1 ~f ~~: ii~ ~`u