The Sun. — London, England, 1822-04-26 00:00:00

e yehole hundred members to the counties, but proposed that the I =unties should - have an addition of sixty, and to give forty to *he commercial towns of note. There were many minor points for consideration, which it was not necessary then to go into. The change must be effected with all calmness and delibera tion. ` But there was a difference of situation since the time of Lord Chatham ; for since that time a hundred Members had been added to the House. In order, therefore, to carry his plan into effect, he proposed to take away 100 from the =ldlest borrglas to make room for the further addition of 100 ,for the countie* and great towns. He had thought it would be possible to accomplish the desirable object of reform by convict ing the 'Boroughs of corruption, which was notorious, and giv ing the elective franchise to mole populous places. Had he met with the co-operation of the House. in pursuance of the system he had last Session introduced, his object would in time hare been effected. But he had not been adequately seconded by the House in hta efforts, and he was sorry to say the House ,41 id not appear to be sincere in a desire to put down corruption. •(fhey acted as though a police Magistrate should say—" If you bring a thief before me, I will commit him ; but mind, I 'will not send out a single officer to assist in apprehending them, although it is notorious that every night thieves parade the streets."—(A laugh.)--Thus it was that the House was ready to take cognizance of a case of corruption brought before them ; but it required, to do justice to the cause, that they should themselves discover and convict them. He there fore thought that this plan was the safest and best that Parlia ment could adopt. The question then before - the House was, whether a Reform in Parliament was necessary at all ? If they would grant him that, he' had no doubt but he should be able to agree with the other Reformers in the plan to be adopted. His objection to the small boroughs was, not that they broughtmen of talent into the House, but that they formed the majority in the House, and thus, in fact, were the means of obtaining the sanction of the Legislature to the acts of individuals, which passed as the measures of Government. He knew it was said that these measures, however they might excite tumult and agi tation in the country at first, when once they had passed, ceased to call forth opposition. But this was an unfair way of putting it. The people of this country were remarkable for their adhe zence to all law, above all other people.—(Hear, hear !)—and they knew that when the sanction of that House had once been given to a measure, the act of Government was complete, and that there was nothing left to do but to rebel, or be silent. But did it, therefore, follow that they approved ? Did they applaud the omission of the Queen's name from the Liturgy more after the question of restoring . it was negatived, than they did before ? Whilst it was in course of deliberation -they exerted themselves, and expressed their sentiments ; but when once decided upon, they abstained from further inter ference. He thought they wisely acted thus ; for he did not think there were any abuses in this country which called for actual rebellion. Of the falseness and dangers of assuming approval in the absence of successful opposition, history fur nished many examples., James the Second succeeded in obtaining every prostration of liberty till he met with resist ance, and was forced to abdicate under the pressure of that resistance. The same was the case with Paul, the most despotic of tyrants, till he met with the bowstring. Ferdinand. the Seventh of Spain went on in the same strain till he was overwhelmed in rebellion. All these tyrants thought exactly ,as those who defended the present Constitution of that House.— He had also to answer the use made in the question of Reform, of' the Revolution of France, and the civil wars of England.— In reference to those, they were continually reminded of the popular licentiousness and the atrocities committed. Did these who used these against Reform mean to say that the Government of Charles the First, where it was attempted to establish rule by Divine Right, and to impose taxes without the sanction of Parliament, any opposition could be wrong ? .or, in the case of the French people towards Louis the Fif teenth, who wasted in low debauchery the resources of the people ? But these Gentlemen said, the leaders in these events 6aght to have stopped short in their career, which was as much as to say that they should be more patriotic than Hampden.— The cause of popular excesses in these instances was owing to the aristocracy not being united. It was then necessary for that part of it which was attached to liberty to appeal to the ps•ople, to assist them in their efforts to accomplish Reform.— "). ow, history informed them that Reforne brought about by the people was calamitous in its course. The obvious remedy was, that the aristocracy should be united in their efforts to accomplish necessary Reforms. He instanced the Reform wrought in the time of James 11, as free from the usual conco mitants of popular revolutions. He called therefore on the aris tocracy of Parliament to unite in favour of Reform. He called upon the Whigs to do the same. If he understood the principle -.and spirit of Whiggism, it was to obtain for the people as much liberty as they were able to hold within their grasp at the time. It was that spirit which had procured them the Hanover dynas ty, and saved the country from the return of the Stuarts. Al though at that time they had acted wisely in retaining the bo roughs in the representative system, and furthered the cause _ef liberty, yet, by giving them up at present to the increased intelligence of the people, they went to promote the cause 'of Reform ; for the people were now able to guard, and hold any amount of liberty that could be given to them. The Learned Sir William Temple had said, that England would never be ruined but by herself—that whilst the weight and number of the people all tended one way, she would still stand pre . eminent. He asked of all • the aristocracy, therefore, to join in this struggle for Reform. Posterity would require ,of as the liberty we had received from our ancestors. 13y a timely union of force, would be saved that convulsion of the moral world, which the discordance in the elements of society would otherwise ferment. Let him fervently hope, that a constitution of only one hundred years standing was destined yet to rank in antiquity with any that had gone before it.— , (Hear, hear, hear !)--The Noble Lord concluded by moving a Resolution,--" That it is the opinion of this House, that tne Representation of the People in Parliament calls for the most earnest consideration of this House." Mr. H. TWISS said, that in obtruding himself upon the at tention of the House to make a few olvervations on what had - , fallen from the Noble Lord who had just sat down, the House would not expect him to go through a tithe of the various framer adverted to, and the enormous theories by which it had been attempted to support this question. In the objections urged by the Noble Lord against the influence of the Crown in that House, it appeared to him that such influence could only be objectionable when the functions of Government were com pletely exercised out of doors; but when the whole Executive was, as it were, -carried on in that House, the objection he thought did not stand upon such good ground. The same might be said of the interference of the Lords in that House. 13 - ,:t, in advocating innovations upon the existing system of things, the advocates were not entitled to any benefit from the ahtiquity of any practice. They who opposed them had a right to follow such a course of argument, but surely not they who veered as the foundation of their argument the silent changes d time. But upon those silent changes he was willing to rest the issue of the question between them. An d in reply to the angenentatioa of power in the House of Peers, he would urge the popular party, which in the lapse of time had insensibly ,spewn up in that House, unknown to our ancestors. If bribery and corruption were found to exist in some of the details, it wee not fair to charge the system with it. If the outrages of the Westminster mob had been attended with loss of life in the case of Sir M. Maxwell, or - if the attempt at drowning a candi eiate oh a late occasion had succeeued, it would have been ' deemed murder by the law; but would it have been fair to charge these as evils upon the popular system ?—(Hear, hear!) .... , The Noble Lord, in his inducements for reform, included the expense of boroughs. But allowing the expense of a borough election to amount to 40001., he asked if for treble that sum any ere would guarantee the cost of a contested election for Man chester or Leeds ? The expence then being equal, or greater, in the popular mode, he asked any one who had witnessed the scene of a =tested election, the state of the public-houses, and the-state of the electors, stimulated to outrage and disorder by every idle watch.word, which was the preferable system ? The .expression of public opinion Was much about the same in both cases. There was lone very difficult point of difference be tween the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and himself as to the meaning of the word " Representative.' He (Mr. Twiss) un derstood by it a guardian of the interests of the people in Par- Ea:tent to the best of his abilities. Let the Noble Lord look at the silent operation of public opinion in bringing about the abolition of the slave trade, the emancipation of religious sects, and the mitigation of punishment, before he declared that the people were not ably and amply represented in Parliament. Bet although it ought duly to represent public opinion, that House ought to oppose a steady constitutional barrier against the everrunning stream of popular innovation. The innovation contended for by the Noble Lord was by some unaccountable at eans styled moderate Reform. This moderate Reform was to disfranchise a hundred boroughs at once.—(Hear !)—This was the amputation of an entiro lirub.—(Hear !)—lt would he well for the House, in disposing of this question, to consider what would come next, if they satisfied the cravings of the Re formers in this respect. They would next be told they had not gone far enough ; and they would be driven on from one point to another till they arrived at complete Radical Reform.— ( Hear !)---These attempts of the Radicals might be compared to tae operation of successive wedges, each succeeding one of larger dimensions thee' the last, and formed so as to fit the en larged gap, till the solid fabric of the Constitution was rent asunder, and riven to the very heart.—(fleara )—These continued approaches towards grasping tht sovereign power, betrayed symptoms of a perpetual dictatorship on the part of the people towards the Legislature. Those who i formerly only claimed to be .governed equitably now demanded .to direct the Govern ment theniselvea--( Hear !)—The House -would consider how far, if they assented to the first of a series of pr. meditated `, changes in the Constitution, they might not be instrumental in a total subversion of the monarchy. Whether a monarchy, tem pered, as this was, by the people, was not preferable to a demo- cracy, was happily, through Providence, unknos4n to us. It was an unsolved problem, and lie hoped would remain so. If a second time the monarchy was to fall before the democracy, the House of Commons would not a second time assist in achiev ing the downfall—it would not be made the means of burying itself.—(Hear, hear !) Lord FOLKESTONE bespoke the indulgent attention of the _ House, whilst he delivered his sentiments on this important sub ject for the first time in that House. After the most mature consideration of the subject, he had fully satisfied himself that Reform was necessary to the salvation of the country, and he would therefore give it his full support. It appeared to him, that the arguthent adduced in opposition to the motion of his Noble Friend, that evening, ought to induce the House to support it. He bad conquered all his early prejudices, and was now in favour of Reform. He thought the Acts of this House tended to bring them into disrepute. Nothing could be more likely to produce such an effect than a vote similar to that which had been come to only a few weeks back to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, with out any grounds for so doing but the speech of the Minis ter, and the representations made of the character of the individual to whom such extraordinary powers were to be entrusted. It had turned out that there was so little occasion for the measure to which he had alluded, that it had not once been brought into play, and not a single person had been ar rested under it. The conduct pursued in that instance by the House of Commons, as well as in a variety of others, proved that Reform was necessary. He thought no Gentleman on the other side would say that House was, in theory or in practice, what it ought to be. Those who were for its continuing in its present state acted on the fear that was entertained of some ulterior consequence. Convulsion and revolution were dreaded from a change, but it was to avert these calamities that he wished for a change to take place, and this was one of his main reasons for wishing for a Reform in Parliament. Propo sitions for Reform had on various occasions been met by argu ments directly opposed to each other; sometimes they were resisted on the ground of the paucity of petitions which ap peared in its favour ; sometimes on account of the multiplicity presented. One great opposer of Reform in his day, Mr. John Pitt, afterwards Lord Camelford, one of the most honest op posers of Reform, had contended against the plans formerly brought forward, on the ground that it was necessary to the Crown that the influence of the aristocracy of the country should be powerfully felt in that House. The fashionable ar gument against Reform now had been furnished by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Liverpool. What he had told his constituents on this subject had been published in a pamphlet, which had been sent forth by his friends, as containing all that it was necessary should be said on the ques tion of Reform. He (Lord Folkestone), however, from read ing that pamphlet, had he not known what was really the ob ject of the Right Hon. Gentleman, should have thought him the friend of Reform., and he was prepared to shew that every argument it contained; if pushed to its legitimate extent, might be turned in its favour. The Right Hon. Gentleman told his constituents, that in times of danger it was desirable that the Representative should be frequently in communication with his constituents, and ready to give them an account of his conduct. This was very good doctrine, but it was strangely misapplied, for 'the Right Hon. Gentleman had told the people of Liver pool this not before, but after, his election. He had, however, proceeded to give his constituents an account of his conduct, not only as Member for Liverpool, but as a servant of the Crown. This was that which he (Lord Folkestone) did not understand, for the Right Honourable Gentleman had no more right to account to the people of Liverpool for his con duct in the latter capacity, than he had to the people of Manchester, or 'of any other place. The Right Honourable Gentleman supported his argument against a Reform in Parliament, by referring to the exceeding great happiness which the people of this country had enjoyed under the present system. It was not' certain that the happiness for merly possessed grew out of the constitution of the House of Commons, but if that had ever been the casee where was the happiness formerly boasted of gone now ? It had vanished, and the utmost depression and misery had succeeded, which, according to the language held by Ministers at the com mencement of the Session, had led to open rebellion. The words used by a Noble Marquis, not then in his place, were, that " Rebellion stalked over the land," and on this the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended in Ireland, though since that which was called rebellion, had been desCribed by an official Gentleman as little more than a contemptible con spiracy. Now, if the Right Hon. Gentleman assumed all the happiness which the country had enjoyed to spring from the constitution of the House of Commons, he thought be might with better reason assume, that all the misery which had been endured, might be traced to the House of Commons also. The Right l lon., Gentleman, when addressing his constituents on the advantages of the present system, had illustrated his argu ment by referring to those melancholy and horrible measures as he (Lord F.) considered them to be, the Six Acts as they were commonly called which had been passed just before the election of the Right Honourable Gentleman. He had spoken of the dangers which had prevailed, and of the restoration to tranquillity and happiness which Parliament had effected by passing these Acts. The Right Honourable Gentleman was unfortunate in this instance, for two months had not passed before they heard of drillings and of acts of insubordina tion in the North, as before the passing of the Six, Acts. A correspondence between a Military Commander in the North and Government had been laid on the table of the House, and it appeared that barracks had been erected in two places where barracks were not thought neces sary before, at Carlisle and Glasgow, and such was the im portance of occasion, in the eyes of those who decided for this measure, that 2501. per acre had been paid in one place, and 2801. at the other. The Right Honourable Gentleman, approving the present constitution of the House of Commons, had said of it, " that from the beginning it had been growing and increasing, till now, like Aaron's rod, it had nearly absorb ed all the other branches of the Government." Now, if such were the fact, could the Right Honourable Gentleman de sire, he being an enemy to innovations, that that system should stand which was so different from that originally framed, or, approving of the advance which it had made, could he con sent that it should stop _ short now of that final perfection which it might yet obtain ? He thought the Right,Honourable Gentleman ought to wish for a reform to bring the Constitution back to what it was, or to make it that which it was likely to be at e a future time. On a late occasion he thought the Royal Prerogative had been invaded. The House would recollect when the Bill of Pains and Penalties was withdrawn, it was thought-very desirable that the Commons should separate without being called to the Upper House. It was found that it would be very difficult to frame an Address on that occasion, and in his opinion it was very indecent to dismiss the House without one at the close of a Session in which they had made one of the most liberal arrangements—had, he believed, granted the most liberal stipend that had ever been settled on the Crown. He had heard (he did not know that such were the fact) that a Council had been held to consider whether or not the Parliament could not be dissolved by proclamation. The decision was against taking that coarse, and so the Par liament had been adjourned instead of being prorogued. Now though he was a Reformer, he saw in this proceeding an invasion of the Prerogative which he would never have sanc tioned. The Right Hon. Gentleman had remarked, "no reformer could say the House of Commons had not sufficient power at the present day." He begged to say upon this that the Re formers had never denied that that House had sufficient power. What they complained of was that the people had not suffi cient power. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said, that as the House had now more power than formerly, greater caution ouht to be exercised in choosing Representatives than here tofore. He agreed with him in this, but then the Right Hon. Gentleman came to the extraordinary conclusion, that the people ought to be satisfied with the present House of Com mons, as its composition was not materially different from what it had formerly been. He had heard the question mooted, whether a man going to a farm-yard every day, and lifting a calf, would be able in the end to carry the full-grown ox. One had contended that the day would arrive when the man would no longer be able to move the animal from the ground ; another had maintained-that the man would grow stronger, as the calf increased in size, and be able to carry it when it became an ox. —The Right Hon. Gent. arguing that the House of Commons had absorbed the other two branches of the Legislature, yet was not materially different from what it had formerly been; in fact, maintained that the man did not increase in strength, but was nevertheless able to carry the ox. On the Right Hon. Gentleman's own chewing, since he made it appear that the power of that House from,being nothing had become every thing, he ought to be a most decided Reformer. But to him (Lord Folkestone) it appeared that the constitution of the louse materially differed from what it was informer times. The Right Hon. (lent. said property had always the same influence in that House which it had now. But he (Lord Folkestone) was old enough to remember when a man would have been called to order for speaking of .the interference of Peers with elec tions, and for mentioning other circumstances connected with the actual constitution of that House which were commonly talked of now. He proceeded to comment on the manner in which Members for boroughs were returned, and came to the conclusion that boroughs were at present infinitely more close than they were some years ago. The increase of the Peerage was to be taken into consideration.. In the time of George the First there were 178 Peers. At present there were 310 temporal Peers. The total number, including the Irish Peers and Bishops, amounted nearly (he would not speak to the precise number) to 382. Was it no change in the Constitution, that the Lords, to whom in many cases of importance, the last appeal was to be made, had become, instead of remaining what they formerly were, a popular assembly of nearly 401) members. He would shew the ratio in which they had been increased at different periods within the last century. In 1719 the number of Peers was 178. In 1780 the number had increased to 183, being an increase of sin 61 years. From 1780 to 1821, being a period of 41 years, the Peerage had been increased by 127 new Temporal Peers, making a total of 310, exclusive of the Bishops and Irish Peers. He thence argued that some change became necessary in the House of. Commons. If the Right Hon. Gentleman, considering it to have absorbed the other two branches of the Legislature, wished it to continue the same, his ideas were republican. Ile (Lord Folkestone) wished to renovate the Constitution, and to hand it down to future ages. such as it had been in the time of our ancestors. He, however, maintained that the House of Lords and the Crown were not, as the Right Hon. Gentleman had asserted, absorbed by the Commons. He shewed that the principles of the radical Re formers, in a different shape, were those which had been acted upon at former periods to effect those changes which had brought the Constitution to what it was. The Right Hon. Gen tleman had referred to a resolution passed in 1648, declaring the right of making laws to be with the House of Commons ex clusively, to shew what a Radical Parliament would do. He denied that that was proved to have been a Radical Parliament, and insisted that though some of their acts were very gross, that others were entitled to praise. They had abolished the Star Chamber in their first year, and towards the close of their career they had passed the Navigation Act, and commenced an inquiry into the expence attendant on legal proceedings, which had however unfortunately dropped and never since been resumed. He knew of no circumstance connected with the choosing of that Parliament which should lead them to consi der it a Radical Parliament. To him it appeared that they should rather come to a contrary conclu'sion, and with respect to time, as it aimed at perpetuity, it was the most unradical Parliament that had ever sat. The Right Hon. Gentleman then had no right to call it a Radical Parliament. As well might he give that name to the Parliament in the time of Henry the Eighth, which had declared that the King's Procla mation should have the force of law. In conclusion, he begged, at an humble distance, to imitate the Right Honourable Gentle man, by asking one or two questions. He wished to ask if the Right Honourable Gentleman was a friend to the whole Constitution, how he reconciled himself to the idea of support ing that state of things, which, according to him, made the House of Commons almosi Absorb the other two branches of the Legislature, and in part get rid both of the King and the House of Lords? He would next ask, supposing things to have gone thus far, how he could propose to stop where they were ? The Noble Lord (some impatience having been manifested by the House) concluded by apologising for having trespassed so long on their patience. He described the opinion which he had been brought to entertain on this subject to be one directly opposed to his early prejtidices and education.—lle was, however, fully convinced that Refocus was necessary, and al though it would not immediately remove the existing distress, it would go a great way towards doing so, by soothing the pub lic mind. In order to get out of the present horrible system, great privations must be submitted to—great sufferings must be endured ; and to encourage the people to endure these it was necessary that a Reform should take place in that House, and that the people should be represented by those who are really the objects of their choice. Mr. DUNCOM BE said, the plan of Mr. Pitt was to reduce the Rotten Boroughs ; but that great statesman deprecated more than any individual, Annual Parliaments, and Universal Suffrage. He could never consent to hazard the fate of the country upon wild theoretic plans. He opposed the Motion. Mr. C. W. W YNN said the arguments in favour Qf the Noble Lord's proposition having continued five hours, it was but fair a few remarks should be heard on the other side.— H e was the more induced to address the 11,ouse in conse quence of the attack made by the Noble Lord upon all who sat on the Ministerial benches. The Noble Lord said, the Members of that House, as it was then constituted; whether Whigs or Tories, were equally the abhorrence of the people.— He was strongly disposed' to dispute the judgment of the Noble Lord on that point. With respect to his own character, he might consider it equal to the !Noble LOrd's.—( Hear, hear !) It might be called vanity, but there was something due to himself, and he repelled with scorn any statement to make the House believe he had not the confidence and approbation of his constituents. He was as much respected by his consti tuents as the Noble Lord could be. He appeared before them. They examined his conduct, and had expressed unqualified approbation. He saw a disposition to excite a laugh, and un dervalue the course of his political life, but it would be found, upon close examination, that he had acted with consistency. He had certainly ceased to support persons with whom he formerly acted, because he found they were abusing the name of-liberty, and attempting to overthrow the best interests of the country. After Buonaparte was put down, he found a strong disposition on the part of many persons to dishonour the Con stitution. He disagreed with them, and his disagreement in creased every day. The opposition shewn to the she acts, which he, considered the salvation of the country, com pleted his disapprobation. He had been asked how he could support the Salt Tax ? His answer was, because it was not the time to repeal it. having been interrogated respecting his view of the Catholic question, he could answer, that lie con sidered it one of the most important questions that ever occu pied the attention of Parliament. Whether that great measure was carried or postponed, he should always support it, con ceiving that a full communication of the benefits of the Consti tution was the just claim of the Catholic body. The Noble Lord had stated, that one of the evils of Parliament, as it was at present constituted, arose from not throwing open the close boroughs. The Noble Lord had omitted to state, that Shore ham, Cricklade, Arundel, and other boroughs, had been thrown open. Upon the whole, the Hon. Member opposed the Noble Lord's motion, considering his plan undefined, and not calcu lated to produce any beneficial effect. Mr. ROBINSON rose amidst a loud cry of " Question ' Adjourn !"—He assured the House it was his intention to occupy more than a short portion of the time of the House. He felt compelled to offer a few observations on the same ground that his Hon. Friend who had just sat down had urged. The Noble Lord had alluded to him as having justified, by some ex pression he had made on a former debate, a departure from the Constitution. He had never supposed he could be considered the advocate of Parliamentary corruption. The Noble. Lord had represented him to have said that the diffusion of know ledge through the country was a reason why they should use corruption, and that corruption was necessary to counteract the effect. He had said nothing like it. If he had argued that the diffusion of knowledge rendered corruption justifi able, he must have taken leave of his senses. He on the con trary said, that the cllffusion of knowledge was the greatest blessing, because it was a check to had feelings, and he rejoiced that men became more and more enlightened. The Right Hon. Gentleman having explained what he Yeally did say, opposed the motion. The public opinion upon the subject of Parlia mentary Reform was materially . changed ; many who some time ago considered the country in the greatest danger, were now persuaded that they might be saved without the universal panacea. Seeing that the strength and power of Parliament had increased from year to year, he was still disposed to abide by the Constitution adopted. Mr. CANNING would render some account of the manner in which the Noble Lord had appealed to him. The Noble Lord had undertaken, and that with all the ardour of a new proselyte, to persuade him to persuade the House and the country, that those new opinions, which, as it appeared, the Noble Lord had but lately taken up, were the proper ones upon which to arrange the Constitution of the coun try. He should examine a little the grounds upon which this was proposed, and if ever th.:e were a period at which the proposal of such a measure was fraught with danger, it was at the present time—a time peculiarly hostile to Monarchi cal Government. They had been told that the majority of the country were in favour of the measure; but if they would but look at the country, they would see that the ma jority of the Nobility, the Gentry, the Clergy, the Corpora tions, in short, of the intelligence of the country, was hostile to such a measure.—(Hear !)—When he reflected .upon this,. he should feel the less difficulty in opposing the propositions of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had begun his statement for the salvation of the country, by describing the country as in a dif ferent state from what it was a century ago. He felt that he had not done justice to the Constitution. In the state the House then was it had effected the Revolution. He could not see how that which was of so much advantage then should be changed now. He had to object to the mode of Reform which the Noble Lord proposed, as he thought it of a very doubtful character. The Noble Lord had; however, acted fairly in stating plainly what he meant in the first place to propose. The Noble Lord proposed that one hundred M embers should be granted to the more populous boroughs, and that room should be made for them by depriving of half their representatives each of 100 cited smaller or decayed boroughs. The Noble Lord had quoted a number of authorities upon this point ; and among the rest that of the late Mr. Pitt. Now the Noble Lord must have beekaware that the plan of Nlr. Pitt was nothing like that pro posed by the Noble Lord. Mr. Pitt's plan went to introduce one hundred new Members , for which room was to be made by purchasing the franchises of such decayed boroughs as were disposed to sell ; for which purpose, a fund of one million was to be provided. Thus the leading difference was that, by the plan of Mr. Pitt, every species of coercion was prevented, while this was not the case with other plans. —The difference • did not thus consist in the details, but in the very principle of the plans. He did not say that House voted for the plan of Mr. Pitt, but he was sure that Mr. Pitt never lost sight of the safe principle. The Noble Lord had qucted many other authorities besides Mr. Pitt, but there was one authority which he had not quoted, yet to which he would pay the greatest deference, after he had heard the name, which, however, he would not mention ti ll he had read t'ie passage to which he wished to call the attention of the House. As to cutting away of' rotten Burghs, although 1 am offended at the transactions which doubtless result from it, I have my doubts as to the application of the remedy." The Noble Lord might find this new to him,, and he might suppose that it was the production of some old Tory writer ; but no such thing ; it was the production of no, such person. He would proceed to state the name, or rather the shadow of the name, of this person—it was none other than Junius. He had, how ever, taken the case as a contrast, and not as an example ; yet what he had stated was not his only objection. H e objected to the use of power—to the taking away of the franchise of a borough without even an attempt at compensation. Even if the first Resolution of the Noble Lord were carried, to what a multi tude of conflicting plans must it give rise, all, in his mind, equally destructive of the Constitution—or, most probably, all terminating in the abandonment of any plan whatsoever, and committing that House, by a Resolution of its inadequacy, to lie at the mercy of every wild and visionary scheme. The Noble Lord has recommended his Motion on the ground that a great change has taken place in the public opinion as to the litnit to which the question of Reform should extend. It might be so that such 4 change had taken place ; yet he must confess that he did not /understand the grounds on which that assumption was made. Most surely if he had become a convert to the opinions of the Noble Lord, he,should still remain not contented with his conclusions. if he could believe that the douse of Commons was inadequate to its functions, that all sympathy between it and the people of this country ceased ; that the only alternative that re mained was to put an end to its own existence,—if he were a con vert of the Noble Lord's to such a conclusion, undoubtedly he should never rest satisfied with the simple Resolution of the No ble Lord, but would go with the other Noble Lord (Folkestone) who supported him much deeper into democracy, and fix decisive ly on sonie plan of reform. And yet when they looked at the plans of the respective proposers, not alluding to the schemes of wild and specUlative visionaries, but to those plans which were sub mitted by some of the ablest and most enlightened men in the country ; even under such auspices there yet existed such a variety:of opinions, such a diversity of schemes, that nothing like an unanimity of purpose could be anticipated. He had only•to recal the attention of that House to the memorable Petition presented in 1793 by a gentleman of the first ta lents and consideration in the coantry, now a Member of the other House (Earl Grey). He alluded to that Petition with no feeling of disrespect ; but what did that Petition, so ably drawn, allege ? It limited itself to three allegations ; it sought first, one uniform right of voting ; secondly, that the right should be taken from small bodies ; thirdly, that it should be extended to large bodies of the population ; and that the duration of Parliament should be abridged. Oki the Noble Lord (Russell) fancy that his simple •proposition of that night would satisfy the wishes of those able men who drew and who attached their signatutes to that memorable petition ? Must he not assent to each of these proposals, or give up the possibility of effecting a change satisfactory to them ? Opposed as he was to the motion of the Noble Lord, he should certainly also reject those proposals, because if he were ,to indicate the peculiar quality n wbich . fitted that House for the fullest exercise Of its functions, it was that quality which resulted from the variety of the rights of suffrage. Indeed, were it possible that a Parliament could exist, returned by the exercise of one uniform right of voting, that was the Parliament for whose speedy and efficacious refor mation he should give his vote—(Hear !)—Why, it was only last year when the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambton), who that night sat behind the Noble Lord, with a moderation and abi lity that did him honour, brought forward his specific plan of Reform. It was true, that by some intervening accident they were deprived of the opportunity of coming to an issue upon the subject.—(A laugh. )—But still the proposition of that Hon. Gentleman was to the extent of making a rasa tabula of the Constitution, with the view of erecting on the ground so cleared a new . superstructure of rights. What chance was there of concurrence between parties who so differed in essentials ? (liear, hear !)—lt was not many years since it had been as serted in that House, that the shortening of the duration of Par liaments, without altering wholly their Constitution, would be inexpedient. There were other Reformers who thought much higher of an abridged period of duration—who thought that by Parliaments touching their parent earth at shorter intervals, a new accession of strength must accrue to the creature from that connection with its creator.—(Hear, hear ?)—How were these contrarieties to be reconciled ? Or, if the question were 'to be discussed at all, why should it be taken up separately and successively ? Was it not evident, that to record the disease without any agreement as to the remedy could neither be salutary to the character of Parliament, nor satisfactory to the wants of the people ? He should not, however, deal fairly with the House, if he 'did not deny the assumption of this disease—if he did not deny the practical results which the Noble Lord had endeavoured to draw from a particular enumeration of the decisions of that House. There would be no end to discussions if such a criterion as that furnish ed arguments for an alteration in the constitution of Parlia ment. They must tight over again every well fought question which they had before decided, until such a warfare became in terminable. In every popular assembly, constituted as it might be, party feeling must have its influence more or less. No mat ter what the alteration in its constitution—it is the charac teristic of every popular assembly in every free state. It was so at Athens arid at Rome as it was in Britain : but be it a vice to eradicate, or a quality to praise, it was the inseparable con dition of human nature, and would exist, no matter what the construction might be of a popular assembly. He did not mean to defend the influence of such a feeling, when )rushed to an ex treme. He did not contend that the merits 'of the case were to be overlooked, and the merits of the men to over-rule ; but, not withstanding what the calmness of philosophy, and the coldness of historical record, might suggest, yet such a feeling will pre ponderate ; and he believed he might say that, in deciding on the very expedition to which the Noble Lord alluded, the question went to this—whether or not the Administration of the day were to be displaced or not ?—(Hear hear !)—The Noble Lord had, however, himself admitted, that in a single instance—that of the Revolution—a discrepancy between that House and the popular impressions was not only pardon able but praiseworthy. Undoubtedly, the Noble Lord was right, for if the inhabitants of the three kingdoms had been polled at that great era, the settlement of the Crown, that then was fixed, would never have received the popular sanction. The House of Commons did on that occasion exercise its sound and larger capacity, and decide in favour of the people against their prepossessions. It was not true, therefore, that the House, in order to discharge its trust with 'fidelity to the people, should respond to their voice.—(Hear, hear!)—He would appeal to another instance in the year 1810, when he had the honour to divide in a minority of thirty on the subject of the depre ciation of the currency. Though he now felt, and he believ ed the country were convinced, that the views of that mino rity were sound, yet he was equally convinced that the majo rity to which he was opposed spoke the sense of the country. In 1819, on the question of the Resumption of Cash,Payments, if the City of London and the other large cities of the kingdom had been polled, their impressions would have been contrary to the decision of that House. It was - not a true proposition, therefore, that a defective representation, as it was styled, because it was an echo of the public impressions, could attend to the interests of the community. It would have been a base representation if it had not hazarded a tem porary unpopularity in order to effect a great national good. There remained another question, shortly to be brought be fore the consideration of that House—he meant the Catho lic Question. Sure he was that the judgment of that House on that question was in advance of the opinion of the country. .The country was coming up to them—(Hear !)—but he might say, that in all the early votes it was not with them, and was even yet to be convinced that they were right. If then on a ques tion essentially affecting the national settlement, the national faith, and the national tranquillity, the popular impression were opposed to the duty of Parliament, did not these practical con clusions dash to the ground the inference that that House im perfectly discharged its high functions, because, forsooth, in some instances, their decisions differed from what was supposed to be the popular impression ?—( Hear, hear ! )—But if we looked back to older times we should see influence as plainly recorded as at the present day. There was a great difficulty in meeting that part of the question. There was imputed to those who de fended the present construction of the House, a degree of shame. lessness in defending abuses. Now it was hard that those who denied the existence of these corruptions should be charged with shamelessness, however they might have exposed themselves to the charge of an affected prudery. It was, however, a curious inquiry to see how far back they existed. It had been said that the reign of Henry the Sixth was the period when this supposed Parliamentary purity was most conspicu ous. The Right Hon. Member then referred to a paper, from which he read an extract relative to a certain Duchess of Marl borough, who had ordered her menial Servants to be returned as Members of Parliament. Ile (Mr. Canning) did not say that was right, but it was ancient—(a laugh.)—lt was a proof at most of imitation, but not of degeneracy. He would next re fer to the time of Cromwell and of Charles 11. There was a document which he would read, and which had been often quoted as a proof of the simplicity of the writer, in which it was stated that the Countess of Pembroke, in the reign of Charles 11. addressed the electors of Appleby, and, in bin guage not very courteous, declared to John Williamy—`‘ Your man shall not stand."—(Laughing.)—There was a third in stance since the Revolution, when the Duke of Shrewsbury and a Lord Chancellor offered the representation of Westminster to Lord Russell, provided he stood the poll of Middlesex for a single day.—(Laughter, and hear, hear !) Whatever malprac tices exist in the exercise of the elective right, he was as ready as any man to award punishment. To any series of propositions, borne out by proof, on that point, he should always give a willing support. By any sweeping alteration he did not think that even a temporary popularity would be gained by that House; but even were it gained, the attain ment would soon be followed by lasting reproach, and un erringly tend to permanent evil.--(Hear, hear !)—The Noble Lord had first devoted his labours to that practical Reform, which he (Mr. Canning) was ever willing to support ; but the Noble Lord had since not only renounced his former faith, but placed himself in the confessional chair, and de manded a confession of his (Mr. Canning's) belief. The Noble Lord has stated it as my opinion, that either the Re formers must reconstruct the system, or bring it back to an alleged period of purity. That there was no otb9r alternative. Before, however, the Noble Lord catechised An, he (Mr. Canning) should wish to know -which was ias beau ideal of Reform—(Hear, hear, hear !)—He had a right to get an answer to such a question from the Noble Lord. If, how ever, he looked to the period of its purity, and travelled back with the Noble Lord, passing through the right of the line, with the certainty of having a more clear illumination - on the subject, he would find the Members of the Commons not so much the chosen as the selected representatives ()ribose who se lected them. But when, in aftertimes, the House of Commons became a co-ordinate part of the state, to say thAt it ought to become more popular in its origin, was what he denied. If to. the influence it held as that co-ordinate part of the state, were added the consciousness of its owing its origin exclusively to the people, from whom it was said all power sprung, then that House too must of necessity preponderate over both the Crown and the House of Lords, and become finally the subverter of the other branches, and 'the swallower of all 'power,—( Hear !) for how could a House of Commons, thus situated, tolerate any brother near the throne ? He could not understand how the Crown, how the Nobility could co-exist with an assembly iipt discussing the interests, but pronouncing the will of the peol* from whom it emanated. It was impossible that any other branch of the Constitution could exist pari fronte. It wor2d, it was said, abolish the Nobility, and dismiss the King. If it were said they were useless branches, they deserved to be dismiss ed, but not being useless, but beneficial, the House of Coin mons would cherish and protect them !—Cherish and protect them ! 'Words that at once proved the very predominance of the power of a Reformed House of Commons. That was the ar gument of a man canonised by death, after a life of splendid and generous exertions in the service of his country, Mr. For. It was, however, the only, but an explicit answer to his ques tion, as to the power of a reformed House of Commons._ That might be an admirable Constitution, but it was not the Constitution under which he (Mr. ('.) was born, to which he owed allegiance, and which lie certainly would not wish to see superseded by such a substitute. We should not look too curiously' at the construction of bodies politic or natu ral. Fearfully and wonderfully we are made, is the language of an inspired writer ; but however the anatomist might admire the mechanism of the human economy, who that look ed at the bare skeleton could, at first view, discover that living agent on whose exertions, by the command of God, such great and ennobling duties depended? ry " Ccelumque tueri Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.7 The Right Hon. Gentleman, in a most eloquent speech, pro. ceeded to the further discussion of the question, and at half past one sat down amidst the cheering of the House, having spoken nearly two hours. • Mr. DENMAN said, the Right Hon. Gentleman had offered no one observation to shake the proofs which his Noble Friend had offered of the existence of abuses. It was absolutely ne cessary to declare the existence of the disease before they at tempted to find out a cure. ' The excuse offered by the Right Hon. Gentleman for the conduct of the House on occasion of the Walcheren Expedition, was a powerful argument in favour of Reform. It proved that the House neglected its duty, by mak ing the question a mere struggle for place and power. The Hon. and Learned Member at some length supported the mo tion. It was notorious that there were many instances similar to that of Grampound, the fate of which would only induce more caution in the nefarious traffic. He thought the House would lose the respect even of the Government itself, if they did not shew some respect for the opinion of the people. Indeed was very questionable whether they had not already lost the re spect of the Government ; for he thou g ht it perf e ctly new doc trine that a Minister should declare in that House his determi nation to resist an Address of that House seconding an exercise of the prerogative of mercy. Lord JOHN RUSSELL having said a few words in reply, Mr. PEEL merely rose to take some notice of an allusion which had been twice made in the course of this debate, to an observation which had fallen from him last night. He did not rise to explain away or retract, but to repeat and uphold, what he said with reference to the case of Mr. Hunt. He informed the House last night that he had advised the Crown not to ex ercise what he considered the peculiar, exclusive, and almost sacred prerogative of mercy, in the case of Mr. Hunt. He had declared, at the same time, that if the House should take a dif ferent view of the question, and determine unanimously to ad dress the Crown in behalf of Mr. Hunt, he would not be the instrument for carrying such a recommendation into effect.— This sentiment he now repeated. He did not use it as a me nace, and he was sure the House would acknowledge that the words in which it was conveyed implied no want of deference to the House of Commons of England. He felt, himself called upon to make that declaration, from a conscientious conviction as to the merits of the case ; and he should consider himself unworthy of the place he held, if any circumstances could in duce him to become the instrument of carrying into effect a, purpose which he felt to be inconsistent with his conscientious sense of duty. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion - - - - - 164 Against it - - - - - - 269 Majority - - - - —lO5 The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and at HALF-PAST TWO this Mornnig the House adjourned. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. VIENNA, APRIL 12.—(Extract from a Private Communication.)—" We have received letters from Constantinople of the 25th of March, which furnish us with some interesting news. They were brought by the courier who was dispatched by the Count de Lutzow the same evening, and who was the bearer of the dispatches of that Minister. M. de Lutzow had officially demanded, three different times, a new conference with the Reis- Effendi, but he could not obtain it. He had al ready, before this, transmitted a new Note, in which he developed all the reasons which ought to induce the Porte to reconsider the decision of . the Divan of the .88th Feb. This Note was very detailed; but having remained without an answer, he, in concert with Lord Strangford, caused ano ther Note to be delivered, which is said to be drawn up in still more forcible terms ; but this new effort has not been more fortunate than the preceding. It was nor known whether the dragoman of Lord Strangford had had a more favourable verbal answer than M. de Lutzow's dragoman, but it is a fact that the latter had receiv ed verbally orders to inform that Minister that the Porte having manifested its intentions, all further steps were perfectly useless, and that the Sultan► would even be offended if this subject were urged any farther. This at least iswhat is announced here, and it must certainly be true, because these ac counts come from persons who had hitherto con stantly affirmed that the differences between the Porte and Russia were on the point of being ar ranged. It is however given out in some circles, that Lord Strangford had obtained the promise that the Turks would not commence hostilities-- a promise on which indeed no great reliance is placed. " The other news communicated by private letters from Constantinople, mention the sea fight which took place near Patras, The Porte has not thought fit to publish an account of the result of this action ; it is merely stated that the Turkish fleet has lost several vessels, and that the Greeks have likewise experienced consider' able losses. The grand fleet has not yet left the harbour of Constantinople ; great -exertions are making to get it ready for sea, but it is verf doubtful whether it will go to the Archipelago ; the general opinion, was, that it was destined fer the Black Sea. " They at length despair at Constantinople of seeing the differences with Persia amicably ad' • justed. The negociations with the Court of Te heran are broken off, 'and the Schah has set out in person with a large army to enter Asiatic