The Sun. — London, England, 1832-05-08 00:00:00

derc-d necessary to disfranchise a number of other places. On that point he would give no opinion. But he confi dently maintained that the enf ranc hi sement must b e t h e measure of disfranchisement. The particular cases of disfranchisement must be decided on their merits, and after inquiry ; but with reference to the general question, the question of disfranchisement must depend on the necessity created by enfranchisement. They must know the extent of the enfranchisement before they could proceed with propriety to consider the extent of the disfranchisement. The amendment, therefore, which the Noble Earl had signified his intention of moving in the first clause, although a very important amend ment, did not meet the object which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had in view. The amendment was to leave out the words " fifty-six." thereby substituting sim ply the boroughs specified in the schedule. But that was to' disfranchise before they enfranchised. (Earl Grey said something across the table, which was not audible below the Bar.) If the Noble Earl did not mean to propose the immediate adoption of the clause, he (Lord Ly n dh urst ) would not 'mess his proposition. If the Noble Earl, after the omission of the words " fifty-six" in the clause, did not mean to move that the clause be embodied in the Bill, he (Lord Lyndhurst) would not persevere in his proposi tion. But as that did not appear to be the Noble Earl's intention; he (Lord Lyndhurst) must proceed. The course which he recommended was far more gracious than the course recommended by the Noble Earl. The course which he recommended was to begin by enfranchising, to begin by conferring rights and privileges, to begin by granting boons and favours; whereas the course reco,m mended by the Noble Earl was to begin by disfranchising to begin by depriving a portion of the community of the rights and privileges which they at present enjoyed.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The power of returning Membe rs to the Commons House of Parliament was admitted in the preamble of the Bill to be a right and a privilege. But it was not in the preamble of the Bill alone that it was described. One of the most eminent lawyers that had ever lived—a Whig too in politica--he meant Lord Chief Justice Holt, had termed the power of returning Members to the Commons House of Parliament " a tran scendent privilege ;" and all the other eminent men who had adorned that and the other House of Parliament down to the present time, had been of the same opinion. There was another consideration which pressed upon his mind, and which he begged leave to state to their Lordships. If the/ adopted the course which he recommended, they would disfranchise as a matter of necessity. If they adopted the course recommended by the Noble Lords op posite; they would disfranchise certain boroughs because they were spore in the Constitution—they would abate them as nuisances.—(Loud cries of Hear.) Now would any Noble Lard having the character of a Statesman say that the course which be (Lord Lyndhurst) recom mended was not the more conciliatory and healing? His Lordship proceeded to observe, in allusion to the lan guage held out of doors, that it was said, by what obli gation are we bound to pay that debt which has accu mulated by the corruption of the House of Com mons? He was not dealing in that which was visionary. He would take, as an example, the language of the person who moved the first resolution at the meeting from which the petition presented to-night came. The language of that person was as follows :—" Let us get our Reformed Parliament, our House of Delegates— I thank the Noble Duke for teaching me that word— and we_shall soon manage our delegation as we think proper. As to the puny affair, speaking of the eight hundred millions of pounds of debt, it must be blotted out. Further be says, Who borrowed the money, and for what ? Why, to put down Reform at home, and support tyranny abroad. He was not for ruining the fundholders, but, in his opinion, a composition of that debt would be irresistible in a Reformed Parliament." He (Lord Lyndhurst) stated this as an example, and by no mens an exaggerated one, but one that might now be seen in every Paper that issued from the press. The plan that he recommended to their Lordships was, that enfranchisement should go first, and let the disfranchisement follow. He would take upon himself to say, that without a sin gle exception, - in the plans of Reform proposed by all Re formers, from the time of Chatham down to the present, disfranchisement formed no part. The first who pro posed n plan of Reform was Lord Chatham, full seventy years since ; he proposed a plan of Reform, but disfranchisement formed no part of it. In his plan he proposed to add 100 Members to the Commons; disfranchisement formed no part of that plan. The next in order was the measure proposed by Pitt in 1783. Pursuing the plan followed by his father, he also proposed to add 160 Members to the Commons. There was to be no disfranchisement, except that if it was proved that any borough' by corruption should be declared by the Com mons no longer worthy to keep its franchise, the repre sentation of such franchise should be thrown_ into the adjoining hundred.—(Hear.) Then folioseid his plan of 1785. He then proposed to add '72 Members to the House of Commons; enfranchisement was still the basis of the measure ; disfranchisement was to follow, but it was to be from time to time, and was secondary to the other lam ' sure, not, as in this Bill, coming first, but to follow enfran chisement. The next in order was the plan proposed by Mr. Flood; he, also following the footsteps of his pre decessors, proposed to add one hundred members to the Commons, but on a different qualification. The n followed the plan of 1797, the plan proposed hy.the Noble Earl himself. That measure proposed to increase the county Members by 100 ; the remain ing Members to be chosen by districts. This brought gran to -the plan proposed by the Noble Lord who conducted this Bill in the other House of Parliament. That Noble Lord proposed his plan in four resolutions, the second of which was as to the expediency of giving representatives to large towns. And the third was for a Committee to inquire whether the proposed increase would be found inconvenient; but here there was no disfranchisement. That Noble Lord, of whom respect, he spoke w i t h the greatest had not early abandoned tho se op i n i ons, for little less than two years ago be had a ga i n proposed the same plan. Hemerely spt is of this to make out a case to show that the most eminent Reformers had all thought that if there should be disfranchisement at all, it was to follow, and be dep endent upon enfranchiseme n t. B ut h e had yet another autho rity to bear him out in his proposition, and he appealed to the Noble Lord on the woolsack, whether in any plan which he had entertained from time to time, disfran chisement formed a part. During the discussions that had taken place on this Bill, it bad been put forth, that the Crown bad both the power of enfranchising and disfranchising. But he would contend that the Crown never had the power or right of disfranchisement. It might have the power to enfranchise, but it was a settled maxim of the Constitution that it had no power to disfranchise. It, therefore, appeared to him that they now should follow the spirit of the old Constitution, and disfranchise only when necessity was apparent. In the reign of Elward VI. Government withheld the writs from four boroughs, who complained to the Commons that their writs had been refused to them. —(Hear.) Their petitions were referred 'to a Committee of the House, of which it was only necessary for him to • say that- Selden and Sir Edward Coke were Members. That - Committee reported that the boroughs had a right to writs, and that the Crown could not withhold them. The question was referred to the Chief-Justice, and the Attorney-General was directed to oppose it. There the question was decided as by the, Committee, and it was ultimately sustained by the House. His proposition, then, was, to postpone this clause till they had agreed upon the amount of enfrachisement. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the Noble Baron opposite had heard distinctly what had fallen from his Noble Friend, he would not have the slightest doubt that it was his Noble Friend's intention, after omitting that part of the clause by which they would pledge them selves to the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs, to add some words, which would call upon them to consider, one after the other, 'the various boroughs of which schedule A was to be composed. He might well state that he bad not beard his Noble Friend ; for if he had done so, be must have heard him give most explicit notice that his view was, at the end of that clause, to move the addition of every one of the 56 boroughs which then composed schedule A. That proposition was only submitted to their Lordships as a convenience in point of form, and not with the.slightest intention of deviating from the principles of that clause, or drawing back from it either in form, time, or substance.— (Cheers.) That the proposition of his Noble Friend Would be convenient, must be evident to every Noble Lord, because it would enable them, without committing • . _ themselves t o th a t or any part i cular number, to exercise their judgment after due discretion on every one of the boroughs in schedule A, as they should successively be brought under their notice. But that the alteration pro posed by Lis Noble Friend, in leaving out the words "that 'would be f o ll owe d by anot h er alteration to effect, was most distinctly and explicitly stated. His Noble and Learned Friend opposite had disclaimed all party spirit and factious opposition , and had . declared his intenti on of viewingthe details of the fill in accordance with its principles. Now he was quite r ea dy to give his Noble and Learned Friend credit for all the impartia ality,id cla candour, and abs ence o f party feeling, which he had laim te ;"though, if he judged from the c on duct of those with whom h e h ad acted during the whole of the present session as a proof of a total absence of all Party or factious feeling, he (the Lord Chancellor) should not be disposed to give him that implicit credit which h claimed. Tie would not dilate on these discussions carrie.i on with so much spirit at the latter part of the session. those unfactious, those most candid debates which touls place on the measure introduced by his Majesty's Govern ment, for establishing an effective system of national edu cation in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Nor would he dilate upon the various castes and shades of political opinion, professed by those who, though never united before, united for the purpose of showing their good will towards bis Majesty's Government.—(Loud cheers.) He would not dwell upon these instances of their candour and im partiality, nor would he make the conduct of those Noble Lords at the close of the session the measure of their can dour and impartiality on the present occasion. He would not treat the proposition of his Noble and Learned Friend as a mere question of order, or consider any vote which might be come to upon it otherwise than as an expression of the feeling of the House on that most important part of the Bill—the principle of disfranchisement itself.—(Cheer.., and cries of " No, no," from the Opposition benches.) If his Noble and Learned Friend, instead of wrapping himself up in generals, had stated that he agreed to a large measure of Reform—had stated that he agreed to schedule A, or something to a similar extent, but that he had ra ther schedules C or D should be first gone into, then in deed he might be disposed to entertain his proposition. But, so far from speaking of disfranchisement in any defi nite terms, so as to enable his Majesty's Government to judge of the extent to which he and those who supported him were ready to go, or the time when they would be prepared to come to a decision upon that point—the object of his Noble and Learned Friend (or, at least, if that were not his object, his proposition had that tendency) was, to keep that main part of the Bill in its present unsettled state, or else to substitute something entirely new, leaving them in the dark as to what was to be done. His Noble and Learned Friend had laid considerable stress on the observation made by certain individuals, under circum stances of particular excitement. He had even conde scended to read to the House a speech made by an indi vidual at the meeting of one of the Northern Political Unions. Now, be did not think it well to dwell on what individuals might say under such circumstances. If they were to ransack up any meeting, on any occasion, they could almost invariably pick out something to which men in the exercise of calm discretion might object. He did not think it fair to apply such a rule to the proceedings of, these meetings. No meeting could claim exemption ; no, not even the highest and most constitutional assembly in the land. He had heard, he would not say in that House, but he had heard in the Commons' House of Parliament, observations just as reprehensible as those to which his Noble and Learned Friend had referred. He had heard observations made, nay resolutions voted, to which, in point of absurdity, not only no resolution passed at that meeting could come up, but even exceeding any thing which bad been said by the wildest speakers. Had not Members of the House of Commons actually proceeded to the extremity of voting, in spite of the evidence of their senses, that a one-pound note and one shilling was equal in value to one guinea in gold, far the express pur pose of making it a misdemeanour to give more than twenty-one shillings for a guinea, at a time when a guinea was worth and invariably sold for twenty-eight shillings?— (Loud cheers.) He mentioned this circumstance only to show how unsafe it was for his Noble and Learned Friend to - come to any conclusion upon such grounds. The objects of the various motions made at different times by various friends of Parliamentary Reform had been brought under their Lordships' notice, and in those instances certainly en franchisement was the main object. Yet there was one great measure of Parliamentary Reform which had not been alluded to, and in which the main, the sole principle, was disfranchisement, and not enfranchisement. He re ferred to the union with Ireland, in which out of three hundred Members, two hundred were disfranchised. Still he would admit, generally speaking, that those measures began with enfranchisement. His own authority had been quoted; but, he would ask, did two-and-twenty years make no difference ? Did two-and-twenty years produce no important changes in the circumstances of the nation, and in the character and condition of the people ? He had known the lapse of two-and-twenty weeks effect a most important change in the opinions, not of a few, but of a majority of the Members of that House, on a question of constitutional policy of the most vital character. The circumstances which had occurred in the course of two-and-twenty weeks were of such a nature as to withdraw from the ranks of the opponents of that measure a large proportion of those who formerly voted against it, and to enrol them under the banners of its friends and supporters.—(Hear, hear.) Did be men tion this in desparagement of those individuals, his Noble and Learned Friend among the rest? On the . contrary, he invoked their high authority—as his Noble and Learned Friend opposite had said of himself—to prove that states men ought to act according to the circumstances of the times in which they were placed.--(Cheers.) The principle of this Bill was, in the first Instance, the ex• pediency of taking away the power of voting for the repre sentation in Parliament from inconsiderable places. This was the foundation and basis of the Bill—then the grant of representation to towns which had risen to importance —the addition to the knights of the shire—and the dimi nution of the expence of elections; but a more proud. netet feature was, the taking away those parts of our Parliamentary system, the abuse of which had been found to be intolerable. It had been said by his Noble and Learned Friend, that the House ought to begin at what he considered to be the right end ; and as soon as they had settled how many boroughs they would enfranchise, they could then settle how many they would disfranchise, to make up the number. This left them in uncer tainty as to the main and fundamental part of the measure; for which reason he could not agree to it. By whom was this props, ition supported ? Did that indicate that it was a mere question of form? Who would vote with the Noble Baron on his motion ? He did not doubt that all persons who were against the Bill for any reason, that all who had any fundamental ob jection to the measure would vote with his Noble and Learned Friend. It was impossible for any person who did not shut his eyes to what was going on around him, not to see that this motion was—he would not say devised b y his Noble and Learned Friend for the purpose of catch ing the votes of all who were against the Bill, for any essential reason, or whOliad objections to particular parts— but if not devised for that purpose, such at least was its tendency. From whom, too, did this motion come ? From his Noble and Learned Friend, who had avowed his open hostility to the measure —wh o had declared it to be in vio lation of the Constitution—(Cheers from the Opposition)— who had maintained that it would destroy the balance of power between the three e s tates—(renetted cheers from the Opposition Benches)—and who had opposed its se cond reading. When he found that this proposition caine from him—if they were to admit of the postponement of the question of disfranchisement to that of enfranchisement, he must confess that his hopes of carrying schedule A would be but very feeble. If those who oppose schedule A alto gether succeeded in postponin g it till another of those schedules had been discussed, he well knew how it would fare with schedule A. If his Noble Friend intended to raise no objection either to the principle of schedule A or to its amount, but only to some of its details, why should he seek to postpone the clause, if it were ultimately to be carried substantially ?—(Cheers.) His Noble and Learned Friend was not entitled to draw any argument from the various motions on the subject of Parliamentary Reform to which be had referred. On those occasions the pro position had been made for the first time; on the present occasion this measure had :undergone full discussion for three several sessions. His Noble and Learned Friend and his supporters were bound to show why this alteration should be made ; he had heard no such reason to satisfy his mind, and he should therefore give it his strongest and most decided opposition.—(Loud cheers. ) Lord HARROWBY did not think it would be at all difficult to answer the no doubt very able speech which their Lordships had just bend from the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, because he had not stated any argument against the proposition which had been made by the Noble and Learned Lord near him (Lord Lyndhurst). The principal reason of his rising then to address the House was, to state that those who would now postpone this clause, did not object is the slightest degree, either to the object of the clause itself, or even to the extent to which it went, if after full consideration the House should agree to it. He would not now detain their Lordships by explaining his sentiments upon this subject. He had ex pressly stated, on the very first occasion, when it had come before their Lordships, and he had repeated it almost ad nauseam, that he for one was not abandoning the opinion that the decried boroughs bad been and might be of great advantage; but yet, under present circumstances, it had become expedient, for the purpose of se curing that satisfaction in the Government of the country, without which it was impossible to exercise its functions for the benefit of the people, that these o,lso roughs to a certain extent should be disfran chised.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He was prepared, too, to follow the principle of enfranchisement to a liberal extent. He was happy that the Noble Earl had agreed to postpone the consideration of the number 56; but he would ask where the difference was between voting 56 at once, and 56 one by one? If they were to go on one by one, where were they to stop ? How did they know what the num ber was, which, on a consideration of the whole measure, it might be desirable, expedient, or necessary to disfran chise? lie was perfectly ready to go to say coneiderable tent of disfranchisement, provided a Viettll of the re uhainder of the Bill showed it to be necessary. Then even an addition to the number of 56 would not, if it was sanctioned by the consideration of the other parts of the Bill, deprive the clause of his support. The Noble and Learned Lord seemed to consider that there was a great objection attached to this proposition arising from the quarter in which it had originated. w unswayed He trust e d th a t th e d e b ates on t hi s i m p or t ant question Would b e free from all party feeling whatsoever, an d that th e cons id erat i on o f t h e i r Lordships, ou by any party bi as , wou ld b e di recte d t o th e adjustment of this question, whi c h, till it was se ttl e d, would continue to paralyse in all departments every effort of the country. Lord BEXLEY supported the amendment, because it might be a question hereafter whether any positive dis franchisement would be at all necessary, and whether, by an adjustment and blending of boroughs, they might not be able sufficiently to retrench the Members of the House of Commons to make room for the Member. they might think it necessary to give to new Boroughs. The Earl of RADNOR said, that one suspicious cir cumstance about this amendment was, that it was advocated by all those who were the opponents of the Bill altogether. It was the extent of the dis franchisement of nomination boroughs, which had at once obtained the approbation of the people in favolir of the Bill, and he should be loath to postpone proceeding at once to cut off those boroughs. The people particu larly of some of our large towns had become more in favour of the disfranchising clause than even those of Manchester had become, particularly so since the establishment of the rail-road there had made them better acquainted with the borough of Newton, which lay in the line of that road. When they saw so poor a place returning two Members to Parliament, whilst their own opulent and populous towns returned none, was it not natural that they should desire its dis franchisement ? The Duke of WELLINGTON—NobIe Lords opposite proceeded upon the notion that this amendment was advo cated by Noble Lords on his side of the House solely be cause they were enemies of the Bill, and the Noble and Learned Lord opposite seemed to say that they acted also from party motives.—( Hear.) He must say, that if ever any set of men acted against the Government without party motives, it was himself and the Noble Lords with whom he had had the honour of acting, and this had been so far acknowledged, that' he bad himself received credit for supporting the Government. -He was an enemy of the Bill, and his opinion was, that, do what they might with it, it would never be anything but an evil to the country. After they had amended it as far as they could hope to amend it, it would still hang a threatening danger over the country without conferring upon the Go vernment any means of averting it.—(Hear, hear.) But when once the Bill had been read a second time, when once the majority of the House had agreed to its principle, he considered it his duty as an honest Member of Parliament, to do Lis best to consider its details, and make it such a measure as it would be fit for the House to.pass and the Government to agree to. Neither the Noble and Learned Lord opposite, nor the Noble Earl at the head of the Government, had said one word in answer to the arguments of his Noble and Learned Friend, who showed that according to precedent, according to analogy of law, and according to all the principles of the Constitution, the first point be considered in the Bill was en franchisement, and that after that they would consider whether disfranchisement was or was not to follow.— (Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord, great lawyer as be was, and able as he was to give an answer when he had ground to stand upon, had not been able to answer this argument, because it was unanswerable. That was the ground upon which he and others concurred in this proposal, and not with any dirty view, for so he must call it, to destroy the Bill by a side-wind. Would they disfranchise first fifty-six, and then thirty boroughs, without knowing what was to be the extent of enfranchisement, or any of tl.e details of the Bill ? And why were they to do so ? Because certain persons in this country chose to call them rotten and nomination boroughs. But when they talked of rotten and nomination boroughs, be begged to ask whe ther none would remain after passing this Bill ? No doubt there would—nay, more, a nomination borough would ac tually be create.] by the Bill. Lord HOLLAND said that he was anxious to assign a few of the many reasons which induced him to give his vote against the measure of the Noble and Learned Lord opposite. If the motion were unfortu nately adopted, it would entirely and completely do away with that great good which they hod lately effected by passing the second reading of the Bill. This motion, too, was utterly inconsi , tent with the decisions to which they had already come. He considered it irreconcilable with all reasonable and constitutional principle, and fraught with the greatest evils, in disap pointing the expectation of the Commons of this country— of the people of this country. He imputed no motives to any man, nor did he mean to say that it was the intention of the Noble and Learned Lord who made the motion, or of the Noble Duke who supported it, to act contrary to the principle of the Bill ; but he would say that the postponement of the disfranchising clause was tantamount to voting against the principle of the Bill. setting aside all prudential motives, he would ask their Lordships to look at what the framers of the Bill con sidered to he its principle. The Noble and Learned Lord had asserted that his motion was in concurrence with the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was, how ever, that against which the Learned Lord had directed the whole of his argument. Let disfranchisement (said the Noble and Learned Lord) be the consequence of enfran chisement, and then you will be acting purely according to analogy and precedent. What precedents ? Why, the precedents which the Noble and Learned Lord and his party rejected.—(Cheers.) He (Lord Holland) coa -1 tended, however, that the postponement of the disfran -chisement was contrary to principle, anti at the same time calculated to defeat altogether the just expectations of the people, to destroy twat which rendered it palatable, and which so completely answered one of the two magnificent objects effected by the introduction of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) One of these magnificent objects—for so he would call them—was to reconcile the people to their ancient and truly noble Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) The other object was, to improve and revive the ancient principle and practices of that Constitution—(Hear, bear)—to place it in that situation which had been considered the true conservative by men as wise (and he did not mean to deny the wisdom or the ability of the Noble Lords opposite), but by men as able, and as wise, and as patriotic, as any of those who professed themselves anxious to preserve its purity.—(Hear hear.) He was not to look at the mo tion, but at the effect of the motion ; and although the Noble Lord denied that he intended to defeat the principle of the Bill—and he admitted that the Noble Lord was in capable of asserting that which he did not believe—still the Noble and Learned Lord had his prtjudices, and the Noble and Learned Lord must know how difficult it was to over come them, and how differently he might, under these pre judices, look at his words and actions compared with those opposed to him. The Noble and Learned Lord said that his object was to give effect to the principles of the Bill ; but then the Noble and Learned Lord detested the Bill. Now, he would ask the Noble Lord whether, when he wished to carry any object, he would consult a person who detested that object, and ask him what was to be done ? The principles of the Bill were three, enfranchisement, disfranchisement, and extension of the elective suffrage. He believed the first to be, the disfranchisement, the most important of the three. He be lieved it the most important of all. He did not mean to disparage the importance of the others, and Noble Lords would find by his vote, and the humble assistance he could give to the Bill, that he was as stanch a friend to it as any man in the country; but if the disfranchising clause was taken away, their Lordships would embitter the boon given to the country—(Hear, hear, hear)—and do vast injury to the Bill. What he had heard to night had produced the greatest surprise in his mind. Two points had been urged as of great importance; that of disfranchising being calculated to produce dreadful evil, and next that certain nomination boroughs were calcu lated to afford great advantage. Then there bad been an ingenious argument to prove how they operated, all founded on the most visionary theory and speculation, that ever entered into men's minds, and directly contrary to fact and the judgment of every great man who had considered the subject. With respect to the alleged evil which was to be apprehended from the dis franchising clause, the Noble and Learned Lord opposite ought to recollect that he himself bad assisted in bringing forward a measure disfranchising many thousands more than this Bill would disfranchise, and without giving ene franchisment at all—he meant as regarded the forty shilling freeholders of Ireland. The Noble Duke hi mse lf on that occasion had said—After all, you may speak of those persons, or the right of taking away their franchises ; but they are so situated, from the lowness of their circumstances, that they cannot exercise that function, but in dependence on others, which is not consistent with the Constitution. Noble Lords ought to apply that maxim to certain rotten boroughs, and then' they might ask, were the forty-shilling freeholders to be deprived of the right of voting, because of their dependence on certain landlords ? And the fran chise of the inhabitants of St. Mawes was not to be re moved, because, forsooth, the borough belonged to some great Lord ! While on this part of the subject, he mud say, that he thought the House of Peers had, in the course of their discussions, been very hardly treated, both by the friends and the opponents of the Bill, when they alluded to the effect which the Bill was likely to have on the influ ence of the Peerage. How ?he would ask. In private lie sometimes heard an answer to that question ; in public, never; and of this he was quite certain, that if on any former occasion the language he heard lately had been used in that House, those who uttered it would have been called to order, or run a good chance of being sent to the Tower. He knew of no connexion between the House of Lords and the representation of the House of Commons. He acknowledged none. The possession of borough influ ence might undoubtedly have had its effect on the eleva tions to that House, and it was, perhaps, one of the great est evils of the system, that as his Noble Friend (Earl Grey) had eloquently expressed it, " the corruption of the borough was frequently the generation of the Peer." But did those who talked of the necessity of upholding the House of Peers through its influence in the Commons mean to contend that Aristocracy_ was to be engendered by the dirt and filth of rotten boroughs ? The principles of this Bill were established by the House of Commons, and con sisted of those that he had named; but one of its great principles was, the order in which those principles stood—disfranchisement being the first. Allusion had been made to Mr. Pitt, and those opposed to the Bill had endeavoured to make out that this was a measure opposed to his opinions, although in that they had completely failed. Could their Lordships take on themselves to say, that this was a motion even decorous to the House of Com mons? Their Lordships ought to recollect that this parti cular part of the Bill went to purify the representation of the people—to get rid of the filth and odour under which they had suffered a very considerable time.— (Hear, hear.) This was language that had been used on former occasions. And yet was it to be said this measure was now to be thrown out—a measure which bad twice passed the House of Commons, and the principle of which bad once received their Lordships' sanction ?--a measure necessary to be carried in a Paliamentary way—a pretty strong proof against the statement of a Noble Lord who bad called this a revo lutionary Ball. A Revolutionary Bill ! Did their Lord ships ever hear of a revolution after two years' considera tion ?—(Hear, bear.) A Revolutionary Bill, under con. sideration in a Committee !—(Hear.) Why, when he heard such language as this, he thought he had been transported to Mr. Irving's, and was bearing some incoherent harangue there.—(Loud Laughing.) This Bill, as he had stated, had been brought up after the deliberate consideration of two Parliaments—two Houses of Commons, and affected their own privileges, their own existence, their own purity. And, surely, it could not even be seemly to the Commons to break in on such a measure i❑ this way by attacking in Com mittee its first and one of its main principles.--(Hear.) He could easily conceive men of high honour declaring that they would not do that which they thought essen tially wrong, even although it might be coincided in by the House of Commons. That might be a reason for their voting against the principle of the second reading ; but after they had sanctioned the principle— after they had sanctioned the view taken of it by the House of Commons, he asked whether they would re fuse to give it that due consideration in Committee which the people and the House of Commons expected? The whole argument of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) was against the principle of disfranchisement. Would they think that the postponement of the clause, and taking disfranchisement after enfranchisement would satisfy the people ? He thought it would have a contrary effect. The effect of the Noble Lord's argument was to prevent any disfranchisement, and he had no doubt that the greater number of those who were for: , postponing the clause, did so because they either thought they would thereby get rid of disfranchisement, or they would maim and mutilate the Bill. They had not certainly avowed that to be their intention, but that such was tile secret of their heart, and that they were going a right way about it, there could be no doubt.—(Hear, hear, hear.) That was clearly the effect and tendency of the present motion, and although he would acquit Noble Lords of endeavouring to defeat the Bill by any under-handed or dirty way, still he declared that, dirty or clean, that was the effect of the motion, and therefore he would give it his most decided opposition.—(Hear, hear.) The Duke of NEWCASTLE rose, but from the low tone in which he spoke we could only catch a few sen tences of his speech. We understood him to say that he had voted against the Bill, and would still continue to vote against it, because he believed it to be a revolutionary measure. In no part of it 'Jo* lie endeavour to effect any alteration whatever ; on the contrary, he would endeavour to crush every clause of it. He was of opinion from the first that the Bill would not only be defeated, but that his Majesty's Ministers would considerit useless again to press it. He was aware what would be said of him, in thus declaring his opinions, but he could not help it, for he, gave his vote honestly and consistently.—(Hear.) He would have no objection to extending the right of representation to large and popu lous towns; but it was to the extensive disfranchisement that he most strongly objected Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that whatever feel ing there, might be in that House respecting the cor rectness of the opinion of the Noble Duke who bad just sat down, he was sure there was no Member of the House who would not do full justice to the candour, spirit and manliness in which he came forward on all occasions. —(Loud cheering.) In regard to the opinion, which he (Lord F.llenborough) entertained in respect to this measure, however it might be altered, consistently with its principles, he felt as much apprehension as the Noble Duke himself felt. Nothing that he had heard or recd had produced any change in his opinion in respect of the danger that would arise on passing the Bill.—(Hear, bear.) But it was impossible for him not to see that the position in which the question now stood was materially altered since the last Parliament, and be stated, upon the question of the second reading, that their Lordships would be perfectly justified in allow ing the Bill to go into Committee.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The House was now placed in circumstances such as never before had occurred. In the exercise of its independence, and without having added to it a num ber of persons for the sole purpose of passing this particular measure---(Hear, hear)—but by th e inde pendent suffrage of their Lordships, they had allow e d the Bill to be read a second time. He, therefore, felt that he was now controlled by that vote of the House. He had resisted to the last, but he now thought himself, by that vote, bound to consider the Bill in Committee, and,in accordance with the three great prin ciples of the Bill, namely enfranchisement, disfranchisement, and an extension of the suffrage,to make such a Bill in the Committee as they should be justified in passing, and as it would be safe to give to the country. Upon the bringing up of the report, it would then be a matter of consideration, whether the alterations made in the Com mittee would make the Bill such as he had described. He, for one, feeling himself bound to consider the principles of the Bill, would not support any thing that might be in consistent with those principles, and would consider the best plan of extending them, reserving to himself, upon the s port, to consider if it was safe to pass the Bill or not. The question under their consideration was most important as it regarded the past and the future; as it regarded the past because his Majesty's Govern ment had cast a slur upon the Constitution, in accordance with which all the laws for the security of pro perty bad been passed. He regretted that he felt that it was not his duty to indulge the people in what he was of opinion was unreasonable and in jurious to their welfare. There was no man more desirous than he was to see re-established that good humour and good feeling in the country which the measures of his Majesty's Government had for a time de stroyed.—(Hear.) He therefore agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend t h at i t was right, and in accordance with principle, that they should not disfranchise till they had most abundant reasons shown them for so doing. He there fore gave notice that immediately on the carrying of his Learned Friend's motion, he would move as an amendment to the next clause, the names of those large towns, which, in his opinion, ought to be enfranchised. There was nothing insidious in his Noble and Learned Friend's amendment, for it would protect what we now had, and what we were still to get. The Earl of WINCHILSEA would give his support to the amendment. He was not aware, when he entered the House, that such an amendment was to be made. He would support it, h owever , b ecause i t was consonant to the views whi c h h e h a d always entertained, and because it was more co nsonant to the principles of the Cons titution, and the prerogatives of the Crown, than the measure of disfranchisement. It was more agreeable also to the ex isting rights of the people, none of whom he would ever disfranchise but from some strong case of necessity. On this ground he had opposed the disfranchisement of the forty-shillin g f reeholders. He wished to say, that in giv ing his support to the amendment, he was not opposed to the Bill ; for, in acknowledging the principle of enfran- , chisement, as be would never consent to augment the number of the House of Commons, he did, in fact, con sent to the principle of enfranchisement. He was ready to give Members to the great interests which had grown up in our large towns, and lie was ready to take rway the fanciaise to make room for them ; but he never contactor sent to disfranchise any one, except from a clear case necessity; and he could not consent to disfranchise an one borough, until he knew what number he should hi Compelled to disfranchise. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said his Noble Friend and the Noble Earl seemed to think the postponement of the clause equal to the postponement of it to the end of the Bill. But that was not what was intended. He entirely agreed with the Noble Lords on his side of the House that they should not begin the Bill with disfranchisement. —(Hear, hear, hear.) He was prepared to go the whole length of schedule A, but he wished that such a disfranchisement should take place as would consist ently meet with the approbation of his conscience. He would like to know how it was possible to say what number of boroughs ought to be disfranchised. In place of .56 boroughs to be placed in that schedule, he might think there ought to be 70.—(Hear.) There might be some in schedule B which, in his opinion, should he in schedule A.—(Hear, hear.) He thought there were some of the Noble Lords as anxious (now that the Bill had got to this stage) for the disfranchisement part of the Bill, as any of their Lordships opposite. He would say to those Noble Lords that they had it in their power to pass a Bill of Reform which would satisfy the people, and if they allowed themselves to think that the postponement of the clause, only until the third clause was read, was a defeat of the Bill, they would commit a very great and almost irremediable mistake. He certainly thought that if they meant to Reform Parliament on a safe principle, they should begin with enfranchisement. If the question had been whether they would pass all schedule A he would have voted for it, but be thought the postponement of the clause a wise measure. In his opinion, the prin ciple of his Learned Friend's amendment was right, and therefore he would support it. The Earl of HAREWOOD supported the amendment. There was a great deal of acrimony shown on the other side, as if they suspected there was something sinister in the amendment proposed. But he considered it was not so. He regretted that notice of the amendment had not been given, for if the other side had had an opportunity of con- sidering that amendment, he fully believed they would have agreed to it. He, therefore called on the Noble Earl to trust him, that there was nothing sinister in it. Earl GREY ,trusted that his conduct in the whole course of these discussions on this most important measure bad not led any one to believe that he imputed sinister motives or views to the persons who intended to support the present amendment. It had been said, that this amendment was of an innocent nature, but in his opinion, if ever there was an amendment calculated to defeat a measure it was the one now under consi deration. If it was carried, it must be fatal to the whole Bill. He should have been happy to lend himself to any fair proposition, which should have been offered to him in order to insure the character of the Bill in its great leadins principles, but there had been none such offered. He was pledged by his conscientious con viction, no less than by his word in that House, to the principles of the Bill. The principles to which he was pledged were disfranchisement, enfran chisement, and the extension of the qualification. In the two first he might allow alterations, but he could not consent to the diminution of the number of boroughs in the Bill. To the last, on the qua lification clause, he was most deeply pledged, not only by words but in his conscience, and in that he could not allow any alteration whatever. It would be found, by taking the 101. franchise, Government had not taken too low a scale, and if it was raised at all any higher, it would be found that it would disfranchise many of his Majesty's subjects. He thought it due no less to the House than to the country to say so much upon this vital part of the Bill. Again, he repeated that to that clause he was pledged, and could not allow the least alteration to be made in it. He thought the Noble Duke at least would give him credit for not forming any factious opposition to his Government. As to the sneers that had fallen from some Noble Lords opposite, he repelled them. Nor did he believe that any sinister motives actuated the mind of the Noble and Learned Baron who had brought forward the amendment. It was not to be believed that a man in the situation which he held as Judge of the land, would lend himself to any party from party motives. It appeared to him (Earl Grey) that the amendment was of the very first consequence if it did not touch a vital part of the Bill. He was not aware of any cause why enfranchisement should precede the disfranchisement. The Noble Lord, however, had said how was it to be ascertained what was the amount of disfranchisement till we knew what was to be the amount of enfranchisement ; but they might as well ask how they were to know what the • amount of enfranchisement ought to he till they knew how much the disfranchisement was to be. The Noble Duke (Newcastle) who bad stated his intention of opposing the Bill acted openly and fairly. Another Noble Lord had said that he hoped they might get out of their difficulties, and that there was another plan of Reform. That plan admitted that enfranchise ment was necessary ; and the Noble Baron supposed that the enfranchisement would be so great as to make it ne cessary to disfranchise the whole of schedule A, or that he should be prepared to vote for that when he had satis fied himself that it was necessary.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that disfranchisement should go first, and that the Ministers had proceeded on the most natural course. The Noble Lord said, that to begin with disfranchisement jos. tilled the cry which had been got up against nomination boroughs—undoubtedly it did—(Hear, hear)—and upon what other ground could they be disfranchised after the other places should be enfranchised, but on the ground that they were places unfit to return Members to Parlia ment ? Unless they were not held to be so sacred as not to be touched, how were any places to be enfranchised? The nomination boroughs must be disfranchised on the Noble Lord's plan as well as by the Bill. Let their Lord ships not suppose that the slur on these boroughs was now cast for the first time. Had they not heard of these bo roughs for the last century? Had not several great men, who were the steady friends and stanch supporters of the Crown—he would not say the Monarchy—(A laugh) —and the Constitution—but had not men who were stanch supporters of the Crown stigmatized these rotten boroughs, and described them as sores and ulcers which must be extirpated, before the Con stitution could be restored to health and vigour. It was childish to say otherwise, and he could never ad mit that the Bill was the first occasion for casting im putations on these rotten boroughs. In his opinion these boroughs ought not to have representatives in Parliament, and they ought to be taken away to make room for large and important towns. On that principle it was right to begin with them. Looking to notorious facts, and find ing it was impossible to give these boroughs such consti tuencies as would entitle them to a share in the representa tion, he must say that it was wise to disfranchise them. He had proposed to omit the words " fifty-six," that they might not be tied down to that number • and to con sider all the b or o ug h s ser i a ti m , an d d ec id e on difran chising them according to their respective merits. The Noble Baron (Wharncliffe) took a different view, and invited the Ministers to throw themselves into his arms, and had referred to the disposition which the Noble Lords opposite entertained to support the Bill. The Noble Earl too (Harewood) had regretted that the proposi tion was not such as to satisfy the feelings of the sup porters of the Bill. If he saw any disposition to make such propositions as he could accede to, nobody will be more ready than he should to meet the Noble Lord, if he could do so without sacrificing the great principles to which he was irrevocably pledged. But what reason had he to expect any approximation from the arguments and expressions of the Noble Lords? The Noble Lurd who introduced the amendment stated that he remained of the same opinion he had before expressed, that the Bill was incompatible with the existence of the Government, and would destroy the Constitution. Was this, then, the Bill to which the Noble and Learned Lord could give his con sent? The Noble Baron, too (Ellenborough), had fairly professed his opposition to the Bill. He said he would make it as good as he could ; but the Noble Baron re served to himself the right of voting against the Bill after it was made as perfect as possible. The Noble Duke spoke of taking all the mischief out of it he could, but said he knew that ultimately it would be a most de fective measure. How, then, with these sentiments—with these opinions—those who had voted against the Bill de claring that they would vote against it hereafter, could he act as he had been invited to act ? It was not possible that he could trust the measure in their hands with any hope that it could be brought to such a conclusion as would satisfy his conscience and the just expectations of the public. When opinions were so divergent, union was impossible. When the Noble Baron (Wharneliffe) said that he might confide in the support of Noble Lords opposite if the al terations were made, be must say that the hopes which the Noble Baron held out to him were so small, that it was not possible for him to act as the Noble Baron wished, consistently with his duty. Certainly to the proposition made he gave his most decided opposition, and he hoped that Noble Lords would not deceive themselves by sup-i posing that, if they accede to the motion, it will be pos bible to carry the Bill successfully through. " Should flat amendment be carried (said the. Noble Earl) it will b necessary for me to consider what course I shall take.— (Cheers from the Ministerial side, repeated loudly from the Opposition.) More I will not say, than what on a former occasion was k. ,! by t'ie Noble Earl on the other side, and it was not (1, nie.l by any other person, that this Bill had found support in public opinon. Noble Lords deceive themselves, if they suppose that opinion in favour of this Bill is relaxed ; and certainly I dread the effect of the House of Lords opposing itself as an instil-- mountable barrier to what the people think necessary for the good government of the country and a sufficient repre sentation." More he would not say, than that to the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord he meant to gave his most determined opposition.—(Cheers, calls of Ques tion ! Lords Wynford and Carnarvon rose to speak, and both were called for.) The Earl of CARNARVON went on to say, that IP wished that the debate on the first night should be con ducted without any angry feelings. It was impossible for him, however, to bear the speech of the Noble Earl con cluded by a menace—(Cheers)—and not regret his disap pointment. The Noble and Learned Lord who had replied to his Noble and Learned Friend had begun by deprecating all personal discussions, and declaring his intention to stick to the right line of the question, and the very first step be bad taken had led him to the labyrinth of Irish education.—(A laugh.) The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to an absurd vote of the House' of Commons, declaring a one-pound note when it was worth only Iss. to be worth 205., and he was afraid, if he did not vote for the motion of his Noble and Learned Friend, that lie should vote that 18s. were 20s. ; for how should lie know the extent of disfranchisement necessary, sinless lie first settled the extent of the enfranchise • silent ?He meant, as-he before said, to make the Bill as good as he could, as safe to the Government, and as useful to the country. That pledge he had given, and that pledge he meant to redeem. The Noble Earl sail the success of the motion would be fatal to the Bill ; he did not think so. They were called upon to disfranchise fifty-sit boroughs.—(No, no.) The Noble Earl said he had moved to omit the words fifty-six, but to call on their Lordships to consider the boroughs seriatim—that was to disfranchise fifty-five boroughs one after the other, and then to throw in one more to make up the fifty-six. And the Noble Earl called it childish not to go along with him in disfran chising these boroughs. The Noble Earl had said - that • their Lordships were at liberty to do what they liked with the details of the Bill. But then, to that he added, that their Lordships must take care that they did not touch the three great principles of the Bill ; because, if Abase were touched at all, the results would be fatal to the Bill. But if this was to be their guide, what was the good of thin debate?—What was the good of further inquiry into the merits of the Bill ? It was just as if an attorney should express his willingness that his bill should be examined and taxed in every possible way, and added thereto, " But observe, you are by no means to meddle with either the pounds, the shillings, or the pence."—(A laugh.) He would, however, go the length of saying (even opposed ass he was to the Bill)—that if he believed that the vote on this amendment would be fatal to the measure, he would not give his vote in its favour; for, however much he:might dislike the Bill, he never would consent to its being dis posed of in so dishonest and unmanly a manner. The Noble Lord had said that the amendment was making a difference between the cause and the effect. He (Lord Carnavon) act mitted that such was the case ; but who ever heard of going into the effect first? Besides, he did not understand on what principle it was that the present Ministry were contending for so large a measure of Reform : for he remembered that when the case of Penryn was before the House, in which he took an active part, he succeeded in proving that bribery and corruption had taken place up to a very late period in that borough, and yet, by the very persons whs were now stickling for this ample measure or Reform, he was told that he bad not made out a case, and he was advised to let it drop altogether, although he was only • asking for the extension of the franchise, and not for a total disfranchisement of the borough. —(Hear, hear.) At the same time he would again say that he would be one of the last to desire to get rid of this Bill by a trick, The second reading of the Bill had passed that House, and their Lordships were therefore bound to look it full in the face. But he was also bound to say, that in his belief there was nothing of trick existing,' unless, indeed, it was in the imagination of the Noble Lord himself. In his opinion, if there was any trick going on, it was with the other, party, in endeavouring to find some mode of slip ping out, and of throwing on the opponents of the Bill the result of the conduct of the introducers of the measure, which, whether it was most chraacterised by obstinacy or timidity he would not take upon himself to say.—(Hear.) The great question now before their Lordships was, the degree of Reform that ought to be granted. If the plan prc posed on that (the Opposition) side of the House were adopted, it would be a plan of Reform, and not a plan of revolution ; but if the plan of the Ministers were adopted, it would be a plan characterized by revolution, owiog to it, excess. To be sure, the Noble Baron had asked the House whether such a thing had ever been heard of as a Revolution two years under consideration, or a Re volution in Committee? He (Lord Carnarvon) thought that such examples might be found by reverting to history. What was the Revolution in the time of Charles the First ? Did it not exist during the whole 'of the duration of the Long Parliament? Might it not be said to have begun when the standard was first raised by the King ? And if so, did it not, in fact, last during 3 period of four years ? So also in the case of Louis the Sixteenth—was not that French Revolution slow in its growth, and gradual in its progress ?—(Hear, hear.) He could not at all admit the justice of the remarks which had fallen from the Noble Earl with respect to the conse quences of the vote on the Amendment now before their Lordships; and he thought that if the Ministry would only have the temper and the patience to hear the propo sitions that were to be _made with calmness instead ot; making some other desperate plunge, the result would be that they would find themselves in a much better situation than they at present seemed to anticipate. Pot himself, he would undertake to say, that if the Bill were allowed to go through the Committee and reach the third reading. he for one would not cavil at it in that stage, but would me a su l r e e Lords who h a d spo k en in favour of the be prepared to give it hi s support, if i t proved to be a tole Earl MANVERS h a d li stened with the deepest atten triaobnlYt o fa t i h r e Nob Amendment, in the hopes of finding some excuse foe voting in support of it. He had, however, looked in vain, and though he regretted that circumstances had for a titris, separated him from those friends with whom he had been, in the habit of actin, he nevertheless felt bound tee say, that in his belief the essence of the Bill lay in schedule A. That schedule A ought to stand unimpaired was his honest belief, and therefore, whatever obloquy might be cast upon him, he could not consent to vote for a thing which (what ever might be its object.) would, beyond all doubt, have , the effect of baffling the intention of that schedule. Lord CLIFFORD trusted that their Lordships would be careful how they came to their vote on this question, for he never would believe, till he was forced, that the eense of that House was so diametrically opposed to the sense of the nation as to destroy an important principle o.r the measure on what the Opposition itself only characte.- rized as a matter of form. The Noble Lords who bad ei, re , ceded him seemed to have forgotten that, by consero, ing t o the second reading of the Bill, they had given an 'incipi ent concurrence to the measure ; for, in the pteaent debate, they had chiefly dwelt on the principles of, the Bill, with nut attending to the details. He hut alwa been in the habit of thinki ng th at without tho. existence ys of party men it was impossible for the Govemment . of any country, and more especially of this, tq be carried on ; a politician could not afford to indulp iu any theory of perfection; and it was for this reason that ho thought that those who were in favour of the Bill ought to support its arrangements as well as its principle. [The conclusion of the Noble Lord's observations were rendered inaudible by loud and frequent cries of " Question," and "Divide."] The Committee divided, and the numbers were For the Amendment 151 For the Original Motion ... 116 Majority against Ministers...THlßTY-EllT.. On our re-admission we found Lord LYNDHURST stating, that in conformity with the notice he had given in the early part of the evening, he should then move that the next clause be postponed. On the question that the next clause be postponed, Earl GREY said that, after the vote to which the House had just come, he felt it to be his dty to propose that the f urt h er consideration of the Bill in n Committee be postponed until Thursday next. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that on his part and on that of the Noble Lords with whom he acted, there was no disposition towards delay ; on the contrary, it must now be admitted that the delay was with Noble Lords on the other side of tha House--with them there was no delay whatever.—(Cheers from both sides of the House.) If a charge of delay could be preferred with any justice, that charge could now fairly be brought against no one but the Noble Earl opposite. He much regretted that the Noble Earl had thought proper to make that pro position of an adjournment of the Committee till Thursday, for tbat motion drove him (Lord Ellenbourogh) to the necessity of explaining that night those views and intentiops which he should much rather have laid in detail before before the Hou'se to-morrow. He felt very reluctant to enter into those sub jects that night at all, and especially so at that lute boar, for be was conscious that he could only do so most in.- perfectly; but he was now p l aced in such a situation that be felt be owed to the liuu , e, to . the Noble Fri oda 4; . l