The Sun. — London, England, 1832-03-23 00:00:00

with these views he was prepared to support the Bill of, his Majesty's Ministers. 1 1) 1 Sir G. ROSE believed that the Reform Bill would make a large breach in the bul wark of our Constitution, I and that with a degree of violence which no future effort could stop. There could also be no doubt that the Reform 1! Bill would materially affect our foreign relations, and, from his experience of above forty years in the diplomatic ser vice of the - country, he could speak with the greater con fidence upon this part of the hearings of the Bill. Another gieat question demanding the most serious consideration of ti r House was that of the Colonies. It must be remem bered that our colonial empire embraced one hundred mil- Fons of souls to our own twenty five millions ; and if we were the body, it must be admitted that they formed mag nificent wings, which had carried us to an enormous height, and that we were bound to take care lest by cutting them away we incurred a fall from which there would be no hope of a future rise. The indirect means of representation which those colonies now possessed was one great bond of their attachment and also of their utility to the mother country. He re membered once when the late Mr. Hutchinson was speaking in that Mouse, and said that if some measure were not carried he would support a dissolution of the Union, Mr. Canning started upon his legs, and exclaimed— " Dissove the Union ?—restore the lieptsrchy !" He be lieved that if once they recognised the principle, as this Bill did, of representing separate and local interests, it would at last disunite all the parts of the empire, and the prophecy of Mr. Canning would in spirit be fulfilled. Another important subject involved in this question was that of the Church. Though attached to the Church, he was no bigot; but this he would say, that he believed those who saw the spire of S ilisbury cathedral or the cross of St. Paul's in their present places thirty years after the passing of this Bill would have better eyes than he ex pected them to have. The Hon. Baronet then declared his want of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers as the guides of the country in so important a change as that now proposed.--(Cheers.) Mr. ADEANE voted for the second reading of the Bill because he approved of its principle. He subsequently voted for many alterations proposed in the Committee, without reference to the side from which they came, from a sincere desire to see the measure such as he thought the wants of the country required. He regretted that many of those alterations had not been more fully considered in the Committee, because he was convinced that they would have improved the Bill. He had supported the majority of those amendments bee ,use they were favourable to the landed interest, and he believed that as the Bill now stood a due influence was not given to the land in the represen tation.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord in the former measure did hold out an assurance that the towns should not be allowed to overwhelm the agricultural voter. And what was the effect of the alteration introduced into the new measure? Now any freeholders from 40 shillings up to 101., living in county towns, were to have votes for the county, and by them the landed interest was to be swamped. He regretted deeply that such a change had been made after the pledges given to the landed interest, and after they had returned their representatives upon the faith of those pledges.—(Hear, hear.) The question now was, whether he should vote for the Bill as it stood ; and, however much he lamented that many of the amendments moved in the Committee had not been carried, he should yet give his vote in favour of the third reading. Sir E. SUGDEN said that the speech of the Hon. Mem ber for Cambridgeshire (Aileane) was a specimen of the union which prevailed among the friends of Reform with respect to the details of the Bill.—(Hear. )—The Noble Lord himself (Althorp) has indeed changed his opinions on the subject, for he (Sir E. Sugden), although a very young Member of the House, recollected the Noble Lord voting in favour of the Ballot. The Learned Gentleman, too (the Attorney-General) had declared that they were to try what was contained in the Bill first, and if it did not work well, they might have the Ballot afterwards. All, however, seemed to be agreed that the present mea sure, notwithstanding all the assertions put forth on that subject by the Government was not to he a final one. An Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Caine (Mr. Macaulay), in his attempt to prove the necessity of the changes proposed, had declared that they must attribute the evils they suffered, as well as the ad vantages they boasted of, to the workings of the pre sent Constitution. This, however, might be said with equal tru'h of everything connected with the lot of humanity; and he (Sir Edward Sugden) was satisfied the good preponderated so much over the bad, that he would not rashly risk any extensive changes, unless their necessity was proved by some more cogent argument. He had never felt more pain in his life than when present at an election for a close borough. He did not object to po pular elections ; fat from it. But he had a great objec tion to such popular elections as were calculated to destroy the Constitution. He would not consent to part with the Constitution without a struggle. His Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General, who, in his opinion, had compromised his character as a law officer of the Crown by sitting in the Committee week after week upon such a xne !sure, without taking any part in the discussions re- speeting it, had declared that the present Bill differed in no material point from the first. New this he (Sir E. Sugden) would confidently assert, that no two measures could be more distinctly different. Tbere was not a leading principle in the first Bill which had not been so modified and altered in the second Bill as to give it quite a different character. In the first Bill the boundaries of the borough. were prescribed ; they had now a distinct Boundary Bill. The first Bill cut sixty-two Members off the representative body; and to that most unwise and un statesman• like proposition, although retracted in the second Bill, the determined demand of Scotland and Ireland for ad ditional representation was attributable. And yet the Noble Lord had said that the original Bill was the result of ma ture deliberation. The schedule A originally contained sixty boroughs ; it now contained only fifty-six. The schedule B. originally contained forty-six boroughs ; it now con tained only thirty. Now if, after the dissolution of Parlia ment, any Reform candidate had declared to the electors that he did not quite like schedules A and C; but he thought the former should include only fifty-six boroughs, and the latter only thirty boroughs, lie would have been driven with disgrace from the hustings. And yet those were precisely the numbers which the authors of the measure introduced into their new Bill. The first Bill proceeded on the census of 1821 ; the present Bill on the census of 1 83 I—the census on which he and those who thought with him insisted, ought to have been the census in the first instance. The first Bill proceeded on the principle of population ; the second on the principles of population and taxation. The first Bill excluded from tn inyine votes for counties those persons who had a right to vote for cities and boroughs ; and enis exclusion the Noble Lord described as a great boon to the agri cultural interest. If so, why had the Noble Lord with • drawn the provision from the present measure? Why hail the city of London been thrown into Middlesex? No one requited it. Was it because the Noble Lord wished to sacrifice the agricultural interest? There was evidently no harmony among the Reformers upon this and m my other points; and if Hon. Members were but for a moment 'in the Palace of Truth,and compelled to speak their real sentiments, the most extraordinary diveristy of opinions would be expressed on the other side of the House. Then came the changes which bad been made with reference to the ten-pound franchise. On that point the Noble Lord, although he had declared that his object was to increase the privileges of the middle classes, had listened to his friends the Members of the Political Unions, who seemed determined to bring the country down from its present ele vation, and had determined that the ten-pound house fielders should not be excluded from the exercise of the ective franchise although their payments were made only weekly.—(Lord John Russell said across the table, that the change was made on the recommendation of the Hon. Member for Ipswich.) Was that the way in which this country was to be governed ? When some great prin ciple was maintained by the Minister of the Crown, was he to change it on the representation of the Hon. Member for Ipswich? He meant no disrespect to that Hon. Mem ber ; but if such was the manner in which the Noble Lord allowed himself to be influenced, he was not fit for his post. Was it to be endured that the Constitution of this country Was to be frittered away on such grounds ? Bot was it not true that a certain deputation had waited on the Noble Lord, composed of persons who complained that they should be excluded from the elective franchise if those who paid weekly rents were excluded from its enjoyment, and paid weekly only for the satisfaction of the landlord ? And would any one say that a man who paid 3s. 10d. a week, and wandered from street to street, belonged to the middle classes, respecting which the Noble Lord had ex pressed so much anxiety? And yet the Noble Lord had expressed his determination not to unsettle established rules, but to walk in the ancient ways of the Constitution. Where were such established rules, where were such ancient ways as these to be found ? The Noble Lord as serted that it was the desire of his Majesty's Government to place the representation in the hands of the middle classes. But let him look at the returns on the subject, and he would see that the preponderance of the lower orders would be such as to swamp all the other classes of the community. He (Sir Edward B. Sugden) spoke without prejudice on this subject. He could have no motive on the subject. Every one knew that he himself bad sprung from the people. He could never entertain a wish to deprive the people of their rights. He owed 'lathing to the aristocracy. Ha hail ❑ever received 413 y tatronage or favour from the aristocracy. He had never iorne into public life until he had won his way by his van exertions. He had never sought the patronage of he aristocracy ; and if ever the rights of the lower orders ihould be threatened, be would be found as zealous in :heir defence as he now was in the defence of the rights of the aristocracy. The first Bill did not trench on the forty shilling freeholders, and the Noble Lord declared that he never would trench upon them. By the present Bill they were greatly trenched upon. In the first Bill an ex tensive patronage was given to the Lord Chancellor, of which, in the second Bill, he was deprived. The minor schedules were very different in the two Bills. In short, there was not a line, not a particle, scarcely a cross of a T or a dot of an I in the first Bill, whicis had not been altered in the cond. An yet his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney- General declared that there was no difference between the two Bills ! The very introduction of the measure had already produced the greatest mischiefs. It had opened a sluice of licentiousness in the Press which absolutely para lysed the office of the Attorney-General. Even with refe rence to that part of the Press which professed to support his Majesty's Ministers, it became a matter of doubt with the readers of its disquisitions who held the reins of Government—the Editor of a Newspaper, or the First Lord of the Treasury ? Notwithstanding all the ability of the conductors of the Press, it never seemed to have occurred to them that when a more popular authority existed in the country the liberty and the licentiousness in which they were now permitted to indulge would be cur tailed. More liberty and licentiousness would be afforded to the Press under a firm and well-regulated Government than under one of a different character. By pursuing its present purpose, therefore, the Press struck at the very liberty which was so valuable to it. Another mis chief occasioned by the introduction of the measure was, that it led the people to cherish fantastic notions of their own power. This was exhibited in the very first trial of that power; namely, the direct refusal to pay parish rates, and the declaration that the law on that point might take its course. The determination in England not to pay the parish rates was accompanied by a determination in Ireland not to pay the tithes. On that point they had heard the alarming doctrine that because certain persons had already disobeyed the law, therefore they should be released from further obedience to it. Another mischief which had resulted from the introduction of the present measure, was, that it bad paralysed trade. Even the friends of the measure did not deny that fact : but they asserted that it was owing to the Bill not having passed. If the Bill should pass (which might GOD avert) it would be the bounden duty of his Majesty's Government imme diately to put down the Political Unions, or the Political Unions would put down them. Another mischief result ing from the measure was, the introduction in that House and elsewhere of the most unconstitutional principles ever held in any assembly in this country. It was maintained that the Crown should •omit sending writs to those places which it was wished to disfranchise. The Noble Lord and his colleagues had been compelled to disclaim such doctrines, yet in a paper devoted to his Majesty's Govern ment, but, two nights ago, it was maintained that the King had a right to dissolve Parliament, and to send writs only where he pleased.—(Hear, hear.) A more daring and illegal assertion was never made. Amongst other effects to he anticipated from the kill, were raising of wages, the cheapening of bread by the overthrow of the Corn Laws, and the striking at the hereditary reve nues of the Crown. In Scotland and Ireland the effect would be to make a tremendous addition to the popular constituency of these countries, and he exhorted the House of Lords to take the three Bills together, and not to be se duced into considering them separately.—(Cheers.) It was the bounden duty of their Lordships not to consider those Bills separate.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then praised the speech of the Hon. Member for Boroughbridge (Sir C. Wetherell) describing it as in genious and strong in argument, and ridiculing the attempt of his Han. Friend the Attorney-General to meet it by al lusion to the peculiarity of manner with which it was de livered. His Hon. and Learned Friend asked him (Sir C. W.) to lay aside his peculiarity of manner; he might as well ask him to lay aside his power of speaking.— (Cheers and laughter.) Nothing could be more absurd than asking a man to divest himself of his peculiar man ner.—( Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. and Learned Member next adverted to. the use made of his Majesty's name in that House, and observed, that the fault of intro ducing it had originated at the Ministerial side of the House; and he protested against it as unconstitutional in the highest degree. The creation of a batch of Peers for the purpose of carrying the measure, he also protested agaiagt as dangerous, and mischievous alike to the Throne, the Aristocracy and the whole people. It would be a sad and degrading thing, if a dozen gentleman of England were, after voting for the third reading of the Bill in that House, to consent to go up to another House, and theme answer to their call for their suffrages in a batch.— (Loud cheers.) It was an event to be deprecated—and if it should unfortunately take place, would he fraught with consequences the most deplorable.—(Cheers.) All writers agreed in the opinion, that my Lord Oxford made an illegal use of the Royal prerogative.—(Cheers.) Men were to be elevated to the Peerage for splendid ser vices or for high distinctions—even the distinction of great wealth was allowable—but it was a positive per version of the King's prerogative to create Peers for the simple purpose of forcing a measure upon the Upper House.—(Cheers.) Mr. R. GRANT entirely sympathised with his Hon. and Learned Friend as to the weight and importance of this measure; but lie objected to his Hon. and Learned Friend's fagging through all the details of the two Re form Bills, and expatiating upon the dotting of the I's and the crossing of the T's.—(Cheers.) He would not attempt to follow the Hon. Member through all his rai nive and microscopic views ---(Hear, hear),—brat would simply state the principles on which he would support tbe third reading. For himself, he could not exclude from his consideration the object of contenting the people of England. The Hon. and Learned Member said, the true way to legislate was, not to look for the content of the people, but to do that which was right, and look for another and higher reward. Now he thought the first duty of a Governtnent was to content the people. The good of the country rendered it necessary to make some arrangement and some modification of the representative system.—(flear, hear, hear.) He said that, upon the part of the people, there was an alienation from the institutions of the country; and, there fore, he believed it necessary to popularize our representa tion in a sensible degree, in order to reconcile the people and the Government; without which there could be no good Government and no successful legislation.—( Cheers. ) He therefore maintained the Government were bound to modify their institutions, and not proceed irrespectively to the wishes of the people It was idle to suppose that any law which did not accord with the wishes of the people could be permanent, and in support of this proposition he would read a passage from one of the admirable books of his Hon. and Learned Friend.—(Here the Hon. Member read a passage from one of Sir E. Segden's books, declar ing the inutility of passing Acts against the feelings of the people.)—He then proceeded to say that Mr. Huskis son had remarked that there was excessive inconvenience is legislating for an old country. The higher and lower classes were every day diverging further from each other; luxury was becoming greater with the one and the other were approximating more and more to indigence and des titution. A phenomenon to be remarked in fact was, that while the higher and lower classes were diverging from each other in their physical condition, they were in the same ratio converging to each other in their moral condition. The more, too, of information which was spread among the lower classes, the more keenly did they feel the privations to which they were subjected. He did not mean to me the word " lower" classes offensively. It was a mere fallacy to call one class high and another low, when nature and religion in tended all men to be equal, and when the so-called lower class was, in almost every respect, superior to the other. The long war, he maintained in the first instance and secondly the long peace, had produced this pheno menon is the social system of this country. Capital after the war became stagnant, and bad since evaporated. From these strange circumstances it behoved the House well to consider the representative system, and so arrange it as to content the people. He thought that the princi ple of this Bill might, to a certain extent, be compared to the aqueducts of the ancients, for, by drawing the stream from the general electoral body of the country, they would he getting at that pure spring which would insure a wholesome and healthy result to the whole of the coun try. It had been asked what would be gained by this measure, if it were allowed to pass into a law ? To that he would reply, that if it were only the means of conci liating the great body of the middling classes of so ciety, a very great object would be gained, and a very great good would be effected. The teal question in his nand was, whether content and satisfaction could he given to the people without this concession ? and from the very bottormof his heart he would say, " clearly not !" As to immediate intimidation, that was out of the question. But they were all looking to consequences ; and he did not see that there was anything unmanly—he was sure that there was nothing unstatesmanlike—in confessing that such was the case. How stood the matter at present? The- House of Commons was evidently too contracted in its constitution for the people of England; and what was still worse, that contraction might be said to be a growing l'ontractioil when COMVIrrd with the growing population of the Etnpire.--(Cheers.) The result of this was, that every day there was more and more disaffection—more and more aversion—more and more alienation from the ancient institutions of the country ; and ultimately, he was afraid, if no alteration took place, that they would become exposed to that consequence which was almost too terrible to contemplate—that tremendous consequence which he had been told (though he would not vouch for the fact) Mr. Canning had, on his death bed, predicted— that fearful consequence which would commence in wicked ness and misery, and end in crime and anarchy.—( Hear.) The argument of the Anti-Reformers was, that the aris tocracy ought to have due weight in the House of Com mons, in order that their voice might be heard before any appeal was made to the Upper House of Parliament; but let him ask was that consonant with what appeared on t},e Journals of the House in its standing orders, or in the preambles of, perhaps, twenty Acts of Parliament?— ( Hear, hear, hear.) So far from it, it was in direct variance with all these ; and yet did any man get up in that House and venture to propose that those standing orders should be rescinded?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Not at all ; and yet one of the choice arguments against the Reform Bill was, that the influence exercised in the elections by the Peers of England would be destroyed by this measure. Did the House mean to stand by those laws and those orders ; or, did it not ? If it did, then this was the very measure of all others most judicious, for it would settle the whole matter ; and if it did not, then let the question be brought forward at once in a tangible shape, and the sense of Parliament taken on the electoral interference of the Aristocracy.—(Cheers.) The language of the people was sufficiently plain on this head. What they said was, " If you mean to rescind your own decla rations, tell us so at once, and let it be done openly, by which means we shall know what you mean; but do not do the thing by a blind. Do not conceal your intentions-- do not show us that the House of Commons has an outward and an inward sense. —(Cheers.) And had not the peo ple of England a right to say this much ? Had net those from whom the bulk of the Revenue was derived, and on whom the distresses of the country fell most heavily, a right to demand that they should at least be dealt with openly and fairly ?—(Hear, hear.) And yet, this cer tainly was not the course which those who were opposed to this measure seemed willing to pursue—their language appeared to be, " We dare not defy you ; but we dare not trust you."—(Cheers.) For all these reasons it was to him quite clear that a concession to the popular feeling roust be made : nor would that sort of concession which had of - . . late been passing under the name of " a moderate reform" be sufficient ; for it was time that the people of England should be really represented in that [House, and that the real sound influence of the general constituency of the empire should be felt i❑ the British House of Commons. —(Cheering). Lord PORCHESTER began by expressing his disap probation of the manner in which the Government had acted with resp , ct to the Reform Bill. Instead of ap pealing, as they ought to have done, to the Elected Parlia ment, they had caused a general election to take place, and had placed their hopes in the excited feelings of the people, whose passions they had bribed with promises which he hoped never to see carried into effect. In fact, the present Minis'ers hal felt that their only resoutce was a desperate donfidence in the extreme opinion of the day, for the pur pose of destroying all the oldest and most valuable institu tions of the country.—(Cheers.) In this the Ministers had, in his opinion, acted most improperly.—(Cheers.) It was the duty of all Governments, if yield they must, to yield slowly—to weaken the ardour of popular outcry by judicious delay—and to grant but a tardy progress to those changes which the could not ultimately resist.— (Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman had said that he dreaded a collision between property and numbers. So did lie (Lord Porehester) ; but to him it seemed that the most probable way of producing that collision was by passing this measure, which was actually putting arms into the hands of the populace, to be used against themselves.— (Hear, bar.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had also al luded to the violation of the standing orders of the House by the interference of Peers at elections. But why had he not also vented his virtuous indignation against the vio lation of another of the standing orders—that of publishing their debates.—(Laughter.) He Legged that he might he rightly understood. He was not at all objecting to those publications ; but he did not see why there should be more wrath expressed at the violation of one Standing Order than of another.—(Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the Noble Lord that the danger of this Bill would arise from the preponderance of the agricultural interest:; in his belief it would arise from the preponderance of the town interest.—(Hear, bear.) To whom had Govern ment been hitherto in the habit of looking for the purpose of feeling the pulse of the country ? To the county Mem bers. But did those Members hope that their voice would ever again have like w-ight in that House when this sill should have passed ?—( Hear, hear.) If they did, such a hope would be vain. The voice that would in future be predominant would be that of the town Members—Mem bers that would be united by a community of interest— Members that would eagerly watch one onother, and who in their turn would be jealously watched by Political Com mittees, Political Councils, and Political Unions— , (Cheers)—these, alas ! would be the men who would go vern the Government, and who would take on themselves to direct the destinies of England. And the present Mi nisters—what did they hope from this measure? For a short time, and by a series of unhappy concessions, they might contrive to hold a precarious office ; but they would have no firm or honourable tenure of their posts, for each Member, ins , ead of being able to identify himself with any party, would be in the humble capacity of a delegate, and would have to give his vote each night on each question according to the bias or the prejudices of the majority of his conatitu nts.—(Cheers.) But it was not the institu tions of England alone that would suffer. What would become of the Church of Ireland—( Hear, hear)---of that Church which the Sovereign by his oath has sworn to maintain—of that much calumniated Church, which every true friend of the Constitution ought to strive to the last I to sustain and uphold ? The downfall of the Church of Ireland (the Bill once passed) was certain, and the effect would he that certain friends would be discarded for certain enemies —friends, too, whose very prejudices were in our favour, and whose dearest wish was to conciliate our love.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Caine had referred to our wars as a proof of the want of a proper re presentation of the people. He would ask whether the great French war was caused by any view of the borough interests, and whether it was not in unison with the whole popular feeling of the country ? But about seven years ago, when the country was in distress—when all interests were suffering, Gentlemen who were all staunch Reformers would have hurried this country into a war, and she was saved from it by the very borough-holders who were now charged as wooing and seeking war. He would not trespass further on the House—he would only say, that if the Bill should become the law, the destiny of this country would be sealed.—(Hear.) Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE had listened with the greatest attention to the arguments of the Right Honourable and Learned Gentlemen, and he had the greatest respect for their character and motives, but they ha'l not shaken his conviction. He gave them full credit for their opposition to the measure; they were afraid of everything like inno vation. They reminded him of what was said of a very great and good man, Mr. Wilberforce, who said, he be lieved, on this very subject, that the " gentlemen were so afraid of innovation, that they had not considered it proper even to try a new argument."—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) That was the case with the Right Hon. Gentlemen ; they were so much afraid of innovation, that they had advanced no new arguments. They hail tried, particularly the Right Hun. Gentleman the ex-Secretary of the Admiralty, to frighten the farmer ; he had endeavoured to frighten the landed interest ; lie had endeavoured to frighten . the Crown, the House of Lords, and the people. Just the same, as in the olden days, the Right Hon. Gentleman had tried to frighten everybody. That was very natural perhaps, but while the Gentlemen opposite had been attempting to frighten every body, they had actually charged the Ministers with at tempting to intimidate them also with a view of terrifying them from doing what they and the whole people of England thought right and indispensible. The Gen tlemen opposite had not been successful ; the farmers were not frightened. Neither was the funded interest fright ened. Let them look at the state of the funds ; had they sunk since the Bill was brought in, or since Reform was broached ? They had been told to look at the Three per Cents, in Francs, as an index to the effects of the present Revolution; he would say, look at the Three per Cents. in England as a test of the effects of Reform. The Noble Lord who spoke on the first night of the debate had said that he was proud, and exulted in the fact, that one Eng lish county had returned an Anti-Reformer.—(Hear, hear.) He would join in that triumph too, but it was because all the other counties were of the opposite party. — (Hear.) It was said that this was the result of a strong state of excitement; and that was often repeated as the strongest argument against his Majesty's Ministers, and it was that one of which most use was made.—( Hear, hear.) Bat that argument came from gentlemen who, in 1829, at the period of the discussions on the Catholic Question, said that the Parliament was not called ad hoc, and that it purpose, and that an ap splemalulodughleitetaollebde f rr o a r ad t e ha t t o t e l s ir people.—(Cheers. ) That was then said by the Noble Lord the Member for Buckingham shire,land by his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. It was ret.e ited over and over again; it was said that the Parliament had not been called together to try the question whether Catholics should be admitted to Parliament, and that be fore deciding such a question, an appeal ought to be made to the people by a general election.—(Cheers.) But those who then held that doctrine now accused the Ministers of exciting the people by the King's name.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) The charge was not true.—(Cheers.) Lut supposing it were, did it deserve what was said of it ? Was it a novelty in the history of our Constitution.— ( Hear, bear.) Was it not justified by precedents? He would not go far to seek them—not beyond the time of the Gentlemen who might be called the political fathers of the Gentlemen opposite. What did they think of the dis solution of 1784 ? On March the 24th, of that year, Parliament was dissolved because Mr. Pitt had only a ma jority of 48. The Crown made an appeal to the people, and after the election the Ministers had a majority on the first division of 282 to 214. But what happened in 1807 ? In all the essentiil circumstances of the case, that was pre cisely like the last dissolution. The Right Hon. Gen tleman then referred to the case of Mr. Perceval, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was charged with writing an inflammatory address, and he quoted part of Mr. Perceval's answer to the charge, stating that the ad dress had only spread because it was true. At the end of that debate, he found it stated in a note, that Mr. Croker spoke for some time with great animation, and con cluded by saying, that he approved of the dissolution of Parliament.—(Laughter and cheers.) He regretted with the Hon. and Learned Member for St. Mawes—and he horoured him for the sentiment—th it this question had ❑ot been discussed so as to meet the feelings of all parties. After the most mature consideration, if he thought the Bill would produce all the evils the Hon. Members opposite ascribed to it, he would give it up to morrow.—(Hear, hear.) But the state of the country would not permit it. He blamed nobody. It was the misfortune of England to be governed by parties. The Reform Bill was the act of one set of Ministers, who had shortly before acceded to power, and it was discussed as a party question.—(No, no.) He said that the country felt it had been discussed as a party question.—(No, no.) Well, then, that was his opinion.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He did not make any charge, he was only stating a fact. One party proposed a measure, and another re sisted it. The Administration had scarcely taken office when strange qnestions were put to individuals composing it, showing that it was to be treated as a party. What, too, was the conduct of the Opposition on the Budget?— (Cheers.) What happened also on the question of the Timber Duties—(Hear, hear,)—when the Government was only endeavouring to carry into execution the recorded designs of the Gentlemen opposite!—(No, no, and cheers.) That ran through their whole conduct; he might refer to the Sugar duties and the Belgian Loans, concerning which a Right Hon. Gentleman asked an important ques tion on the very night that the Reform Bill stood for a second reading.—(Hear.) Could the Ministers, with such an opposition, make concessions ? It was not possi b'e. They would have been mocked at by all the car riers of gree❑ and blue boxes who belong to the public offi c s—they would have been laughed at in the lobby, and their conduct would have been described as childish, silly, and contemptible.—(Cheers.) He was surprised to hear some of the observations of the Hon. and Learned Member the other evening, and he could not imagine where he had been keeping his political sheep, or in what Arcadia he had been dwelling when he talked of conciliation.—(Hear, hear.) That would indeed have been a sacrifice. The Right Hon. Member fur Tamworth had his plan of Re form, but when it came to be examined, he said that " the Ministers were for doing everything, and I am for doing nothing at all."—(Loud cheers and laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Ad miralty said his Right Hon. Friend would not•propose a plea; but he had proposed one; and that was, not to alter the present number of Members.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The question was, if we were to have Reform with the present Government, or no Reform with the Government of the Gentlemen opposite? The question was, what Ad ministration was to govern the country? An instability of Government was always an evil. The Right Hon. Bart. opposite had himself allowed that on a memorable occasion he had preferred taking a step not consonant to his wishes, rather than break up an Administration by withdrawing from it. But even if his Majesty's present Government were thrown out of office, did any one sup pose that it was possible to form a Government in this country of which the leading principle should not be Re form ? There could, however, be no middle course. Either the old principles under which the Gentlemen op posite contended that the country had flourished must be reverted to, or the new principles under which his Majesty's present Government contended that the country would flourish must be established. A change was, no doubt, intended. But what State bad ever' become great without frequent changes— without recurring (as Machiavelli termed it) to first principles? We were not about to cashier a Mo narch ; we were not about to make a change from James to William ; we had our William.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The change we were about to make was to change Gatton and Old Sarum for Birmingham and Manchester ; to change an irrespointible for a responsible Parliament. Sa much had been said about the English Peers avoiding the fault into which the Peers of France fell at the period of the French revolution, that he must trouble the House for a few moments on that subject. It had been said that in the early part of the French Revolution, the French Nobles, by conceding too soon and too largely, had betrayed their own interests as well as those of the Crown and the court On this subject he begged leave to read apassage from a posthumous work by a distinguished individual, which work had been alluded to by the lion. Member fur aikhampton. When the illustrious daughter of Necker composed her " Reflections on the principal events of the French Revolution," it was not a moment when any pas• sions and prejudices could be excited. It was after the Restoration of 1814. The passage to which he referred was as follows :—" A minority of the noblesse, that is, more than sixty member+, whose families were most illus trious, bat who, by their inform,tion, were fully ou a level with the spirit of the age, were desirous that, as far as regarded the plan of a constitution, the mode of voting should be individually ; but the majority of their order, supported by a portion of the clergy (although the latter were comparatively moderate), showed an inveterate ob jection to any mode of conciliation. They declared themselves ready to give up their privilege of exemption from taxes ; but instead of taking a formal resolution to that effect on the opening of the sittings, they were de sirous of making that an object of negociation which the nation regarded as a right. Time was thus lost in cavil ling, in pulite refusals, and in successive difficulties. When the Tiers Etat raised their tone and showed their strength, supported by the wish of the nation, the noblesse of the court gave way, accustomed, as they were, to yield to power ; but no sooner did the prospect appear to brighten, than they resumed their arrogance, and seemed to despise the Tiers Etat, as in the days when vassals solicited en franchisement from their Lords. Ti,e provincial noblesse was still less tractable than the nobility of the first rank. The latter were certain of preserving their dignity,—they were guaranteed by historical recollections ; but the petty nobles, whose titles were known only to themselves, saw themselves in danger of losing distinctions which no longer obtained respect from the world. These personages did not scruple to dwell on their lately acquired rank, with as much emphasis as if it had existed before the creation of the world. They considered privileges which were of no use but to themselves like that right of property which forms the basis of general security. Privileges are sacred only when conducive to the general advantage ; it requires then some argument to support them, and they cannot be said to be truly solid, except when sanctioned by public utility. But the chief p art of the noblesse entrenched themselves in the assertion, So it was heretofore'—` C'etoit ainsi jadis.' Particular circumstances, they were told, produced that state of things, and these circumstances are entirely changed : in vain—nothing could operate conviction on them. They were actuated by a certain aristocratic fop pery, of which an idea can be formed only in France ; a mixture of frivolity in manner, and of pedantry in opi nion ; the whole united to a profound disdain for talent and information, unless enlisted in the ranks of folly-- that is, employed in giving a retrograde course to reason." This passage showed, not that the concessions of the French Peers had been too early, but that they had been too long delayed—delayed until ruin was the consequence. There were three more lines from the same work which he requested to read :—" The majority of the noblesse, finding themselves abandoned in 1789 by men of talents and information, proclaimed indiscreetly the necessity of employing force against the popular party. We shall soon see if that force was in existence; but we may ven ture to say at once, that if it was not in existence, the menace was extremely imprudent." So much for the French Revolution, and to the assertion that, by yielding too soon, the French Peers had sacrificed themselves and the Monarchy. Their conduct was a lesson which ought not to be lost, and, he trusted, would not be lost on many illustrious Members of the other House of Parlia ment. Did he say this for the purpose of exciting terror ? God forbid ! He should be sorry to imitate in that respect the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, who, when speaking of the people of England, called them insa tiable wild beasts. Such an expression might do for an article in a Review. It might do in a packed Parliament, but not in any other. That Right Hon. Gentleman did not do justice to his own talents when he condescended to talk in that way for the purpose of terrifying those whom lie presumed to be less intelligent than himself. It was a stratagem of which he ought to be ashamed. The Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked of the Press. Had they no Press of their own ? What forgetfulness ! What black ingratitude to the Morning Post ! They had a Press, and a very powerful one ; and yet they talked of the " venomous" Press. He held in his hand extracts, with which, however, he would not trouble the House, from one of the best circulated and most intelligent periodical publications of the day, in the interest of the party oppo site.—(Read, read.) He would read some of the ex tracts in question. Everybody in the House had, no doubt, heard of an ingenious publication which appeared monthly in the north of the island, and to which the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite was said to be one of the principal contributors. In August last that publication contained a prophecy, that "in two months from that period there would be no Peers in France—that we should have war by sea and land—that Reform would be defeated—that there would be a dust in Manchester which would be laid in blood, and that a new Parliament would be chosen in peace and jollity." I❑ September it was asserted " that the Duke of Wellington hid a campaign or two to make yet; and that if things did not go on well in London, he must come and raise his standard in Yorkshire." What was to be thought of such writing as this ? And what was to be thought of those who maintained that all the intemperate writing was on the side of his Majesty's Government? For himself he con templa•ed no such evils as those which come Hon. Mem bers seemed to anticipate. His belief was that everything would go on well. lie did not contemplate any " Re storation." Mr. CROKER, after the most irregular illusion which bad been made to him—(Cries of spoke, spoke, adjourn)— trusted he might be heard for a few moments. The Right Hon. Baronet imputed to him violent language in speaking of the people England. He wished the Right Hon. Baronet had noticed it at the time at which it was uttered.—(spoke, spoke; chair, chair ; adjourn, adjourn ; go on, go on.) The Right Hon. Baronet said he had called the people of England insatiable wild beasts. It was the populace, not the people, of whom he was speak ing at the time ; and what he said, in reference to the ab stract principle of innovation, was, that they would be insatiable of innovations until like wild beasts they would lie down, having nothing more to devour. The Right Hon. Baronet had also alluded—(shouts of chair, chair; spoke, spoke ; amidst which the Right Hon. Gentleman sat down.) Sir R. PEEL observed that as, in the very multifarious speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, which some persons seemed to think amusing, there was one topic on which the Right Hon. Baronet had said but little; and as that topic was the Reform Bill, and as he (Sir P.. Peel) wished to address himself mainly to that important question, be would not waste the time of the House by attempting to answer many of the topics on which the Right Hon. Baronet had expatiated. It certainly did surprise him that on such an occasion the Right Hon. Baronet had thought proper to dig out of the grave that unfortunate offspring of his Majesty's present Government, the budget; and to attribute its destruction to party combination. It required not external assault. To leave it to itself was quite sufficient. Did the proposed tax on funded property die under the blows of the Anti-Reformers? The very man who had lost his breath was able to puff it out. The proposed tax on landed property vanished in a similar manner. But it was a new doctrine which the Right Hon. Bironet had endeavoured to set up that those who sat on his (Sir R. Peel's) side of the House were not at liberty to watch the conduct of his Majesty's Government, or to question the value of the propositions which they had brought forward. Adverting to the question before the House, he felt auxious on this, the last occasion which would offer itself to express his opinion on the merits of that great measure by which the future fate of this country was to be so powerfully influenced. He must de clare, then, that after the lapse of time which bad occurred and after the most steady contemplation of the various features of that measure, he was unable to say that his ori ginal objections to it were in the slightest degree dimi nished. The very reverse, ind,ed, was the case. In the course of the debate, the Bill had been defended on two grounds; first, that it would remedy the existing defects in the Constitution ; and, secondly, that whether it did or not, there was such a demand for it in the public mind, that they had no discretion, but that either this Bill, or a Bill corresponding to it in its main features, must lie adopted to conciliate the people, and to afford the means of carry ing on the Government. The Hon. and Learned Member for Caine had stated that the Anti-Reformers, with Mr. Canning at their head, had declared that the constitution of Parliament worked well ; and had added, that if that proposition could be established, setting aside the argu ment which arose from the dissatisfaction of the people, of it could be proved that the present system was the guar dian of liberty and property, and was not the cause of dis tress, the Anti-Reformers would establish their case. But that the Hon. and Learned Member denied. He denied that the system worked well generally—he denied that it was the guardian of liberty and property--and he as cribed to it all the great distress, privation, and suffering. At the same time the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was obliged to admit that in many important p irticulars the system worked well. He did not deny its influence on national character, and on the pure admi nistration of justice. He (Sir R. Peel) could not deny that there was occasionally great privation in this country. He could not deny that there was "the humble shed," and " the contiguous Palace." He could not deny that great property and great poverty were fre quently in juxtaposition. What course did his Majesty's present Government take with reference to the alleged cuff ring? In the course of the last fortnight Petition• had been presented from the Silk Trade and the Glove Trade, complaining of such distress that thousands who had been brought up to those trades were unable to live by them. The facts were admitted; and what course did the Goverement take ? Did they encourage any hope of relief from legislition 1 No. Their language was, " In the complicated state of society, improvements in machinery, vicissitudes of fashion, and other causes must affect your position. it is impossible to amend your position by laws ; and to grant a Committee on the subject would be only to raise expectations which most be di, appointed." And such language was wise. But if wise on that point, it was wise with reference to the Constitution. What was it that had enabled the Government at different periods to act ind:pendently of petty local interests, and to follow only that course which they thought for the benefit of the people at large—what but the borough representation ? What was it but that which hail enabled Mr. Canning to pursue such a course? He had given up the representa tion of Liverpool, because he found that its peculiar inte rests affected the course he desired to pursue. The present Government had been able to do the same with respect to all minor questions, in consequence of the excitement which existed about the Reform Bill.—(Hear.) They had been able to say to their followers, do not thwart us on this point, for if you do the success of the Reform Bill may be endangered.—(Hear.) But would they always be able to do so ? Certainly not. The giving the elective franchise to the 101. freeholders would entirely rob them of that power. He denied that a popular representation would, as an Hon. and Learned Member supposed, make wars shorter or less frequent ; and, indeed, the cry of a popular representation at a moment of difficulty might much embarrass the settlement of any contest.—(Hear, hear.) He denied, too, that a popular representation would improve the public jurisprudence. He denied, too, that a popular representation would make the commercial principles of the country more liberal. --(Hear.) For proof of this, let them look to the conduct of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in 1785. At that time Mr. Pitt proposed an improved system of commercial intercourse with Ireland. What did Mr. Fox, who was a popular representative, say to the motion ? Why, he declared that nothing of the sort could he done for the be nefit of Ireland without an equal degree of injuiry to England, and that an insidious competition would arise between them to destroy their then friendly union. In the same manner, when, in 1786, Mr. Pitt proposed that a commercial treaty should be entered into with France, Mr. Fox, the representative of the popular opi nion, opposed it, and said that England and France were the natural enemies of each other. He talked of the Methuen Treaty, and insisted that a free commercial in tercourse could not take place between the two coun tries without injury to England. But, said the Hon. Gentle man opposite, an earlier Reform in the representation would have cured such evils. That was a mistake, for the stand ard of popular representation must have been formed upon the sort of people whose opinions Mr. Fox then repre sented.—( Hear, hear.) The lion. and Learned Gentle man opposite had made a charge egoist him for not bring_ ing in a Reform 11111 ; the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was difficult to please. He was accused, though most un justly, of having stepped in at the eleventh h our , and having monopolised the glory of introducing th e Bill for Catholic Emancipation, and with not having done the same with respect to the Reform Bill.—( Hear. ) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was like the celebrated Mr. Cottle, who said his doctors ought to h e h anged, because, under p,culiar circumstances, they had admi nistered foxglove to him as a medicine ; and when he found they had not, he said they ought to be h ange d b ecause t h ey i had not administered it.—(A laugh.) He had not brought in the Bill because he thought it would not be a remedy for the evils of the country, but that it would expose the Government to great hazards ; and he retired from office on that very aecuutit.e.-(llear, hear.) If the People were drunk, that was no reason why he should n ot remain sober._( Hear, hear.) He asserted that the Go- { vernment had done this mischief—that if thay could not gt r l s t . e_ ( country, Hear. they had made it ungovern tble by any ver the He was accused by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman of not having br o ught i n a m ea sure of Reform, and yet he was told at the same time that there was no alternative between this Bill, and anarchy. If that were the circumstance, it was at once an answer to the • o n charge against him, and a severe censure upon the Go- ' vernment, who had suffered themselves and the country to be reduced to such a state.—(Hear, hear.) Another reason why he had not introduced the Bill was, that he thought that if the time was come when there must be Reform,' the measure of Reform would come with a batter grace from those who had always been its friends and supporters than if it were introduced by him or his friends, who , had always been the declared enemies of such a measure. He admitted that when the present Government came into • office they had many difficulties to contend with--he ad mitted the excitement that existed in November—he ad- mitted the degree of popular agitation that then existed— hut he asserted that the cry of Reform was not then what it was at present.--( Hear.) He knew that many wise, well intentioned, and able men in the country had expressed a ' strong desire for a Reform in Parliament ; but they had done so often before—they were not more than usu ally urgent at that moment ; and the persons who were so were those who were influenced by a stupid wish to imi tate that which had occurred in France in July of the earns . year. They desired that we should cut our clumsy capers after the Harlequin of Paris had exhibited his agility with so much fortunate success.--(Hear, hear.) That disposi tion existed in the country. It was the duty of Government to check it, for it could not continue—it certainly could not be encouraged without danger. When David left the tents of Saul, it was remarkel that there gathered round him all who were distressed, all who were in debt, all who • were discontented—(Hear)—and such were the followers whom any promoter of popular clamour would be sure to r find.—(Hear.) He was convinced, that had the Govern ment postponed this question for a time—had they de clared that they would do so till the fit of enthusiasm then called into existence by the events in France had subsided, the country would quietly have acquiesced in their deci sion, and the Ministers might then with a firmer purpose and more moderate conduct have fixed the limits and the extent of the Reform.—(Hear, hear.) He insisted that there was no valid argument to be found in the state of the country for what they had done. Then why had this cry been raised ? Why, but because the people saw the Government ranged with them against those restraints that had hither 'o existed ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was difficult enough to preserve those restraints when the King and the Government were in their favour; but when the King and the Government were with the people, arrayed against them, what surprise could be felt by any one at the clamour that had been raised about the necessity and the urgency of Reform ? If the older and wiser Members of the Cabinet chose to confide the conduct of this most dangerous measure to the care of the young and inexperienced—the less known and the less distinguished—they should have at least forewarned them of the multitude of difficulties they had to encounter— the perils they had to incur, and the fate which would probably await them. They should have said to any one of those persons whose ambition made him press for an employment so fraught with danger to themselves and injury to others— " Non est tua tuta voluntas, Magna petis Phaeton et qua: nec viribus istis Munera conveniant, nec tarn puerilibus annis." Hear, hear.) At least they should have given the pa ternal admonition.— " Parce puer stimulis et fortius utere loris, Sponte sua properant. Labor est inhibere volentes." , (Loud cheers.) But let them at least be illuminated by the conflagration. Let them read a lesson in the blaze, and let them resolve to act more wisely for the future.--- (Cheers.) The proposed changes would render it difficult ' to carry on any Executive Government, and if they were • carried into effect, he did not believe any good Executive Government could be carried on. By making all places accessible only by popular election, a prac tical revolution would be effected by the Constitu tion. Many were the inconveniences at least, it would not ' be denied, which must result from it. How were the ' Crown lawyers to be returned ? Plenty of able lawyers, the advocates of fashionable theories and popular rights, would be returned to oppose the Government, but how were they to have equally able men to answer them ? Were the law officers to have no means of entering Parliament except by making flashy speeches to the mob about the Liberty of the Press, and the like catching subjects (Loud cheers.) Were the Law Officers only to get in by musing pledges to popular assemblies, and flattering the prejudices of mobs?—(Cheers.) They were making a per- • manent Constitution, and therefore they should not, in their admiration of fine-spun theories, despise details, how ever humble they might be fancied to appear.—(Hear.) He repeated, they would have plenty of popular lawyers representatives for Marylebone, the Tower Hamlets, and the like places, but how, in the event of the Crown an d , the Ministry ceasing to be so wonderfully in favour with the millions, were they to have lawyers equally learned and talented to reply to them upon the part of the Go vernment ?—(Cheers.) Was Government to be left with out an Attorney-General ? When his HOD. and Learned Friend, with whom, notwithstanding their difference upon a former occasion, he had acted most cordially, and with the best and most perfect understanding upon this, not• withstanding the sneer and insinuation to the contrary-- (Cheers)—when his Hon. and Learned Friend was wrongly supposed to have made a disrespectful allusion to his Majesty—when, in the warmth of his argument, he said something which to the sensitive ears of the Attorney- General seemed a disrespectful allusion to the Crown-- (Loud laughter, and cheers), how eagerly did the At torney-General spring up and call his Hon. and Learned Friend to account for the indiscretion of which he imagined he was guilty.—(Laughter, and cheers.) His opinion was founded in delusion, but nevertheless, bow important wee it, that when a fancy arose that the Sovereign had been compared to a tyrant—(Continued laughter and cheers)-- there should be present and independent and bold Attorney- General, sensitive in the highest degree to the dignity and sacred nature of the Crown—(Loud laughter)—to stand forth as he might have occasion to do in a case when ' there was no mistake—(Hear, bear, and laughter)and repel the calumny—(Cheers)—and vindicate in a manner so warm and so honourable the insulted dignity of the Crown.—(Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded to consider the question as affecting Ire land, and contended that the Bill would have the effect of destroying the great experiment of Catholic Eanancipa" tion. It was not simply the increased numbers of the constituency there which was to be dreaded, but the change in its nature and character—(Cheers)—a change which, it could scarcely be doubted, would fatally affect the interests of property in that country, and those of the Established Church.—(Cheers.) He was not singular it , those opinions. What did the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman say to the Ministers on a former night " Take warning in time ; what is your policy ? You have got up a race between legislation anti events; an incident happens, straight comes an Act of Parlia ment; another incident arrives, behold a Committee and another Act of Parliament. Titus you go our running a race with events, and events are sure to win it. Awake, for Gun's sake, to a sense of the condition of Ireland ; embrace her evils in one large and comprehensiv e system of immediate amelioration ; let us not have, to use a phrase of such powerful homeliness, uttered with such pregnant familiarity by lips so touched with fire—let us nal have a " bit-and-bit Reform." Lay not that unction t° your souls—do not burn that incense which self-adalation offers to itself—do not hope, conceive, nor so far d e lude, yourselves as to think that by dallying with the evils 0 ' Ireland, by procrastinations, and putting off, and sate times giving buffets, and sometimes offering caresses t j ° Ireland, you can effect her t ranqu illi zat i on, or, I s b o ul" rather say, that you can s ave t h e country.— (H ear. ) those tonoueless,but eloquent monitor" , call on you, as th e y pass, pass-3nd it is not I alone that te ll ) it o l u ra t s h c is otne ev t e o this this—events, to throw your prejudices asid e, to legislate not on t h e v i ews of party, but on the pr i n ce" pies of human nature, and, from the calamities that i ,11 , - 1 pend upon u s , to rescue the country wh i ch, un d er all changes of Government, awl all vicissitudes of party, ar pears to have been foredoomed to distraction, and predey lined to misrule."—(Cheers.) He further contended that the interests of the public creditor were not taken int° consideration in this measure. Attention had only been paid to the interests of the tax-payers, and this, he (I , ' tended, was impolitic, and highly dangerous, eYC though it presented itself under the dismal as' pert, and destructive form, of fructification.—(Great laughter and cheering.) By this unstatesmanlike attempt to mitigate, as it was said, the sufferings of the people, the first effect that would follow would be a peac tical, though perhaps, not a sanguinary Revolution. 'Dell would, most probably, succeed a state of things not tit , ' like that at present prevailing in the West Indies--- (Cheers.)—next, there would be a deficit in the p u blic treasury, which it would be impossible by any ordinary means to repair; for difficult, indeed, would it be to ir", duce Reformed Parliament to impose new taxes to we e " the loss which the revenue would have suffered. The y would come a feeling o f i nsecurity upon t h e part o f t}' , ; public creditor, and th e moment a f ee li ng o f i nsecur ity e j any species of property arose, the suspicion of the ri'' ) concerned could not fail to shake the count' y,—(Clreete"