The Sun. — London, England, 1831-09-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. .IHO USE OF LORDS, SEPTEMBidt 21. The Spring Guns' Bill was read third timeand passed. The Surplus Ways and Means' Bill was read a second time and committed for to-morrow. The Waterloo Bridge New Street Bill was passed thrott2h a Committee. . 1 he Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the Association for the Promotion of Rational Humanity, praying for the removal of Smithfield Market without the limits of the Metropolis.—Laid on the table. GAME BILL. On the motion of the Duke of RicintoNo the Game Bill was committed, and some a mendments introduced. Ordered to be printed, as amended, and to be re-committed . 00 Friday. The House then proceeded with the hearing of appeals. —Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, SEPTEMBEI: 21. Mr. lIODGSON presented a petition from certain in habitants of Northumberland against the Bill for a general Registration of Deeds. BOROUGH OF HERTFORD. Mr T. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of pre senting to the House a petition which involved some seri ous charges against a Noble Marquis, who, being a Peer of Parliament, could not be in that House to defend him self; but whatever feelings his necessary absence might create —whatever might be the respect and esteem entertained for the individual—no considerations of that nature should restrain the House from the performance of that duty which, as the representatives of the people, they were called upon to perform—the duty of affording protection to the electors by whom they were returned. The present peti tion was from 35 electors of the borough of Hertford, tenants of the Marquis of Salisbury, and the ground of complaint was, that they had been interfered with in the conscientious exercise of their undoubted privileges. They stated, and verified the statement upon oath, that they had been dispossessed of their tenements solely in consequence of their having voted for Reform candidates; that many of them had occupied their houses for several years, and sit had punctually paid their rents ; to that he solicited atten tion, for the alleged non-payment of rent had often been made a pretext with anti-reforming landlords for punish ing tenants who presumed to vote against them. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the petition at length, which corroborated his preceding statement. The petitioners set forth that Lord Ingestrie, with Messrs. Dun • combo and Currie, were the candidates ; that the peti tioners were tenants of the Marquis of Salisbury ; that they were dispossessed of their holdings for no other reason than having voted .for the Reform candidates, and praying that the House would adopt measures to vindicate their own privileges, and protect those of the electors. These facts were attested by several affidavits, some of which the Hon. Member read to the house, and in one of which it was stated the tenant had held the house for more than fifty years. He stated that, bearing in mind the great measure under the consideration of the House, he should not make any motion upon the subject referred to in the petition ; but if through any accident that great measure of Parliamentary Reform should fail, or should not correct abuses of that suture, he felt, how ever reluctant to promote such an object, that the ballot must be had recourse to. At all events he should, if such offences were repeated, move for leave to introduce a spe cial measure in the case of Hertford. Lord INGESTRIE defended the conduct of the Mar quis of Salisbury. He stated that many of those tenants were in arrear, some of them even as much as three years rent ; that there were sufficient grounds for serving them with notice to quit even if there had been no elec tion ; that the Noble Marquis had proved a most indul gent landlord, and that the tenantry had treated him with gross ingratitude. He begged to observe also that although his Hon. Friend bad found fault with his Noble Relative for using that influence which his property gave him in a particular way, he himself (Mr. Duncombe) had done precisely the same thing, having, after the general election, of 1830, served two notices, through his agent, on tenants of his who had voted against him at the previous election. He would not, however, intrude any longer on the time of the House, as he trusted he had said sufficient to vindicate the high character of his Noble Relative from the asper sions which had been thrown upon it. Sir J. SEBRIGHT was sorry that any one in England attempted to controul his tenants; he had never done any thing of the sort with his ; and he was convinced that the consequence was that he had much greater influence over them than if he was to exercise the most uninstifi side power towards them.—(hear, hear.) But it was because he found that landlords would use their influence unduly tly..t he had voted apiust the clause introduced in the Reform Rill to give the franchise to tenants at wbl, hold ingiarrns of 50/. a-year, believing, as he did, that that class of persons must be entirely under the influence of their landlords, while they themselves would no more pos -4 P%B the franchise than if they were so many negro slaves. .11r. CURRIE—The NAle Lord (Ingestrie) had a s_ serted that be (Mr. Carrie) and his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Duneombe) had undertaken to pay the rents of those who voted for them after the election was over. Now he begged to say that neither he ncr his lion. Colleague had given a bribe or promised a bribe; and he would tell the Nohle Lord that they had not been so fortunate as to have the Under-Sheriff of the county for their agent, nor a Noble Marquis to back them, and to hold out the threat against their opponents, that if he could not beat them he swuld ruin them.—(Cheers.) Sir H. HARDINGE believed that both Whigs and Tories were in the habit of taking means to give that just influence to their property which, in his opinion, it was always intended that property should have.—(Hear.) Surely the House could not have forgotten what was stated by a Cabinet Minister only a few nights ago, to the effict that the Government had a right to expect the'sup pert of its adherents, and in the event of their not giving that support, they must expect to be dismissed. He did not mention this because he disapproved of the sentiment : on the contrary, he thought that it was a right one; though it did so happen that all the time he was in office he had never once interfered with the vote of any indivi dual.--(Hear.) But of the two cases—that of the Go vernment and that of a private individual—he thought that the latter was infinitely favourable in the comparison ; for it was only using that influence in support of that per sonal feeling of his own, both of which were supposed to belong to every English gentleman. ,Mr. HUME warred to know how the Right Hon. Gentleman, after never having used his own influence when a Member of Government, could justify the Marquis of Salisbury in using his ? He was ready to admit that property ought to have its influence, but such influence as this he thought was beyond all reason or right. Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the cases of a Govern ment and a private individual were not similar : a Go vernment could not go on if the people whom it employed were of a different opinion to itself : it was by its depen dents that the Government ought to be supported instead of being betrayed, as he believed was the case in Ireland. But the case of a Nobleman's interference was very dif ferent; and it was evident that the House of Commons thought so, for the first thing it did every session was to pass an order, declaring suds an interference a high in fringemeut of its privileges. Sir R. VYVYAN contended that the influence of the Government was much more prejudicial to the public in terests than that of a Nobleman who had interests and feelings in common with the whole country. Mr. HUNT—When the Whigs get up, and abuse the Tories, the Tories, I always find, are able to throw the abuse back in the face of the Whigs—Tantarara !—Tantarara I need not tell you the rest.—(A laugh.) _ . . Sir J. BRYbGES said, that it appe a red from the peti- flow from it.—(Cheers.) He thought that Schedule A.— t i er s itself, that there bad been no interference till after the not the whole of it, for some of the boroughs bad been election, which he thought was a very material fact. made the subject of separate legislative enactments—but Mr. Serjeant WILDE thought that the act complained that a great part of Schedule A might be accomplished...— o f was a gross violation of the privileges of the House, as (Cheers.) If be was right in that, then there was, he well a s grossly illegal in itself. According to the charge, thought, a very sufficient reason for the Lords acting dil a Peer had committed a inisderneanour, and yet th e y h ear d f erently, and pausing before they rejected the Bil— lion. Gentlemen prepar ed to justify the act. He should (Cheers.) If that House presented an humble address to be one of the last to interfere with the legitimate influence the Crown to dissolve the Parliament and to issue writs to of property, but be contended that this was the persecution, the great manufacturing towns—(Hear)—and to abstain not the influence of it. from issuing writs to the boroughs in Schedule A— Mr. HUDSON GURNEY said that the law would not (Hear)—he meant to the decayed towns and rotten reach th e evil; and there was no remedy but the moral boroughs—(Hear)—to the green mounds and rotten sense of the people. walls—to the corrupt nomination boroughs and close cor- Petiti on brought up . O n the motion that it be read, porations.—(Hear !,, London, fa. instance," said Mr. Lord INGESTRIE denied that any undue influence hsd C. WYNN.) He begged his Right Hon. Friend's pardon. been used; - arid he wished that the subject had been inves- london was not in Schedule A.—(Hear.) lf, he re tigated before a Committee, that the truth or falsehood of peated, the House adopted such a course with respect to the accustation might be fully known. Mr.' O v CONNELL explained. Those who, being ser- co the boroughs in Schedule A, what power in the State could commit! it ?--(Loud cheers.) Was there anything " I t s ofthe Government, opposed it, ought to be turned out.in the Common La the Constitution, or the practice Sir H. HARDINGE hoped the House would n ub ot lic as s s e i r s t of Parliament Opposition.) the Hon. Member for Kerry t o ' proscribe all thel ocal sta ,whic w h , forbade it.?—(Cheers from the He contended that, in so far as - vante merely on a suspicion of being g hostile to the Govern- tutee—whi ch had, of course, received the sanction of both gent. That wo uld be a most intolerable tyranny. H ouses— did not interfere wit h ' it, the Crow n had the power Mr. H. GP.ATTAN said the Gallant General had mis- to adopt this course without the necessity of any legislative understood the Hot , . Member for Kerry, Who only meant enactment.—( Hear.) He said this with reference merely that no Government could be carried on if i ts servants to the boroughs of England, for, of course, Wales, Scot thwarted it. That w as not proscr i ption. He, himself, la n d, an d I re l an d were f ort ifi e d b y particular statutes had been opposed by all the servants o f a former Govern• which did not apply to England.—(Hear.) He would say ment ; and the Duke of Northumberland wrote a letter that the House and the Crown had this power, if he read with his own hand to Mr. Low, threatening to take away the Law and the Constitution right; and he should be glad his place it he voted for Colonel Grady at an election for to be taught better if he was wrong, not by appeals to the Limerick. It was the improper influence of Government prejudices of the House, or by vague declamation, but by a reference to the law of the Constitution. He held hie seat in that House, he was ready at once to admit, by the favour of a Noble Marquis, of whose favour and of whose friendship any man might justly he proud.—(Hear.) H e was not there, however, by the force of any unworthy corn. promise ; nor had his seat been bought or sold, nor were his constituents tainted by corruption.--(Hear, hear.) The electors had chosen him from their connection with and respect for the Noble Marquis.—(Hear.) They were nu merous and respectable.—(Hear.) But although they wished to retain their franchise, yet rather than inflict any injury on the Bill, or offer any obstacle to the great mea sure which it carried into effect, they scattered to the winds all feeling of personal interest, and instructed him to sup port it. He had stated to them on the hustings the course he would pursue, and he had been elected to fulfil it. He trusted that he had vindicated the borough for which he sat (Milborne Port) from the imputation of being a nomination borough. The influence through which he received their suffrages was the just influence of property ; it was a homage to the virtues of a land lord, which it reflected as much credit on those who paid as on those who received it; and he trusted that such in fluence would be still more strongly supported and ex tended.—(Should the Crown, then, withdraw the fran chise from that borough ? observed Sir IL PEE L. )-( ['fear, Lear.) He said at once that he thought not.—(Cheers.) He admitted at once, that he thought places in which the constituency was so pure—as in Milborne Port—should not be deprived of their franchise.—(Hear, hear.) It was the rotten boroughs—the decayed nomination bo roughs—which be would deprive of the power to return Members to that House.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member then repeated his assertions with respect to the constitu tional power of the Crown, and concluded by thanking the House for the attention it had bestowed on him. Mr. C. WYNN had supposed it was impossible to bring before the House a question of greater magnitude and in terest than that which now occupied its attention : but it was reserved for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to in.. troduce one which, if it did not strike a more certain, at least struck a more direct blow at every institution which the country regarded with reverence.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that when the House of Commons voted the House of Lords to be a nuisance, it adopted a course merely tantamount to that which his Ho nourable and Learned Friend recommended, and which he had gravely stated to be the law and custom of Parliament.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He felt, therefore, that before they went any further they had a right to know whether or not his Majesty's Ministers sanctioned ' the doctrine of his Learned and Hon. Friend—whether or not they concurred in the claim which he brought for ward on the part of the Crown ?—(Hear, hear.) If his Majesty's Ministers meant to maintain such a doctrine, then he thought the House were bound immediately to adjourn the consideration of all other matters, for the pur pose of inquiring and determining whether or not the Crown really possessed this prerogative. His Hon. and Learned Friend would ask him, whether he denied the right of the House to address the Crown to the effect to which he had alluded ? He by no means pretended to limit what the House might do. It might call upon the Crown to do what the Crown had a right to do. But if the Crown had a right to do what his lion. and Learned Friend alleged, upon an address of the House of Commons, it had a right to do it without any address. The address could confer no prerogative not already existing. The House of Commons might advise the Crown to exercise a prerogative which it possessed; but it could neither confer prerogative nor diminish one. Hitherto the rights and privileges of the three estates ha'l been independent of one another. No one, or no two of them, could dispossess the other or the others. But if th e d octr i ne now a d vance d • • were sound, the Crown might interfere with the rights and privileges of the other branches of the Legislature to- morrow. It might dissolve Parliament ; and it might abstain from issuing writs to such or such places, because they had re turned inadequate Members in the last Parliament. If badly advised, the Crown might in this respect art as illegally as if it were to issue a writ for the execution of any individual without trial. A new form of writ might he devised; " We command you to return Members, not for all the boroughs in your county, but with such and such excfp . tions." if such a proceeding would be good with respect to all the boroughs in schedule A, it might be good with respect to any other boroughs. There was no reason why the Crown should not exercise its discretion with respect to one place as well as with respect to another. There was no place, therefore, which, under the advice of Mi nisters, the Crown might not disfranchise. He again said, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary that the House should know whether the King's advisers adopted the doctrine of his Hon. and Learned Friend. He was rather the more alarmed at the statement of the Solicitor- General for Ireland, when he recollected what had re cently fallen from the Attorney-General for England. On the latter occasion he had felt it to be his paramount duty to the House, and to the people of England, to declare that the doctrine then promulgated was not that which had been maintained by the first lawyers and the greatest patriots whom England had ever seen ; by Coke, and S e ]_ den, and Hampden, who, in the reign of James 1., sup ported the resolution of the [fuse of Commons that the boroughs to which the King's writs had not been issued had a right to receive them. That resolution was adopted by the House on the report of a Committee consisting of the most learned and able men whom it would have been possible to select in a succession of ages,—men who had never had any superiors in their knowledge of the laws and Constitution of England. He came now to the ques tion of expediency. His Hon. and Learned Friend had maintained, that the House of Lords ought not to criticise such a Bill more than if it were a Money Bill—that they ought to treat it with scrupulous delicacy, and that-- Sir C. WETHERELL spoke to order. To him it ap peared indispensible that the debate on the Reform Bill should be suspended until it was known whether his Majesty's Ministers avowed or disavowed the illegal, the monstrous, the insufferably-intolerable doctrine which had been advanced by-his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ire land.—(Cries of " Order, order," " Chair, chair.") The SPEAKER called on Mr. Wynn to proceed. Mr. WYNN said he was very willing to make way for Lis Hon. and Learned Friend. Sir C. WETHERELLthen said that he %could move the adjournment of the debate on the Reform Bill, on the ground that one of the Law Officers of the Crown had as serted in that House that the House of Lords had no right to venture to interfere with any measure of that House, and that all the boroughs in Schedule A might be disfranchised by the Crown on an Address from the House of Commons, thereby rendering all legislation on the subject superfluous. This doctrine was, in his opinion, with the privileges of so utterly inconsistent Mr. CAMPBELL spoke to order. If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant to found any motion on the words of his Hon. and Learned Friend, those words ought to have been taken down at the time they were uttered. The SPEAKER observed, that the Hon. and Learned Member for Boroughbrid ge was mere ly urg i n g the words of his Majesty's Solicitor-General for Ireland as his induce tn-nt for the motion which he purposed making. Sir C. WETHERELL proceeded. The declaration of the King's Solicitor-General for Ireland, that the King had a right to dissolve Parliament and to suspend the issuing of writs for all boroughs included in Schedule A was an assertion of Royal prerogative incompatible and in consistent with the known and undenialde rights of the Commons of England. If the King's Ministers adopted this proposition of the King's Solicitor-General for Ireland, then all that had been doing in that House for several mouths was superfluous and unnecessary. If it were true that the Crown possessed such a prerogative, let it be known. If it were not true, let not that House be sub ject to such intolerable insult and disgrace, to such arro gant and untenable attacks, to be arrogantly and untenably supported, it might be, by an arrogant Administration. Would the Noble Lord opposite adopt the doctrine of the King's Solicitor-General for Ireland ? Would the King's Attorney-General for England, or would the King's Soli citor-General for England, dare to come forward, in his robes of office, and support the opinion of the King's So lictor-General for Ireland ? They would then see whether there were three delinquents, or only one. Again, he said, let his Majesty's Ministers get up and say if they maintained or if they did not maintain the opinions of the King's Soli citor-General for Ireland. In the meanwhile he would move the adjournment of the debate on the Reform Bill. The SPEAKER put the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Boroughbridge, as an amendment, Mr. CRAMPTON declared 'chat the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had entirely mistaken him, and had misrepre sented every word he had said.—(No, no, no.) In the first place he had never said that the House of Lords had no right to take any cognizance of the Bill, or to interfere with any of its provisions, or to reject it. He had never maintained any such proposition. He bad certainly compared the Bill to a Money Bill; but he had added, that they had a perfect right to reject a Money Bill. That was the first mistake. In the next place, the Hon. a nd Learned Gentleman had thought proper to assert that he (Mr. Crampton) had said that the Crown had a right, without the concurrence of that House, to supersede the issuing of writs for any particular borough. Sir C. WETHERELL denied having imputed to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman any such assertion. Mr. CRAMPTON observed, that if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman disclaimed having imputed to him such an opinion, he was satisfied. It wag necessary for his justification, however, that he should state what he had actually said. What he had said was this :—that the Crown, on the Address of the House of Commons, had a right at common law, independently of statutory enact ment, to issue writs to new places at its discretion. That could be no invasion of the privileges of that House, be cause it was an Act founded on the request of that House. He had further stated that the Crown, on the Address of the House of Commons, had a right at common law, inde pendently of statutory enactment, to discontinue the issuing of writs to places to which they had hitherto been issued. This could be no invasion of the privileges of that House; because it was founded on an Address of that House. If, indeed, the Sheriffs presumed to return for places to which writs were not issued, then, indeed, that would be a violation of the prerogatives of the Crown and of the privileges of the House. Ile had not said that he advised the Crown, or that be advised the House to take this step. He had merely put it as a speculation, as a matter for argument. He must say that he thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who knew his great power, who was aware of his giant strength, ought not to have put forth that strength in the manner in which he had done; for the purpo.e of annihilating oma,e who had no pretension to compete with him. It was unkind, unhandsome, ungenerous, and un called for. He (Mr. Crampton) pledged himself, as a man of honour, that what he now stated was what he stated, or what he meant to state, in his first address to time House. If in that statement he was wrong, he was alone ; he had never mentioned his opinions to any one. He might be made a scape-goat ; but if there were any blame attached to such opinions as those which he had ex pressed, on him alone that blame must fall. . . Sir C. WETHERELL said, in explanation, that he should be quite ready to refer the question of the accuracy with which he had stated the language of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to the memory of others. His re membrance of it was, that the Hon. and Learned Gentle man declared that if the House of Lords rejected the Bill, his Majesty's Ministers would have nothing to do but to dissolve Parliament, and to issue writs in conformity with its provisions. Lord ALTHORP said, that as far as his recollection went, his lion. and Learned Friend the Member for Mil bourne Port had correctly stated in his explanation the sense of his original statement. The Hon. and Learned Member for Boroughhridge appeared to be of opinion, that because a Member of that House, who happened to be connected with the Government, had made a statement of his opinion, not materially affecting the question under consideration, that it was his duty to stop the proceedings upon the Bill until his Majesty's Ministers should sty whether or not they concurred in that Member's opinion. Now really he must protest against the right of any man to call on the Members of his Majesty's Government to declare their opinion o❑ any particular point of law that might be adduced in the course of an argument in that House. His Hon. and Learned Friend had.stated that he had advanced his opinion without communication with any one. Certainly his Hon. Friend had not had the slightest previous communication on the subject with hint (Lord Altborp) or any of his colleagues. Was it fair, or just, or candid, to make his Majesty's Government answerable for the opinions of any Hon. Member of that House, not in the Cabinet ? As to the statement itself, it was a legal question. He did not understand his Hon. and Learned Friend to state it as a constitutional question. Certainly, as far as the matter was a point of law, he should have some difficulty in giving an opinion; but if it were stated as a constitutional question, he should most undoubtedly say that he (lid not concur with his Hon. and Learned Friend.—( Hear, bear.) Sir R. PEEL said, that the declaration of the Noble Lord, that so far from entertaining the opinion of the Hon. Hon. and Learned Member for Milbourne Port, he thought the Hon. and Learned Member's doctrine unconstitutional, although whether it was legal or not he would not pro nounce, having entirely satisfied the object of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Boroughbridge, he hoped his Hon. and Learned Friend would ask permission of the House to withdraw his motion. 'The Hon. and Learned Gentleman bad complained of what he called the unkindness of his Huai. and Learned Friend. The dis cussion of all questions which had a reference to persons had an air of unkindness. But could the Hon. and Learned Gentleman suppose that his Hon. and Learned Friend was actuated by any thing but what he considered a paramount duty? On ordinary occasions it certainly was not usual to make Ministers answerable for the opi nions of the subordinate Members of Government. But the present was an important question—a question of prerogative and constitutional law. And if, according even to the second version of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman's opinions, the Crown had the power, in concur rence with the House of Commons, to suspend the issu ing of whatever writs it pleased, then they held every right which they at present enjoyed on sufferance.— He thanked his Hon. and Learned Friend for having pro duced the deelaration of the Noble Lord. After that de claration, of course his Hon. and Learned Friend would not persevere in his amendment. Mr. HUDSON GURNEY made a few observations, the tendency of which, as far as we were able to ascertain it, was to show, that since the reign of Richard 11. there had been no instance of permanent disfranchisement by an act of the Crown. Sir C. WETHERELL, with the permission of the :Ouse, withdrew his motion. Mr. WYNN then proceeded—He professed himself per fectly satisfied with the declaration of his Noble Friend ; a declaration which he must say be expected from him, knowing his great constitutional knowledge. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said that the House of Lords ought not to snake any alteration in the Bill, because it regarded the constitution of the House of Commons. If it really was an encroachment on the privileges of the House of Commons for the House of Lords to make any alteration in a Bill respecting the constitutio❑ of the House of Com. mons, the House of Commons had been singularly negligent of its privileges ; for they had patiently seen the House of Lords, over and over again, enter into the discussion of Bills which had been sent up to them by the House of Commons disfranchising boroughs on the ground of cor ruption. And when, on entering into the consideration of such Bills, the .House of Lords bad sent to the House of Commons for a copy of the evidence on which such a Bill had been passed, the answer, if the lion. and Learned Gentleman was in the right, ought to have been—" it is no business of yours ; you ought to depend upon our judg ment." The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that the House of Commons did not interfere with Bills affecting the rights of the Peerage. Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman recollect the Bill introduced into the House of Lords, with the sanction of the Crown, in the beginning of the last century, limiting the prerogative of the Crown to create Peers ? On that occasion the House of Commons proved itself to he the guardian of the ancient Constitution of the country, and the undoubted preroga tives of the Crown, and threw out the Bill which the Lords had sent down to them ; and from that period to the pre sent, there was no constitutional authority which did not hold, that by so doing, they had prevented the Constitution of the count!) , from degenerating into an oligarchy. On these grounds, he (Mr. Wynn) thought that the House of Lords had an absolute right, and that it was their duty to examine this Bill, and eitherna approve, reject, or alter it, as might to them seem wise. In order, in times of exi gence, to be enabled to resist popular clamour, the House of Lords ought to be a body wholly independent of the voice of the Commons of England. The Commons of England bad their full share in the legislation of the country. For the last hundred years their influence in that legislation bad gone on increasing. With that they ought to be satisfied ; and not, by an i n t er f erence w ith the rights of the other branches of the Legislature, to set an example which might at some future period be applied against them selves by the people. The English Constitution—that highest effort of human intellect—had always admitted the existence of what were called close boroughs. That Constitution was to be found, not in the Statutes alone, but in practice. And if any man would point out a period in which the boroughs over which influ ence was exercised did not exist, he would then allow that the Constitutio n was altered. The number of those boroughs was, however, greatly diminished. Every man could point out from his own knowledge many in stances of their extinction during the last fifty years__ boroughs which, having once been close, were now open. It bad been contended that the throwing open of boroughs to a large constituency was calculated to increase the general information of the country. Had that been seen ? Did it appear in the case of Preston? The Hon. Member stated that he had voted for the second reading of the Bill and for its being committed, that it might be fairly considered, and so improved and a mended as to render it a proper and beneficial measure. But now he found it oim possible to vote for the third reading. It had not b een sufficiently improved or amended in the Committee ; i t still was calculated to effect toe great a change, and h e therefore felt the eltbouanddvotcoatoepspoosfe i mderate Refo rm t h at they t.--(Chee's.) It h a d b een b had not yet propounded their measure; but, in reply t o this observation, he begged to remark that it was impos oercefodre sible two measures of Reform could be advantageously dis cussed at the same time. If a plan of moderate Reform bad been brought forward, by which representatives would be given to the large towns, he would have most ardently supported the measure; and be firmly believed it would have encountered but little opposition. He would not however, have consented to the disfranchisement clauses of the Bill, because be considered that the existence of all the small boroughs was beneficial to the Constitution. To the proposed measure of Ministers, then, he objected, first, on account of the disfranchisement ; and secondly, be cause of the uniformity of the franchise, and the low rate at which the right to it might be acquired--a rate which, he maintained, would, in the manu facturing towns, almost admit universal suffrage. The ten-pound rate was lower tha n h a d, i n any pro jected change of the Constitution, ever been before contem plated. When Mr. Canning introduced his Bill to transfer the disfranchise of a delinquent borough to Leeds, the qualification he was desirous of fixing amounted to 201. He objected likewise to the granting Members to Maryle bone, and the other metropolitan districts, contending they were already sufficiently represented, and considered the operation of the Bill would be mischievous in de priving the colonies, and several great interests, from that virtual representation which they enjoyed under the old system, and in preventing mcn of official talent and ex perience from that easy access to the House which it was a matter of great advantage to the country they should possess.---(Hear, hear.) It was, in his opinion, ex tremely useful that there should be men in Parliament who had been, as it were, bred up in the House; but he feared much, that when this Bill passed, such persons would not be able to find their way into the House. He aereed with the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke last night, that this law would be the parent of many other laws—whether those hews be good or bad.—(Hear, hear.) Adverting to the objection made by the Right Hon. Gen tleman (Mr. Stanley) to the right of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Croker) to reserve his observations upon cer tain details to the present stage of the Bill, he declared that every man enjoyed this right ; because, in this mea sure, the details were its very substance.—(Hear, hear.) These details, he contended, required change—they were inconsistent with each other—they proceeded—if upon any principles—upon different principles, and must effec tually prevent the beneficial operation of the Bill. The Hon. Member then proceeded to cite cases, which, he stated, were not exceptions but specimens, and which showed how unequally, and in how disadvantageous a manner the Bill would operate; as, for instance, that the rich householder in Cricklade would only have one vote for the borough, while his neighbour, the cobbler, who had a 40s. freehold for the county in his stall, would have the right of voting for two Members for the county, and a Member for the town. And in conclusion, be declared his intention to vote against the Bill's becoming a lane Mr. R. GRANT observed, that if all the Hon. Mem bers who had spoken upon the measure had thought pro per to couch their opposition to it in terms as moderate as his Right Hon. Friend who had just sat down, he would not have felt it necessary for him to trouble the House upon the present occasion ; but as many Hon. Gentlemen had designated the Bill as essent;ally revolutionary, and this not in the warmth of debate, but in the most delibe rate manner, lie was anxious to protest against this asser tion, and briefly to state the reasons which led him to an opposite conclusion. In doing this, it was not his inten tion to enter into details ; he would content himself with simply considering if the Bill would work well ; and herein two things should be taken into account, first, the machinery, and secondly, what was the nature of the me dium in which the measure was to operate—in other words, what were the feelings and sentiments of the great body of the people amongst whom this measure was to act. Now he relied on this—without saying that the ma chinery was as perfect as the imagination and ingenuity of some Hon. Gentlemen might have suggested, he yet en tertained the warmest anticipations that the Bill would work well, and prove a practical blessing to the people who had received it so warmly and supported it with such fidelity. It was on the feeling of the people lie rested his hope.—(Hear, hear, bear.) If the plan of moderate Re• form, which had been so often alluded to from the other side of the House, were brought forward, he would ad mit, for the sake of argum e nt, that the machinery would be more perfect. But yet it would be vain to expect from it the same benefits as from the measure before the House, because it never would receive the same favour, nor carry with it the hearts and affections of the people.—(Cheers.) The Bill of the Hon. Gentleman opposite would be like an army in a hostile country, but this Bill would be like an army which had entered a country for the purpose of expelling a band of invaders in conjunction with the inha bitants. The one would have on all sides to encounter hatred and opposition, while the other would everywhere find entrenchments and allies—and information to guide, and a ready hand to assist.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Member for Aldeburgh had, in his very eloquent and ingenious speech, last night, made use of one argument which surprised him very much, as coming from a gentle man possessing a mind so acute. The Right Hon. Gentle man had brought forward a sort of dilemma to the effect, that either Reform must be admitted not to be necessary and the Bill thrown out, or else, if the House of Commons passed this Bill, the very fact of their doing so proved that Reform was not necessary. Now this was a pure sophism. As well might the Right Hon. Gentleman, in reference to P' been fixed. That argument h a d been presses by 111,1 4 4 1 1 Friend the Member f o r O x f or d s hi re; an d it 1r. 35 „,: 0 p0' urged that as the frame- wor k o f th e H o use 0, had been then fixed, it ought not now to ha d s he" answered that the. representative body much, that the continuance of the frame-work dth e il; gr of Commons in the same state as before was an e Y g o ee the people having changed, the frame-work of the ' ,o r ought in the same manner to have been changed' proof that the state of the people had changed, be..tsi refer to the great towns, in which alone the alterstePav been most considerable ; for he believed he mig ht e on assert that one-third of the whole wealth and intel i o of the country—one-third of its resources, had V i c o( since the time of the revolution- The effect of that 0 0 was felt all over the world—in the Levant, on th e ve ro( of the Atlantic and Pacific, on the banks of the t o or Sea, and yet there was to be once place where tne og i was not to be felt, and that place was to be the g u e st Commons, which pretended to be composed of the Fr o sentatives of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The Me li t yl I were alone to be unaffected by this change were co . who could take refuge in the fortress of the House mons, and not one single wave of the sea of h nir ti that time had produced was to wash down any roe its ancient walls.—(Hear, hear.) It was said 1 1.40 be altered who were opposed to the present measure, that the" e ! resources of the country, those which had "P r ldS' l since the revol u ti on , were so vast , t h at t h e y Sul` tlt open the door of the House of Commons to adu l /k operation of th e i r i n fl uence wit h out b e i ng i n d an ger c o ) stroying the frame-work of the Constitution itself. to at least was the substance of that argument; b ill p e argument subverted it se lf, a s b e s h ou ld he Op' sently to show. It was also said that such was th e gr that had now a ri sen , mora l an d i nte ll ectua l, t h a t if, „ 0 not kept down, or, in o th er wor d s , k ept out o f that it would come and destroy that House itself. The of that argument was, that no great, no moral and tali lectual force, could exist in the country with safety ° its: House; for if it could not safely be permitted to enter od e House, it sur e ly cou ld no t sa f e l y b e perm i tte d t o exi', t yt of the House. He asserted that whatever might b o oe d danger of admitting it into that House, the danger be tenfold greater to refuse it admission.—(Cheers.) Ir a only safe ground of refusal would be that it was so po so insignificant, it had no right to claim admittance the' But was there any one th a t wou ld venture t o o eer/, was so insignificant? On the contrary, was not the OP?; site argument of,its too great strength and importance . 1 lied on as the gro u nd o f th e re f usa l ? lie admitted 3: strength and importance, and he declared it as his °P P; nion, that Parliament would not long be able to shu t ot e from that H ouse so great a proport i on o f t h e i n tellige, and wealth of the people.—(l fear, hear.) If that "T o went was just, he r e p ea t e d th a t t h e p l an o f sa f e ty Wa 9 of the Government, not that of the Opposition. a true propo s iti on , an d h e state d i t b roa dl y an d tv' t "; the guards that would limit its effect, that there O e ' l be. great political power in the State which could esectliey, subdued exce pt by being conciliated.—(Cheers.) l f ,, to o adopted that p r i nc i p l e, t h e current o f t h e State wout.' , : b y within it s p roper b an k s an d pass safely and peaeetWre the ancient towers of the Constitution ; but if it ivece a o strictest hy dams of wi c k er wor k, or pen t up sluices that would not give vent to its fullness, the n' i rbv feet confinement would only exasperate the dange r ; # which all the ancient institutions of the country lel be swept away and destroyed.—(Hear, hear.) Th e Yesse been asked w h et h er t h ere ever had b een a t i me when %or which were now called abuses bad not existed ? question invol ve d thi s f a ll acy, t h at a ll t h ose t hi ngs t ab in the origin of Parliament, were among its defects, " e e l now referred to as its glories. It would almostbe a S an argument to say, that we ought now to debase thec:o rency, bec ause t h e ore fromwhich the perfect coin '' te , formed contained much dross that had by the subsee e t 4 labour of th e wor k man b een cleared from i t. That tl'ts were defects, he had the authority of Acts of Parli oe e and resolutions of th a t H ouse f or assert i ng. Th ese proT them to be abuses—not to be quoted as admitted--b ut il e be shunned as con f esse d d e f orm i t i es. — (Hear, bear.) 'le Hon. Member fo r O x f or d , i n a speec h w hi c h , a f te r de l , vering in that House, he had published—and which tracted snore attention after itsffi publication than it 11 , 0 done before— asser t e d t h at the officers for the Cinque Ile lied regularly returned one Member for each of t'', o towns, until the Act of William 111. interfered, and pii t , H end to th e practice. e was sure that if the P e t nourable Member had read the preamble to the P 4 of William, he would not have spoken of the re el' ', in the Ci nque P orts i n t h e manner w hi c h h e h a d doe This preamble was as follows :—" Wh e reas the e le l c ; Lion of Members to serve in Parliament ought to e free; and wh ereas t h e L or d W ardens o f the Cings d Ports have pretended to claim, as of right, the powe'‘, b ' e nominating the Alembers for the same, contrary t° ~s ancient usages in el ec ti ons f or t h ose places. " It t`,4 declared—he b egge d t h e H ouse to o b serve, that t h e •k" was a declaratory Act—it then declared, " that all 'l e nominations and r ecommen d a ti ons were contrary to t laws and Constitution of the country; and, for the / 0 5 shall be so deemed and construed to have been." r called on the Hou, , e to observe, that the Act not only r o I sted to all their future elections, but declared the lay ,e to all preceding elections " d ee m e d a n d c ons t rue d to he re been to all intents and purposes."— (H e ar, h ea r.) Tbe, was another principle on which the oppon e nt s o f this cce' , l l sure relied. As they could not have the circumstance' s e , their own way, they, like C a t o , acco m mo d a t e d theinsel y to circumstances—they contended, that though di re s t power or direct bribery had not been permitted, yet, ° i f until the Act o f 1809, b r ib ery , w hi c h was i n direc t ,/ effected by money being given, not to the voter Isioil et but to his family, had b een perm i tte d, an d t h ey ca lled ' , answer to the speech of Mr. Windham, delivered in position to that Bill. Why, they seemed in doing set/ ignorant of the languag e o f the Act of Parliament. - re only did the speech of Mr. Windham fail to to conv' li e d Mr. Perceval, but the language of the Act itself decp ir i ,i that " neverth e l e ss s uc h g ift s were con t rary t o t h e anc i ' l ; e usage and to the freedom of election, a nd c ontr a ry to o / laws and constitutions of the realm." The language re these Acts had been justified in particular cases. Ve y was a charge mad e by Si r J o h n P ac ki ng t on aga inst Bishop of Worcester, who had interfered with him in a e ° 6 , test for that county, and who had thereby acted in de, ance of that resolution, ad o pt e d every sess i on b y t h a t flou t that Peers and great Lords of Parliament could not int er ; fere in matters of election of Members of that I 10 4;' without a high breach of the privileges thereof. Bishop lied threatened his clergy and tenants, that if o'l_, voted for Sir John Packington, he would not revel; their leases. On this complaint being made, and t be charge being substantiated, the Commons addressed th e Queen to remove the Bishop, and with that request t: Queen thought proper to coe,ply.—(Hear, hear.) T 11 ,' 1 ,` 6 were the principles that he contended ought to govern t e ir Constitution of this House ; they were not mere 0 4 , - 4 ' declarations upon paper, but were important with which, unhappily, the practice was at war. S C '„ t c i these resolutions against the interference of the Crown 3 "it Peerage—resolutions so recorded and so recognised---W 39 4 possible for any Member of that House to stand nI ) say, not in the closet, not in a secret whisper, not 1 "; Committee up-stairs, not within the walls of that / 4 °`":, (for he was happy to s a y th i t w h at was tittered within Pt walls of that Heu , e was not continsd to the limits oft walls, but wis published all ov e r the kingdom)—wa s , t possible, he said, for any Member to stand up on t'? 3 , House top to proclaim the doctrine to a people as ceps'?: of acquiring knowledge, and a s capable of drawing ' ferences as themselves, and to a people who were ten tu ne more interested in drawing those inferences, that all th ese matters of record, all these statutory provisions, all the9c resolutions of the House were mere moon s hine—mere F r ' with theintention fences—mere empty to declarations deceive, and kept without u u p t on the h least time when that m i g h t h ave b een sa id— w h en what haP, paned in that Hou se was a secret — as l ong as the pp were not infor me d upon w h at passe d t h ere . At suc h time there mi g ht h ave b een some sense i n suc h a declar e ' oteir b° J' °':: 1 sible intention of b e in g use f u lly a ppli e d? There %va s il e e . tion, though there would he nei timer justice nor generosity in it. At such a time it might have been said that there was one doctrine for the people— personal Retorm, say that the simple resolution to Reform was sufficient, and there was no need of his taking any far ther steps.—(Cheers.) And yet, notwithstanding this areurnent of the Right Hon. Gentleman, in another part of his speech be contended that they had been driven to support this measure by the momentum of the public voice and in obedience to the pledges they had given to heir constituents, which some would represent as a dis trace to them, but which he regarded as an honour.— (Cheers.) But, again, it should be remembered that the House of Commons, as constituted at present, was not to be compared to the House of Commons under ordinary circumstances.—(Cheers.) This House had been elected under a particular stimulus, in obedience to the royal ap peal made to the body of the people.—(Cheers.) Observe the different conduct pursued by this House of Commons and the last. See the deference shown by the last House of Commons to the declared voice of the people ; not con tented with the ordinary fortifications of rotten boroughs, they took refuge behind the timer duties—( Hear)—with the hope of defeating Reform. They opposed a reforming Ministry on this point, hoping thus to defeat Reform. They knew the people bad two darling objects, Reform and retrenchment, and yet a great majority combined to defeat the second object for the purpose of supplanting the first. —(Cheers.) He would now apply himself to the epithet of revolutionary, so frequently applied to the Bill by Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(Hear, hear.) He differed from those Hon. Members who fulminated forth such charges against the measure. It was neither, in their sense of the word, innovation nor revolution, but it was really a restor ative and conservative measure. He asked if it were pos• sible to point out a period at which there was a more in telligent and independent House of Commons than the pre sent ? but even this was not the only thing he considered. The question really to be weighed was, whether there ever was a period at which the constituency were so enlightened and intelligent? It might be true that that House was more intelligent than any House of Commons had been at any former period ; but it might also be true that the people had improved in a still greater ratio; and if they had, then it followed that though the House of Commons had improved relatively to former Homes in a great measure, yet that it had fallen back positively with regard to the people. Now, he believed that this was the fact, an 1 that the change in the people had been so great that that House had not kept pace with them.—(Hear, hear.) They had been asked to show the time when there had not been nomination boroughs. The fact might be that there always had been nomination boroughs, but the circumstances under which they existed had materially changed. In former times, he admitted, that there had been nomination boroughs ; but in those times they were the best defence of the liberty of the people, for they were close corporations in which commerce was fostered, and by which the power of feudal oppression was at first re resisted and afterwards overcome. These close corpora tions were under the nomination of those popular Barons who, in the other House, were fighting the battle of the people against the oppressive tyranny and exactions of the Crown. If, under these circumstances, he was called on to state what he thought a good House of Commons, he should say that that was so which fairly represented the popular voice at any given time at which it was elected.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) The House of Commons, which fully answered such a purpose at one period, might be fatally defective at another; and if it was so, it ceased to be what it pretended—the real represen tative of the people. It was by the application of that principle that he was enabled to account for the pros tration of the strength of the Commons in the time of the reign of the Tudors. The spirit of the country had been destroyed by the operation of the civil wars, which had swept away the great landed proprietors ; from the same cause, the trade and commerce that had formerly existed were almost destroyed ; and there was no class of men able to resist the strength of the Royal prerogative. The consequence was, that the House of Commons exhibited no strength, no feeling of independence, but Parliament was ruled by the absolute power of the Prince.---(Hear, hear.) That state of things was altered as soon as the continuance of internal peace had afforded the means of national improvement.—(Hear, hear.) He would now observe upon what had been last night stated by a Right Hon. Gentleman, who had asserted that there was no one who would say that any close boroughs had been created since the time of King William 111., and yet that was the period at which all agreed the liberties of the people had _ . populus me sibilat, at mi Plaudo domi, —there was another doctrine for the House of Comma° which was the antipodes of that told to the peop le 'l Surely th a t wou ld no t b e sa id b y any one . Th e re was li , a lawyer —and many of them he saw now present in tb° /, Hous—there was not a lawyer writing a C ons tituti oo , history of th a t Ho use —th ere was no t o ne wh o would a sr ) (for m en o f h onour did no t d are t o sa y w h a t was untrue —there wa s no t o ne w h o wou ld d are t o a sser t that th things which it was now proposed to remove were merely pardonable defects, but the blessing, the glory, 3 ,/ § • the honour of the system. It had been said that t" measure would make mere delegates of the Members of 039 ., House. He would say of himself, with reference tr ) constituents—and no man was more boond to do 1 1013°- to the intelligence and the honourable feelings of his te s , stituents than he—that th oug h h e s h ou ld a lways their opinions with the utm os t d egree of d e f e rence, he to not their mere delegat e —h e was no t b oun d by prown and pledges, but by the stricter bonds of understandl • and sympathy.—(Hear, bear.) He believed that the effecter of the measure would b e t o i n f use i n t o th a t House a gr ea p s • degree of popular mind and popular feeling; hut that t 4 " q e t: (le d t 1 1 , Cato Its Plate which had formerly been exercised that he condemned. It was impossible that the present Government could go on in Ireland if it was thwarted by influence both in and out of the Castle. Sir R. VYVYAN thought that the Hon Member who spoke last had answered the Hon. Member for Kerry. The Hon. Baronet explained what he had previously said about the ballot. Mr. SHAW said a few words. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in moving that the petition be printed, said that there was a great difference between the case of an individual Peer using an undue influence, and the Government requiring that those who eat its bread should support it. To confound them was most injurious. The reason why the petitioners would not go before the Mayor was the known partiality of that officer. He thought the conduct of the Peerage more likely to make it unpo pular than anything that could he said against the aristo cracy. He would always defend his constituents. Mr. H. GRATTAN explained. After a few words from Lord IscEsTRIE, the petition was ordered to be printed. REFORM BILL. Colonel SIBTHOItPE moved the order of the day for resuming the debate. After the order of the day had been real, the Gallant Officer proceeded to state that he gave the Bill his most decided opposition. He regretted that his being unwell would not allow him to address the House at any length.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He would only de.. dare his decided hostility to the Bill. He trusted that the Bill would neither pass the other House nor receive the Royal assent. Mr. CRAMPTON gave his hearty concurrence to the grateful measure before the House. He defended himself from the imputation of the servants of the Government not having defended the Bill, and declared that he consi dered it legal, constitutional, and necessary. The Hon. Member said he was attached to the Constitution ; but he denied that rotten boroughs, nomination Members, and buying and selling seats were parts of the Constitution. The Hon. and Learned Member entered into a dissertation on the Constitution, and contended, on the authority of various Acts of Parliament, that nomination boroughs and undue influence were forbidden. If nomination boroughs were necessary let them be legalized by statute. If the arguments of the Hon. Member for Thetford proved any ' thing, it was that the Constitution was a tissue of abuses, and lie (Mr. Crampton) contended that schedule A was the legitimate and constitutional method of correcting those Abuses. The transference of the elective franchise from the rotten boroughs to the great towns was in effect in strict conformity with the original principles and practice of the Constitution, and he defied any lawyer to rise up in that House and say otherwise. It had been said that the -Bill made a dangerous experiment. He for one was not afraid of the consequences of the experiment. He believed that no sensible Government would continue long to resist the loudly expressed opinions of a whole people, and he be- Hewed at - the same time that as the Bill would confer the right of election on all the sound sense and respectability of the country, that no Members would be returned whose views were hostile to good government. It had been con tended that the passing of the Bill would ensure the destruction of the Church of England. li e believed that it would have a directly contrary ef fect. But if the Church of England could not exist without the rotten boroughs—(Hear, hear, hear)—if it was based on principles so unsound that it could not live without the perpetuation of rank and hateful abuses_ (Hear, hear)—then he would at once declare it to be his conviction that the Church of England ought to fall.— (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) He begged that he might not he misconceived.—(Hear, hear.) If the Church of England could not support itself—if it could not stand unless it rested on tl e mouldering bases of the rotten bo roughs, be repeated that it ought not to stand. But the Church of England rested on a rock, and they were foul libellers of that Church who ventured to insinuate in that House that its doctrines and its p' inciples could not main tain themselves without the assistance of cot ruption, or that there would be any danger to its permanency because it was thought necessary to remove the abuses which impaired ra ther than maintained its influence. The argument used by the other side was, that if they corrected the abuses of the representative system, the Church must fall; but he contended, on the contrary, that the correction of the abuses of the State would support and uphold the Church, and that the measure now be.ore the House would prove the most powerful support of both the one and the other. The Constitution was, he contended, the purest and the most perfect that could be devised, and he would most gladly say, Esfo perpetua ; but the arguments of the gentlemen on the otter side proved that the country had two Constitwiens—one fit theory, and the other for prac tice ; and they contended that it was impossible the theo retical Constitution could he maintain. d, unless they con tinued all the crimes and abuses which had crept, through the course of ages, into the working of that theoretical -ystem. There was one topic to which he applied himself with some pain. The Hon. Member who last addressed the House, as well as many others, had declared that they crusted in God that the House of Lords would reject the Bill. He (Mr. Crampton) as sincerely lobed they would not; for he could not but consider it a very great mis fortune that any such great difference of opinion should rise up between the two great estates of the Constitution. A Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) who last night ad dressed to the House one of the ablest and most eloquent speeches which he had heard on the subject, declared that of all the Rills that was ever presented to the Lords, the present Bill was that which they would canvass with the greatest care, and examine with the minutest attention ; and if they do not do so, the Right Honourable Gen tleman concluded by asking, " Of what use was the House of Lords?" He (Mr. Crampton) venerated as much as any man the hereditary privileges of the Lords, but he would say, that if ever there was a Bill presented to them which they were called en to treat with peculiar de licacy—( Hear)—nay, which they should scarcely venture to criticise any more than a Money Bill—(Hear) —it was that Bill which was now about to be sent up by the House of Commons.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) He understood that cheer, and he respected it.—( Hear, hear.) He knew it proceeded from those who were conscienti ously opposed to him ; hut, as he as firmly and as ho nestly believed what he asserted, he trusted they would in candour allow him to explain his views on that subject.— (Hear.) He was most fully satisfied that, in anything connected with the representation, the House of Lords should, according to the principles of the Constitution, have as little power or influence over it as the House of Connnons ought to have over the privileges of the Lords. —(lfear, hear.) To the Peers belonged the exclusive right of deciding every thing connected with the privileges of the aristocracy. To the Commons belonged the right of determining all questions connected with the system of re presentation.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He knew well that the Union with Scotland and with Ireland, the connexion with Wales, and the provisions of many local statutes threw difficulties and impediments in the way of the exercise of this exclusive power on the part of the Com mons ; but he believed that it existed, and that it was in full and perfect accordance with time principles of the Constitu tion, with the common law, and with the custom and prac tice of Padiatnent.—(Cheers front the Opposition.) He repeated, he was satisfied, as a lawyer, that the House possessed this exclusive right ; and he must c6n tinue so, until the contrary was proved to him.—(Hear.) Let, then the House of Lords reject the Bill. They had the constitutional right to reject it, and he did not pretend to question that right ; but then, he would say, one main object of the Reform Bill could be carried without their concurrence.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) If he was right in that assertion—and he believed he was—the House would sec what important consequences would