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

'ally sl
( ? it

the 0:
ots
i.it to to
the ,e
tti
1"..
rv—ic . to,
vl'l t
-nter
for coil

?snow than at'peasent. That might be, but ib did not
lessen the force of his argument. If the amount of money
actually paid had diminished, the amount of patronage
- used for the same object had greatly increased. First there
Was the Army. We had a tremendous standing army ; a
thing, the very name of which our ancestors regarded with
abhorrence. Our army consisted of upwards of 150,000
men ; and the entire patronage of it was in the hands of
those whose object it was to obtain majorities in Parlia-
ment. Then there was the Navy ; the Church, both in
England and in Ireland; the collection of the revenue;
and, greatest of all, the colonies. All this frightful accu-
mulation of patronage was in the possession of those who,
by the use of it, commanded majorities in that House,
and voted away that public money over the disposal of
which the people had a right to exercise a controul. The
expenditure of that money the people had a right to con-
troul, for it was their own. It was wrung from their
hard necessities ; and they had a right to determine by
their represeatatives in what way it should be disposed of.
It might be said, that notwithstanding all this--that
although it was a violation of the principles of the Consti-
tution for Peers to interfere with the election of Members
of that House—that although it was contrary to all the
principles of common sense that the people should have
no controul over their own property—yet that the
system worked well. But did it work well ? Why
there was not a part of the system which every friend of
liberty would not wish to be changed. In the first place
it gave complete impunity to every man in power. It gave
complete impunity to every man engaged in the collection
of the revenue. If any person was injured or oppressed
by the exactions of a tax-gatherer, he found himself sur-
rounded with intricate forms and 'almost insuperable diffi-
eiaties before be could even bring his action for redress.—
If that House were really returned by the people, an effec-
tual check would soon be given to excessive exercise of the
power vested in persons it, authority and office. Then
let the House look at the magisterial bench. It was a de-
licate subject ; but did not the unpaid Magistrates of this
country do almost what they pleased with complete im-
punity? Were not all the poorer classes of the people of
England in the power of an irresponsible Magistracy? It
Wu well known that the Court of King's Bench never in-
terfered with the conduct of a Magistrate unless cor-
ruption could be proved, and what Magistrate was such a
fool as to afford the means of proof? He first arraigned
the system for the irresponsibility which it secured. He
then arraigned it for the state of the law generally. But
for the condition of that House the state of the law would
be reformed. Did it not require reform ? That it did
was distinctly stated in his Majesty's Speech from the
Throne. That it did was distinctly proclaimed in the
Commissions which had been appointed on the subject.—
The efforts which the Right Non. Baronet had made to re-
form the law, and one of them especially, did him great
credit, but they were insufficient. Legal nuisances of the
meet injurious description still existed in full vigour. There
was the nuisance of the delay and expence of proceedings
in Courts of Equity. There was the nuisance of five or six
different modes of proceeding existing in the same country.
There was the nuisance of a different code of laws in Eng-
land, in Scotland, and in Ireland. Yet it was said that
the system of law worked well, and that it was said at the
very moment when the whole nation were crying out that
it would work badly. But he would turn to other points.
Did the system of representation in that House work well
for the prosperity and happiness of the people of England?
Had it not produced long and sanguinary wars ? Had it
cot been the cause of all the bloodshed in America at the
Revolution? Was not the result that the country was
above eight hundred millions in debt ? He would defy
any one to point out in history a more industrious people
than the people of England ; a more ingenious people than
the people of England ; a more prudent people than the
people of England : yet, notwithstanding all their industry,
all their Ingenuity, all their perseverance, and all their
prudence, they were loaded with a public debt of above
eight hundred millions, and were staggering under the
pressure of private distress.--( Hear, hear, hear.)—From
every part of the country representations of that distress
were every day pouring in; and could it be said that the
system worked well ? Having thus, as he conceived,
made out his case of abuse, he now came to consider the
remedy. That remedy should be strictly founded on con-
stitutional principles. In the first place, he thought that
Parliaments were of too long duration, and that they ought
to be shortened. He was of opinion that they ought not
to be beyond triennial. That was the period at which
they were fixed at the Revolution, of which triennial Par-
liaments was one of the concomitant conditions. At the
Revolution, the people of England cashiered a monarch,
who was a bigot and a tyrant ; and in so doing they did
well. They determined also that Parliament should last
but three years. He knew that there were two Statutes,
the 4th and 36th of Edward 111. which declared that
rig Parliaments should be annual; and he knew also that
lee there had been much controversy as to the precise meaning of
those statutes, and whether it was intended to declare that
there should be a new Parliament every year, or only a
session...-(Hear, bear.)—On that subject Prynne had
treated in toe fourth part of his celebrated work. He (Mr.
O'Connell), however, did not wish to go so far back into
antiquity. He rested on the Revolution. He rested on the
statute of William, which ena.ted that Parliaments should
thenceforth be triennial. The next measure which he
should propose as a remedy for the existing abuse was an
extension of suffrage. Nothing could be more anomalous
or more obvious to ridicule, than the present state of the
elective franchise. In the English counties it was vested
in freeholders of forty shillings a year; in the Irish coun-
ties in freeholders of ten pounds a year ; in Scotland in
certain feudal qualifications. The same absurd and fan-
tastic variety existed in the boroughs. In some the right
of voting was acquired by purchase, in others it was he-
reditary, in others it was the reward of servitude. The
abuse was glaring. It was indefensible. A man who
had never been in Colchester, or in some similar place,
had, nevertheless, a right to vote for the representation of
it. A merchant of London, with 50,0001 a year, had
no right to vote at an election for the city; but that pri-
vilege was possessed by a liveryman without a shilling.
The remedy which be proposed was a constitutional one.
It was that every man of proper age and proper capacity
should have the right of voting. In other words, it was
universal suffrage. He would give every man the right
which the Constitution intended he should have. What
was the principle on which that House was hounded?
That the life, liberty, and property of every man in the
country should be protected. That House had no right
to take a penny out of the pockets of the people without
the consent of the people. All who paid taxes, directly
or indirectly, ought to hare some influence in their impo-
sition, The personal liberty of the subject was affected,
among other things, by the ballot for the militia. If a
man's person and purse were at the mercy of the House,
he had a right to have a share in its Constitution. He
had read a passage from Blackstone, in which it was
stated, that the reason for requiring a certain qualifica-
tion of property in a voter was, because he might other-
wise be dependent. But was there no way of making
every man, however poor, independent in his vote?
Would not the vote by ballot effect that desirable
object? A poor man who voted by public suffrage might
certainly vote in conformity with his own opinion. But
he might also be liable to the objection which Blackstone
had stated. Only throw the shield of the ballot over him,
and he would vote in perfect safety. It had been said that
a representative ought to meet his constituents boldly and
openly in public. To that there could be no objection
whatever. Let the Member be nominated in an open
court. Let his conduct be discussed in an open court.
Let time be given for considering his merits. But, if not
elected at once by a show Of hands, if subjected to tire de-
cision of a peel, then let the vote by ballot secure the intle-
Peudence of the voter. That was the mode of election re-
sorted to by many gallant men and others associating in
this Metropolis in Clubs, for the purpose of avoiding the
inconveniences which might in many cases attend an open
vote; and that was the system which, is his opinion.
ought to be adopted in electing the Members of that
House. The poor voter would then have equal power
with the rich. It had been said that the sun burnt the
colour of slavery on the negro. No such brand distin-
guished the Englishman. As the right of all Englishmen
were equal, so also ought to be their votes, and ballot
would reader them so. He felt much obliged to the
House for the attention with which they had heard such an
insignificant individual address them at length oa this
topic. He had established the existence of the abuse, and
he had pointed out what he conceived would be the remedy.
In his opinion any little differences of opinion that existed
among the friends of Reform generally ought not to be
allowed to aspirate them, and thereby to strengthen
the enemies of Reform. There was a large debt of
liberty due to the people of England. He should be
happy to see it paid, even by instalments. He would
take ten or five shillings in the pound if be could
not get twenty. He called upon those who thought
Reform necessary to vote with him, although they
might not agree in all his principles. The details of the
measure might be a matter of subsequent arrangement.
n for in ieht be said, by those who thought no time proper
hisßeform, that the present was an improper time. In
opinion no time could be more suitable. We had been
at peace for fifteen
years. We were not threatened with
any war. The country was in a state of perfect tianquil-
litT. The factions of religion no longer existed. All
the members of the
communityato9db y the enjoyedside
oe
fqo
tahle
rights.
Protestant Dissenter Protestant

shurehman, and the Roman Catholic by both ; and be
trusted they were equally ready to maintain civil liberty.
There was N,`,:undmt leisure. There were no great land-
marks of the Constitution to repair. There was no ani-
mosity of parties. Ministers were not opposed to im-
provement. On the contrary, they appeared' disposed to
yield an unreluctant assent to it ; and he sincerely be-
lievel that many of them would go the whole length of
perfect Reform if they dared so to oppose the oligarchy.
If we looked at the state of the whole of Europe, we
should see the necessity of establishing the principles of
liberty more firmly in this country. The Autocrat of
Russia, having shouldered his brother from the throne,
had a powerful military array which he was ready at a
moment to pour forth. The Despot of Austria had
350,000 men in arms. The Despot of Prussia was
equally prepared. In the south of Europe the bigot of
Spain was earnest in his efforts to impose shackles upon
the public mind. The vile Don Miguel persevered in
treading down all constitutional freedom. In France,
lately so volcanic, the earth began again to tremble. The
Monarch of that country, with a foolish attachment to
ancient prejudices, feared to do justice lest it should
be attributed to weakness, forgetting the authority
by which it was commanded to "Be just and fear
not ;" and the crater, the mouth of which had
been so recently stopped, threatened to re-open.
This was a time, therefore, at which the friends
of freedom in this country ought to rally. This
was a time at which the principles of genuine English
liberty, as exemplified in the English House of Commons,
ought to be asserted and confirmed. In the political
storms which history described, where was the standard of
liberty ever found to be securely planted but on the Eng-
lish soil ? The period was, perhaps, fast arriving when
she must again stand forth an example to the world. Let
her, therefore, re-establish the Constitution of her ances-
tors, and in so doing preserve the prerogative of the Crown.
the rights of the Peerage, and the liberties of the people.
—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman con-
cluded his speech (the latter part of which was delivered
with so much rapidity that we have been able to give but
a very imperfect report of it) by moving for " leave to
bring in a Bill for the effectual and radical reform of
abuses in the representation of the people in the Commons
House of Parliament."

Captain DUNDAS opposed the motion. He con-
tended, in tile first place, that the measure proposed by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not remedy the
particular evils of which he complained, and in tl►e second
place, that so great a change would injure the whole system
of our Constitution.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot but feel, Sir, consider-
able embarrassment in rising to address the House on this
occasion, because it is impossible to avoid observing that
the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare
has placed me in a difficult and very delicate situation.
Since the time when I brought forward a motion for
general Reform, and when, in my opinion, all the argu-
ments in favour of that proposition had been exhausted—
and exhausted unsuccessfully—the subject had been per-
mitted to rest in silence, until a Noble Lord, in the early
part of this Session, introduced a motion for Radical Re-
form. The Hen. and Learned Member for Clare has
now moved a resolution containing three main features.
The first is that of triennial Parliaments ; the second,
universal suffrage ; and the third, vote by ballot ; from
all of which, I beg leave to say, that I most decidedly
disagree. In consequence of this, lam placed in a very
difficult situation ; for either I must vote for what I do
not like in the Honourable Member's plan of Reform,
or I must join with those who oppose all Reform what-
ever. Under all these circumstances, I must be allowed
to return to the plan and the propositions which
in former times I have myself brought forward. I must
be permitted to recur to the principles I then advanced,
and by proceeding thus I shall be enabled to give a nega-
tive to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member, and
afterwards propose a measure which I think to be founded
on better and more Constitutional principles. I agree
with the Hon. Member that it is very disagreeable for
reformers to come into collision, and if the first pat t of
his proposition was that to which he confined himself,
though I do not approve entirely of triennial Parliaments,
and believe that Parliaments elected for five years would
be preferable to them as to our present system, yet I do
not think I should be led to oppose him on that point
alone. But universal suffrage and vote by ballot are mea-
sures that, in my *pinion, are incompatible with the Con-
stitution of this country.—(Hear, hear.) Ido not deny
that there has been and may be a free and well-regulated
Government founded on such a plan of representation.—
I do not deny that the Commonwealth of America is a
well-constituted Governtnent ; but considering our sys-
tem—considering our Monarchy, and our House of Lords,
and remembering the state of property in this country, I
do not think that the exercise of universal suffrage could
end otherwise than in a collision that would produce a
democracy or commonwealth on the one hand, or an ab-
solute Monarchy on the other. Mr. Fox, Sir, however
he might be violent in opposition to or in pursuit of a
particular measure, yet preserved a high degree of mode-
ration in the :most violent and strongest times. When
Mr. Fox was speaking of the doctrines of equality, so
much in fashion at the time of the French Revolution, he
said, " I tots, Sir, am for equality. I think that men are
entitled to equal rights, but they are equal rights to un-
equal things." To that observation, Sir, I adhere. I
think that if universal suffrage were introduced, equal
rights to unequal things could not, in the long run, be
maintained. The Hon. and Leaned Member for Clare has
truly said that this is a time of tranquillity, and that it is,
therefore, the best time for introducing the discussion of
this subject. I agree with hint as to the fact, and I
submit to him whether that tranquillity is not in a
great measure owing to the circumstance that this doc-
trine of universal suffrage has been kept for several
years out of the sight of the people—that latterly
there have been found no popular leaders to recommend it,
and that, consequently cafe and practical Reform has been
for years preferred by the mass of the people to more vio-
lent and sweeping measures. The first thing on which I
found my plan for Parliamentary Reform is, that there has
been of late a vast increase of property, for which we can-
not find in the Constitution of this House any adequate
representation. This principle I have stated on former occa-
sions, and I have gone so folly into the proof of the in-
creasing wealth and intelligence—the means of information
—and the capacity to form a right judgment—that I shall
not go further into any of these topics now. I shall there-
fore at once proceed to read the resolution I mean to pro-
pose if the Hon. Member's motion should be negatived.
It is one which I have before submitted to a Committee of
this House. The resolution declares, " That it is expe-
dient to extend the basis of the representation of the people
in this House." The next resolution is relative to the
manner in which that basis is to be extended. I say in
the first place, that there are many large manufacturing
and commercial towns which have no representatives in the
House. That is the first and most grave defect in the pre-
sent system of representation.—(llear, hear.) We feel it
every day i❑ the business of this House.—(Hear, hear.)
We are really in want of representatives of the extensive
interests connected with our woollen, iron, cloth, and silk
trades, and with our shipping bu•iness. I will read a I,st
of the towns which in the former Bill I once proposed were
intended to be entitled to send Members to this House. I

do not say that all the towns the names of which I am about
to read should now at once beentitled to send Members, but
I think that withinsome limited period that privilege should
be conferred on them. The towns are Macclesfield, Stock-
port, Whitehaven, Sunderland, Cheltenham, Black Bolton,
Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Dudley, Leeds, Wakefield,
Sheffield, and North and South Shields. Five of these
towns are the seats of the woollen and silk trade—
three are engaged most extensively in the woollen trade—
four in the iron trade, and two of them, Cheltenham and
Bi ighton, are towns with a large population ; and, in my
opinion, ought to send representatives to Parliament. I
will add, that when giving representatives to the large
towns, we should not omit giving two representatives also
to Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. Many of our larger
counties are also insufficiently represented ; and to them
also I would give additional Members. In those counties
that have already two representatives, it would be incon-
venient to add to the number. The present system, as
far as it concerns them, works well, and I would not dis-
turb their arrangement ; but where the counties are very
large, I should propose to divide them into two districts,
of north and south, and to allow two Members for each.
The second resolution I should propose to the House, in
pursuance of the, principles I have stated, declares, " That
it is expedient that 11Iembers should be sent to Parliament
by the large manufacturing towns, and that additional
Members should be given to counties ofgreat extent, wealth,
and population." I will now proceed to st ate the manner
in which I propose to execute the purpose of that resolu-
tion :—The additional Members I have proposed would
make a large addition to the numbers in this House. In
order to get rid of the objection to that addition, I shoUld
propose that many of the Cornwall boroughs should only
send one representative, instead of two, to Parliament ; and
that any boroughs with less than 2,500 inhabitants should
only send one Member. I trust that will not he considered
a grievance, particularly after the resolution I shall
propose relative to this subject. The third resolution
states, " That; in order to attain the object of the fore-
going resolution, without inconvenience, it is expedient
that the number of the smaller boroughs returning Mean-
bees shall not exceed 60; and that boroughs with a popu-

lation of. only 2,500 shall not sea I more than one fiemher
to Parliament." This brings me to my last prope,itine.
It would, no doubt, be matter of consideration with this
House, whether, having deprived these boroughs of one
Member, it would be fit to give them compensation. I think
it would not be a hardship to deprive them of this rigl-t,
when it is considered that it is a trust for the benefit of the
people; but it might to he remembered, that it is at the
same time a privilege conferred upon the electors. In the
Act giving the borough of Wenlock the right of electing
Members, it is called a privilege—in the Act giving it to
the county of Durham, it is called so likewise. As long,
therefore, as they are not convicted of any offence, which
ought to deprive them of their franchise, it would be a
better and more convenient way to grant them compen-
sation. That was the measure adopted towards Ire-
land, and that measure forms a precedent for this mode
of conduct. The fourth resolution is, " That it is
expedient to grant compensation to boroughs which lose
their right of returning two Members, the said compensa-
tion to be afforded by means of a fixed sum to be applied
to that purpose by annual grants for several years." I
have now done with the statement of what I mean to pro-
pose; but I cannot but take notice of a general argument
which on these occasions is always introduced—that this
House, as now constituted, practicAly serves the purposes
of its Constitution—that it balances the power of the
House of Lords—that it controuls the Crown—and that
we ought not, therefore, to ask for any farther improve.
ment in it. Every year that I sit in this House con-
vinces me more and more that that representation is not
founded in truth. I think I have before proved, in a
manner that cannot be answered, that in all the great
divisions in this House, on questions when we are
voting away the public money, of those Members
who are most entitled to be ranked among the
number of the true representatives of the people—
I mean the Members for the counties and large
towns—the numbers are two to one in favour of
reduction of the public burdens ; while the large
majority of those who always vote in favour of the
Estimates is formed of Members for Boroughs. We are
told this year, as a sort of consolation for the present state
of things, that we are better than our ancestors of the
times of Geo. I. and Geo. 11. In the Parliaments of the
former it is stated that there were 270 placetnen : and in
the first Parliament of Geo. 11. it is stated that 257 place-
men bad seats in this House. Sir, I have had the curi-
osity to look at their proceedings, to see if their votes bore
out what might be expected from such a return as to the
formation of the House; whether I could find that con-
stant majority of 250 voting in favour of every item of
expenditure, and in opposition to every proposition for
Reform. The result is not at all what I might have ex-
pected. In 1717 the proposition of the Minister for the
number of land forces was 16,000 men. That proposi-
tion, so far from being treated as a moderate establishment,
was opposed by a very large party in this House; and on
the motion to reduce the number, the reduction was sup-
ported by 125 ♦otes, the original estimate by only 175.
The Ministerial majority was not therefore very consider-
able. Two other resolutions were then recommended as a
consequence of the former. A sum of 681,0001. was
proposed for the Army. The Opposition moved to reduce
it to 620,0001., and on the original question being put,
the ayes were only 172, while the noes were as high as
153. Ido not say that such a proposition was either just
or generous ; but such was in fact the conduct of that cor-
rupt and place-holding Parliament. Our conduct is so
different ftotn that in the present days of purity, that we
never think of making such a proposition ; and yet we
thank God that we are not extortioners. Indeed, so far
are we from imitating such conduct, that when an
Hon. Member proposed that General military officers
should not at the same time receive their military
pay and hold civil offices, the Hon. Member for-West-
minster, whom none will accuse of favouring corruption,
said that not only the General Officers ought not thus to
be reduced, but that inferior officers ought also to be
allowed to receive pay for civil services. At the period to
which I am now alluding 130,0001. was proposed for• the
vote for the half pay ; the proposition was opposed, and
the Minister offered to reduce it to 115,0001., but his offer
was not accepted, and it was moved to reduce it to
94,0001. I❑ this year, when we are so much improved,
the vote for the full pay of retired officers was 104,0001.,
and for the half pay of retired officers 720,000/. There
is, I must say, considerable difference in the burdens of
the people, and it is true there is also a considerable differ-
ence in their ability to bear them ; but it was certainly
better for the people to live under a corrupt Parliament
with small burdens, than under this pure Parliament,
which breaks their backs with its weight of taxation. At
that period, too, the House passed a resolution that all the
vacancies in the establishments should be filled up by
officers taken from the half-pay list ? but a similar motion
made a short time since by the Hon. Member for Aber-
deen met with no success. Ido not know how to vote
for the motion of the Hen. and Learned Member ; and yet
I must say that I wish succe s to its object, and that the
Par‘liament of this day is not so ardent•a guardian of the
pufilic purse as it is the fashion to represent it. It may
be said, perhaps, that the times to which I have referred
were times of great opposition ; but I can support my ar-
gument by going into the corrupt times of Sir R. Walpole.
In the first Parliament of George II every thing is said
to have been most corrupt. In the year 1730 we shall
see the course that Parliament adopted. The army then
cost 651,000/., and the forces for our colonies and planta-
tions 160,0001. ; and let it not be supposed, Sir, that
at the time we had ■o colonies. New York, Carolina,
Bermuda, and Jamaica were then in our possession, and
required vigilant guardianship to preserve them. So far
from that bum being now sufficient to defend our colonial
possessions, it is little more than sufficient to keep the
lonian Islands, which can hardly be connected with any
agreeable recollections in the minds of the people of this
country. The Army now costs us 7,300,000/. a year.
In 1729, the whole supply of the defensive establishment,
voted when we had subsidies to pay to foreign Powers,
was 3,600,000/. ; in 1829, when we were under less sis-
advantages, the supply voted for the same purpose was,
17,620,0001. I think, Sir, that I have shown pretty
well, that much as we boast of the times in which we
live, yet, as faithful guardians of the public purse, we are
not entitled to all the praise we so abundantly claim for
ourselves.—lt has been contended that, in those days, the
influence of the Government was far gre tter than it is at
present ; but this was se much the reverse, that in a fa-
vourite measure, the Minister was defeated by a majority
of 74 to 64 ; and even the mast reasonable propositions
brought forward by Ministers were defeated. I ask, then,
what became of the 270 placemen who supported the
Government? I will not go farther with the votes of
the House for the last few years. I have done it on
former occasions; it is now unnecessary—for I will not
rest my cause on anything but the declarations of the
Noble Duke at the head of affairs, and the Right Hon.
Secretary. They have told us that the estimates have
been reduced by two millions. Why is it that this SUM
of two millions has not been saved to the country until it
pleased the Duke of Wellington and the Right Hon. Secre-
tary to reduce it? Sir, I say, that if the House of Com-
mons had done its duty, it would not have waited until
his Grace came into office, but would, of its own authority,
have revised the estimates, and compelled the Ministers, by
refusing the supplies, to reduce the sum more than two
millions.—(Hear.)—And now, Sir, on what do I rest my
hopes of reduction and reform ?—on this House No ;
but on his Majesty's Ministers, and on the effect of public
opinion out of doors, which, some how er other, has
greater influence on them than even majorities in this
House.—(Hear.)--Si:, I have now nearly finished what
is to me an extremely disagreeable task. My present posi-
tion I consider an unfortunate one. I think lam pledged
to do what I am now doing, from the part I formerly took
on this measure. I know my propositions make me liable
to be accused on the one hand, of rashness, and desire of
innovation; and of hesitation and change of opinion upon
the other. I know I stand in the situation of a butt for
attack upon both sides—attacks from those who wish to
push Reform farther than I do, and from those who do
not wish for Reform at all. But, Sir, the object of my
proposition is to improve the representation without doing
injury to the Constitution. I wish to preserve the fund!.
mentals of the Constitution, while I give to every indivi-
dual his just rights. I consider my propositions are cal-
culated to produce this effect, and whatever imputations
may be cast against me by the anti-reformers in this House
or by the violent reformers out of this House, I shall
submit them as soon as the motion of the lion. and Learned
Gentleman has been disposed of—a motion which, I ant
bound to say, he brought forward with great temper and
ability. But as I believe his views to be erroneous, and as
I think his propositions injurious, I cannot adopt them,
and know no course I could pursue except that upon which
I have decided.

Mr. S. WORTLEY addressed the House ar&dst great
confusion and uproar. He declared that he should, upon
all occasions, give his decided and unqualified vote against
Reform. There was nothing singular in the spvech which
the Hon and Learned Member had made that evening—it
w is in perfect keeping with the speeches which he had
made in other places with the avowed oljnt of excluding
the influence of property from the House of Commons.
He (Mr. Stuart Wortley) dissented from the constitu-
tional legitimacy of that proposition, and was of opinion
that the influence of property produced a beneficial effect
upon that House. He showed that even in America,
President Jefferson had declared that property, as well as

peraons, .o.iflt to be represented in Congress, and quoted
a long extract from one of his le: tors, published at the close
of the American war, in proof of his position. He de-
nounced the system of universal suffrage as one, not only
of great ahsurdity, but a'so of manifest impoliey. He
entered into a long train of argument to prove, that if it
hail been in exi-tence at the time of the Revolution of
1658, we should still have had the Stuarts on the Throne
—that if it had been in existence in 1715, the Protestant
succession would have been set aside—and that if it had
been in existence last year, they would not have had the
pleasure of hearing the Hon and Learned Member for
Clare uttering his sentiments in the House on the present
occasion. He showed that the system of universal suf-
frage had not succeeded in the United States, and was
proceeding to describe the inconveniences which arose
from the vote by ballot in the same country, when the
loud cries of " Question" rendered his further observations
perfectly inaudible in the gallery.-
Lord ALTHORP—Sir, with respect to the motion be-
fore the House, although I agree in part with the Hon.
and Learned Member for Clare, yet with respect to the
remedy for the evil complained of, and more especially
with respect to the mode in which that remedy is to be
applied, I confess I have for some time laboured under
very considerable difficulty. Sir, the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman moved for leave to bring in a Bill, and in doing
so he has stated his objects and the principles of his in-
tended Bill• The first principle he proposes to introduce
is that of triennial Parliaments ; the second is that of uni-
versal suffrage, and the third is the election by ballot. So
far as respects triennial Parliaments, I entirely agree with
the Hon. Gentleman, and I should be most glad to see a
return to that practice.;During the time, Sir, that this prac-
tice did prevail, the country flourished ; an objection was
raised againet it, and the change to septennial Parliaments was
merely the consequence of temporary causes which are no
longer in existence. Every one who looks to the conduct
of Parliament at its beginning and towards its end must
see at once that triennial Parliaments would give the people
a powerful influence, and an influence that would be ma-
nifested in the most proper way. Actual experience of
system has proved that it was not attended with any dan-
ger ; and it is not, therefore, a new experiment, but has
been tried with success : and believing that if we restore
it now it will increase the influence of the people, I am
prepared to support a motion for the purpose, as I have
heretofore done, when a proposition for returning to
triennial Parliaments came before the House. With
respect to another point, that of election by ballot,
I have already in the course of the Session, express-
ed my opinion. lam still, after every considera••
tion I could give the subject, of the same opinion— namely,
that election by ballot would greatly diminish the expence
of elections ; that it would do away with improper in-
fluence upon the electors ; and that it would allow them
to give their votes as they pleased, subject of course to
the action of popularity, and of the ties of feeling and
affection. I now come to the main point of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's motion, which'he has not put into his
Bill, but which lie states in words to be Radical Reform ;
that is to say, universal suffrage. By what the Hon.
Gentleman has stated throughout his explanation, he makes
this the main point of his proposed measure. lam a
friend to Parliamentary Reform, not because I entertain
theoretical views on the subject, but because I look upon it
as a great practical question. I consider it a great evil in
this !louse that there are pe►sons who are proprietors of
a great number of boroughs—that there may be a combi-
nation amongst these borough proprietors, and that great
mischief may in consequence result to the country. The
expence of elections produces one of the greatest mischiefs
—namely, that the people are thus frequently deprived of
the choice of those whom they would wish to send, and,
therefore, anything that would destroy the practice now
Prevailing with respect to boroughs, and would take away
the expense of elections, must, in my mind, be most be-
neficial to the country. I now come to the degree
i❑ which we should endeavour to effect a change in a
practical point of view. • Change is in itself an evil,
and, therefore, the less the change the more tinclined
shall Ibe to adopt it. I leave never been inclined to
entertain minute differences of opinion. If there be any
proposition brought forward which will give the people
greater influence than the borough proprietors, and secure
them that influence which they might properly, practi-
cally, and constitutionally employ, this is a proposition
which I will support. But the principle of the Constitu-
tion is not that one class, but that every class, of the com-
munity shall be represented. This, however, will not be
the case if universal suffrage be permitted, for then but
one class will be represented. In the Constitution, as it at
present exists, although I admit, not to a sufficient extent,
every class is represented—not, I allow, in their proper
proportions—and I should therefore like to see a greater
number of Members sent by the people to represent their
feelings and interests. With these views it is that I sup-
port Parliamentary Reform. It may, I know, be said that,
at the beginning of the Session, I supported a motion
brought forward by my Noble relative, from which I dis-
sented in most of its parts. This I admit ; but no other
choice was left for me, if I did not support that I must have
opposed the question of Reform altogether. But even that
inconsistency was done away by my Noble Friend having
given me leave to move for a Committee, in which I shall
be at liberty to support such a plan of Reform as I might
deem not to be injurious. Entertaining those views my
decision is different from that of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Clare, because, although agreeing with him in
two propositions out of three, yet the one which I differ
from is so large and so comprehensive that I cannot give
my support to his motion.
Lord VALLETORT spoke in oppositio❑ to the motion,
but it was impossible to collect the exact tenour of his ob-
servations.

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN opposed the motion. He defended
the existing system at some length, but the interruptions
which proceeded from various parts of the House rendered
the Hon. Member's speech almost entirely inaudible in the
gallery. He observed, that when be marked the first
foundations of the republican system, and saw what mi—
chief it frequently produced, he could conceive no reason
for changing the permanent principles oldie British Con-
stitution for the restless and wavering doctrines of demo-
cracy. Walt respect to the boron:, h system, he thought
that it °stela not to be condemned. He looked upon
boroughs as being useful subsidiaries to the British Con-
stitution.—(Loud coughing, and various other noises.) Ile
was perfectly aware how unworthy the advocate was of the
cause which he had espoused, but he was satisfied in the
reflection that he hail endeavoured, however imperfectly,
to discharge his duty.
Mr. HOBHOUSE.said he certainly should vote for the
motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare. In
thus acting, he founded himself on the precedent of a great
man, Mr. Fox, who, when another great man, Mr. Pitt
(who had subsequently changed his opinion) moved for a
Committee, with reference to the question of Reform,
said, "though I differ from hint with respect to what he
proposes, yet, so completely am I convinced of the neces-
sity of Paeltamentary Reform, that I will support his
motion ;Adler than that my name should be made a handle
of reproach by the anti-reformers." On the same prin-
ciple, though he might not agree altogether with the Hon.
and Learned Member for Clare, still he would vote for
his motion. When the Hon. Member, who had last ad-
dressed the House, said that the advocate was unworthy of
the cause, he really thought that he was mistaken. He
thought they were both extremely well matched ; for the
advocate had done all he could do in support of the cause,
which was just nothing at all—(A laugh)—and certainly
the cause deserved no more.—(Laughter.) He might,
however, claim the merit at least of good wishes; for all
that could be effected, and that was nothing, he had
achieved, One point on which the Hon. Member be-
stowed his peculiar regard was the much-calumniated
boroughs.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the Hon. Member's
reading must certainly have taught him what the opinion
of Mr. Pitt, of Mr. Fox, of Mr. Grattan, and of various
other illustrious men was upon this subject. He surely
must know what was said by Mr. Burke, with respect to
boroughs, who, though any thing hut a reformer himself,
declared that boroughs were " shameful parts of the Con-
stitution ;" and truly did he so describe them.—(Hear.)--
But it was right for the Hon. Gentleman anti the Noble
Lord, who represented boroughs, to take the bull by the
horns on this occasion, and say, " See the benefit of bo-
roughs in our persons—see what is effected by the borough
system."—(Laughter )--A late eminent statesman, a great
supporter of the borough system, was always anxious that
the electors of a borough, when discovered in acts of bribery
—when caught—when seized flagranti delieto, ought to
be punished. For what? Why he (Mr. llobbouse) sup-
posed, because those individuals had not art enough to
conceal their vice.—(llear.)—They were punished to de-
ter others from being caught.—(Hear.)--Note these were
the cases which he thought ought never to be taken up ;
and when they were brought forward he had always op-
posed such futile attempts to botch, to cobble the Consti-
tution. He here might be permitted to observe, as an en-
couragement to those who pursued the path of Reform,
that it was consolatory to find that those great men who,
at a former time, were maligned and calumniated, when
playing the up. hill game of reformation, had justice clone
to them by posterity, and not by a late posterity, who
united in declaring that they were the spirits whose prin-
ciples were to be followed as the lights of the world. Was
not that great man, Mr. Fox, night after night, repre-
sented as the enemy of the King and of the Constitution ?
Was it not debated in Council, whether he should not be

arrest NI ? Was it not intended to institute some sever;
proceedings against that Uncompromising patriot? But !et
gentlemen mark the reverse. Was be not now quoted
all sides of the House? Was he nut mentioned as an autho-
rity from which there was no appeal ? And what said
about our bea'rtiful Co•stitution, which had been so highly
eulogised to-night ? He said " the whole of that system,
as now carried on, is as outrageous to humanity as it
is pernicious to good Government: It undermines the in
tegrity of the heart, and in its place introduces dishonest.
and deceit." The lion. Gentleman proceeded to argue
that this was the natural effect of the borough system.
The lion. Member for Ipswich had introduced the story of
Dorothy, Lady Packington (whO had been in the habit
of sending Members to the House of Commons), for the
purpose of showing how much more pure our system of
representation was now, as compared with that which
prevailed in the time of Lady Dorothy. The story was an
old one; it had been repeated every year since Mr. Canning
first told it; and, therefore, he would introduce another,
which was somewhat newer. Ile alluded to the procla-
mation of James I. in 1620, a proclamation drawn up
Lord Bacon, assisted by Lord Coke, and aided by Mr.
S'rjeant Carew. The people were then enjoined not to
elect as Members of Par)iament, " mean lawyers, or needy
men of no estimation, or bankrupts, or such like obscure
persons." This sheaved that about the time of James 1.,
of blessed memory, very unfit persons had been admitted
into Parliament; but it offered no reason for our en-
deavouring to put ify the present system. Now, with re-
spect to the propositions of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber fur Clare, he would briefly advert to them. The Hon.
and Learned Member wished for triennial Parliaments—
for that he was ready. The septenial act was, to use the
words of. Sir W. Jones, "as gross an instance of usurpa-
tion as ever appeared on the Statute-book." With re-
spect to universal suffrage, he would agree to it
though he believed that many friends, and sincere
friends t 4 Reform, would not; and he must say ihat
he thought the best plan of Reform was that to
which the largest number acceded. Still, however, if be
were called upon he would veto for universal suffrage.
With respect to the election by ballot, that also he
would agree to, although it was said to be c ntrary w the
spirit of Englishmen to vote in that manner. He was as
proud of spirit as any man, but the hustings was some-
times the place not exactly suited for a display of it. Non
hic locus rrat. A hundred stitutes had been enacted to
secure the integrity of voting. Had they done so ? They
had not: and if so, why not try what the system of se-
crecy might effect? He was formerly opposed to the system
of voting by ballot; but now he thought that without
ballot no effectual mode of Reform could be devised. In
conclusion, the Hon. Member implored the House to con-
sider that the necessity for Reform was gaining more
ground out of the House than those who did not mark the
workings of the public mind imagined ; and he thought,
under these circumstances, that it would be wise in those
who held the sovereignty of the country to come to some
agreement on the subject. Let them not fear injustice.
He had been asked by the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he
were a landlord, and an innkeeper on his estate voted
against the person whom he wished to be elected, whether
he would not turn hilts out of his tenement. He said, rel.-
-tainly not. He would act as a Noble Lord had done, who,
when his principal tenant voted against the individual
whom be wished to be elected, and even had the meetings
of the opposing candidate in his house, • took no notice
whatever of the matter.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said the subject of reform was
so mach exhausted, having been twice in the course of
the present session taken into consideration, that he would,
in conformity with the feeling of the House, confine him-
self to the specific proposition before it. There were now
two specific proposals before the House,—that of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Clare, and that of the Noble
Lord opposite. The proposal of the Hon. Member for
Clare embraced three distinct subjects,—the restoration
of triennial Parliaments, vote by ballot, and universal
suffrage. With respect to triennial Parliaments, the Hon.
Member for Westminster, had upheld the opinion that the
departure from triennial, and the substitution of septennial
Parliaments, was an act of gross usurpation. But, allow
him to say, that it was an act of usurpation only so far as
it was the act of Parliament, which, being elected for
three years, prolonged its own continuance for seven years.
If the act had been prospective—if it had related to future
Parliaments, it could not properly have been called an act
of usurpation. He was, however, opposed to the restora-
tion of triennial Parliaments, and he was rather surprised
to find a Noble Lord (Althorp) who complained of the
expense of elections, advocate triennial Parliament'.,
which, it was evident, would increase those expenses.
With respect to voting by ballot, it had been said that this
was the mode of election in clubs, and that it might there-
fore be safely applied to the exercise of the elective fran-
chise. But the eases were very different; for the refined
habits of society made it impossible that one gentleman,
who had blackballed another, could meet and associate in
society with that other if the fast were known. He enter-
tained strong doubts on the policy of compelling the exercise
of the elective franchise in secret. Ile thought it would afford
a cover for hypocrisy and corruption, and effectually pre-
vent that free canvass and discussion of the merits of the '
candidates-which, in his opinion, it was not desirable to
take away from the electors.—(Hear.)—Again, unless
there was to be a strict scrutiny afterwards, there could be
no confidence that the election had been fairly conducted,
or that the votes which had been received were valid.—
(Hear )—With respect to universal suffrage, he had only
this observation to make : if the Hon. and Learned Member
for Clare would say that he preferred a democracy to a mo-
narchy, then he (Sir R. Peel) would say that the Hon.
Member's reasoning in support of universal suffrage was
correct ; but not otherwise. The monarchy which the
Hon. Member professed to admire and reverence ; the
House of Lords, which the Hon. Member said he would
not impair, and which he said he desired to uphold ; neithi r
of these could long survive the introduction of universal
suffrage. if the House of Commons were to be the imme-
diate organ of the people's will, it would not long be con-
tented with one-third only of the legislative power; and
the very first moment in which opposition appeared on the
House of Lords, to the expressed wish of a House of Com-
mons so constituted, that moment, he was convinced, would
endanger the existence of the other House, or at least, pro-
duce such a state of collision between the two as would to-
tally impede the action of Government.—(Hear.)_lf the
House of Commons had been so constituted at the period of
the Revolution, the Hon. and Learned Member would have
found a very different settlement of affairs.—(Hear. )—ln-
deed, in one place, the Hon. and Learned Member had
seemed to be drawn into the admission of the legitimate
consequences of his own positions. Fur the Hon. and
Learned Member had said that the people paid for the army,
the navy, and the other institutions of the country ; and lie
had then asked why the people should not also have controul
over the appointments; by this the Hon. and Learned Member
clearly allowed that lie wanted executive, as well as legisla-
tive power, for the House of Conotions he would have con-
stituted. The Hon. and Learned Member, too, had talked of
the dismissal of a gentleman from office under the Crown,
because that gentleman had voted against the Government.
He had heard this part of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber's speech with the greatest surprise. Did the Hon
and Learned Member think that a Government was to
be supported by those who voted against the Government ?
Surely such an argument, in favour of universal suffrage,
was unworthy the understanding of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Clare. Besides, let me tell the Hon. and
Learned Member that universal suffrage would not pre-
vent such occurrences; for, in the United States, to which
the Hon. and Learned Member so often pointed with
satisfaction, there had been a vast greater number of such
removals from office than there had been in our limited
monarchy. In this country, upon changes in adalinistra-
tion, it was customary to remove only those who held
high and confidential posts ; but when General Jackson
was placed in the President's chair, his first act was to
remove all in office, from the highest to the lowest, even
down to the post-masters, who had appeare I in opposition
against his party. (Cheers.) On these grounds, there-
fore, he opposed the proposal of the Hon, and Learned
Member for Clare. With respect to the proposal of the
Noble Lord (J. Russell) lie must give that also his decided
opposition. The Noble Lord had said that he (Sir R
Peel) had, on a former occasion, contrasted the present
Parliament with the Parliaments of George Is and
that he had draw.: en inference of the former, with regard
to the number of members in it who held °Ace. Having
stated this, the Noble Lord had said, that he would show
that in the Parliaments of George I. and 11. the executive
Government was effectually controlled, and most salutary
measures passed, notwithstanding the number of members
the
hneo
contrast charg e against
only in those
reply
t o Pa
an rlie
Honourablerees , and
l
he
iu them holding office. Now, let him remind the Noble
Lord, that in making this colonist he (Sir Robert Peel)
d preferredmade
Baronet who had complained of lailge number of per-
sons holding office in the present Parliament, and bade the
House look to the example of their ancestors. With thin ex-
planation, let him observe, that if the position of the Noble
Lord could be made out, there would he an end to any ob.
jection against persons holding office being Members of
Parliament, since Perliatnents so constituted could effec-
tually controul the executive Government and pass the
most salutary measures. For the proposal of the Noble
Lord would not give satisfaction to the reformers who
supported the Hon. Member for Clare; and, if carried
into effect, would, as it appeared to. hitn, involve the

ontntry in confusion from one told of, it to, this other, !l!tr
the separation, and diOisien, and joining of onunties. He
doubted, too, if it would be possible for the Noble Lord to
carry into effect his plan for the compulsory sale. ..fboroughs, and he did not see in what way the pectin my
compensation was to be allotted. The settlement of quali-
fications to vote in various towns, where different interests
prevailed, appeared to him sltogether impracticable. But
he opposed the prepoeal ef the Nnh'e Lord on more general
grounds. Were there, ~t present, due securities for the
lit erties of the people. and hid the popular voice its doe
veieht in that House? He hail no hesitation in answer-
ing in the affirmative. He thought that the history of
that House, in its perseverance against measures of the
other, proved this to be true, and showed that it was not
,s,antrolled l) the other branch of the Legislature. It h.d
been said that expensive wars and the public debt were
owing to the want of representation. Thai. he denied. He
believed that such a House of Commons as the Hon. and
Learned Member for Clare desired would not he a Him ity
against expensive wars. Looking at every peace which
had been made; and at every war that had been tlei.lered,
during the last century, he did not find that peace had hi en
popular, or that war had been contrary to the sentiments
of the people. Lie admitted dist the people had lucerne
tired of war, and clamorous for peace : but it was to the
popular feeeling at the commencement of a war that they
were to look. Never had a popular Miaister unfurled the ban-
ner of war but he was followed by the applause of the people.
The same was true with respect to Ministers who had
carried on war successfully. He thought he was saying no
more than history bore out when he declared that the
disposition of the people of this country was not of the
most pacific character. On these grounds, therefore, he
opposed both the propositions before the House.—(llear.)
Mr. BROUGHAM perfectly agreed with the. night
Hon. Secretary, that this subject had bees so often dis-
cussed, that it would be vain to attempt to throw any new
light upon it, even if the night were not so far advanced,
and the patience of the House less exhausted. lie would
trouble the House with very few observations. In the first
place: let him say that he could not agree to the met'ou
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare.—(Cheers.
Differing so much from the lion. and Learned Alenther
that he should he obliged to vete against two out of the
three parts of the Hon. Member's Bill, he could do no other-
wise: painful as it was fir him, a reformer, to vote
against any proposition for Reform, being, as it was, the
second time only in his lifetime that he had done so; and
Painful as he repeated it was to him, still he must vete
against the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gen:le:eau.
—(Cheers.)—But, concurring as he did, ire the bulk of
the
furNtohe Noble Friend
of phris Nobleooii.eel to
friend.hrifw
He did not differ entirely with the Right Hen. Seen tart/
orraersdo,lu lt,ieon coulds
which
vo rote his
as to the part of the plan which regarded sompensatiore
He saw great difficulty in the plan of pecuniary toopeu.
!Ration, lie saw greater difficulty in discovering whence
the money was to be derived, and he saw greater
culty still in determining to whom the money should
he paid. As at present advised, therefore, he differed
from this part of the plan of his Noble Frieiati, aril so far
he agreed with the Right Hon. Secretary; but the other
port ions of it appeared to him reasonable, desirable aeil emi-
nently practicable ; and in this, therefore, he totally
fered from the Right Hon. Secretary. As to throwitte
the whole country into confusion, as the Right Hon. Se-
cretary thought it would, this appeared to him the most
chimerical of all the alarms which it was customary to
put forward when disagreeable propositiens, and especially
propositions of Reform, were broached in that House.
Then, as to qualifications for voters, this matter, as it epe
peared to him, contained nothing of insitrenount.hlo diffi-
culty. Say that all who rented houses to the amount of
201., or any other given sum, should be qualified to vote,
Were there any local or geographical
there any differences of interests which would reviler such
a mode inapplicable to each and every large town ? If riot,
the difficulty was gut rid of: for it was net !roes at y that he
should point out the best mode, but only that he sheulil show
that there was a mode applicable alike to all persona se situ-
ated, whatever calling they might foliose, and whatever this.
trict they might inhabit. So with respect to the division of
counties ; he saw none of the difficulties which present d
themselves se forcibly to the mind of the Right Hon. Se-
cretary. The Hon. and Learned Gentlenesse . then pro-
ceeded to contend, that the division of counties would not
be attended with any bad eller. The want of this divi-
sion was Peen very strongly illustrated in the ease of the
county of York. He spoke on this subject with great
respect in the presence of one of the potentates of that
great county (Lord Milton.) The desire to be a Member
for the whole county was no doubt very natural, but then
it had worked great mischief,—that it might give the con-
trout of the election, not always to the man who was most
fit to represent it, but to the man who bad the heaviest
purse. Let taut a candidate shake a large purse at hia
opponent, and empty a little of its contents, and he might
carry the county even against its wish ; for in a con-
test of that kind, the man with the weakest purse must
go to the wall. He admitted that this was cot
yet done in York, which kid done itself great credit
in the selection of its representatives; .bat it might
happen, and to the principle from which the evil
might arise he ohjeesed. He . would say, as occasion
should require, give new Members so differont parts of
counties. If a county, or a division of a county, should
not be sufficiently represented for its increased population
and wealth, let a Member be added, not to the whole
county, but to a division of it. Let, for instance, North
Devon have one, and South Devon another, as circuon.
stances should require. This was the principle on, which
our ancestors acted, and on which, if Birmingham or Man-
chester had existed two hundred years ago in one-tenth of
their present extent or opulence, they would have ever
since enjoyed the benefit of reprtseetation. This, then,
was the Reform to which he would consent ; it was an
innovation ; it was that which had heea recommended by
that great man who, though a decided enemy to innova-
vation, was one of the greatest reformers of his day, and
who told us that we should irritate time in our innova-
tions. In adopting this part of the plan of his Noble
Friend, we should net he altering or pulling down, tve
should be only re-adjusting—adapting ear representative
system to the great, the gigantic change which time had
brought about in the circumstances of the country,—
(Hear.)—lt was a gross error—sa error a thousand times
repeated only to be a thousand times refuted,—that such a
Reform was an innovation—that in bringing about a rodo-
! ration we were promoting a revolution.—( Hear, hear. )
But the Right Honourable Gentlemen objected to this
plan, that it would not satisfy all reformers. If he (Mr.
Brougham) could bring himself to believe that those who
would go farther in the principle of reform would despise
the plan of his Noble Friend because it did slot go far
enough, his good opinion of their sense woul,i he lessened
—his confidence in their sincerity would be diminished ;
detailed,l
thet:t i sr4ccotiincffia dlheenperteohpoosusstgoi
proposition
othawtnh titchhhiosseahciresne
fuoNnr
omobelsl
nee
.Fn.,
fdrai dm:: de badbino
senseless—for it would be any thing but good sense—if
they could be so narrow-minded and laigotted, for it
would be any thing but liberality and wisdom—as to re.
ject the proposal of Ida noble friend, because it did sot
go the whole length to which they would be willing to pro-
ceed, he would for thtt very reason cling with greeter
earnestness
cahn dal
his noble
friendt he moderate
aul e
skimphrr:cptial
ecr.oßerr.....
ing, and consistent advocate. His Hen. Friend the -Mem-
ber for Westminster, whose aide and eloquent speech of
that evening he had listened to with as much .pleasure as
any he had ever heard in that House, and who wail a die-
tinguished leerier in the advocacy of Reform in its more
extended sense, had admitted, if he followed hint correctly,
the principle for which he them contended. . Ilia Hon.
Friend had expressed his desire that cur Parliaments
should be triennial. On that part of the geestion he must
say that, without the other reform of which his Noble
Friend spoke, triennial Parliament would only make
thing. worse; because they would tend to increase the ex-
pense as elections were now ccuselueted; and as lie wen one
of that party who held that the Crown was held in tr net for
the benefit of the people—that Ministers were the ad-
visers of the Crown, acting on their own rosponsibility—
he believed that if Parliaments were shortened by three
years, under the present system in all other respests, it
%%old have the effect of giving to Ministers—to that Cor-
poration which never died—to that body which, under
whatever alteration of times, or eireemstanees, or opi-
nions, were still desirous of increeeing their influeuee as a
Government—it would sooner or later throw an over-
whelming portion of influence over elections into their
hands. Let any one contrast the cossiluct and feelings of
an expiring Parliament, with what they were at the out-
set, and he would see the masked difference. The dying
Parliament were prudent and, eyeful. There was visible
ie them the thriftiness of the public money--a vigilant a'-
tention to the wants, and wishes, and even caprices of the
people.—.a looking at after times—a sort of shrinking at
the idea of appearing before their judge, and rendering an
account of their past transactions; but when they came
with renovated youth, those feelings vanished, the wants
and wishes of the people were no longer studied with the
same care, and on this feeling so common to omit, that that
which is riot to happen for five or six years me looked upon
as if it were not t..) happen at all. Bat ifthe other refines
of which his Noble Friend spoke, were to take pleue, who
I could doubt the value of triennisl Pertiaments? 'With respect
to universal muff. age, be had so often delivered his opinion
that he did not feel it necessary to rrreat is sew. he