The Sun. — London, England, 1830-05-29 00:00:00

• EA 840111 the pr! jtiopai b e told v, r ma... i l Int the the Poll tn di' , t. o«' m+° , .n ur 0 / e : too thelio n tanctioo: 'd well. rent r est iced g 3l / 1 i ces hel° the pleo lower of i. King , hick he becaUs ie 11lini°,t not be lc for •did th' lat a The PI n wise,/ of 11 is 15 would bell tion to )e no r" to niobt idle* t v ,' conduct:,, an bad °;,/ dully Pell could / ,I r freqt l ? e dust Troll artery, nd who a ht COl]] ulna. ailing iC ' live re so 0 , 1 , Did 1: rere pi [oust f, 'ally sl ( ? it the 0: ot s i.it to t o the , e tti 1 " . . rv—ic . t o , v l ' l t -nter for coil ?snow than at'peasent. That might be, but ib did not lessen the force of his argument. If the amount of money actually paid had diminished, the amount of patronage - used for the same object had greatly increased. First there Was the Army. We had a tremendous standing army ; a thing, the very name of which our ancestors regarded with abhorrence. Our army consisted of upwards of 150,000 men ; and the entire patronage of it was in the hands of those whose object it was to obtain majorities in Parlia ment. Then there was the Navy ; the Church, both in England and in Ireland; the collection of the revenue; and, greatest of all, the colonies. All this frightful accu mulation of patronage was in the possession of those who, by the use of it, commanded majorities in that House, and voted away that public money over the disposal of which the people had a right to exercise a controul. The expenditure of that money the people had a right to con troul, for it was their own. It was wrung from their hard necessities ; and they had a right to determine by their represeatatives in what way it should be disposed of. It might be said, that notwithstanding all this--that although it was a violation of the principles of the Consti tution for Peers to interfere with the election of Members of that House—that although it was contrary to all the principles of common sense that the people should have no controul over their own property—yet that the system worked well. But did it work well ? Why there was not a part of the system which every friend of liberty would not wish to be changed. In the first place it gave complete impunity to every man in power. It gave complete impunity to every man engaged in the collection of the revenue. If any person was injured or oppressed by the exactions of a tax-gatherer, he found himself sur rounded with intricate forms and 'almost insuperable diffi eiaties before be could even bring his action for redress.— If that House were really returned by the people, an effec tual check would soon be given to excessive exercise of the power vested in persons it, authority and office. Then let the House look at the magisterial bench. It was a de licate subject ; but did not the unpaid Magistrates of this country do almost what they pleased with complete im punity? Were not all the poorer classes of the people of England in the power of an irresponsible Magistracy? It Wu well known that the Court of King's Bench never in terfered with the conduct of a Magistrate unless cor ruption could be proved, and what Magistrate was such a fool as to afford the means of proof? He first arraigned the system for the irresponsibility which it secured. He then arraigned it for the state of the law generally. But for the condition of that House the state of the law would be reformed. Did it not require reform ? That it did was distinctly stated in his Majesty's Speech from the Throne. That it did was distinctly proclaimed in the Commissions which had been appointed on the subject.— The efforts which the Right Non. Baronet had made to re form the law, and one of them especially, did him great credit, but they were insufficient. Legal nuisances of the meet injurious description still existed in full vigour. There was the nuisance of the delay and expence of proceedings in Courts of Equity. There was the nuisance of five or six different modes of proceeding existing in the same country. There was the nuisance of a different code of laws in Eng land, in Scotland, and in Ireland. Yet it was said that the system of law worked well, and that it was said at the very moment when the whole nation were crying out that it would work badly. But he would turn to other points. Did the system of representation in that House work well for the prosperity and happiness of the people of England? Had it not produced long and sanguinary wars ? Had it cot been the cause of all the bloodshed in America at the Revolution? Was not the result that the country was above eight hundred millions in debt ? He would defy any one to point out in history a more industrious people than the people of England ; a more ingenious people than the people of England ; a more prudent people than the people of England : yet, notwithstanding all their industry, all their Ingenuity, all their perseverance, and all their prudence, they were loaded with a public debt of above eight hundred millions, and were staggering under the pressure of private distress.--( Hear, hear, hear.)—From every part of the country representations of that distress were every day pouring in; and could it be said that the system worked well ? Having thus, as he conceived, made out his case of abuse, he now came to consider the remedy. That remedy should be strictly founded on con stitutional principles. In the first place, he thought that Parliaments were of too long duration, and that they ought to be shortened. He was of opinion that they ought not to be beyond triennial. That was the period at which they were fixed at the Revolution, of which triennial Par liaments was one of the concomitant conditions. At the Revolution, the people of England cashiered a monarch, who was a bigot and a tyrant ; and in so doing they did well. They determined also that Parliament should last but three years. He knew that there were two Statutes, the 4th and 36th of Edward 111. which declared that rig Parliaments should be annual; and he knew also that lee there had been much controversy as to the precise meaning of those statutes, and whether it was intended to declare that there should be a new Parliament every year, or only a session... -(Hear, bear.)—On that subject Prynne had treated in toe fourth part of his celebrated work. He (Mr. O'Connell), however, did not wish to go so far back into antiquity. He rested on the Revolution. He rested on the statute of William, which ena.ted that Parliaments should thenceforth be triennial. The next measure which he should propose as a remedy for the existing abuse was an extension of suffrage. Nothing could be more anomalous or more obvious to ridicule, than the present state of the elective franchise. In the English counties it was vested in freeholders of forty shillings a year; in the Irish coun ties in freeholders of ten pounds a year ; in Scotland in certain feudal qualifications. The same absurd and fan tastic variety existed in the boroughs. In some the right of voting was acquired by purchase, in others it was he reditary, in others it was the reward of servitude. The abuse was glaring. It was indefensible. A man who had never been in Colchester, or in some similar place, had, nevertheless, a right to vote for the representation of it. A merchant of London, with 50,0001 a year, had no right to vote at an election for the city; but that pri vilege was possessed by a liveryman without a shilling. The remedy which be proposed was a constitutional one. It was that every man of proper age and proper capacity should have the right of voting. In other words, it was universal suffrage. He would give every man the right which the Constitution intended he should have. What was the principle on which that House was hounded? That the life, liberty, and property of every man in the country should be protected. That House had no right to take a penny out of the pockets of the people without the consent of the people. All who paid taxes, directly or indirectly, ought to hare some influence in their impo sition, The personal liberty of the subject was affected, among other things, by the ballot for the militia. If a man's person and purse were at the mercy of the House, he had a right to have a share in its Constitution. He had read a passage from Blackstone, in which it was stated, that the reason for requiring a certain qualifica tion of property in a voter was, because he might other wise be dependent. But was there no way of making every man, however poor, independent in his vote? Would not the vote by ballot effect that desirable object? A poor man who voted by public suffrage might certainly vote in conformity with his own opinion. But he might also be liable to the objection which Blackstone had stated. Only throw the shield of the ballot over him, and he would vote in perfect safety. It had been said that a representative ought to meet his constituents boldly and openly in public. To that there could be no objection whatever. Let the Member be nominated in an open court. Let his conduct be discussed in an open court. Let time be given for considering his merits. But, if not elected at once by a show Of hands, if subjected to tire de cision of a peel, then let the vote by ballot secure the intle- P e udence of the voter. That was the mode of election re sorted to by many gallant men and others associating in this Metropolis in Clubs, for the purpose of avoiding the inconveniences which might in many cases attend an open vote; and that was the system which, is his opinion. ought to be adopted in electing the Members of that House. The poor voter would then have equal power with the rich. It had been said that the sun burnt the colour of slavery on the negro. No such brand distin guished the Englishman. As the right of all Englishmen were equal, so also ought to be their votes, and ballot would reader them so. He felt much obliged to the House for the attention with which they had heard such an insignificant individual address them at length oa this topic. He had established the existence of the abuse, and he had pointed out what he conceived would be the remedy. In his opinion any little differences of opinion that existed among the friends of Reform generally ought not to be allowed to aspirate them, and thereby to strengthen the enemies of Reform. There was a large debt of liberty due to the people of England. He should be happy to see it paid, even by instalments. He would take ten or five shillings in the pound if be could not get twenty. He called upon those who thought Reform necessary to vote with him, although they might not a g ree in all his principles. The details of the measure mig ht be a matter of subsequent arrangement. n for in ieht be s a id, b y t h ose w h o t h oug h t no ti me proper hisßeform, that th e present was an i mproper time. In opinion no time could be more suitable. We had been at peace fo r fi fteen years. We were not threatened with any war. The country was in a state of perfect tianquil litT. The factions of religion no longer existed. All the members of the community ato9db y the enjo yeds i d e o e f qo t a h l e rights. Protestant Dissenter Prote s t a nt shurehman, and the Roman Catholic by both ; and be trusted they were equally ready to maintain civil liberty. There was N,`,:undmt leisure. There were no great land marks of the Constitution to repair. There was no ani mosity of parties. Ministers were not opposed to im provement. On the contrary, they appeared' disposed to yield an unreluctant assent to it ; and he sincerely be lievel that many of them would go the whole length of perfect Reform if they dared so to oppose the oligarchy. If we looked at the state of the whole of Europe, we should see the necessity of establishing the principles of liberty more firmly in this country. The Autocrat of Russia, having shouldered his brother from the throne, had a powerful military array which he was ready at a moment to pour forth. The Despot of Austria had 350,000 men in arms. The Despot of Prussia was equally prepared. In the south of Europe the bigot of Spain was earnest in his efforts to impose shackles upon the public mind. The vile Don Miguel persevered in treading down all constitutional freedom. In France, lately so volcanic, the earth began again to tremble. The Monarch of that country, with a foolish attachment to ancient prejudices, feared to do justice lest it should be attributed to weakness, forgetting the authority by which it was commanded to "Be just and fear not ;" and the crater, the mouth of which had been so recently stopped, threatened to re-open. This was a time, therefore, at which the friends of freedom in this country ought to rally. This was a time at which the principles of genuine English liberty, as exemplified in the English House of Commons, ought to be asserted and confirmed. In the political storms which history described, where was the standard of liberty ever found to be securely planted but on the Eng lish soil ? The period was, perhaps, fast arriving when she must again stand forth an example to the world. Let her, therefore, re-establish the Constitution of her ances tors, and in so doing preserve the prerogative of the Crown. the rights of the Peerage, and the liberties of the people. —(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman con cluded his speech (the latter part of which was delivered with so much rapidity that we have been able to give but a very imperfect report of it) by moving for " leave to bring in a Bill for the effectual and radical reform of abuses in the representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament." Captain DUNDAS opposed the motion. He con tended, in tile first place, that the measure proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not remedy the particular evils of which he complained, and in tl►e second place, that so great a change would injure the whole system of our Constitution. Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot but feel, Sir, consider able embarrassment in rising to address the House on this occasion, because it is impossible to avoid observing that the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare has placed me in a difficult and very delicate situation. Since the time when I brought forward a motion for general Reform, and when, in my opinion, all the argu ments in favour of that proposition had been exhausted — and exhausted unsuccessfully—the subject had been per mitted to rest in silence, until a Noble Lord, in the early part of this Session, introduced a motion for Radical Re form. The Hen. and Learned Member for Clare has now moved a resolution containing three main features. The first is that of triennial Parliaments ; the second, universal suffrage ; and the third, vote by ballot ; from all of which, I beg leave to say, that I most decidedly disagree. In consequence of this, lam placed in a very difficult situation ; for either I must vote for what I do not like in the Honourable Member's plan of Reform, or I must join with those who oppose all Reform what ever. Under all these circumstances, I must be allowed to return to the plan and the propositions which in former times I have myself brought forward. I must be permitted to recur to the principles I then advanced, and by proceeding thus I shall be enabled to give a nega tive to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member, and afterwards propose a measure which I think to be founded on better and more Constitutional principles. I agree with the Hon. Member that it is very disagreeable for reformers to come into collision, and if the first pat t of his proposition was that to which he confined himself, though I do not approve entirely of triennial Parliaments, and believe that Parliaments elected for five years would be preferable to them as to our present system, yet I do not think I should be led to oppose him on that point alone. But universal suffrage and vote by ballot are mea sures that, in my *pinion, are incompatible with the Con stitution of this country.—(Hear, hear.) Ido not deny that there has been and may be a free and well-regulated Government founded on such a plan of representation.— I do not deny that the Commonwealth of America is a well-constituted Governtnent ; but considering our sys tem—considering our Monarchy, and our House of Lords, and remembering the state of property in this country, I do not think that the exercise of universal suffrage could end otherwise than in a collision that would produce a democracy or commonwealth on the one hand, or an ab solute Monarchy on the other. Mr. Fox, Sir, however he might be violent in opposition to or in pursuit of a particular measure, yet preserved a high degree of mode ration in the :most violent and strongest times. When Mr. Fox was speaking of the doctrines of equality, so much in fashion at the time of the French Revolution, he said, " I tots, Sir, am for equality. I think that men are entitled to equal rights, but they are equal rights to un equal things." To that observation, Sir, I adhere. I think that if universal suffrage were introduced, equal rights to unequal things could not, in the long run, be maintained. The Hon. and Leaned Member for Clare has truly said that this is a time of tranquillity, and that it is, therefore, the best time for introducing the discussion of this subject. I agree with hint as to the fact, and I submit to him whether that tranquillity is not in a great measure owing to the circumstance that this doc trine of universal suffrage has been kept for several years out of the sight of the people—that latterly there have been found no popular leaders to recommend it, and that, consequently cafe and practical Reform has been for years preferred by the mass of the people to more vio lent and sweeping measures. The first thing on which I found my plan for Parliamentary Reform is, that there has been of late a vast increase of property, for which we can not find in the Constitution of this House any adequate representation. This principle I have stated on former occa sions, and I have gone so folly into the proof of the in creasing wealth and intelligence—the means of information —and the capacity to form a right judgment—that I shall not go further into any of these topics now. I shall there fore at once proceed to read the resolution I mean to pro pose if the Hon. Member's motion should be negatived. It is one which I have before submitted to a Committee of this House. The resolution declares, " That it is expe dient to extend the basis of the representation of the people in this House." The next resolution is relative to the manner in which that basis is to be extended. I say in the first place, that there are many large manufacturing and commercial towns which have no representatives in the House. That is the first and most grave defect in the pre sent system of representation.—(llear, hear.) We feel it every day i❑ the business of this House.—(Hear, hear.) We are really in want of representatives of the extensive interests connected with our woollen, iron, cloth, and silk trades, and with our shipping bu•iness. I will read a I,st of the towns which in the former Bill I once proposed were intended to be entitled to send Members to this House. I do not say that all the towns the names of which I am about to read should now at once beentitled to send Members, but I think that withinsome limited period that privilege should be conferred on them. The towns are Macclesfield, Stock port, Whitehaven, Sunderland, Cheltenham, Black Bolton, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Dudley, Leeds, Wakefield, Sheffield, and North and South Shields. Five of these towns are the seats of the woollen and silk trade— three are engaged most extensively in the woollen trade— four in the iron trade, and two of them, Cheltenham and Bi ighton, are towns with a large population ; and, in my opinion, ought to send representatives to Parliament. I will add, that when giving representatives to the large towns, we should not omit giving two representatives also to Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. Many of our larger counties are also insufficiently represented ; and to them also I would give additional Members. In those counties that have already two representatives, it would be incon venient to add to the number. The present system, as far as it concerns them, works well, and I would not dis turb their arrangement ; but where the counties are very large, I should propose to divide them into two districts, of north and south, and to allow two Members for each. The second resolution I should propose to the House, in pursuance of the, principles I have stated, declares, " That it is expedient that 11Iembers should be sent to Parliament by the large manufacturing towns, and that additional Members should be given to counties ofgreat extent, wealth, and population." I will now proceed to st ate the manner in which I propose to execute the purpose of that resolu tion :—The additional Members I have proposed would make a large addition to the numbers in this House. In order to get rid of the objection to that addition, I shoUld propose that many of the Cornwall boroughs should only send one representative, instead of two, to Parliament ; and that any boroughs with less than 2,500 inhabitants should only send one Member. I trust that will not he considered a grievance, particularly after the resolution I shall propose relative to this subject. The third resolution states, " That; in order to attain the object of the fore going resolution, without inconvenience, it is expedient that the number of the smaller boroughs returning Mean bees shall not exceed 60; and that boroughs with a popu lation of. only 2,500 shall not sea I more than one fiemher to Parliament." This brings me to my last prope , itine. It would, no doubt, be matter of consideration with this House, whether, having deprived these boroughs of one Member, it would be fit to give them compensation. I think it would not be a hardship to deprive them of this rigl-t, when it is considered that it is a trust for the benefit of the people; but it might to he remembered, that it is at the same time a privilege conferred upon the electors. In the Act giving the borough of Wenlock the right of electing Members, it is called a privilege—in the Act giving it to the county of Durham, it is called so likewise. As long, therefore, as they are not convicted of any offence, which ought to deprive them of their franchise, it would be a better and more convenient way to grant them compen sation. That was the measure adopted towards Ire land, and that measure forms a precedent for this mode of conduct. The fourth resolution is, " That it is expedient to grant compensation to boroughs which lose their right of returning two Members, the said compensa tion to be afforded by means of a fixed sum to be applied to that purpose by annual grants for several years." I have now done with the statement of what I mean to pro pose; but I cannot but take notice of a general argument which on these occasions is always introduced—that this House, as now constituted, practicAly serves the purposes of its Constitution—that it balances the power of the House of Lords—that it controuls the Crown—and that we ought not, therefore, to ask for any farther improve. ment in it. Every year that I sit in this House con vinces me more and more that that representation is not founded in truth. I think I have before proved, in a manner that cannot be answered, that in all the great divisions in this House, on questions when we are voting away the public money, of those Members who are most entitled to be ranked among the number of the true representatives of the people— I mean the Members for the counties and large towns—the numbers are two to one in favour of reduction of the public burdens ; while the large majority of those who always vote in favour of the Estimates is formed of Members for Boroughs. We are told this year, as a sort of consolation for the present state of things, that we are better than our ancestors of the times of Geo. I. and Geo. 11. In the Parliaments of the former it is stated that there were 270 placetnen : and in the first Parliament of Geo. 11. it is stated that 257 place men bad seats in this House. Sir, I have had the curi osity to look at their proceedings, to see if their votes bore out what might be expected from such a return as to the formation of the House; whether I could find that con stant majority of 250 voting in favour of every item of expenditure, and in opposition to every proposition for Reform. The result is not at all what I might have ex pected. In 1717 the proposition of the Minister for the number of land forces was 16,000 men. That proposi tion, so far from being treated as a moderate establishment, was opposed by a very large party in this House; and on the motion to reduce the number, the reduction was sup ported by 125 ♦otes, the original estimate by only 175. The Ministerial majority was not therefore very consider able. Two other resolutions were then recommended as a consequence of the former. A sum of 681,0001. was proposed for the Army. The Opposition moved to reduce it to 620,0001., and on the original question being put, the ayes were only 172, while the noes were as high as 153. Ido not say that such a proposition was either just or generous ; but such was in fact the conduct of that cor rupt and place-holding Parliament. Our conduct is so different ftotn that in the present days of purity, that we never think of making such a proposition ; and yet we thank God that we are not extortioners. Indeed, so far are we from imitating such conduct, that when an Hon. Member proposed that General military officers should not at the same time receive their military pay and hold civil offices, the Hon. Member for-West minster, whom none will accuse of favouring corruption, said that not only the General Officers ought not thus to be reduced, but that inferior officers ought also to be allowed to receive pay for civil services. At the period to which I am now alluding 130,0001. was proposed for• the vote for the half pay ; the proposition was opposed, and the Minister offered to reduce it to 115,0001., but his offer was not accepted, and it was moved to reduce it to 94,0001. I❑ this year, when we are so much improved, the vote for the full pay of retired officers was 104,0001., and for the half pay of retired officers 720,000/. There is, I must say, considerable difference in the burdens of the people, and it is true there is also a considerable differ ence in their ability to bear them ; but it was certainly better for the people to live under a corrupt Parliament with small burdens, than under this pure Parliament, which breaks their backs with its weight of taxation. At that period, too, the House passed a resolution that all the vacancies in the establishments should be filled up by officers taken from the half-pay list ? but a similar motion made a short time since by the Hon. Member for Aber deen met with no success. Ido not know how to vote for the motion of the Hen. and Learned Member ; and yet I must say that I wish succe s to its object, and that the Par ‘ liament of this day is not so ardent•a guardian of the pufilic purse as it is the fashion to represent it. It may be said, perhaps, that the times to which I have referred were times of great opposition ; but I can support my ar gument by going into the corrupt times of Sir R. Walpole. In the first Parliament of George II every thing is said to have been most corrupt. In the year 1730 we shall see the course that Parliament adopted. The army then cost 651,000/., and the forces for our colonies and planta tions 160,0001. ; and let it not be supposed, Sir, that at the time we had ■o colonies. New York, Carolina, Bermuda, and Jamaica were then in our possession, and required vigilant guardianship to preserve them. So far from that bum being now sufficient to defend our colonial possessions, it is little more than sufficient to keep the lonian Islands, which can hardly be connected with any agreeable recollections in the minds of the people of this country. The Army now costs us 7,300,000/. a year. In 1729, the whole supply of the defensive establishment, voted when we had subsidies to pay to foreign Powers, was 3,600,000/. ; in 1829, when we were under less sis advantages, the supply voted for the same purpose was, 17,620,0001. I think, Sir, that I have shown pretty well, that much as we boast of the times in which we live, yet, as faithful guardians of the public purse, we are not entitled to all the praise we so abundantly claim for ourselves.—lt has been contended that, in those days, the influence of the Government was far gre tter than it is at present ; but this was se much the reverse, that in a fa vourite measure, the Minister was defeated by a majority of 74 to 64 ; and even the mast reasonable propositions brought forward by Ministers were defeated. I ask, then, what became of the 270 placemen who supported the Government? I will not go farther with the votes of the House for the last few years. I have done it on former occasions; it is now unnecessary—for I will not rest my cause on anything but the declarations of the Noble Duke at the head of affairs, and the Right Hon. Secretary. They have told us that the estimates have been reduced by two millions. Why is it that this SUM of two millions has not been saved to the country until it pleased the Duke of Wellington and the Right Hon. Secre tary to reduce it? Sir, I say, that if the House of Com mons had done its duty, it would not have waited until his Grace came into office, but would, of its own authority, have revised the estimates, and compelled the Ministers, by refusing the supplies, to reduce the sum more than two millions.—(Hear.) —And now, Sir, on what do I rest my hopes of reduction and reform ?—on this House No ; but on his Majesty's Ministers, and on the effect of public opinion out of doors, which, some how er other, has greater influence on them than even majorities in this House.—(Hear.)--Si:, I have now nearly finished what is to me an extremely disagreeable task. My present posi tion I consider an unfortunate one. I think lam pledged to do what I am now doing, from the part I formerly took on this measure. I know my propositions make me liable to be accused on the one hand, of rashness, and desire of innovation; and of hesitation and change of opinion upon the other. I know I stand in the situation of a butt for attack upon both sides—attacks from those who wish to push Reform farther than I do, and from those who do not wish for Reform at all. But, Sir, the object of my proposition is to improve the representation without doing injury to the Constitution. I wish to preserve the fund!. mentals of the Constitution, while I give to every indivi dual his just rights. I consider my propositions are cal culated to produce this effect, and whatever imputations may be cast against me by the anti-reformers in this House or by the violent reformers out of this House, I shall submit them as soon as the motion of the lion. and Learned Gentleman has been disposed of—a motion which, I ant bound to say, he brought forward with great temper and ability. But as I believe his views to be erroneous, and as I think his propositions injurious, I cannot adopt them, and know no course I could pursue except that upon which I have decided. Mr. S. WORTLEY addressed the House ar&dst great confusion and uproar. He declared that he should, upon all occasions, give his decided and unqualified vote against Reform. There was nothing singular in the spvech which the Hon and Learned Member had made that evening—it w is in perfect keeping with the speeches which he had made in other places with the avowed oljnt of excluding the influence of property from the House of Commons. He (Mr. Stuart Wortley) dissented from the constitu tional legitimacy of that proposition, and was of opinion that the influence of property produced a beneficial effect upon that House. He showed that even in America, President Jefferson had declared that property, as well as peraons, .o.iflt to be represented in Congress, and quoted a long extract from one of his le: tors, published at the close of the American war, in proof of his position. He de nounced the system of universal suffrage as one, not only of great ahsurdity, but a'so of manifest impoliey. He entered into a long train of argument to prove, that if it hail been in exi-tence at the time of the Revolution of 1658, we should still have had the Stuarts on the Throne —that if it had been in existence in 1715, the Protestant succession would have been set aside—and that if it had been in existence last year, they would not have had the pleasure of hearing the Hon and Learned Member for Clare uttering his sentiments in the House on the present occasion. He showed that the system of universal suf frage had not succeeded in the United States, and was proceeding to describe the inconveniences which arose from the vote by ballot in the same country, when the loud cries of " Question" rendered his further observations perfectly inaudible in the gallery.- Lord ALTHORP—Sir, with respect to the motion be fore the House, although I agree in part with the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare, yet with respect to the remedy for the evil complained of, and more especially with respect to the mode in which that remedy is to be applied, I confess I have for some time laboured under very considerable difficulty. Sir, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman moved for leave to bring in a Bill, and in doing so he has stated his objects and the principles of his in tended Bill• The first principle he proposes to introduce is that of triennial Parliaments ; the second is that of uni versal suffrage, and the third is the election by ballot. So far as respects triennial Parliaments, I entirely agree with the Hon. Gentleman, and I should be most glad to see a return to that practice.;During the time, Sir, that this prac tice did prevail, the country flourished ; an objection was raised againet it, and the change to septennial Parliaments was merely the consequence of temporary causes which are no longer in existence. Every one who looks to the conduct of Parliament at its beginning and towards its end must see at once that triennial Parliaments would give the people a powerful influence, and an influence that would be ma nifested in the most proper way. Actual experience of system has proved that it was not attended with any dan ger ; and it is not, therefore, a new experiment, but has been tried with success : and believing that if we restore it now it will increase the influence of the people, I am prepared to support a motion for the purpose, as I have heretofore done, when a proposition for returning to triennial Parliaments came before the House. With respect to another point, that of election by ballot, I have already in the course of the Session, express ed my opinion. lam still, after every considera•• tion I could give the subject, of the same opinion— namely, that election by ballot would greatly diminish the expence of elections ; that it would do away with improper in fluence upon the electors ; and that it would allow them to give their votes as they pleased, subject of course to the action of popularity, and of the ties of feeling and affection. I now come to the main point of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's motion, which'he has not put into his Bill, but which lie states in words to be Radical Reform ; that is to say, universal suffrage. By what the Hon. Gentleman has stated throughout his explanation, he makes this the main point of his proposed measure. lam a friend to Parliamentary Reform, not because I entertain theoretical views on the subject, but because I look upon it as a great practical question. I consider it a great evil in this !louse that there are pe►sons who are proprietors of a great number of boroughs—that there may be a combi nation amongst these borough proprietors, and that great mischief may in consequence result to the country. The expence of elections produces one of the greatest mischiefs —namely, that the people are thus frequently deprived of the choice of those whom they would wish to send, and, therefore, anything that would destroy the practice now Prevailing with respect to boroughs, and would take away the expense of elections, must, in my mind, be most be neficial to the country. I now come to the degree i❑ which we should endeavour to effect a change in a practical point of view. • Change is in itself an evil, and, therefore, the less the change the more tinclined shall Ibe to adopt it. I leave never been inclined to entertain minute differences of opinion. If there be any proposition brought forward which will give the people greater influence than the borough proprietors, and secure them that influence which they might properly, practi cally, and constitutionally employ, this is a proposition which I will support. But the principle of the Constitu tion is not that one class, but that every class, of the com munity shall be represented. This, however, will not be the case if universal suffrage be permitted, for then but one class will be represented. In the Constitution, as it at present exists, although I admit, not to a sufficient extent, every class is represented—not, I allow, in their proper proportions—and I should therefore like to see a greater number of Members sent by the people to represent their feelings and interests. With these views it is that I sup port Parliamentary Reform. It may, I know, be said that, at the beginning of the Session, I supported a motion brought forward by my Noble relative, from which I dis sented in most of its parts. This I admit ; but no other choice was left for me, if I did not support that I must have opposed the question of Reform altogether. But even that inconsistency was done away by my Noble Friend having given me leave to move for a Committee, in which I shall be at liberty to support such a plan of Reform as I might deem not to be injurious. Entertaining those views my decision is different from that of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare, because, although agreeing with him in two propositions out of three, yet the one which I differ from is so large and so comprehensive that I cannot give my support to his motion. Lord VALLETORT spoke in oppositio❑ to the motion, but it was impossible to collect the exact tenour of his ob servations. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN opposed the motion. He defended the existing system at some length, but the interruptions which proceeded from various parts of the House rendered the Hon. Member's speech almost entirely inaudible in the gallery. He observed, that when be marked the first foundations of the republican system, and saw what mi— chief it frequently produced, he could conceive no reason for changing the permanent principles oldie British Con stitution for the restless and wavering doctrines of demo cracy. Walt respect to the boron:, h system, he thought that it °stela not to be condemned. He looked upon boroughs as being useful subsidiaries to the British Con stitution.—(Loud coughing, and various other noises.) Ile was perfectly aware how unworthy the advocate was of the cause which he had espoused, but he was satisfied in the reflection that he hail endeavoured, however imperfectly, to discharge his duty. Mr. HOBHOUSE.said he certainly should vote for the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare. In thus acting, he founded himself on the precedent of a great man, Mr. Fox, who, when another great man, Mr. Pitt (who had subsequently changed his opinion) moved for a Committee, with reference to the question of Reform, said, "though I differ from hint with respect to what he proposes, yet, so completely am I convinced of the neces sity of Paeltamentary Reform, that I will support his motion ;Adler than that my name should be made a handle of reproach by the anti-reformers." On the same prin ciple, though he might not agree altogether with the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare, still he would vote for his motion. When the Hon. Member, who had last ad dressed the House, said that the advocate was unworthy of the cause, he really thought that he was mistaken. He thought they were both extremely well matched ; for the advocate had done all he could do in support of the cause, which was just nothing at all—(A laugh)—and certainly the cause deserved no more.—(Laughter.) He might, however, claim the merit at least of good wishes; for all that could be effected, and that was nothing, he had achieved, One point on which the Hon. Member be stowed his peculiar regard was the much-calumniated boroughs.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the Hon. Member's reading must certainly have taught him what the opinion of Mr. Pitt, of Mr. Fox, of Mr. Grattan, and of various other illustrious men was upon this subject. He surely must know what was said by Mr. Burke, with respect to boroughs, who, though any thing hut a reformer himself, declared that boroughs were " shameful parts of the Con stitution ;" and truly did he so describe them.—(Hear.)-- But it was right for the Hon. Gentleman anti the Noble Lord, who represented boroughs, to take the bull by the horns on this occasion, and say, " See the benefit of bo roughs in our persons—see what is effected by the borough system."—(Laughter )--A late eminent statesman, a great supporter of the borough syst em , w as a l wa y s anx i ous t h at the electors of a borough, when discovered in acts of bribery —when caught—when seized flagranti delieto, ought to be punished. For what? Why he (Mr. llobbouse) sup posed, because those individuals had not art enough to conceal their vice.—(llear.)—They were punished to de ter others from being caught.—(Hear.)--Note these were the cases which he thought ought never to be taken up ; and when they were brought forward he had always op posed such futile attempts to botch, to cobble the Consti tution. He here might be permitted to observe, as an en couragement to those who pursued the path of Reform, that it was consolatory to find that those great men who, at a former time, were maligned and calumniated, when playing the up. hill game of reformation, had justice clone to them by posterity, and not by a late posterity, who united in declaring that they were the spirits whose prin ciples were to be followed as the lights of the world. Was not that great man, Mr. Fox, night after night, repre sented as the enemy of the King and of the Constitution ? Was it not debated in Council, whether he should not be arrest NI ? Was it not intended to institute some sever; proceedings against that Uncompromising patriot? But !et gentlemen mark the reverse. Was be not now quoted all sides of the House? Was he nut mentioned as an autho rity from which there was no appeal ? And what said about our bea'rtiful Co•stitution, which had been so highly eulogised to-night ? He said " the whole of that system, as now carried on, is as outrageous to humanity as it is pernicious to good Government: It undermines the in tegrity of the heart, and in its place introduces dishonest . and deceit." The lion. Gentleman proceeded to argue that this was the natural effect of the borough system. The lion. Member for Ipswich had introduced the story of Dorothy, Lady Packington (whO had been in the habit of sending Members to the House of Commons), for the purpose of showing how much more pure our system of representation was now, as compared with that which prevailed in the time of Lady Dorothy. The story was an old one; it had been repeated every year since Mr. Canning first told it; and, therefore, he would introduce another, which was somewhat newer. Ile alluded to the procla mation of James I. in 1620, a proclamation drawn up Lord Bacon, assisted by Lord Coke, and aided by Mr. S'rjeant Carew. The people were then enjoined not to elect as Members of Par)iament, " mean lawyers, or needy men of no estimation, or bankrupts, or such like obscure persons." This sheaved that about the time of James 1., of blessed memory, very unfit persons had been admitted into Parliament; but it offered no reason for our en deavouring to put ify the present system. Now, with re spect to the propositions of the Hon. and Learned Mem ber fur Clare, he would briefly advert to them. The Hon. and Learned Member wished for triennial Parliaments— for that he was ready. The septenial act was, to use the words of . Sir W. Jones, "as gross an instance of usurpa tion as ever appeared on the Statute-book." With re spect to universal suffrage, he would agree to it though he believed that many friends, and sincere friends t 4 Reform, would not; and he must say ihat he thought the best plan of Reform was that to which the largest number acceded. Still, however, if be were called upon he would veto for universal suffrage. With respect to the election by ballot, that also he would agree to, although it was said to be c ntrary w the spirit of Englishmen to vote in that manner. He was as proud of spirit as any man, but the hustings was some times the place not exactly suited for a display of it. Non hic locus rrat. A hundred stitutes had been enacted to secure the integrity of voting. Had they done so ? They had not: and if so, why not try what the system of se crecy might effect? He was formerly opposed to the system of voting by ballot; but now he thought that without ballot no effectual mode of Reform could be devised. In conclusion, the Hon. Member implored the House to con sider that the necessity for Reform was gaining more ground out of the House than those who did not mark the workings of the public mind imagined ; and he thought, under these circumstances, that it would be wise in those who held the sovereignty of the country to come to some agreement on the subject. Let them not fear injustice. He had been asked by the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he were a landlord, and an innkeeper on his estate voted against the person whom he wished to be elected, whether he would not turn hilts out of his tenement. He said, rel.- -tainly not. He would act as a Noble Lord had done, who, when his principal tenant voted against the individual whom be wished to be elected, and even had the meetings of the opposing candidate in his house, • took no notice whatever of the matter. Sir ROBERT PEEL said the subject of reform was so mach exhausted, having been twice in the course of the present session taken into consideration, that he would, in conformity with the feeling of the House, confine him self to the specific proposition before it. There were now two specific proposals before the House,—that of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare, and that of the Noble Lord opposite. The proposal of the Hon. Member for Clare embraced three distinct subjects,—the restoration of triennial Parliaments, vote by ballot, and universal suffrage. With respect to triennial Parliaments, the Hon. Member for Westminster, had upheld the opinion that the departure from triennial, and the substitution of septennial Parliaments, was an act of gross usurpation. But, allow him to say, that it was an act of usurpation only so far as it was the act of Parliament, which, being elected for three years, prolonged its own continuance for seven years. If the act had been prospective—if it had related to future Parliaments, it could not properly have been called an act of usurpation. He was, however, opposed to the restora tion of triennial Parliaments, and he was rather surprised to find a Noble Lord (Althorp) who complained of the expense of elections, advocate triennial Parliament'., which, it was evident, would increase those expenses. With respect to voting by ballot, it had been said that this was the mode of election in clubs, and that it might there fore be safely applied to the exercise of the elective fran chise. But the eases were very different; for the refined habits of society made it impossible that one gentleman, who had blackballed another, could meet and associate in society with that other if the fast were known. He enter tained strong doubts on the policy of compelling the exercise of the elective franchise in secret. Ile thought it would afford a cover for hypocrisy and corruption, and effectually pre vent that free canvass and discussion of the merits of the ' candidates-which, in his opinion, it was not desirable to take away from the electors.—(Hear.) —Again, unless there was to be a strict scrutiny afterwards, there could be no confidence that the election had been fairly conducted, or that the votes which had been received were valid.— (Hear )—With respect to universal suffrage, he had only this observation to make : if the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare would say that he preferred a democracy to a mo narchy, then he (Sir R. Peel) would say that the Hon. Member's reasoning in support of universal suffrage was correct ; but not otherwise. The monarchy which the Hon. Member professed to admire and reverence ; the House of Lords, which the Hon. Member said he would not impair, and which he said he desired to uphold ; neithi r of these could long survive the introduction of universal suffrage. if the House of Commons were to be the imme diate organ of the people's will, it would not long be con tented with one-third only of the legislative power; and the very first moment in which opposition appeared on the House of Lords, to the expressed wish of a House of Com mons so constituted, that moment, he was convinced, would endanger the existence of the other House, or at least, pro duce such a state of collision between the two as would to tally impede the action of Government.—(Hear.)_lf the House of Commons had been so constituted at the period of the Revolution, the Hon. and Learned Member would have found a very different settlement of affairs.—(Hear. )—ln deed, in one place, the Hon. and Learned Member had seemed to be drawn into the admission of the legitimate consequences of his own positions. Fur the Hon. and Learned Member had said that the people paid for the army, the navy, and the other institutions of the country ; and lie had then asked why the people should not also have controul over the appointments; by this the Hon. and Learned Member clearly allowed that lie wanted executive, as well as legisla tive power, for the House of Conotions he would have con stituted. The Hon. and Learned Member, too, had talked of the dismissal of a gentleman from office under the Crown, because that gentleman had voted against the Government. He had heard this part of the Hon. and Learned Mem ber's speech with the greatest surprise. Did the Hon and Learned Member think that a Government was to be supported by those who voted against the Government ? Surely such an argument, in favour of universal suffrage, was unworthy the understanding of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare. Besides, let me tell the Hon. and Learned Member that universal suffrage would not pre vent such occurrences; for, in the United States, to which the Hon. and Learned Member so often pointed with satisfaction, there had been a vast greater number of such removals from office than there had been in our limited monarchy. In this country, upon changes in adalinistra tion, it was customary to remove only those who held high and confidential posts ; but when General Jackson was placed in the President's chair, his first act was to remove all in office, from the highest to the lowest, even down to the post-masters, who had appeare I in opposition against his party. (Cheers.) On these grounds, there fore, he opposed the proposal of the Hon, and Learned Member for Clare. With respect to the proposal of the Noble Lord (J. Russell) lie must give that also his decided opposition. The Noble Lord had said that he (Sir R Peel) had, on a former occasion, contrasted the present Parliament with the Parliaments of George Is and that he had draw.: en inference of the former, with regard to the number of members in it who held °Ace. Having stated this, the Noble Lord had said, that he would show that in the Parliaments of George I. and 11. the executive Government was effectually controlled, and most salutary measures passed, notwithstanding the number of members the hneo contrast charg e against only in those reply t o Pa an rlie Honourablerees , and l he iu them holding office. Now, l e t hi m rem i n d t h e N o bl e Lord, that in ma ki ng th i s colonist he (Sir R o b er t P ee l) d preferredmade Baronet who had complained of lailge number of per sons holding office in the present Parliament, and bade the House look to the example of their ancestors. With thin ex planation, let him observe, that if the position of the Noble Lord could be made out, there would he an end to any ob. jection against persons holding office being Members of Parliament, since Perliatnents so constituted could effec tually controul the executive Government and pass the most salutary measures. For the proposal of the Noble Lord would not give satisfaction to the reformers who supported the Hon. Member for Clare; and, if carried into effect, would, as it appeared to. hitn, involve the ontntry in confusion from one told of, it to, this other, !l!tr the separation, and diOisien, and joining of onunties. He doubted, too, if it would be possible for the Noble Lord to carry into effect his plan for the compulsory sale. .. f boroughs, and he did not see in what way the pectin my compensation was to be allotted. The settlement of quali fications to vote in various towns, where different interests prevailed, appeared to him sltogether impracticable. But he opposed the prepoeal ef the Nnh'e Lord on more general grounds. Were there, ~t present, due securities for the lit erties of the people. and hid the popular voice its doe veieht in that House? He hail no hesitation in answer ing in the affirmative. He thought that the history of that House, in its perseverance against measures of the other, proved this to be true, and showed that it was not ,s,antrolled l) the other branch of the Legislature. It h.d been said that expensive wars and the public debt were owing to the want of representation. Thai. he denied. He believed that such a House of Commons as the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare desired would not he a Him ity against expensive wars. Looking at every peace which had been made; and at every war that had been tlei.lered, during the last century, he did not find that peace had hi en popular, or that war had been contrary to the sentiments of the people. Lie admitted dist the people had lucerne tired of war, and clamorous for peace : but it was to the popular feeeling at the commencement of a war that they were to look. Never had a popular Miaister unfurled the ban ner of war but he was followed by the applause of the people. The same was true with respect to Ministers who had carried on war successfully. He thought he was saying no more than history bore out when he declared that the disposition of the people of this country was not of the most pacific character. On these grounds, therefore, he opposed both the propositions before the House.—(llear.) Mr. BROUGHAM perfectly agreed with the. night Hon. Secretary, that this subject had bees so often dis cussed, that it would be vain to attempt to throw any new light upon it, even if the night were not so far advanced, and the patience of the House less exhausted. lie would trouble the House with very few observations. In the first place : let him say that he could not agree to the met'ou of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare.—(Cheers. Differing so much from the lion. and Learned Alenther that he should he obliged to vete against two out of the three parts of the Hon. Member's Bill, he could do no other wise: painful as it was fir him, a reformer, to vote against any proposition for Reform, being, as it was, the second time only in his lifetime that he had done so; and Painful as he repeated it was to him, still he must vete against the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gen:le:eau. —(Cheers.)—But, concurring as he did, ire the bulk of the fur N t o he Noble Friend of phris Nobleooii.eel to friend.hrifw He did not differ entirely with the Right Hen. S e en tart/ or r a e r s d o , lu lt,ieon coulds which vo rote his as to the part of the plan which regarded sompensatiore He saw great difficulty in the plan of pecuniary toopeu. !Ration, lie saw greater difficulty in discovering whence the money was to be derived, and he saw greater culty still in determining to whom the money should he paid. As at present advised, therefore, he differed from this part of the plan of his Noble Frieiati, aril so far he agreed with the Right Hon. Secretary; but the other port ions of it appeared to him reasonable, desirable aeil emi nently practicable ; and in this, therefore, he totally fered from the Right Hon. Secretary. As to throwitte the whole country into confusion, as the Right Hon. Se cretary thought it would, this appeared to him the most chimerical of all the alarms which it was customary to put forward when disagreeable propositiens, and especially propositions of Reform, were broached in that House. Then, as to qualifications for voters, this matter, as it epe peared to him, contained nothing of insitrenount.hlo diffi culty. Say that all who rented houses to the amount of 201., or any other given sum, should be qualified to vote, Were there any local or geographical there any differences of interests which would reviler such a mode inapplicable to each and every large town ? If riot, the difficulty was gut rid of: for it was net !roes at y that he should point out the best mode, but only that he sheulil show that there was a mode applicable alike to all persona se situ ated, whatever calling they might foliose, and whatever this. trict they might inhabit. So with respect to the division of counties ; he saw none of the difficulties which present d themselves se forcibly to the mind of the Right Hon. Se cretary. The Hon. and Learned Gentlenesse . then pro ceeded to contend, that the division of counties would not be attended with any bad eller. The want of this divi sion was Peen very strongly illustrated in the ease of the county of York. He spoke on this subject with great respect in the presence of one of the potentates of that great county (Lord Milton.) The desire to be a Member for the whole county was no doubt very natural, but then it had worked great mischief,—that it might give the con trout of the election, not always to the man who was most fit to represent it, but to the man who bad the heaviest purse. Let taut a candidate shake a large purse at hia opponent, and empty a little of its contents, and he might carry the county even against its wish ; for in a con test of that kind, the man with the weakest purse must go to the wall. He admitted that this was cot yet done in York, which kid done itself great credit in the selection of its representatives; .bat it might happen, and to the principle from which the evil might arise he ohjeesed. He . would say, as occasion should require, give new Members so differont parts of counties. If a county, or a division of a county, should not be sufficiently represented for its increased population and wealth, let a Member be added, not to the whole county, but to a division of it. Let, for instance, North Devon have one, and South Devon another, as circuon. stances should require. This was the principle on, which our ancestors acted, and on which, if Birmingham or Man chester had existed two hundred years ago in one-tenth of their present extent or opulence, they would have ever since enjoyed the benefit of reprtseetation. This, then, was the Reform to which he would consent ; it was an innovation ; it was that which had heea recommended by that great man who, though a decided enemy to innova vation, was one of the greatest reformers of his day, and who told us that we should irritate time in our innova tions. In adopting this part of the plan of his Noble Friend, we should net he altering or pulling down, tve should be only re-adjusting—adapti ng ear representative system to the great, the gigantic change which time had brought about in the circumstances of the country,— (Hear.)—lt was a gross error—sa error a thousand times repeated only to be a thousand times refuted,—that such a Reform was an innovation—that in bringing about a rodo ! ration we were promoting a revolution.—( Hear, hear. ) But the Right Honourable Gentlemen objected to this plan, that it would not satisfy all reformers. If he (Mr. Brougham) could bring himself to believe that those who would go farther in the principle of reform would despise the plan of his Noble Friend because it did slot go far enough, his good opinion of their sense woul,i he lessened —his confidence in their sincerity would be diminished ; detailed,l thet:t i s r4 c c o tii n cf fi a dlheenperteohpoosusstgoi proposition othawtnh t itc h hh i o s se a h c ir e s n e f u oN n r om o be ls l ne e .F n ., f d r a i d m : : d e bad b in o senseless—for it would be any thing but good sense—if they could be so narrow-minded and laigotted, for it would be any thing but liberality and wisdom—as to re. ject the proposal of Ida noble friend, because it did sot go the whole length to which they would be willing to pro ceed, he would for thtt very reason cling with greeter earnestness c a h n dal his nob le friendt he moder ate aul e sk i m p h rr:c p tial e c r.o ße rr ..... ing, and consistent advocate. His Hen. Friend the -Mem ber for Westminster, whose aide and eloquent speech of that evening he had listened to with as much .pleasure as any he had ever heard in that House, and who wail a die tinguished leerier in the advocacy of Reform in its more extended sense, had admitted, if he followed hint correctly, the principle for which he them contended. . Ilia Hon. Friend had expressed his desire that cur Parliaments should be triennial. On that part of the geestion he must say that, without the other reform of which his Noble Friend spoke, triennial Parliament would only make thing. worse; because they would tend to increase the ex pense as elections were now ccuselueted; and as lie wen one of that party who held that the Crown was held in tr net for the benefit of the people—that Ministers were the ad visers of the Crown, acting on their own rosponsibility— he believed that if Parliaments were shortened by three years, under the present system in all other respests, it %%old have the effect of giving to Ministers—to that Cor poration which never died—to that body which, under whatever alteration of times, or eireemstanees, or opi nions, were still desirous of increeeing their influeuee as a Government—it would sooner or later throw an over whelming portion of influence over elections into their hands. Let any one contrast the cossiluct and feelings of an expiring Parliament, with what they were at the out set, and he would see the masked difference. The dying Parliament were prudent and, eyeful. There was visible ie them the thriftiness of the public money--a vigilant a'- tention to the wants, and wishes, and even caprices of the people. —.a looking at after times—a sort of shrinking at the idea of appearing before their judge, and rendering an account of their past transactions; but when they came with renovated youth, those feelings vanished, the wants and wishes of the people were no longer studied with the same care, and on this feeling so common to omit, that that which is riot to happen for five or six years me looked upon as if it were not t..) happen at all. Bat ifthe other refines of which his Noble Friend spoke, were to take pleue, who I could doubt the value of triennisl Pertiaments? 'With respect to universal muff. age, be had so often delivered his opinion that he did not feel it necessary to rrreat is sew. he