The Sun. — London, England, 1832-04-10 00:00:00

vain that any attempt should he made to resist the 'urther demauds for change which would he made. They had told the people that their distresses sprung from the form of their Government ; and it would be to no purpose that et the breaking out of every fresh distress th, y Should attempt to resist change, or endeavour to pa l , down the cry for alteration. Tht y had now a constitution which la id been sanctioned by ages under which the country had attained a height of unex anapled greatness, and would they exchange it for one abounding with as m any absurdities and anomalies as the old ?—(Hear.) He would now request their attention to a few of those anomalies. For example, the renters above 101.—indeed, he might say front 10!. to 201.—were to have a commanding influence iu all the boroughs, where their influence would be evil ; and renters from 101. to 301. wet:o, if resident out of a borough, to have no county votes. Then of those towns to which the right of re turning Members had been preserved, there were some so low in population, and in all that was conceived to im part the right of franchise, that he could find at least seven unfranchised places better entitled to send Members. The Noble Lord then referred to tire cases of Newcastle and Gateshead, and other anomalies in the Bill, and then pro ceeded to say generally, that, under the alterations which the Bill would introduce, it would be impossible to pre serve septennial Parliaments. Indeed, if he recolle led rightly, the Noble Earl had expressed himself favourable to trienni,l Parliaments. The tact was, that even if they preserved the Act unrepealed, the electors would practically repeal it, for they would exact pledges from their delegates to resign their situations at the end of three years—they would then no longer have a deliberative assembly—they might have a primary assembly, and to the popular voice they could op pose nothing with success ; and the only termination which he could anticipate to the measure then before them was a departmental division of the country, annual Parliaments, and universal suffrage; these must be the inevitable con sequences of the Bill, and therefore should he adhere to the vote which he originally gave.—(Hear.) There might be inconvenience in rej-eting the Bill; but there was no inconvenience which a firm Government might not meet, and there was none which at all equalled the hazard of that desolation to the whole country which must be the consequence of adopting any such measure. The cry from Gay to day would be for further and greater change, and therefore he should say to those who were determined not to pass the Bill, vote not for the second reading.—(Loud cheers.) There was dancer—he did not mean to deny that there was; neither did he undervalue that danger ; hut there was infinitely more danger in encouraging the popular madness to the extent which the promoters of the measure, if permitted, would proceed. The Noble Lord coocladed by moving " That the Bill be read a second time that day six months." The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question, and for some moments no Noble Lord on the Ministerial side appeared disposed to address the House, and the Opposition Peers raised a cry of " Question !" but Lord Melbourne came forward, and then the Lord Chancellor withdrew for a few minutes. On the return of the Noble and Learned Lord, Viscount MELBOURNE, who was inaudible in the gallery for a considerable time at the beginning and in many parts of his speech, addressed their Lordships. He was understood to say, that as the several topics to which the Noble Baron who prectded him had chiefly addressed himself had been already discussed so thoroughly in that House when a Bill of the same nature as that now before their Lordships was under consideration, be did not think it necessary to detain the House by observations of any length. It was the less necessary fur him to trespass long upon the House after the clear and powerful expo sition of the question in all its bearings by his Noble Friend at the head of his Majesty's Government. The powers of his Noble Friend had never been more conspi cueoslydisplayed than they had been that evening.—( Hear. ) The Noble Baron opposite (Lord Ellenborough) had said that the question now before the House did not affect the general question of Reform. To that statement he (Lord Melbourn e ) did not assent. The motion before their Lordships was, " That this Bill for the Reform of the Re presentation of the People of Entland and \Vales be read a second time." The question, therefore, to be determined by their votes was, whether or not they would agree to en tertain the gem ral subject of Reform in the represents lion, or would resolve to set that subject aside alto gether. The speech of the Noble Baron was di I"( eted no less against the principle of Reform alto gether, than against the datails of the Bill itself. All the facts which the Noble Baron had stated respecting the nomination boroughs were, no doubt, true; and he (Lord Melbourne) had been for years in the habit of concurring is statements of the same effect as those now made by the Noble Baron. But all the arguments which the Noble Lord bad endeavoured to raise upon those facts went to show the expediency of preserving the whole of the nomination boroughs.--(Hear, hear.) All those arguments were, in fact, directly opposite to the general principle of Reform itself. They who would be prepared to stand up for " things as they are," would do well to rest their opposi tion to every degtee of amelioration upon the arguments of the Noble Lord (Ellenborough). But with any man who looked to the signs of the tittles, and who admitted that changes were necessity in the state of the representa tion, those arguments would be of little weight. It was "nnecessary to go over those arguments, as they were already completely met by this one unanswerable argument --that it is impossible - to - maintain the constitution of the House of Commons in its present state.—(Hear.) He should net trouble the House with a repetition of the observations which he made on this subject when the question was before under the consideration of their Lord ships. On that occas i on h e h a d b ee n f o und fault with by the Nobl e L or d the Chief Baron of the E xc h equer , f or having gone into a discussion of the details of the 8.11, when the question before the House related to its general principles ; an d h e thought that he should now su bj ect him self t o th e same reproof if he followed the Noble Baron (Ellenborough) into the discussion of details which were suijects to he m ore fi t l y cons id ere d i n t h e C omm i t t ee . Although i he (Lord Melbourne) was anxious for the pass• ing of the Bill, yet he would be far from holding out to the pe op l e exaggerated expectations of the advantages which it would confer upon them. Still he thought that the strong feeling which prevailed amongst the peopl e on t h e subject of Reform ought to have great weight with t h e House. In the pr esen t state of public feel ing, and in the present posture of the affairs of the coun try, it seemed to him to be impossible to proceed without some alteration in_ the co nst i tut i on o f t h e House of Cont. bout laying th e representation of the people on a broader basis. That there were advantages connected with the present System of representation he would not deny. But whilst the disadvantages were prominent and obvious—so plai n t o the ere of all as to excite the indig nation of the people, advantages, on the contrary, were in their natur e such that a th v e aa c t o a u g l e d s e r d uc a t ndmade evident only by close investig y ation and ray ro abs e t reason ing. He might be told, that although the disadvantages were more easily perceived by the people than the advan tages, still the 1 fitter more than compensated for the former, and that, therefore, in altering the present system of re presentation, his Majesty's Ministers were sacrificing to popular clamour advantages which the people did not un derstand. But he denied that lie for one was influenced in the course which he pursued on the present occasion by factious clamour or by democratic intimidation. At the sitne time, however, he looked upon a reasonable deference to th e will of the people distinctly expressed to be one of th e conditions of the government of a free people.— (Hear, hear.) " Hare est conditio populoruin omnium liherorum.”—The irresist.ble influence of the opinion of the people was manifest when the Government of the Noble Duke opposite fell to the ground, without the pres sure of much external opposition. It was perfectly clear on that occasion that the Administration was falling into the hands o f hi s N o b le Fr i end (Earl Grey); i t was c l ear to every man that some measure of the kind now proposed thust be brought forward : and when his Noble Friend "and, amongst the principles on which his Government ;vas formed, this principle of Reform, no Noble Lord, 11 tit Only the Duke of Wellington, who might be ex- Accted t o ta k e that course after the strong declarat i on hich he had made on the subject when in office, stood , u ,j' u ."?iris plac e t o avow hi tnse lf to b e oppose d t o th e _%, " I ta-_ Earl's Administration, on th e g r o und th a t it fiqnseil on the principles of Reform. But if Noble an y L .on. l were wholly opposed to that prin elP e, it would not have been at all an unusual course to sta nd up on th at occas i on an d express hi s f ee li ngs . I n B ,:,: h won e r rPlace it h a d b een o bj ecte d t h at hi s N o bl e F r i en d „ hich gin having introduced the measure at the time he had have It had been said that he ought to so b s ia w ed ai : e a d nd on e t _ti ° l a t ' l l a i e . fever of the public mind should have subject a caln e People should be capable of giving the man wh o k new an d deliberate consideration. Every know that if hi s N any thing of human nature must the Reform WI as "ble Friend had not brought forward early as possible after his appointment to office, he wo u ld b fessions, and of an int suspected of insincerity in his pro his pledges. Ile t h ou l ti " to evade the redeeming of Ministers would have tgoti therefor e , th a t his Majesty's defend th emse l ves on l y as to th e wilt of the measure Which itsthey had brought forward, . end that neither as respectedci the had time in which they i general principles, or the must it, were they tardy open to reproach f rom t'snr. of the Bill. As to the extentrn o os t t th d e ete ß r i n ll, ined be w °P o P u7d . t ill; that it was often necessary to r and to withhold what this v.. they called for ameliorations, the necessity of which wa , acknowledged, he thought that it was the wisest course to re move to the utmost practicable , xtent all re el subjects acorn plaint. In forming a measure of Reform, it was impossible 0 have stopped short of the present Bid. If those who were friendly to what was called moderate Reform could succeee in cart ying a measure framed on their principles, it would nut only increase the discontent, but would produce ultimately more danger to the institutions of this country than tl e Bill which they denounced as being too extensive and sweepine. It was impossible for him to add anything to the strong appeal which his Noble Friend had addressee to their Lordships; hut he would most anxiously implore them not to st:ppone that the silence which pt evaded at this moment was the silence of content, or that the quiet was attributable to anything but to the most determine;! spirit.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted deeply that the Noble Duke who was lately at the head of his Majesty's Government was so decidedly opposed to this measure.— (The Noble Lord then pronounced a lengthened eulogy upon the Doke of Wellington ; but he spoke in so low a tono, that it was impossible to collect a sin ale sentence dis tiuctly. ) The same inflexibiity, the same unbending spirit which enabled such greet men to accomplish achievements which were beyond conception even of ordinary men. sometimes prevented them from the full end unprejudiced examination of great questions in t . e altered positions in which the progress of time might have plate I them. The Reform Bill was a great change, undoubtedly; but he would beg leave to tell their Lordships, that if change was effected upon sound principles, its advantages would not be confined to the mere removal of the evils which it was in tended to remove, but it would give rise to advantages which were not originally expected from it. The Bishop of DURHAM was unwilling to trespass on the time of the House; but considering the station in which lie was placed, and the nature of the subject non under the consideration of their Lordships, he felt that it was incumbent on him to come forward and state the reasons of the vo'e which he should give. He was aware of his own inability to grapple with the subject in all its bearings ; and he was also aware of the obloquy which might be cast upon persons in his station, in cons, quence of the course which they might feel be coming them to take in that discussion; hut he thought it, nevertheless, a duty from which he ought nut toshrink to state to their Lordship his vi ws of the present question. He would not enter into an analysis of the measure itself, bat would confine himself to stating merely the grounds in which he regarde I it as inconsistent with the moral and political welfare of the country. At the same time he wished it to be understood, that he did not consider the rejection of the present Bill to imply a total rejection of the principle of Reform. He would not now give up his opinion as to the kind of Reform to which he would consent, nor would he say whether at another time lie should not have been opposed to any change in the system of representation. He would only sate what he conceived to be the dangers attendant upon that particular measure. In bringing forward any measure of that nature, there were three requisites which ought to be taken into consideration. In the first place, such a measure ought to be so framed as to avoid exciting alarm in the minds of those who were attached to existing institutions, at the same time that it met the views of the greater number of those who thought that change was necessary. Now so far was this from being the case with the present Bill, that their Lordships must be all aware that a great part of the community looked to the measure with dismay and alarm. In the second place he thought that in proposing such a Bill, it ought to be shown that some great pracncal evil was to be removed by it, or that some great practical good would be obtained.—(Hear.) For his own part, he hail heard no proofs of the existence of any great prac t:cal evils which the Bill was to remove; nor had any of the advocates of the measure pointed out any practical good which it was to confer upon the country. There were certainly some theoretical evils supposed to belong to the present system. There were some anomalies which prevented theoretical perfection in the Constitution; but it had not been proved that there existed any of so touch practical evil as to interfere with order and good Go vernment on the one hand, or with the tights and liberties of the people on the other.—( Hear.) The third conside ration, which he had thought necessary to be attended to in the framing of such a measure, was, care should be taken that it should be of such a nature as not to prevent the Government afterwards from being carried on without danger to the best interests of the country. But in that Bill, prescriptive rights and interests were swept away so largely that it was impossible not to apprehend that the example would afterwards be folio ed, to the sacrifice of all other prescriptive rights. Their Lordships had fre quently been warned to look to the signs of the times ; and he, for one, was not unwilling to take that advice in good part, to look to the signs of the times. He did look to them, and be thought it was impossible not to discern in them much that was calculated to give the greatest uneasiness to every man who was friendly to the preserva tion of the institutions of the country and of the rights of the people. He saw every where a great desire for inno vation. He saw a disposition to make subjects rulers, and to bring down the rulers to a state of subserviency to the people ; and he saw that the present Bill was calculated to foster those dispositions, and to spread them more and more.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Whenever that Bill should come into operation, it would cause such an in fusion of democracy into the House of Commons, that that branch of the Legislature would be the chief power in the State ; and, indeed, would be the only power, except in so far as it would be itself controlled and go verned by the political unions throughout the country. He was convinced that the deteriorated House of Com mons; would be ultimately little more than an assembly of delegates from those other democratic bodies.—( Hear.) When he saw that those persons were the most determined advocates of tie measure—who had always distinguished themselves as ti e most constant enemies of good order and good government—he looked with the deepest apprehen sion to the result of a measure which would give to those persons a paramount influence in the House of Commons. He was net unwilling that the Legislature should manifest a due deference to the will of the people. But he thought that if the public will were not so controled as to give it a proper direction, it would tend more to the injury of the people themselves than to the permanent security of their rights. When their Lordships came to destroy what were called the nomination boroughs, they would, by that Bill, substitute in their stead boroughs under the control of the political unions —(Hear, hear) —boroughs that would send none but demagogues to Parliament : and by the same step by which they wet e admitted into the House of Commons, the representatives of the great commercial and colonial interests were of necessity excluded. Yet if lie could conceive that the lower orders of the people would be benefited by that measure, that would go far to recon cile him to the evils which he might suppose to be con nected with it in other respects. But he could not see in what way there was the slightest probability of their being benefited. He hoped that if the Bill should be adopted, the Government might still have the means of upholding those who had conscientiously opposed it. If, indeed, they would have the power of doing so, that again swill,' furnish au answer to those who said that the Bill was in dispensable; for (as the Right Rev. Prelate was under stood) the fact that the Government possessed the means of protecting the Peers of Parliament in the exercise of their rights, was a sufficient answer to those who insisted that the rejection of the Bill would endanger the security of the State. Lord STOURTON s mid he trusted it would be received by the House as some apology for trespassing upon the time and indulgence of their Lordships upon the present occasion, that frequently as this great and momentous question of Pam liamentary Reform had been before their Lordships, either incidentally in the shape of petitions, or more directly in the form of a Bill, he had hitherto given way to Members more able to influence time judgment of the House, upon this most important, but almost ex hausted subject ; he would, therefore, only say, and lie had the authority of one of our greatest philosophical statesmen for the assertion, that of Edmund Burke, in his speech on American taxation—an authority that would not be without its weight on the opposite aide of the House. Mr. Burke states it to be the substance of the British Constitution that the people should be taxed by their cinvn representatives; and if this right of Englishmen was valuable at al; times, it became more so, it was imtore essential to their interests, and to the security of their property.and,witla that property, to the very safety of their persons, at a time when the de mands of taxation were so heavy, when their national debt was so enormous, and they were called upon by the Government of their country to contribute from the annual earnings of their industry about fifty millions a year for the exigencies of the State. And, my Lords, is not 016 in accordance with one of the greatest statutes or charters of time country ? What says that statute ?—he copied it from one of our most recent historians,—" 'so tallage or aid shall henc, forward be laid or l e vied by us or our heirs in this our realm, without the good-witl and com mon assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, and other Prelates, the Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other freemen in our realm." And Rymer tells us, that in the fair and true interpretation of this great statute, which was in reality but an extension of the great charter ex torted from John, that Edward 1., upon the knig hthood of his son, summoned a Parliament to grant limn a u aid. The Sheriffs are ordered to send to this Parliame nt two . koigl.t• from each county, two citizens train each city, (.0 La t,vv,n d their Lordships' narticular attention to this) me or two burgesses from each b rough, as such borough: .IW' he of gre iter or minor importance, in order that the\ •hould agree to the aid then about to be imposed." And are a Whig aristocravy to lie blamed it, in consonanc , with these great fund anent d constitutional principles the; aiaiin for the reople of England under all their present ourdens a full, ample, and efficient representation ? had been often told, and it was one of the leading argu ments of the late lamented Mr. Canning, a name he should aever pronounce without respect and gratitude, that " tl a construction and composition of the Connnens' House of Pirliament was the same as in the year 1688 at the revolution, when it acco7nplished such mig things.' .hut has not every thing else changed around it ? Have not trade and commerce and manufactures since aassed into other and now unrepresented channels; has nut the national debt and tic whole funding system grown up since that periol? And therefore he had a right to s that this immutability in the midst of change, was of all changes the greatest ; as that person who was to stand absolutely stil on a moving world would become the most dangerous of proj-stiles. But the very artifi sal condition of the country was a new and good ground for a more ample and extended representation ; for the interests, the property, and with that property the security of per sons, was now involved in I..gislative enactments in a manner that could not have existed under a less arti ficial state of things. "Nay, he woul Igo so far as to say, that there have been times in which a consultation of Bank Directors had a greater influence over the proper ty of the country, than could have arisen from the roost irbitrary acts of the Tudors or the Stuart ." He ap pealed to the events of the last five-ancl-twenl years to ear hint out as to the consequences emanating fann such an artificial condition. When the French wars hail terrai n it , d, and this country was naturally in the expectation of happiness and order and prosperity, we found ourselves, on he contrary, in the midst of confusion and disorder, Ind dismay and loss of capital that was almost un paralleled in the most calamitous periods. An able pamphlet, namely, an Historical Sketch of the Bank of England, informs us that 240 banking establisa ments were involved in the general ruin, which commenc ing with agriculture in 1814, 15, and 16, extended to trade and manufactures in 1817. This was ascribed to the transition from a state of war to the state of peace. Again, in 1821, 22, we were involved, as far as agricul ture extended, in almost similar misfortunes; that was ascribed to over production—not to an over production of wrought articles, and a glut of manufactured goods, but to superabundant harvest. Our seasons were too favourable—our waggons groaned under too heavy a load. As peace had destroyed its millions of capital, so plenty was to destroy other millions. But this was not all—prosperity was also to have its victims. And such was the general dismay, want of mercantile confidence, and tinivers-il confusion in 1825 and 1826, that an emi nent Statesman, now no more, best acquainted with the commercial interests of the country, and himself connected with the Administraron of the day, informed the country th t London was within forty-eight hours of a state of barter. Now, what are the people of England to think of such consequences traced to such causes? Peace, plenty, prosperity, producing each in their turn confu sion, foss of capital, want of confidence, stagnation of trade. He did nut say he had not the presumption to do so, that there was any thing wrong in their legis lative enactments. But can it surprise their Lordships that the people, under such circumstances, should trace their misfortunes to a want of adequate representation— that their purses had been too much under the control of proxies from this House, who, instead of being guardims of their property, hail been profuse and lavish in its ex peraditure, and the causes of those heavy charges that now bear on the industry of the productive classes ? That, under similar circumstances, Noble Lords are disap• point td in their expectations of a re-action, and that the people of England seek with as much anxiety and determination as ever for a more extended repre sentation in their own Commons House of Parliament —nor does the Noble Baron who attributas the evils that have befallen the country to extraneous circum stances, and even states his own conviction, that such ex traneous circumstances are to go on, rather ineseasing than diminiebing, does he afford them much hopes / A non-Reformer too ! A most intelligent and able per son tells the people in another place, and that very recently on the question of the Dutch Russian Loan, that there were spendthrift times, in which not only thonsands, and tens of thousands, but tens and twenties of millions, were thrown away.—(Hear.) But one word before he sat down about a half-measure with which we were threatened this night by a Noble Duke.— What did Mr. Canning say of half-measures of Reform ? Why, he said that they of all kinds of Reform were the most disadvantageous—against other kinds of Reform he could produce argument ; but against half-measures there was demonstration, for this plain reason, because they would satisfy no one. The Marquess of SALISBURY would not go into a discussion of all the principles of the Constitution with which that Bill interfered. The only question to which he should apply himself was this—whether or not the Go vernment of the country could go on under the system which his Majest:'s Ministers proposed to substitute for the existing Constitution? The Noble Earl at the bead of the Government had stated what he conceived to be the causes of the prevailing discontent, but he had not ex plained to the House in what way that measure would go to remove those causes. The Noble Earl seemed to have carefully avoided any such explanation. But when he came to the House with a measure of such importance, be ough to be prepared to show to their Lordships both that it was necessary to make an alteration, and that the pro. posed alteration was of the nature which the case de manded.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble E irl had certainly painted very strongly some results which, he said, seemed to him likely to follow upon the rejection of that Bil . Those consequences he (Lord Salisbury) wou'd not deny were very serious, if they were real. But the Noble Earl's speeech had reminded him of the phrase, " Omne igno tam pro mugntfico." He did not apprehend any such consequences, but he was ready to admit that there did exist a strong feeling in favour of Reform ; and, Anti- Reformer as he was, and Anti Reformer as he believed he should always be, he would make a sacrifice of his own feeling so far as to concede some mea sure of Reform, if he could be satisfied that that might be done without danger to the country. He was most anxious to concede, were he once persuad. d that he could do it wit safety. The question had been already so much better argued, that he was aware it might be said that be was wasting time by dwelling upon it; but he wished to hear in what way Ministers intended to provide fur the introduction of official men into the other House of Parliament? Only two days ago he bad seen an ad dress to the electors of a certain populous place, by a Gentl,man atrached to the present Government, and who called upon them to give a practical refutation of the argument that official persons would not be likely to get into Parliament after the abolition of nomination boroughs. At all events this address was an excellent practical illustration of the difficulty that would be ex perienced. The truth was, that if this Bill passed, Mem bers must be subject to the will and pleasure of their con stituents. The Noble Lord who bad just sat down had said that the country was menaced with a half measure, and true it was that a Noble Duke had said that he was ready to propose a Bill of Reform if the present were rejected. The question, therefore was at end, whether the House would be entirely deprived of the op portunity of entertaining the subject of Reform if the Bill now offered were thrown out. The point now to be con sidered was, whether it was most fit to preserve the con sistency of the House or the consistency of the Ministry.-- (Hear.) Any Noble Lord who felt disposed to vote for a moderate measure of Reform might embrace the opportu • pity which the Noble Duke would afford him. If, on the other hand, the Bill on the table were read a second time, and consequently the principle of it saectioned. Noble Lords would find themse:ves in a position from which they could not retreat : they could not afterwards support a more moderate and therefore a less objectionable plan. Under no circumstances could he give support to the principle of the measure before the House, especially as he meant to alter materially every single clause it contained ; and he was convinced that the best, as well as the fairest mode of proceeding, would be to reject it, and to call upon the Noble Duke to redeem the pledge he had given. Earl BATHURST began, in a very low voice, by no ticing what he had said on presenting the Oxford petition, and what Lord Brougham bad delivered regarding the ten• pound franchise during the debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill. He defied that Noble Lord to show that the right to vote by every ten-pound householder was constitutional ; and he referred to the case of Grampound at the first time when that right had been attempted to be established. On that occasion Lord Milton stood up in his place and objected to it, on the ground that the pro position was unknown to the Constitution, and it was setting a fanciful experiment against the wisdom of our ancestors. For this reason his Lordship proposed that the right of voting at Grampound should be in the inbabi tauts paying scot and lot ; and who was found to support the proposition? Lord Althorp—(Cheers)—now Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and the individual principally ictive in the passing of this Bill through the House of Commons. The sense of the House was taken, and they .vere left in a minority ; but on chat occasion a Noble `Prirrirl of his (for although they' differed he hoped to be honed still to call him so). then Member for Yorkshire, had opposed the ten-pound franchise on the ground th m• he had received a communme mtion from Leeds, stating it h ha the general opinion of the inhabitants that the qoalifica thin was too low.—(Hear.) The next occasion n whist the subject was discussed was on the disfranchisement of Penryn, when it was proposed to convey the forfeited wr.t to Manch , star. The moment Moichester was mentioned up rose Mr. George Phillips, a residerrt in the town, wi l e deprec ited the proposal of fixing the qualification for a l i vote at only 101., and argued that it ought to be 201., me at the very lowest 151. Lord John Russell himself pro • posed teat it should be fixed at 20/ , as he was convinced hy what ha I been said by the Member who was resident in Manchester. At Birmingham, again, it was sug gested that it ought to be fixed at 101. ; and about Oa same time Political Unions there had their origin. 1 insight be worth while to enter a little into their history and to remark, that, in the outset, they were merely corn •dnations of the operative classes, whose object was to in duce their masters to raise their wages. They were too confin , ,d to any one branch of trade, hut the concert ant: co operation extended to all. Afterwards they began to assume a political aspect, and their views, which at firs: were limited, were extended, and they endeavoured to die rate not only to their masters but to the Government. It, a place like Birmingham it was hardly to be disputed that the 101. franchise would nearly be equivalent to universal suffrage, for it was not at ail stated in what way the value of the house was to be ascertained. Thus would the power of . the Unions be augmented: they would be formed in every part of the kingdom, and they would have active agents always on the alert, to take care that every marl belonging to the Unions should vote in favour of the popu lar candidate. All the really industrious, who did not join in these associations and did not partake of the ex citement, would thus be entirely neglected. Hence it was obvious that the Government itself would, in fact, be placed in the hands of the Political Unions, and the tyranny they had at first exercised over their masters would be extended to the members of the Cabinet. He (Lord Bathurst) objected much more to this Bill than to the former, and contended that in most of its provisions it was infinitely worse. After stating the absurdity of the mole in which the boundaries of boroughs were to he fixed, his Lordship remarked that his objection was not to the principle of abolishing nomination boroughs, be cause they could be rendered free by enlarging them, hut to the principle of disfranchising them in order that other places might be enfranchised. Not only was time principle of spoliation adopted, in order to give representatives to particular towns in England, but to give additional Mem bers to Ireland and Scot'and. On what possible principle, he asked, were six new Members to be given to the former arid five to the latter? or how could it be said that in the present state of those countries, with their vastly aug mented population, that that was all that was re quired ? On the whole, he opposed the Bill, nut because it was a measure of Reform, but because, instead of reform ing, it destroyed the constituency of time country ; and although in early life he had given a vote in favour of some change iii the representation, he did so on time principles— first, that the number of Members of the House of Com mons should continue unchanged—and secondly, that no borough should be disfranchised without proof of corrup tion. The Noble Lord concluded by drawing a distinc tion between political consistency and personal obstinacy, applauding the one and censuring the other. The Earl of HADDINGTON, having been all his life an opponent of Reform, naturally felt anxious to vindicate the course he intended now to take in voting for the second reading of the Bill before the House. Up to within a few days of the last discussion the leaning of his mind was, that the Reform Bill should be read a second time, not because he thought Reform a good ; ' on the contrary, be considered it a tremendous evil; but because, on the principle of expediency, he saw that some Reform was absolutely inevitable ; and he felt that the sooner the question was settled by calm consideration, and the sooner the obnoxious parts of the measure were removed in a Committee, the better fur the country. If, shortly before the ale ate on the former Bill, he had abandoned the intention of supporting the second re ding, the change arose from witnessing the spirit prevailing in the nation and in Parliament, which c mvinesd hint that anything like an amendment of the Bill was quite imprac ticable. Other considerations had wrought with him in the sama direction. In common with all well-thinking men, he had felt the greatest possible indignation at the manner in which the House of Lords had been treated both by the public Press and at public meetings : intimi dation had been attempted ; and he knew that it was the custom to say that threats of the kind ought to be entirely disregarded. He was not precisely of this opinion, al though he felt that when it was said that the continuance of the Union with Ireland depended upon the result of the Reform Bill, it was not an argument that ought to have weight in a deliberative assembly. All the vulgar motives of personal fear were assigned on the former occasion, but of late be had heard nothing of the kiud : it had been found that such intimidations produced no effect, and therefore they had been abandoned. It had appeared to hint, also, that-the House, in the exercise of the con servative duty it owed the country, was called upon in the first instance, and at a period of unparalleled excitement, not to sanction without hope, or at least with very slen der hope, the principle of a Bill involving such tre e tuendous consequences. It was the duty of the House of Lords to appeal fronaaMinisters to the good sense of the country. The appeal had been made, and what was the re suit? A great deal had been said of reaction. He was hint self quite certain, at the time that the last Bill was pre. sented that the country was divided. That a large portion the people favoured that measure, he had no doubt ; but he was also certain, that a large portion was opposed to it. He believed that the rejection of the Bill on that occ msion had given courage to those persons to speak their minds, and they had done it in a manner most distinctly and most • respectfully ; but he could not help thinking, that it their petitions had been looked into, however they might be op. posed to the extent of the principle, they would not find in these petitions any such abnegation of the principle of Re form itself as would form a safe and reasonable ground for them to refuse the reading of this Bill the second time.— (Hear.) His firm belief was, that the reasonable and re spectahle part of the country were tired of the discussion— ' ( Hear)—and they desired the settlement of the question. • He believed that they wished Parliament to amend the re presentation, though they did not approve of the measure now before the House ; but he did riot think that they wished their Lordships to reject this measure without exa mination. Indeed, if their Lordships did so reject the mea sure, lie believed they would not have the support of those re spectsble persons in the country to whose opinions they had before listened and were still anxious to listen with attention. It would have been, he could assure them, much more agreeable to his wishes to come down to that House and to take the same course which the Noble Baron behind him had taken, and to oppose on reasons similar to those adopted by the Noble Baron, the further progress of that which he must call a most ex!ensive measure of change. —( Hear, hear.) But in order to do so, and to act with any consistency on the same view of the subject as that adopted by the Noble Baron, be must be of opinion that it was possible to contest the granting of Reform of any sincl.—( Hear, hear.) If any one Noble Lord would con. vince him th at lie could do that, he would give his vote in defence of time system as it now stood, and against any change whatever. With the defence which had been made for the nomination boroughs, he most fully sym pathised ; he regretted their loss, but did is Noble Friend who had made that defence, think that at this time of day these nomination boroughs could be continued? It the Noble Baron did think so, he disagreed front many of those m pa u r c t h o o t ys m o e se p d ia t n o ( t )f ire th p e re N se o n b t le m p ea , s ik u e re hile h l e f who w,as. we i r t e w as asas to destroy the nomination boroughs—that was his very object yet he opposed this Bill as decidedly as the Nobl e l b a je ro c n t , because he thought it put an end to all check what ever on the popular power. In determnining to retain the nomination boroughs, the Noble Baron was, there fore, as much opposed to the plan of the Noble Duke as he was to the measure of the Noble Earl opposite.— ( Hear.) The Noble Baron and the Noble Earl who had last spoken had both of them treated this Bill as if the 101. clauses were part of the principle of it. Now he objected to the 101. clauses as much as they did, though not, indeed, with respect to the smaller boroughs ; and there it was that he thought the Noble Baron did not draw a proper distinction. In the smaller boroughs, he thought that the 10/. householders would form a respec table &ass of voters; but with respect to the "ten as they were called, that would now be put r oti mton;-',iel'isa , :tivity in large boroughs, he thought that the description of them given by the Noble Baron was quite u nanswera; le. The Noble Baron seemed to suppose that those who voted for the second reading of this Bill, must be prepared to support it throughout. He denied that inference altogether. He thought that in voting for its second reading, he did not pledge himself to anything of hat sort. Unless he hoped to msdify some of the clauses in the Bill, lie should not consent to the second reading of it, although the principle of the Bill, as stated in ite pre amble, was precisely that which any Bill of the kind must contain. Any Bill whatever that only gave repreeenta tives to the great towns—that cut off a few of the most objectionable boroughs, and increased the constituency of of some of the rest, must contain, as this Bill did, clauses of enfranchisement, of disfranchisement, and of enlarge ment. Under these circumstances, he felt that, in such a stage of the measure as this, they could not refuse Ow people of England to read the Bill a ie. eand time. It became right, therefore, for eve , man to state his particular views of this question. 1. eeneideued that the vote for the 'second reading of ti Bill pledged him no more than what those words in tb preamble necessarily pledged every one to—namely, the( some Reform was necsesary. Ile Sholi ' d, in the Committe support everything that he thought would be an improve anent of the Bill, and that would diminish the danger o its consequences. In the course he shouted adopt with re spect to this Bill, he should consider what. were the dan gers that might be the consequence of the p.rt h e as , utned ; for he was sorry to say that we lived in times in which the choice was, not between good and evil, but lee eween two evils—two practical and undoubted evils. The Noble Baron himself admitted, that the course he recone mended was not without its dangers; and be could not conceal from himself tin mt there were evils in reading this Bill a second tiffie. He had brought himself to consent no it, not without difficulty, but on a consideration of the balance of difficulties; and on that ground, he thought i would become him, as a Member of the conservative par . of the L gislature, to consent to t o into Committee on the Bill. He confessed that he had no very sanguine views of what could be done in that Committee. He did not feel that it would he possible for them to replace those much defamed nomination boroughs, nor that balance which they created as against the excess of the popular principle ; but he did nut see the impossibility of at least giving such a weight to property that much plight he done to redress the balance of the constitution, at least that, as a Noble Friend of his had said on the first reading of this Bill, some planks of the vessel might be saved, and she might float into tranquillity. The thing was possible, theugh he confessed be was not very sanguine with respect to it. But, on the other hind, he saw that the consequences of rejecting this Bill would he the means of riveting on them the whole Bill—( Hear, hear), or even worse than this Bill—( Hear, hear, hear)—a measure at least as strong as this, and carried with a revolutionary spirit through the country, anti it would be for them to consider in what state they would then he, and in what state the monarchy might then be.—(Hear.) He had brought his mind to see no other issue, and he could not see how they were to preserve the principles of the Constitution but by altering the Bill in Coinmittee. He proposed, therefore, that they should go into Commit tee on the Bill, that they should do their best with it there, and having done that, they might then throw it out upon the third reading with a much better grace than they could do at present. He thought, if they did this, they would do better for the interests of the country than if they adopted any other course, and the country would then see a practical refutation of that assertion that their Lordships did not sympathize with the feelings of the country, and were determined to refuse all Reform what ever. They would show that they were willing to con cede touch, and that if they did not concede all, that at least they did not throw out the Bill till they had tried all their power to pass it. The people had had their minds filled with delusion. The commerce of the country was in a state of stagnation, the revenue was suffering, and enterprise was checked, and the good humour and cheer fulness of the people of England was mucli injured. He (lid not say that these were reasons for passing the Bill, but for their going into a consideration of its details with a view to show that they were willing, as far as the safety of the Constitution would allow them, to admit of a practical Reforin. He thought that this question must be settled by a compromise.—(Hear.) The people of this country were now in a temper of mind to render that pos sible. How lung that would continue he could not say. That House was actuated by much the same temper. Par liament was of that temper, and he saw no reason why any one of their Lordships (except those, if any such there were, who though they could take their stand upon ex isting institutions, and could refuse all change whatever) should hesitate to adopt a compromise. He did not pre cisely understand en what ground the Noble Duke resisted a compromise. If he understood the Noble Duke rightly with respect to this measure, the King's name had been abused, so that the measure appeared to come before them as if with tine Royal authority to recommend it ; that it was brought in by a Government who had pledged them, selves to Reform, and with the public mind strongly ex cited in its favour. The Noble Duke admitted that there must be some Reform ; if so, it was impossible to see the reason why he would not avoid multiplying the diffieul ties of the country by yielding to a compromise. As little was it possible to see why the Noble Ell opposite ehould not consent to the same. Even if the name of the King could be properly used in favour of a measure, it could not be used with respect to the extent of the measure; and the duty which the Noble Earl owed his Sovereign could not prevent him from p tying due and respectful attention to what were the suggestions of that House ; and as little could his pledge to the people be affected by his doing so For himself, he should adhere to what had in the year 1830 been stated by the present bead of the Government. In that year the Noble Earl stated that he urged an abstract right, that some asserted that every tax-payer had a right to vote, but that he denied there was any such right, so that " in his opinion the rights of the people were, to have. a good government (Cheers from the Ministerial Benches), and one calculated to secure their rights and privileges." • If it was so, then he denied that the limita tion of the suffrage was as incompatible with the right of the people; or that their rights could be affected by the mere question of extent. He did nut think that the Noble Ea: I would deny this doctrine; and therefore be urged that tine people h Id no more right to become 101. voters that every man among them of full age aid sound mind bad to puss: as a vote. The people had a right to good Govern ment ; and if Reform was necessary for the peace, tran quidity, and happiness of the country, it ought to he granted ; but the people had no right to it till it received the sanction of the law. Such was not merely his indi victual opinion, but the opinion of a great and liberal lawyers recently expressed in a most interesting and valu able work. M. Dumont, in course of his residence at Pins, was in the convention with Mirabeau, and was pre sent VI lien the " Declaration of the Rights of Man" was made. He saw the absurdity of all that galimatius, and he said, " I felt, in short, the falsehood and the folly of the whole affair—it was at best a puerile fiction. A Declaration of Rights, I said to myself, ought to be fol lowed, not preceded the final settlement of the new Con stitution for rights have no exietence except as the result of laws.''—(hear, hear.) That observation, in his opinion applied to this Bill ; the people had not any right to the specific measures. If they entered into the Committee with the desire of making the measure as good as they could, with reference to the circumstances of the country, they would receive from the country a tribute of gratitude such as no House of Peers had ever before received. He haul stated the grounds on which, with much reluctance, he should give his vote on this question ; and, in doing :et he thought he gave an answer to the Noble Baron who objected to it going into the Committee, and that be was justified in saying, that in the existing state of this country, when no man could deny that some reform was necessary, this was not the time for them to refuse to read the Bid a second time.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of WICKLOW was opposed to the Bill. He voted against the measure of tine last session because he abhorred its principle.—(Hear ) He should vote against the present, because he abhorred its principle;—(Hear, hear,) and he would add, that he so far agreed with time Noble Earl behind him, that if he were obliged to choose between them, lie should choose the Bill of the last session in preference to this. Had they heard a single thing to show that its working was likely to be beneficial to the country, or that such a change in any country would be productive of the well-being of the country ? There had been no arguments to show that this measure would be good, but that evil would result from the rejections of it, and they had been threatened with civil war, confusion, Intl loss of property. If such threats were at all well founded, he thought it more became their duty to adhere strictly to what their consciences approved. They were told that the people would have this measure and no other; at least so the Ministers told them, and so the Minister" were told by their masters--the Press; but if such was the statement, who hell command over the Government they affected to support, it was more than ever time duty of that House to stem the torrent that was bearing them away. If there was one objection to the Bill stronger than another, it was the effect it would wemk in Ireland. He had not spoken to any individual who looked at the mea sure in that point of view, without a strong apprehension. He called on their Lordships to take a retiospective glance ,t time history of that country. In the civil wars, in the time of Charles 1., the Protestant patty in Ireland felt the utmost alarm, and applied to England fur assistance. Kind words and promises of support were given them; but the au thorities here were too much engaged in carrying forward their own schemes to be able to attend to that country, and the consequence was, the peace o f th at country was shaken toits formations, and was not restored but by the blood stained sword of Cromweli and the resettlement of the kingdom. The second period of danger occurred in the reign of Charles H., and peace was then only recovered v the reconquest and resettlement of the kingdom by I,ilitatn 111. At the time of time Union, the Protestant interests were told that the only means of maintaining them was by supporting that Union, and that the two Churches should be incorporated. The Union was passed; his measure would go tar towards dissolving it. The Raman Catholic was in the abstract as good a subject as 'he Protestant; but his religion was a symbol of party lAA-epee, and the feelings of that difference were flow as 'unmated as in any part of their history. The Catholic, xould acquire by this measure a preponderance and f rev that the Protestants could not counteract, and the harrmehs which were now represented by Protestants would in fu_ lure be thrown open to the Catholic intetest end to popol re demagogues, who would acquire such force, that it would he impossible for any Government to k•-ep the two coun tries together. Did those in that House w o weir in fa vour of Reform feel willing to purchase it at the price oi . the repeal of the Union ? If such Noble Lords theie ivere, lie recommeneed them to study that part of the Irish h•story when, in tt:e year 1782, a weak Govern ment broke the chains which had hitherto tiounit the Ca• tholics to the State, by declaring the hish Parliament a tree body. The words that on that ()evasion were used in another pl ice he should now quote. and they were not the less true for the tinsel garb of oratory in which they were ut iered Infituated men, look bemre you leap —you are rushing blindfold upon a gulf —you are arraying a nation against you—a general election will take place in Novem ber—Reform will throw your close boroughs over—you put the poison- d chalice to your dips---it is your turn t .is Session, it will be ours next " There was no Go vernment better acquainted with the feelings and disposi tion of his party than he who uttered these words. if this Bill shou'd pass, it required no prople tic spirit to foretel that the fall of this country in the scale of nations must be the consequence. And in that spirit he was de termined to vote again•t this Bill, as he had done against that other measure which led to it.—(Cheers.) Lord GkGE said, that in October their Lordships might have rejected the Bill, but that they could not safely da so at present; and, had they the temerity to do so, the (oily result would be, the loss of those amendments which they might now hope to introduce in the Committee. re maintained that such a course wouk b! ridiculous. It it were a question of mere violence to themselves, they would despise it as they had done before. But to rush into the midst of an exasperated people, would be something bor dering on insanity. While posts yet ex steel, he would have said, " defend them to the last ;" but to resist when there was no linger means of defence, was to court one's own destruction. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY next spctice, but was not for some time distinctly audible in the ga!lery, This Bill was founded upon the same vieieus princiitAe with the former. On the preceding cceasion, the Noble Premier had declared that he would stand or fail by the great principle of the Ell ; these he untierstood to b e three—enfranchising, disfranchising, and qualification. Was it not then absurd, after that declaration trenching these principles, to suppose that any good could be effected in Committee? Nothing could be snore flimsy than titer arguments advanced to induce Noble Lords to agree to the second reading, with the hope of being able to amend it in Committee. The Noble Earl (of Haddington we believe) had stated that he came forward e.ost reluctantly upon this occasion to act in opposition to the opinions he had previously expressed. The Noble Earl, t. o, denied that there had been any re-action in public opinien ; he would furnish him with a criterion whereby the truth of that re-action might be ascertained. There had been se veral elections lately—at Cambridgeshire, Dorsetsbire, Forlarshire, Dublin, Leominster, Carmartbenshire, and other places, and only three Reformers had been returned in conjunction with ten Anti-Reformers. He regretted exceedingly that, with these facts before them, any Noble Lords should be led to desert their former opinions. He could not bring his mind to think how the Noble Earl could get rid of the declarations which be had formerly made. [Here the Noble Marquess read a great number of extracts from the speech made by a Noble Earl in the course of the debate upon the second reading of the for mer Reform Bill. We are inclined to believe the speech alluded to was that of Lord Harrowby.l He continued to say : What were the results of the introduction of this Bill? Ireland was in a state bordering on open rebellion—Jamaica was in actual rebellion—and all our foreign relations were in a state of positive distraction. Ali these evils he hesitated not to d tclare had resulted from the conduct of the Noble Ear'. He would now beg to trouble their Lordships with an o tract from the speech of Charles James Fox, which he was delighted to discover, and felt happy in bringing for ward in support of opinions which be had himself always upheld. Mr. Fox said—" Sir—it will possibly appear strange that a representative of the people should not deem it more meritorious to comply with the wishes of his con stituents, than to counteract them ; and it may possibly he urged, that it is his duty, upon all oec tsion-, to act in conformity to those wishes, however repugnant they may be to the sense of his own conviction. Sir, I will not differ with the Honourable Gentleman shout the idea he annexes to his term of c the people; ' I will, for argument s ake, allow that nine-tenths of the people are at this mo ment in opposition to Government. But I shall at the seine time insist that we have higher obligations to justice than to our constituents ; we are chosen the delegates of the British electors for salutary, not for pernicious pur poses ; to guard, not to invade the Constitution ; to keep the privileges of the very freemen we represent as much within their proper limits as to control any unwarrantable exertion of the Royal authority. We are bound to pro mote their true interests in preference to the dearest de sires of their hearts, and the Constitution makes us the stile arbiters of those interests, notwitteatandug the imaginary infallibility of the people. To show, Sir, the propriety of this reasoning, let us suppose that the people, instead of this mixed monarchy, which we celebrate as equally the pride and envy of the universe, should instruct us, their representatives, to introduce a dernoet aticel corm of Government ; should we act as good subjects to our King, or as faithful guardians to our couutry, if we complied with so dangerous an advice? We have sworn to main tain this Constitution in its present :orin—to maintain the privileges of Parliament as a necessary part of that Con stitution, and neither to encroach uprn the legit , jurisdic tion of the Peers, nor the just prerogatives of the Sove reign. Shall we, then, do what. we are sensible is wrong, itecause the people desire it? Shall we sacrifice our t ea sen, our honour, and our conscience, for fear of incurring the popular resentment, and whit • we are appointed to watch time Ilespertan fruit of liberty wirti a dragon's eye, tre ourselves the only slaves of the iv:Pile community ? Perhaps the Hon. Gentleman wid 'ell me, that nothing tut the soul of absurdity' could suspect the people of a design against their own hap r iness. Sir, I do not soap, ct the people of any such design, hut I suspect their opacity to judge of their true happiness. I know ey are generally credulous, and eenerel y unto formed ; captivated by appearances, while they neglect time most important essentials, and always ridicu tously ready to believe that those men who have the greatest reason, from their ext. naive property, to be anxious for the public safety, are always cell caving mea•urea fur the oppression of their t,wn pos terity. Sir, if I misrepeesent the people, whence spring those eternal terrors of being ruined, in the tuidst of the most unbounded prosperity ? Have nut we tottered, if popular clamour must be cr diced, upon the verge of ruin, since time first moment of our existence as a nation ? Indeed, at the Revolution, patriotism itself ecknowledees we were saved ; ye' from that period let us only read the works of our greatest politicians, anti we shall Sod ourselves utterly undone. Even our glorious Deliverer was scarcely seated upon the Throne, when the grateful people, whose liberties he had testored, began to consider him as an enemy to the Constitution. In every succeeding reign we were destroyed, an at this moment, while exulting in all the pride of a felicity never known to our ancestors, we are planted in the deepest abyss of de- struction." Lord HOLLAND—In 71 ? The Marquess of LONDONDERRY replied—Yes, in 71. He then proceeded to remark that the Noble Baron (Wharncliffe) had stated that the day on which he had nioved the rejection of the Reform Bill was the proudest day of his life; he hoped and trusted thet he could not now depart from his consis'ency. It had been said abroad that Noble Lords were induced to support the se cond reading of the Bill in consequence of their knowing that the Noble Earl at the head of the Government was intrusted with authority to take measures to secure the carrying of the Bill through their Lordships' House. No thing could be more unconstitutional, even at this time, than the assertion on the part of the Noble Earl that he nod the authority in his hands to carry the measure. Tire reasons advanced for going into Committee on this Bill were ridiculously flimsy. They were not the true reasons. There ':vas something lurking behind. Their Lordships Ind a right to know what they were; if, in their conferences with the Noble Earl, the Noble Lords had heard good ;rounds stated in private to induce them to depart from their former views, their Lordships ought to know them. He was not to he deterred from openly declaring this— every Peer had a right to speak out. They were now, then, struggling for God and their country—stiuggdng about a matter of no less consequence than a change in the Constitution. When the thing was so openly stated a broad, re felt himself justified in stating it as openly there. If the Noble Earl had used this influence in his private con fei ences with Noble Lords, it ought to produce his im peach irn:nt. They might talk of using the King's name at rlections—that was bad enough—but when ti:e Prime Minister used the paramount influence of the Roy al name in his Cabinet, be was deeply responsible and deeply guilt). —(Cheers.) These were his sentiments, and he would . ; ive his most decided and uncompromisiog dissent from drat unfortunate tneasure.—(Cheer s.) A NOBLE LORD from the cross-benches moved, " That the Debate be Adjourned to to •morrow." Ttir tuution Irt,te agreed to, cud their Lordship, )urnod at a Quarter-past Twelve,