The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-22 00:00:00

GAME BILL.

On the motion of the Duke of RicintoNo the Game
Bill was committed, and some amendments introduced.
Ordered to be printed, as amended, and to be re-committed
.00 Friday.
The House then proceeded with the hearing of appeals.
—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, SEPTEMBEI: 21.
Mr. lIODGSON presented a petition from certain in-
habitants of Northumberland against the Bill for a general
Registration of Deeds.
BOROUGH OF HERTFORD.
Mr T. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of pre-
senting to the House a petition which involved some seri-
ous charges against a Noble Marquis, who, being a Peer of
Parliament, could not be in that House to defend him-
self; but whatever feelings his necessary absence might create
—whatever might be the respect and esteem entertained
for the individual—no considerations of that nature should
restrain the House from the performance of that duty
which, as the representatives of the people, they were called
upon to perform—the duty of affording protection to the
electors by whom they were returned. The present peti-
tion was from 35 electors of the borough of Hertford,
tenants of the Marquis of Salisbury, and the ground of
complaint was, that they had been interfered with in the
conscientious exercise of their undoubted privileges. They
stated, and verified the statement upon oath, that they had
been dispossessed of their tenements solely in consequence
of their having voted for Reform candidates; that many
of them had occupied their houses for several years, and sit
had punctually paid their rents ; to that he solicited atten-
tion, for the alleged non-payment of rent had often been
made a pretext with anti-reforming landlords for punish-
ing tenants who presumed to vote against them. The
Hon. Member then proceeded to read the petition at
length, which corroborated his preceding statement. The
petitioners set forth that Lord Ingestrie, with Messrs. Dun •
combo and Currie, were the candidates ; that the peti-
tioners were tenants of the Marquis of Salisbury ; that
they were dispossessed of their holdings for no other
reason than having voted .for the Reform candidates,

and praying that the House would adopt measures
to vindicate their own privileges, and protect those of
the electors. These facts were attested by several affidavits,
some of which the Hon. Member read to the house, and

in one of which it was stated the tenant had held the house
for more than fifty years. He stated that, bearing in
mind the great measure under the consideration of the
House, he should not make any motion upon the subject
referred to in the petition ; but if through any accident
that great measure of Parliamentary Reform should fail,
or should not correct abuses of that suture, he felt, how-
ever reluctant to promote such an object, that the ballot
must be had recourse to. At all events he should, if such
offences were repeated, move for leave to introduce a spe-
cial measure in the case of Hertford.
Lord INGESTRIE defended the conduct of the Mar-
quis of Salisbury. He stated that many of those tenants
were in arrear, some of them even as much as three years
rent ; that there were sufficient grounds for serving
them with notice to quit even if there had been no elec-
tion ; that the Noble Marquis had proved a most indul-
gent landlord, and that the tenantry had treated him with
gross ingratitude. He begged to observe also that although
his Hon. Friend bad found fault with his Noble Relative
for using that influence which his property gave him in a
particular way, he himself (Mr. Duncombe) had done
precisely the same thing, having, after the general election,
of 1830, served two notices, through his agent, on tenants
of his who had voted against him at the previous election.
He would not, however, intrude any longer on the time of
the House, as he trusted he had said sufficient to vindicate
the high character of his Noble Relative from the asper-
sions which had been thrown upon it.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT was sorry that any one in England
attempted to controul his tenants; he had never done any
thing of the sort with his ; and he was convinced that the
consequence was that he had much greater influence over
them than if he was to exercise the most uninstifi side
power towards them.—(hear, hear.) But it was because
he found that landlords would use their influence unduly
tly..t he had voted apiust the clause introduced in the
Reform Rill to give the franchise to tenants at wbl, hold-
ingiarrns of 50/. a-year, believing, as he did, that that
class of persons must be entirely under the influence of
their landlords, while they themselves would no more pos-
-4 P%B the franchise than if they were so many negro slaves.

.11r. CURRIE—The NAle Lord (Ingestrie) had as_
serted that be (Mr. Carrie) and his Hon. Colleague (Mr.
Duneombe) had undertaken to pay the rents of those who
voted for them after the election was over. Now he
begged to say that neither he ncr his lion. Colleague had

given a bribe or promised a bribe; and he would tell the
Nohle Lord that they had not been so fortunate as to have
the Under-Sheriff of the county for their agent, nor a
Noble Marquis to back them, and to hold out the threat
against their opponents, that if he could not beat them he
swuld ruin them.—(Cheers.)
Sir H. HARDINGE believed that both Whigs and
Tories were in the habit of taking means to give that just
influence to their property which, in his opinion, it was
always intended that property should have.—(Hear.)
Surely the House could not have forgotten what was
stated by a Cabinet Minister only a few nights ago, to the
effict that the Government had a right to expect the'sup-
pert of its adherents, and in the event of their not giving
that support, they must expect to be dismissed. He did
not mention this because he disapproved of the sentiment :
on the contrary, he thought that it was a right one;
though it did so happen that all the time he was in office
he had never once interfered with the vote of any indivi-
dual.--(Hear.) But of the two cases—that of the Go-
vernment and that of a private individual—he thought
that the latter was infinitely favourable in the comparison ;
for it was only using that influence in support of that per-
sonal feeling of his own, both of which were supposed to
belong to every English gentleman.
,Mr. HUME warred to know how the Right Hon.
Gentleman, after never having used his own influence
when a Member of Government, could justify the Marquis
of Salisbury in using his ? He was ready to admit that
property ought to have its influence, but such influence as
this he thought was beyond all reason or right.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the cases of a Govern-
ment and a private individual were not similar : a Go-
vernment could not go on if the people whom it employed
were of a different opinion to itself : it was by its depen-
dents that the Government ought to be supported instead
of being betrayed, as he believed was the case in Ireland.
But the case of a Nobleman's interference was very dif-
ferent; and it was evident that the House of Commons
thought so, for the first thing it did every session was to
pass an order, declaring suds an interference a high in-
fringemeut of its privileges.
Sir R. VYVYAN contended that the influence of the
Government was much more prejudicial to the public in-
terests than that of a Nobleman who had interests and
feelings in common with the whole country.
Mr. HUNT—When the Whigs get up, and abuse the
Tories, the Tories, I always find, are able to throw the abuse
back in the face of the Whigs—Tantarara !—Tantarara
I need not tell you the rest.—(A laugh.) _ . .

Sir J. BRYbGES said, that it appeared from the peti- flow from it.—(Cheers.) He thought that Schedule A.—
tiers itself, that there bad been no interference till after the not the whole of it, for some of the boroughs bad been
election, which he thought was a very material fact. made the subject of separate legislative enactments—but
Mr. Serjeant WILDE thought that the act complained that a great part of Schedule A might be accomplished...—
of was a gross violation of the privileges of the House, as (Cheers.) If be was right in that, then there was, he
well as grossly illegal in itself. According to the charge, thought, a very sufficient reason for the Lords acting dil-
a Peer had committed a inisderneanour, and yet they heard ferently, and pausing before they rejected the Bil—
lion. Gentlemen prepared to justify the act. He should (Cheers.) If that House presented an humble address to
be one of the last to interfere with the legitimate influence the Crown to dissolve the Parliament and to issue writs to
of property, but be contended that this was the persecution, the great manufacturing towns—(Hear)—and to abstain
not the influence of it. from issuing writs to the boroughs in Schedule A—
Mr. HUDSON GURNEY said that the law would not (Hear)—he meant to the decayed towns and rotten
reach the evil; and there was no remedy but the moral boroughs—(Hear)—to the green mounds and rotten
sense of the people. walls—to the corrupt nomination boroughs and close cor-
Petition brought up. On the motion that it be read, porations.—(Hear !,, London, fa. instance," said Mr.
Lord INGESTRIE denied that any undue influence hsd C. WYNN.) He begged his Right Hon. Friend's pardon.
been used;-arid he wished that the subject had been inves- london was not in Schedule A.—(Hear.) lf, he re-
tigated before a Committee, that the truth or falsehood of peated, the House adopted such a course with respect to
the accustation might be fully known.
Mr.' OvCONNELL explained. Those who, being ser- co
the boroughs in Schedule A, what power in the State
could commit! it ?--(Loud cheers.) Was there anything
"Its ofthe Government, opposed it, ought to be turned out.in the Common La the Constitution, or the practice
Sir H. HARDINGE hoped the House would nubotlicassseirs t of Parliament
Opposition.)
the Hon. Member for Kerry to '
proscribe all thelocal sta
,whicwh, forbade it.?—(Cheers from the
He contended that, in so far as-
vante merely on a suspicion of being g hostile to the Govern- tutee—which had, of course, received the sanction of both
gent. That would be a most intolerable tyranny. Houses—did not interfere with' it, the Crown had the power
Mr. H. GP.ATTAN said the Gallant General had mis- to adopt this course without the necessity of any legislative
understood the Hot,. Member for Kerry, Who
only meant enactment.—( Hear.) He said this with reference merely
that no Government could be carried on if its servants to the boroughs of England, for, of course, Wales, Scot-
thwarted it. That was not proscription. He, himself, land, and Ireland were fortified by particular statutes
had been opposed by all the servants of a former Govern• which did not apply to England.—(Hear.) He would say
ment ; and the Duke of Northumberland wrote a letter that the House and the Crown had this power, if he read
with his own hand to Mr. Low, threatening to take away the Law and the Constitution right; and he should be glad
his place it he voted for Colonel Grady at an election for to be taught better if he was wrong, not by appeals to the
Limerick. It was the improper influence of Government prejudices of the House, or by vague declamation, but by

a reference to the law of the Constitution. He held hie
seat in that House, he was ready at once to admit, by the
favour of a Noble Marquis, of whose favour and of whose
friendship any man might justly he proud.—(Hear.) He
was not there, however, by the force of any unworthy corn.
promise ; nor had his seat been bought or sold, nor were
his constituents tainted by corruption.--(Hear, hear.) The
electors had chosen him from their connection with and

respect for the Noble Marquis.—(Hear.) They were nu-
merous and respectable.—(Hear.) But although they
wished to retain their franchise, yet rather than inflict any
injury on the Bill, or offer any obstacle to the great mea-
sure which it carried into effect, they scattered to the winds
all feeling of personal interest, and instructed him to sup-
port it. He had stated to them on the hustings the course
he would pursue, and he had been elected to fulfil it.
He trusted that he had vindicated the borough for

which he sat (Milborne Port) from the imputation of
being a nomination borough. The influence through
which he received their suffrages was the just influence
of property ; it was a homage to the virtues of a land-
lord, which it reflected as much credit on those who paid
as on those who received it; and he trusted that such in-
fluence would be still more strongly supported and ex
tended.—(Should the Crown, then, withdraw the fran-
chise from that borough ? observed Sir IL PEE L. )-( ['fear,
Lear.) He said at once that he thought not.—(Cheers.)
He admitted at once, that he thought places in which the
constituency was so pure—as in Milborne Port—should
not be deprived of their franchise.—(Hear, hear.) It

was the rotten boroughs—the decayed nomination bo-
roughs—which be would deprive of the power to return
Members to that House.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member
then repeated his assertions with respect to the constitu-
tional power of the Crown, and concluded by thanking
the House for the attention it had bestowed on him.
Mr. C. WYNN had supposed it was impossible to bring
before the House a question of greater magnitude and in-
terest than that which now occupied its attention : but it
was reserved for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to in..
troduce one which, if it did not strike a more certain,
at least struck a more direct blow at every institution
which the country regarded with reverence.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought that when the House of Commons
voted the House of Lords to be a nuisance, it adopted
a course merely tantamount to that which his Ho-
nourable and Learned Friend recommended, and which
he had gravely stated to be the law and custom of
Parliament.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He felt, therefore,
that before they went any further they had a right to
know whether or not his Majesty's Ministers sanctioned '
the doctrine of his Learned and Hon. Friend—whether or
not they concurred in the claim which he brought for-
ward on the part of the Crown ?—(Hear, hear.) If his
Majesty's Ministers meant to maintain such a doctrine,
then he thought the House were bound immediately to
adjourn the consideration of all other matters, for the pur-
pose of inquiring and determining whether or not the
Crown really possessed this prerogative. His Hon. and
Learned Friend would ask him, whether he denied the
right of the House to address the Crown to the effect to
which he had alluded ? He by no means pretended to limit
what the House might do. It might call upon the Crown
to do what the Crown had a right to do. But if the
Crown had a right to do what his lion. and Learned
Friend alleged, upon an address of the House of Commons,
it had a right to do it without any address. The address
could confer no prerogative not already existing. The
House of Commons might advise the Crown to exercise a
prerogative which it possessed; but it could neither confer
prerogative nor diminish one. Hitherto the rights and
privileges of the three estates ha'l been independent of one
another. No one, or no two of them, could dispossess the
other or the others. But if the doctrine now advanced
• •

were sound, the Crown might interfere with the rights and
privileges of the other branches of the Legislature to- morrow.
It might dissolve Parliament ; and it might abstain from

issuing writs to such or such places, because they had re-
turned inadequate Members in the last Parliament. If badly
advised, the Crown might in this respect art as illegally as
if it were to issue a writ for the execution of any individual
without trial. A new form of writ might he devised;
" We command you to return Members, not for all the
boroughs in your county, but with such and such excfp-
.

tions." if such a proceeding would be good with respect
to all the boroughs in schedule A, it might be good with
respect to any other boroughs. There was no reason why
the Crown should not exercise its discretion with respect
to one place as well as with respect to another. There
was no place, therefore, which, under the advice of Mi-
nisters, the Crown might not disfranchise. He again
said, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary that the
House should know whether the King's advisers adopted
the doctrine of his Hon. and Learned Friend. He was
rather the more alarmed at the statement of the Solicitor-
General for Ireland, when he recollected what had re-
cently fallen from the Attorney-General for England. On
the latter occasion he had felt it to be his paramount duty
to the House, and to the people of England, to declare
that the doctrine then promulgated was not that which
had been maintained by the first lawyers and the greatest
patriots whom England had ever seen ; by Coke, and Se]_
den, and Hampden, who, in the reign of James 1., sup-
ported the resolution of the [fuse of Commons that the
boroughs to which the King's writs had not been issued
had a right to receive them. That resolution was adopted
by the House on the report of a Committee consisting of
the most learned and able men whom it would have been
possible to select in a succession of ages,—men who had
never had any superiors in their knowledge of the laws
and Constitution of England. He came now to the ques-
tion of expediency. His Hon. and Learned Friend had
maintained, that the House of Lords ought not to criticise
such a Bill more than if it were a Money Bill—that they
ought to treat it with scrupulous delicacy, and that--
Sir C. WETHERELL spoke to order. To him it ap-
peared indispensible that the debate on the Reform Bill
should be suspended until it was known whether his
Majesty's Ministers avowed or disavowed the illegal, the
monstrous, the insufferably-intolerable doctrine which had
been advanced by-his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ire-
land.—(Cries of " Order, order," " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER called on Mr. Wynn to proceed.
Mr. WYNN said he was very willing to make way for
Lis Hon. and Learned Friend.

Sir C. WETHERELLthen said that he %could move
the adjournment of the debate on the Reform Bill, on the
ground that one of the Law Officers of the Crown had as-
serted in that House that the House of Lords had no right
to venture to interfere with any measure of that House, and
that all the boroughs in Schedule A might be disfranchised
by the Crown on an Address from the House of Commons,
thereby rendering all legislation on the subject superfluous.
This doctrine was, in his opinion,
with the privileges of so utterly inconsistent

Mr. CAMPBELL spoke to order. If the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman meant to found any motion on the
words of his Hon. and Learned Friend, those words ought
to have been taken down at the time they were uttered.
The SPEAKER observed, that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Boroughbridge was merely urging the words
of his Majesty's Solicitor-General for Ireland as his induce-
tn-nt for the motion which he purposed making.
Sir C. WETHERELL proceeded. The declaration
of the King's Solicitor-General for Ireland, that the King
had a right to dissolve Parliament and to suspend the
issuing of writs for all boroughs included in Schedule A
was an assertion of Royal prerogative incompatible and in-
consistent with the known and undenialde rights of the
Commons of England. If the King's Ministers adopted
this proposition of the King's Solicitor-General for Ireland,
then all that had been doing in that House for several
mouths was superfluous and unnecessary. If it were true
that the Crown possessed such a prerogative, let it be
known. If it were not true, let not that House be sub-
ject to such intolerable insult and disgrace, to such arro-
gant and untenable attacks, to be arrogantly and untenably
supported, it might be, by an arrogant Administration.
Would the Noble Lord opposite adopt the doctrine of the
King's Solicitor-General for Ireland ? Would the King's
Attorney-General for England, or would the King's Soli-
citor-General for England, dare to come forward, in his
robes of office, and support the opinion of the King's So-
lictor-General for Ireland ? They would then see whether
there were three delinquents, or only one. Again, he said,
let his Majesty's Ministers get up and say if they maintained
or if they did not maintain the opinions of the King's Soli-
citor-General for Ireland. In the meanwhile he would
move the adjournment of the debate on the Reform Bill.
The SPEAKER put the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Boroughbridge, as an amendment,

Mr. CRAMPTON declared 'chat the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had entirely mistaken him, and had misrepre-
sented every word he had said.—(No, no, no.) In the
first place he had never said that the House of Lords had
no right to take any cognizance of the Bill, or to interfere
with any of its provisions, or to reject it. He had never
maintained any such proposition. He bad certainly
compared the Bill to a Money Bill; but he had added,
that they had a perfect right to reject a Money Bill. That
was the first mistake. In the next place, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had thought proper to assert that he
(Mr. Crampton) had said that the Crown had a right,
without the concurrence of that House, to supersede the
issuing of writs for any particular borough.
Sir C. WETHERELL denied having imputed to the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman any such assertion.
Mr. CRAMPTON observed, that if the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman disclaimed having imputed to him
such an opinion, he was satisfied. It wag necessary for

his justification, however, that he should state what he
had actually said. What he had said was this :—that
the Crown, on the Address of the House of Commons, had
a right at common law, independently of statutory enact-
ment, to issue writs to new places at its discretion. That
could be no invasion of the privileges of that House, be-
cause it was an Act founded on the request of that House.
He had further stated that the Crown, on the Address of
the House of Commons, had a right at common law, inde-
pendently of statutory enactment, to discontinue the issuing
of writs to places to which they had hitherto been issued.
This could be no invasion of the privileges of that
House; because it was founded on an Address of
that House. If, indeed, the Sheriffs presumed to
return for places to which writs were not issued,
then, indeed, that would be a violation of the
prerogatives of the Crown and of the privileges of the
House. Ile had not said that he advised the Crown, or
that be advised the House to take this step. He had
merely put it as a speculation, as a matter for argument.
He must say that he thought the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, who knew his great power, who was aware
of his giant strength, ought not to have put forth that
strength in the manner in which he had done; for the purpo.e
of annihilating oma,e who had no pretension to compete with
him. It was unkind, unhandsome, ungenerous, and un-
called for. He (Mr. Crampton) pledged himself, as a
man of honour, that what he now stated was what he
stated, or what he meant to state, in his first address to
time House. If in that statement he was wrong, he was

alone ; he had never mentioned his opinions to any one.
He might be made a scape-goat ; but if there were any
blame attached to such opinions as those which he had ex-
pressed, on him alone that blame must fall. . .

Sir C. WETHERELL said, in explanation, that he
should be quite ready to refer the question of the accuracy
with which he had stated the language of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman to the memory of others. His re-
membrance of it was, that the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man declared that if the House of Lords rejected the Bill,
his Majesty's Ministers would have nothing to do but to
dissolve Parliament, and to issue writs in conformity with
its provisions.
Lord ALTHORP said, that as far as his recollection
went, his lion. and Learned Friend the Member for Mil-
bourne Port had correctly stated in his explanation the
sense of his original statement. The Hon. and Learned
Member for Boroughhridge appeared to be of opinion, that
because a Member of that House, who happened to be
connected with the Government, had made a statement of
his opinion, not materially affecting the question under
consideration, that it was his duty to stop the proceedings
upon the Bill until his Majesty's Ministers should sty
whether or not they concurred in that Member's opinion.
Now really he must protest against the right of any man
to call on the Members of his Majesty's Government to
declare their opinion o❑ any particular point of law that
might be adduced in the course of an argument in that
House. His Hon. and Learned Friend had.stated that he
had advanced his opinion without communication with any
one. Certainly his Hon. Friend had not had the slightest
previous communication on the subject with hint (Lord
Altborp) or any of his colleagues. Was it fair, or just,
or candid, to make his Majesty's Government answerable
for the opinions of any Hon. Member of that House, not
in the Cabinet ? As to the statement itself, it was a legal
question. He did not understand his Hon. and Learned

Friend to state it as a constitutional question. Certainly,
as far as the matter was a point of law, he should have
some difficulty in giving an opinion; but if it were stated
as a constitutional question, he should most undoubtedly
say that he (lid not concur with his Hon. and Learned
Friend.—( Hear, bear.)
Sir R. PEEL said, that the declaration of the Noble
Lord, that so far from entertaining the opinion of the Hon.
Hon. and Learned Member for Milbourne Port, he thought
the Hon. and Learned Member's doctrine unconstitutional,
although whether it was legal or not he would not pro-
nounce, having entirely satisfied the object of his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Member for Boroughbridge, he
hoped his Hon. and Learned Friend would ask permission
of the House to withdraw his motion. 'The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman bad complained of what he called the
unkindness of his Huai. and Learned Friend. The dis-
cussion of all questions which had a reference to persons
had an air of unkindness. But could the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman suppose that his Hon. and Learned
Friend was actuated by any thing but what he considered
a paramount duty? On ordinary occasions it certainly
was not usual to make Ministers answerable for the opi-
nions of the subordinate Members of Government. But
the present was an important question—a question of
prerogative and constitutional law. And if, according
even to the second version of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman's opinions, the Crown had the power, in concur-
rence with the House of Commons, to suspend the issu-
ing of whatever writs it pleased, then they held every
right which they at present enjoyed on sufferance.—
He thanked his Hon. and Learned Friend for having pro-
duced the deelaration of the Noble Lord. After that de-
claration, of course his Hon. and Learned Friend would
not persevere in his amendment.
Mr. HUDSON GURNEY made a few observations,
the tendency of which, as far as we were able to ascertain
it, was to show, that since the reign of Richard 11. there
had been no instance of permanent disfranchisement by an
act of the Crown.

Sir C. WETHERELL, with the permission of the
:Ouse, withdrew his motion.

Mr. WYNN then proceeded—He professed himself per-
fectly satisfied with the declaration of his Noble Friend ; a
declaration which he must say be expected from him,
knowing his great constitutional knowledge. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had said that the House of Lords
ought not to snake any alteration in the Bill, because it
regarded the constitution of the House of Commons. If it
really was an encroachment on the privileges of the House
of Commons for the House of Lords to make any alteration
in a Bill respecting the constitutio❑ of the House of Com.
mons, the House of Commons had been singularly negligent
of its privileges ; for they had patiently seen the House of
Lords, over and over again, enter into the discussion of
Bills which had been sent up to them by the House of
Commons disfranchising boroughs on the ground of cor-
ruption. And when, on entering into the consideration of
such Bills, the .House of Lords bad sent to the House of
Commons for a copy of the evidence on which such a Bill
had been passed, the answer, if the lion. and Learned
Gentleman was in the right, ought to have been—" it is
no business of yours ; you ought to depend upon our judg-
ment." The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that the
House of Commons did not interfere with Bills affecting

the rights of the Peerage. Did the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman recollect the Bill introduced into the House of
Lords, with the sanction of the Crown, in the beginning
of the last century, limiting the prerogative of the
Crown to create Peers ? On that occasion the House of
Commons proved itself to he the guardian of the ancient
Constitution of the country, and the undoubted preroga-
tives of the Crown, and threw out the Bill which the Lords
had sent down to them ; and from that period to the pre-
sent, there was no constitutional authority which did not
hold, that by so doing, they had prevented the Constitution
of the count!), from degenerating into an oligarchy. On
these grounds, he (Mr. Wynn) thought that the House of
Lords had an absolute right, and that it was their duty to
examine this Bill, and eitherna approve, reject, or alter it,
as might to them seem wise. In order, in times of exi-
gence, to be enabled to resist popular clamour, the House
of Lords ought to be a body wholly independent of the
voice of the Commons of England. The Commons of
England bad their full share in the legislation of the
country. For the last hundred years their influence in that
legislation bad gone on increasing. With that they ought
to be satisfied ; and not, by an interference with the rights
of the other branches of the Legislature, to set an example
which might at some future period be applied against them-
selves by the people. The English Constitution—that
highest effort of human intellect—had always admitted
the existence of what were called close boroughs. That
Constitution was to be found, not in the Statutes
alone, but in practice. And if any man would point
out a period in which the boroughs over which influ-
ence was exercised did not exist, he would then allow
that the Constitution was altered. The number of those
boroughs was, however, greatly diminished. Every man
could point out from his own knowledge many in-
stances of their extinction during the last fifty years__
boroughs which, having once been close, were now open.
It bad been contended that the throwing open of boroughs
to a large constituency was calculated to increase the
general information of the country. Had that been seen ?
Did it appear in the case of Preston? The Hon. Member
stated that he had voted for the second reading of the
Bill and for its being committed, that it might be fairly
considered, and so improved and amended as to render it a
proper and beneficial measure. But now he found it
oim-
possible to vote for the third reading. It had not been
sufficiently improved or amended in the Committee; it
still was calculated to effect toe great a change, and he
therefore felt
the
eltbouanddvotcoatoepspoosfe imderate Reform that they
t.--(Chee's.) It had been
b
had not yet propounded their measure; but, in reply to
this observation, he begged to remark that it was impos-
oercefodre
sible two measures of Reform could be advantageously dis-
cussed at the same time. If a plan of moderate Reform
bad been brought forward, by which representatives would
be given to the large towns, he would have most ardently
supported the measure; and be firmly believed it would
have encountered but little opposition. He would not

however, have consented to the disfranchisement clauses
of the Bill, because be considered that the existence of all
the small boroughs was beneficial to the Constitution. To
the proposed measure of Ministers, then, he objected, first,
on account of the disfranchisement ; and secondly, be-
cause of the uniformity of the franchise, and the low
rate at which the right to it might be acquired--a
rate which, he maintained, would, in the manu-
facturing towns, almost admit universal suffrage.
The ten-pound rate was lower than had, in any pro-
jected change of the Constitution, ever been before contem-
plated. When Mr. Canning introduced his Bill to transfer
the disfranchise of a delinquent borough to Leeds, the
qualification he was desirous of fixing amounted to 201.
He objected likewise to the granting Members to Maryle-
bone, and the other metropolitan districts, contending
they were already sufficiently represented, and considered
the operation of the Bill would be mischievous in de-
priving the colonies, and several great interests, from that
virtual representation which they enjoyed under the old
system, and in preventing mcn of official talent and ex-
perience from that easy access to the House which it was
a matter of great advantage to the country they should
possess.---(Hear, hear.) It was, in his opinion, ex-
tremely useful that there should be men in Parliament
who had been, as it were, bred up in the House; but he
feared much, that when this Bill passed, such persons
would not be able to find their way into the House. He
aereed with the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke last
night, that this law would be the parent of many other
laws—whether those hews be good or bad.—(Hear, hear.)
Adverting to the objection made by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Stanley) to the right of his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. Croker) to reserve his observations upon cer-
tain details to the present stage of the Bill, he declared
that every man enjoyed this right ; because, in this mea-
sure, the details were its very substance.—(Hear, hear.)
These details, he contended, required change—they were
inconsistent with each other—they proceeded—if upon
any principles—upon different principles, and must effec-
tually prevent the beneficial operation of the Bill. The
Hon. Member then proceeded to cite cases, which, he
stated, were not exceptions but specimens, and which
showed how unequally, and in how disadvantageous a
manner the Bill would operate; as, for instance, that the
rich householder in Cricklade would only have one vote
for the borough, while his neighbour, the cobbler, who
had a 40s. freehold for the county in his stall, would have
the right of voting for two Members for the county, and
a Member for the town. And in conclusion, be declared
his intention to vote against the Bill's becoming a lane
Mr. R. GRANT observed, that if all the Hon. Mem-
bers who had spoken upon the measure had thought pro-
per to couch their opposition to it in terms as moderate as
his Right Hon. Friend who had just sat down, he would
not have felt it necessary for him to trouble the House
upon the present occasion ; but as many Hon. Gentlemen
had designated the Bill as essent;ally revolutionary, and
this not in the warmth of debate, but in the most delibe-
rate manner, lie was anxious to protest against this asser-
tion, and briefly to state the reasons which led him to an
opposite conclusion. In doing this, it was not his inten-
tion to enter into details ; he would content himself with
simply considering if the Bill would work well ; and
herein two things should be taken into account, first, the
machinery, and secondly, what was the nature of the me-
dium in which the measure was to operate—in other
words, what were the feelings and sentiments of the great
body of the people amongst whom this measure was to
act. Now he relied on this—without saying that the ma-
chinery was as perfect as the imagination and ingenuity of
some Hon. Gentlemen might have suggested, he yet en-
tertained the warmest anticipations that the Bill would
work well, and prove a practical blessing to the people
who had received it so warmly and supported it with such
fidelity. It was on the feeling of the people lie rested his
hope.—(Hear, hear, bear.) If the plan of moderate Re•
form, which had been so often alluded to from the other
side of the House, were brought forward, he would ad-
mit, for the sake of argument, that the machinery would
be more perfect. But yet it would be vain to expect from
it the same benefits as from the measure before the House,
because it never would receive the same favour, nor carry
with it the hearts and affections of the people.—(Cheers.)
The Bill of the Hon. Gentleman opposite would be like
an army in a hostile country, but this Bill would be like
an army which had entered a country for the purpose of
expelling a band of invaders in conjunction with the inha-
bitants. The one would have on all sides to encounter
hatred and opposition, while the other would everywhere
find entrenchments and allies—and information to guide,
and a ready hand to assist.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Member for Aldeburgh had, in his very eloquent and
ingenious speech, last night, made use of one argument
which surprised him very much, as coming from a gentle-
man possessing a mind so acute. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man had brought forward a sort of dilemma to the effect,
that either Reform must be admitted not to be necessary
and the Bill thrown out, or else, if the House of Commons
passed this Bill, the very fact of their doing so proved that
Reform was not necessary. Now this was a pure sophism.
As well might the Right Hon. Gentleman, in reference to

P'
been fixed. That argument had been presses by 111,1 4411
Friend the Member for Oxfordshire; and it 1r.35„,:0p0'
urged that as the frame-work of the House 0,
had been then fixed, it ought not now to
had she"
answered that the. representative body
much, that the continuance of the frame-work dthe
il;
gr
of Commons in the same state as before was an eY goee
the people having changed, the frame-work of the ',or
ought in the same manner to have been changed'
proof that the state of the people had changed, be..tsi
refer to the great towns, in which alone the alterstePav
been most considerable ; for he believed he might eon
assert that one-third of the whole wealth and intelio
of the country—one-third of its resources, had Vico(
since the time of the revolution- The effect of that 00
was felt all over the world—in the Levant, on the vero(
of the Atlantic and Pacific, on the banks of the toor
Sea, and yet there was to be once place where tneogi
was not to be felt, and that place was to be the guest
Commons, which pretended to be composed of the Fro
sentatives of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The Melityl I
were alone to be unaffected by this change were
co.
who could take refuge in the fortress of the House
mons, and not one single wave of the sea of hnirti
that time had produced was to wash down any roe
its ancient walls.—(Hear, hear.) It was said 11.40
be altered
who were opposed to the present measure, that the" e!
resources of the country, those which had "PrldS'l
since the revolution, were so vast, that they Sul` tlt
open the door of the House of Commons to adul/k
operation of their influence without being in danger co)
stroying the frame-work of the Constitution itself. to
at least was the substance of that argument; bill pe
argument subverted itself, as be should he Op'
sently to show. It was also said that such was thegr
that had now arisen, moral and intellectual, that if, „0
not kept down, or, in other words, kept out of that
it would come and destroy that House itself. The
of that argument was, that no great, no moral and tali
lectual force, could exist in the country with safety °its:
House; for if it could not safely be permitted to enter ode
House, it surely could not safely be permitted to exi',
tyt
of the House. He asserted that whatever might booed
danger of admitting it into that House, the danger
be tenfold greater to refuse it admission.—(Cheers.) Ira
only safe ground of refusal would be that it was so po
so insignificant, it had no right to claim admittance the'
But was there any one that would venture to oeer/,
was so insignificant? On the contrary, was not the OP?;
site argument of,its too great strength and importance .1
lied on as the ground of the refusal ? lie admitted 3:
strength and importance, and he declared it as his °PP;
nion, that Parliament would not long be able to shut ote
from that House so great a proportion of the intellige,
and wealth of the people.—(l fear, hear.) If that "To
went was just, he repeated that the plan of safety Wa9
of the Government, not that of the Opposition.
a true proposition, and he stated it broadly and tv't";
the guards that would limit its effect, that there Oe'l be.
great political power in the State which could esectliey,
subdued except by being conciliated.—(Cheers.) lf,, too
adopted that principle, the current of the State wout.',:by
within its proper banks and pass safely and peaeetWre
the ancient towers of the Constitution ; but if it iveceao
strictest hy dams of wicker work, or pent up
sluices that would not give vent to its fullness, the n'irbv
feet confinement would only exasperate the danger;#
which all the ancient institutions of the country lel
be swept away and destroyed.—(Hear, hear.) TheYesse
been asked whether there ever had been a time when %or
which were now called abuses bad not existed ?
question involved this fallacy, that all those things tab
in the origin of Parliament, were among its defects, "eel
now referred to as its glories. It would almostbe aS
an argument to say, that we ought now to debase thec:o
rency, because the ore fromwhich the perfect coin ''te,
formed contained much dross that had by the subseeet4
labour of the workman been cleared from it. That tl'ts
were defects, he had the authority of Acts of Parlioee
and resolutions of that House for asserting. These proT
them to be abuses—not to be quoted as admitted--butile
be shunned as confessed deformities.—(Hear, bear.) 'le
Hon. Member for Oxford, in a speech which, after del,
vering in that House, he had published—and which
tracted snore attention after itsffi publication than it 11,0
done before—asserted that the officers for the Cinque Ile
lied regularly returned one Member for each of t'',o
towns, until the Act of William 111. interfered, and piit,
H
end to the practice. e was sure that if the Pet
nourable Member had read the preamble to the P 4
of William, he would not have spoken of the reel'',
in the Cinque Ports in the manner which he had doe
This preamble was as follows :—" Whereas the elelc;
Lion of Members to serve in Parliament ought to e
free; and whereas the Lord Wardens of the Cingsd
Ports have pretended to claim, as of right, the powe'‘,b'e
nominating the Alembers for the same, contrary t°
~s
ancient usages in elections for those places." It t`,4
declared—he begged the House to observe, that the •k"
was a declaratory Act—it then declared, " that all 'le
nominations and recommendations were contrary to t
laws and Constitution of the country; and, for the /05
shall be so deemed and construed to have been." r
called on the Hou,,e to observe, that the Act not only ro
I sted to all their future elections, but declared the lay ,e
to all preceding elections " deemed and construed to here
been to all intents and purposes."— (Hear, hear.) Tbe,
was another principle on which the opponents of this cce',ll
sure relied. As they could not have the circumstance' se,
their own way, they, like Cato, accommodated theinsely
to circumstances—they contended, that though direst
power or direct bribery had not been permitted, yet, °if
until the Act of 1809, bribery, which was indirect,/
effected by money being given, not to the voter Isioilet
but to his family, had been permitted, and they called ' ,
answer to the speech of Mr. Windham, delivered in
position to that Bill. Why, they seemed in doing set/
ignorant of the language of the Act of Parliament. -re
only did the speech of Mr. Windham fail to to conv'lied
Mr. Perceval, but the language of the Act itself decpiri,i
that " nevertheless such gifts were contrary to the anci'l;e
usage and to the freedom of election, and contrary to o/
laws and constitutions of the realm." The language re
these Acts had been justified in particular cases. Vey
was a charge made by Sir John Packington against
Bishop of Worcester, who had interfered with him in a e°6,
test for that county, and who had thereby acted in de,
ance of that resolution, adopted every session by that flout
that Peers and great Lords of Parliament could not inter;
fere in matters of election of Members of that I104;'
without a high breach of the privileges thereof.
Bishop lied threatened his clergy and tenants, that if o'l_,
voted for Sir John Packington, he would not revel;
their leases. On this complaint being made, and tbe
charge being substantiated, the Commons addressed the
Queen to remove the Bishop, and with that request t:
Queen thought proper to coe,ply.—(Hear, hear.) T11,'1,`6
were the principles that he contended ought to govern teir
Constitution of this House ; they were not mere 04,-4'
declarations upon paper, but were important
with which, unhappily, the practice was at war. SC'„tci
these resolutions against the interference of the Crown 3"it
Peerage—resolutions so recorded and so recognised---W394
possible for any Member of that House to stand nI)
say, not in the closet, not in a secret whisper, not 1";
Committee up-stairs, not within the walls of that /4°`":,
(for he was happy to say th it what was tittered within Pt
walls of that Heu,e was not continsd to the limits oft
walls, but wis published all over the kingdom)—was, t
possible, he said, for any Member to stand up on t'?3,
House top to proclaim the doctrine to a people as ceps'?:
of acquiring knowledge, and as capable of drawing '
ferences as themselves, and to a people who were ten tune
more interested in drawing those inferences, that all these
matters of record, all these statutory provisions, all the9c
resolutions of the House were mere moonshine—mere Fr'
with theintention fences—mere
empty
to declarationsdeceive,
and kept
without uupton theh least
time when that might have been said—when what haP,
paned in that House was a secret—as long as the pp
were not informed upon what passed there. At such
time there might have been some sense in such a declare'
oteir b°
J' °'::
1
sible intention of being usefully applied? There %vas ilee.
tion, though there would he nei timer justice nor generosity
in it. At such a time it might have been said that there
was one doctrine for the people—

personal Retorm, say that the simple resolution to Reform
was sufficient, and there was no need of his taking any far-
ther steps.—(Cheers.) And yet, notwithstanding this
areurnent of the Right Hon. Gentleman, in another
part of his speech be contended that they had been driven
to support this measure by the momentum of the public
voice and in obedience to the pledges they had given to
heir constituents, which some would represent as a dis-
trace to them, but which he regarded as an honour.—
(Cheers.) But, again, it should be remembered that the
House of Commons, as constituted at present, was not
to be compared to the House of Commons under ordinary
circumstances.—(Cheers.) This House had been elected
under a particular stimulus, in obedience to the royal ap-
peal made to the body of the people.—(Cheers.) Observe
the different conduct pursued by this House of Commons
and the last. See the deference shown by the last House
of Commons to the declared voice of the people ; not con-
tented with the ordinary fortifications of rotten boroughs,
they took refuge behind the timer duties—( Hear)—with
the hope of defeating Reform. They opposed a reforming
Ministry on this point, hoping thus to defeat Reform.
They knew the people bad two darling objects, Reform and
retrenchment, and yet a great majority combined to defeat
the second object for the purpose of supplanting the first.
—(Cheers.) He would now apply himself to the epithet
of revolutionary, so frequently applied to the Bill by Hon.
Gentlemen opposite.—(Hear, hear.) He differed from
those Hon. Members who fulminated forth such charges
against the measure. It was neither, in their sense of the
word, innovation nor revolution, but it was really a restor-
ative and conservative measure. He asked if it were pos•
sible to point out a period at which there was a more in-
telligent and independent House of Commons than the pre-
sent ? but even this was not the only thing he considered.
The question really to be weighed was, whether there
ever was a period at which the constituency were so
enlightened and intelligent? It might be true that that
House was more intelligent than any House of Commons
had been at any former period ; but it might also be true
that the people had improved in a still greater ratio;
and if they had, then it followed that though the House of
Commons had improved relatively to former Homes in a
great measure, yet that it had fallen back positively with
regard to the people. Now, he believed that this was the
fact, an 1 that the change in the people had been so great
that that House had not kept pace with them.—(Hear,
hear.) They had been asked to show the time when
there had not been nomination boroughs. The fact might
be that there always had been nomination boroughs, but
the circumstances under which they existed had materially
changed. In former times, he admitted, that there had
been nomination boroughs ; but in those times they were
the best defence of the liberty of the people, for they were
close corporations in which commerce was fostered, and
by which the power of feudal oppression was at first re-
resisted and afterwards overcome. These close corpora-
tions were under the nomination of those popular Barons
who, in the other House, were fighting the battle of the
people against the oppressive tyranny and exactions of the
Crown. If, under these circumstances, he was called on
to state what he thought a good House of Commons, he
should say that that was so which fairly represented the
popular voice at any given time at which it was elected.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) The House of Commons, which
fully answered such a purpose at one period, might
be fatally defective at another; and if it was so, it
ceased to be what it pretended—the real represen-
tative of the people. It was by the application of
that principle that he was enabled to account for the pros-
tration of the strength of the Commons in the time of the
reign of the Tudors. The spirit of the country had been
destroyed by the operation of the civil wars, which had
swept away the great landed proprietors ; from the same
cause, the trade and commerce that had formerly existed
were almost destroyed ; and there was no class of men
able to resist the strength of the Royal prerogative. The
consequence was, that the House of Commons exhibited
no strength, no feeling of independence, but Parliament
was ruled by the absolute power of the Prince.---(Hear,
hear.) That state of things was altered as soon as the
continuance of internal peace had afforded the means of
national improvement.—(Hear, hear.) He would now
observe upon what had been last night stated by a Right
Hon. Gentleman, who had asserted that there was no one
who would say that any close boroughs had been created
since the time of King William 111., and yet that was the
period at which all agreed the liberties of the people had

_ .
populus me sibilat, at mi
Plaudo domi,
—there was another doctrine for the House of Comma°
which was the antipodes of that told to the people'l
Surely that would not be said by any one. There was li,
a lawyer—and many of them he saw now present in tb° /,
Hous—there was not a lawyer writing a Constitutioo,
history of that House—there was not one who would asr)
(for men of honour did not dare to say what was untrue
—there was not one who would dare to assert that th
things which it was now proposed to remove were
merely pardonable defects, but the blessing, the glory, 3,/§ •
the honour of the system. It had been said that t"
measure would make mere delegates of the Members of 039.,
House. He would say of himself, with reference tr)
constituents—and no man was more boond to do 11013°-
to the intelligence and the honourable feelings of his
tes,
stituents than he—that though he should always
their opinions with the utmost degree of deference, he to
not their mere delegate—he was not bound by prown
and pledges, but by the stricter bonds of understandl •
and sympathy.—(Hear, bear.) He believed that the effecter
of the measure would be to infuse into that House a greaps •
degree of popular mind and popular feeling; hut that t

4"
qe
t: (led t
11, Cato
Its Plate

Corairc°'
peo,
re was 11°
tbe
I.nt in ,
P u
,stitutio
,c 1 Ore
roui )
as untrue
that tb°soet
were °ti
or ,i 5
a
tbyt 0
that
ers of.
to 13°
lee or
do bona-
his cor",
ra}s tre3"
e, be w 5,
proo
dio la
!rstan t
, a gre, •
the eft:ete,
r
that t ty4

lect
4 I

Members returned would never he expected to follow the
written instructions of their constituents. Two most im-
portant effects would follow—first, that the representa-
wish
tiv es would, more than now, act up to the declared
es of their constituents ; and, • secondly, that they
Would more frequently and readily explain the motives
and the reasons of their conduct. At present they ex-
plained these reasons only at the time of an election, but
in future, he believed, a stricter accordance would exist be-
tween the constituents and their representatives. Mr. Can-
ning had said, that when that House took a decided stand, po-
Ptularopinion followed it. That might be true ; hut if it was,
ley Must have been because the people felt the hopelessness
oust
; but if the observation was true from such
aaneause, how much more konourable and how much more
--ere
aeh
riee likely to he the following of popular opinion
va it was founded ueon respect, not upon the hopeless-
°fess opposition but on a feeling of sympathy and re-
-Peet ? was fir from objecting to those who wished to
repl
„, On the Political .strength and constitutional stability
in _th.e Rouse of Lords ; why, if it were to be trusted
reference to this Bill, was it not worthy of confidence
With regard to other measures? If the power and inde-
PteVenne of the House of Lords were good for this Bill, it
t -3)!ood for all others ; and it was not possible, according
tjate argument on the other side, that it should he en-
miXred, since, if it were equal to present difficulties, it
✓ t defy all the perils of after times. If he were to
enture to Would, give one word of advice to their Lordships, it
died. be to say to them, "Do not be deterred by menaces—
fron'ir,ge Your duty with courage and fortitude—(Cheers
they
Opposition benches, returned by the Ministerial
-1"--and avoid that worst, basest, and most abjct spe-
t:ar, cowardice, the fear of b ing thought afraid."—(Rei-
Met cheery from all sides.) If the House of Lords
this in theitfaironanrildhionr:est spirit of deliberation—if it
encountered
Emu intelligible, and substanti
anthinntlia and therefore even rejected it, they would have
that ,g to fear.—(Hear, hear.) 01 this. lie was sure,
• tag people would respect an honest judgment ; and
ge terul
h'Y scorned a nominal concession, they would be
for a genuine admission of their claims. In a con-
attitieiutional sense he would say this, that after the discussion
question of Reform had undergone, the people would
unqualified-ev content with anvthing less than full, free, and
Ba justice. (Coniinued cheers.)
I. a
r-- ;AL WH LETORT and Sir C. ETERELL rose at the
:life° time) and each stood up, amidst great confusion, to
nf ni the attention of the Speaker, who decided in favour
thn former. His Lordship said he would trouble the
that but for a few minutes, and began by congratulating
the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just taken his seat on
it the n new light which had -
so suddenly broken in upon him
that • subject of Reform.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted
Of there was a strong feeling among the peoplein favour
ilirf°rnt ; hut lie denied that it was in favour of the
4.4,0 t Or a
that it could be considered permanent, inasmuch
tat single day had been allowed for calm deliberation
Plae:f doors. Reform, however, must and would take
oat s°nner or later ; and if the present Bill were'throsn
be °Y the House of Lords, Ministers must be responsible
tinreaatn Consequences, because they had encouraged most
10 ec, "able expectations, that could not, and ought not,
tanoca gratified. He accused Ministers of no little arro-
eo e. supposing that they could amend that happy
,fionstitution under which the country had so long
thautrisirl, and expressed his earnest
.hope and firm belief
the
Lill,
House of Lords would do its duty, and reject
Sir c. WETHERELL, referring to what had fallen
fromfrom the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one,
resisted that if there had been any departure from modera-
-1,01:e(b),. "11e.
opponents of the Bill, it had been amply pro-
, i "Y the provocations of its supporters. Language in
strictly Parliamentary might be extremely insulting
iri_ehar.i.eter and honour if deprived of its privilege of place.
v particularly reminded the House of the words "
• and vexatious delay," used by the King's Attorney-
hut I'dnot f• to be able to repeat other
Phrases pro ass
them,
of the same description, as he had kept no notes
; although, had he done so, they would have formed
- coo
b„, erable schedule to be added, not, indeed to the Bill,
1' to the debates upon it.—(Hear.) The measure had
tad a third time two days ago, and his reason for
Zeliding to
flood fact was, that it seemed instantly to have
1;4,1 the -gates of Ministerial eloquence ; until then
0, re seemed to have been a sort of embargo upon oratory
f-e; that side of the House—a quarantine to prevent the in-
speeeh-making.— ' (Laualiter.) Tonight the
atetd 11011. Gentleman had given the rein to his impatient
litho' and, knight-errant like, had ridden out a colonel-
nrtn,,to redress the wrongs of the weak and injured people
'ctne i'•,!aral. Last night the Hon. Member for Caine had
°WA li-raavrard, and he (Sir C. Wetherell) must, in justice,.
of Ilisplayed a power of reasoning and a felicity
*--(Cale.-B,e,°2,°gY, equalled by few and excelled by none.
that, (I`,B') This was only a part of the deluge of words
torte ur'ng two whole Oays, had poured down like a
"hetnlite and overwhelmed the enemies of the measure;
iaays litte the deluge of old, it was to last for forty
forty4(4head--11.'eai nights, was yet a question, but, after what
he was not without his apprehensions.—
he wersi and laughter.) As he was not yet quite drowned
the endeavour to answer a few of the points urged by
cessi:ut Cientlemao. First, he bad rested the nc-
Peitt'r g
°'c Reform upon the fact, that the commerce, pro-
hilt
_4°,4 Population of the kingdom had been doubled ;
v/14;1' 'Y this was a strange reason for adopting a Bill
sentativabridged the people of about thirty of their repre-
,l4lcesait"---(Cheers.) He wished to hear where was the
lebratel for this diminution, and rem tainly, the most ce-
ttlafleit advocates of Parliamentary Reform had never
corntne a topic in their speeches.. The mere fact that the
Oreattre!, wealth, and population of the inhabitants of
garment "tain had doubled, was a most unanswerable ar-
ebe . o,t° those who wished the Members of the House to
had sal ban at present. Next, the Right Hon. Gentleman
rence ',511 of the Sessional Resolution against the inteife-
Neho °' Peers in elections, and had quoted the case of the
'ley'adof Worcester in the reign of Queen Anne; but if
t
•ee " become matters of form, and were now of no
Aegis!l validity, was that a sufficient reason for adopting
aeotie 've enactment on the subject? The Right Hon.
Yiehlednian had talked of Cato and the people, who had
the C„,t° circumstances. Who, he begged to inquire, was
his pla"c`oe thetiiifere?
Treasury Bench, and why had lie taken
l'etha Cur in theatrum, Cato severe, venisti ?"
reply i'n' he might conclude the quotation, which was the
iaiert. lc, the question of the epigrammatist—" An ne
l're• 8.
Again he asked, who was the Cato of the
floia`ZrY Bench who had yieHed to circumstances—the
the is,rt'llor of the Exchequer, the Paymaster of the Forces,
s"-(lletaur\nvY-Genetal, or the First Lord of the Admiralty?
„ ') Lucan asserted that—
hUt 1,,h Vietrix room This placuit son vista Catoni s"
ewas the Hon. or Right Hon. Gentleman on the
the ' of the House who would prefer, in this instance,t
na,perceessful cause ?—( Cheers.) They mielit all be
o ad, vd, hy the honest decision of the noise of Lords,
riot the unsuceessful rause—but assuredly it would
laser cy their own' 'good will ; and they had shown, by
Preleerst,uL't of the last Dublin election, that they did not
the Iti;"kat Side of the question. Another topic urged by
teifon Gentleman was, that at one time the Lord
the .csainqiie Porits had
annce. ao(sidnined the right
Alem.bers ; was argument for
,°tef„ Ping the Cinque Ports, that the eegislature had
~.,'etil„,ell„ and prevented the practice. He (Sir Charles
;vas •,-;'") contended that the very deformities the Bill
loured "Wiled to remedy were still most unaccountably al-
-114 L!°:einain in the notorious instances of Caine, Ta.-
!,tietZ,-' "latton, d Horsham, and that the 101. consti-
)l'4 sty "reared by then give no just knowledge of
2(1 t lk Public opinion. The Right Hon. Gentle-man
"'an eu of liis own d ndenee although representing
ill Lolls • vroher and electors at Norwich ; but certain it was,
a for certain places on the banks of the Thames
d oenti°sthoast that they were equally free froth controul
lvrnli ut e----(Clicers.) His R H ight on. Friend, the
xfoirtii Non;ich had said much of the want ofrri,o-•
p r, v
which the opponents of the 13:11 hail resis ed
An"nili d 5. But where was it that his Right Hon.
te Bill? I"en moderation on the part of the friends of
~"forma
anti
it in the public journals which supported
ts.t'riet,e.i..' Government? or in the pamphlets of the
linissed wiTat4dvisers?" or, in that in which it
w•sTva
it
in
the Lords would do?—(Cheers ) as
the
Pub ;cations which threatened the House of
a triode extermination if they rejected the Bill that all
:tight ration was to be found ?—(Clieei s.) Did los
l'ad be,
out to +A". Friend read the other day the threat which
triad in held V- •f gland by one of those
erate
advocates
ofL Peers o
, aies Retorm—that if they throw out the
ity? *e} should follow the fortunes of the French Nobi-
iee„,,---(Cheers
oimnd‘,., Somne of those moderate Reformers
na4d their ilej' express terms, that if the Lords exerc,
the to free discretion upon this question, that branch
on, are should be set aside. Had his. Right
4(1 the e ud read a Government newspaper—or in what
which Character of being a Government paper—and to
vnntaibuted was notorious certain very great persons
hernocer t e--(Loud cheers.) Had his Majesty's Go-
apea"--e or. the Attorney-General seen in that news-
(ltecortn_ot In
common print, but in Roman capitals—
ad thetrienclation plainly given to treason and mutiny ?
inatot, read in that and other papers the most inflam-
ho r t ns ecornmendatio to that unhappy class of men
the atn'thava in
the
under the miserable delusion that
the barns of their neighbours were the obi

jets on which they ought to wreak their vengeance for the
wrongs they supposed to be done them ? In a word,
were all the suggestions, cautions, and rumours held out
to the House of Lords by the advocates of the Bill to
be taken as opinions of the grave, argumentative, and
prudent reasoning by which the nation was to be con-
vinced of the expediency and usefulness of that measure ?
One smooth and moderate supporter of Reform modestly
proposed that the House of Lords should at once be put
into schedule A.—(Laughter.) But he had no doubt
that his Majesty's Ministers would cut the connection
with such friends.—(Laughter.) The Attorney-General,
no doubt, would say, that it was very improper such at-
tacks should be made upon one branch of the Legislature,
and that the vial of public vengeance should beheld up,
ready to he poured out upon them ; and it would, of
course, be said, that the Government were not parties to
those insults upon the Peers. But he would ask them,
did they or not think that the Press should be allowed to
exercise the dominion which it was attempting to exer-
cise over the Legislature? Did they mean to make it
part and parcel of the Constitution of England, that such
a power should exist beyond the laws?—(Cheers.) The
Hon. Member for Caine had alluded to the fate of the
French nobility in the years 1792, 1793, and 1794.
Now, if the House of Lords would t the a lesson
from the example held cut as a warning to them,
they would do well to remember that the 171 ouch Peers
surrendered their privileges in obedience to the popular
demands, and that they were deprived of their titled and
lands, and expelled from their country, not because they
refused to concede, but ii cause they had made the first
concessions. He would, in that view of the matter, join
with the Hon. Member in reminding the House of Lords
of the calamities of the French Peers. It was said, in-
deed, that some of the Lords had voluntarily made great
sacrifices for the Bill. For his part, he could not see whit
it was that the Bedfords, the Lansdownes, and the Stani y's
had given up without solicitation. What sacrifices had
they made in Malton ?_(Clo ers.) What had they given
up in Caine ? What concessions had they made in Hor-
sham ? If a list of all such sacrifices were well drawn up,
it would make a pretty Schedule o—(Laughter)—ans
the representatives of the boroughs in that Schedule might
very aptly be called the representati ces of a cypher—
(C eers)—of an algebraic negative—a something less than
nothing..--(Cheers and laughter.) Malton would have
fallen into the bottomless pit of Schedule A, bed it not
been discovered to possess five good souls to save it.—
(Laughter.) It had been thrown into the same pond with
others, which were drowned ; but it was saved by having
just length enough to keep its chin above water. When he
heard the French Nobility so much spoken of, he must
remind the House of Lords, to whom that caution
was addressed, what had been in France the con-
sequences of concession to revolutionary demands. In
the year 1791, the Franch King signed the first Consti-
tution, and in twelve months afterwards the rights, pri-
vileges, and property of the Peers were attacked. That
illustrious personage (Egalite) of whom mention had been
made more than once in the course of these discussions,
had received a full measure of justice from the people—
they had conferred upon him civic honours, but they did
not stop there, and he shared the fate of all those who, by
yielding too much to the demands of the multitude, be-
came the victims of their fury ; anti to that disposition to
concession could be traced the causes of those events which
led to the destruction of the splendid French Monarchy.
It was acting, too, in the same spirit of concession, that
the French Bishop by their non-resistance, became in
effect accessary to their own imprisonment. He should
now, with the permission of the House, call its attention
to the two pi ineipal pamphlets written upon the subject of
the present Bill—pamphlets marked by such identity of
style that they have every evidence of having been be-
g oten by the same parent. There was so much unity of
,entintent, and such peculiar phraseology, that no man
who read Loth could doubt that they had a common origin
—he alluded to the " Friendly Advice to the Peers," and
that with the title "What will the Lords do ?" One of
these desired the Peers, Spiritual and Temporal, to look
at the state of France, not for the purpose of imitation,
but opposition. The month of September appeared to be
fatal both to he French and the Britisb Constitutions. In
this country they were at present Septemberising, and the
year 1832 might prove as memorable in England as 1792
had proved in France. September had proved too holy a
month even to be omitted from the Calendar of the Re-
volutions. The Hoe. and Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to discuss the question of the 101. franchise, de-
scribing the manner in which a few influential indivi-
duals in a borough might obtain, by combination, as much
power as at any time might be acquired by a Nobleman
or a man of quality ; and he complained that the effect of
the measure would be most unduly to increase the influence
of the Great Seal. One of those pamphlets to which he
had alluded, warned the Lords to look at what they were
about, they might have forty or fifty new Peers sent in
amongst them. Already a large batch had been created—
some two or three and twenty, and some, too, it was
threatened, might be sent from that House. The principle
of the Bill, if it could be said to have any intelligible
principle, was, that those who voted elsewhere should not
vote in that House; while the author of the pamphlet in
question recommended that the friends of the measure
should first vote in the House of Commons, and afterwards
in the House of Peers. But it would I.e said, argued the
pamphleteer, that the House of Peers would thus be tool
numerous; and the evil he proposed to remedy by render-
ing the whole body elective, like those of Scotland and
Ireland. He wished to know how the country gentlemen
1 who were now supporting the Reform Bill would look
when the new House of Commons should pass a Corn
Bill, letting in foreign corn, without any remunerating
price to the farmer of this country ?--(Cheers.) In his
conscience he believed that Cromwell's Repunlic was less
revolutionary and less radical than this new Constitution
which was proposed by his Majesty's Ministers in a Bill
which, in his opinion, was cileulated to subvert the
Throne, the Monarchy, and the Church of this country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then pre-
sented himself to the House, and addressed it as follows :
Sir, after the long sitting which the House has had on
this question, I must trust to its indulgence in the task I
have now undertaken. After hearing several arguments
against the Bill, I am anxious to address, and as I shall
have to refer to arguments which have been used in three
nights' debates, I fear I shell find great difficulty in mak-
ing such an arrangement of what 1 have to say as to ren-
der it char ; and in endeavourin; to do so, I fear that 1
must trespass for a longer period thin 1 usually do upon
the patience of the House. Before I go into the general
questi in, I may be permitted to advert to one or two to-
pics much alluded to, though somewhat apart from the
general question. I would allude, in the first instance, to
that has been said by the Hon and Learned Gentleman
(Sir C. Wetherell) who has just sat clown. A great part
of that Him. and Learned Gentleman's speech referred to
the revolution of France. The Hon. and Learn, d Gen-
tiernan has said that the topic was introduced into time de•
bate by my lion. Ft iend the Member for Caine (Mr. Ma-
caule) ); 1 believe, however, that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman was mistaken. This topic has been mixed up
with the whole course of the debates, and was first intro-
duc. d, I believe, by the Hon. and Learned Afeadier for
Rye (Alr. Pemberton). The greatest part of the debate
for the last three nights had been urged, apparently with a
view of influencing the decision of the House of Loris
rather than that of the House of Commons.—(Hear.; This
course was also adopted by the Hon. and Learned Member
for Rye, who made a most able speech, which appeared to
ow to possess every quality that could give it a claim to the
attention of the assembly it was addressed to ; and which
1, theteltire, beard with great wonder the Hon. Member
for Thetford (Mr. Baring) characterise as a speech which
proved the Hon. and Learned Member, who made it in-
competent to address a popular assembly.—(Hear.) This
observation of the lion. Member for Thetfordw
toouldbeai,
cer-
tainly lead we to suppose that he does nut appreciate what
a pupil.: assembly is, or what arguments ought
rl ed to it. My lion. Friend commenced his speech by
praising the Constitution, and the Trial by Jury, and nf
those praises I concur ; but he then went on to say, that
if any Hon. Gentleman wished for popularity, or wished
to please a popular assembly now-a-days, he had only to
abuse the Constitution and the Trial by Jury. I was
surprised to hear any gentleman say that the Trial by
Jury is unpopular in this country.—(Hear, hear.) 1
know that one or two persons in this country object to
it, hut I believe it is now, and I hope it always will
continue to be, most popular throughout the country
at large. Speaking of the change about to be intro-
duced by this Bill, and the danger to be apprehended
from that change, my Hon. Friend asks, are we sure
that under a reformed system we shall continue to enjoy
the blessings we now have? I would answer this question
by asking another of my Hon. Friend. Is he sure that,
without a Reform, the blessings we now enjoy will be re-
tained by us?—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial side.)
The feeling for Reform—the necessity fur it has grown
gradually to its present extent, and every thing that has
passed during the last year has tended to this result. My
Hon. Friend (we believe the Noble Lord here alluded to
Mr. Baring), stated that he is, and has always been, a
Parliamentary Reformer, and 1 know that I have voted
frequently with hint in favour of Reform; but if the ar-
guments he has used on this occasion were the only
grounds on which I could form a judgment of his opinions,
I should say that no gentleman could be more adverse to
Reform, because the whale of his argument wai founded

on the perfection of the present system. That system ttp-
peared to be so much the object of his admiration, that it
did not appear to me that he supposed it could admit of any
improvement. The Hon. Member for Thetford has asked to
what period of our history we can go back to find such a re-
presentation as that about to be established by this Bill?
The peculiar right of voting given by this Bill I know
will not he found in any period of our history; but it
we go to the principle on which the Bill is founded, we
may find that, in the best periods of our history the same
principle was adopted.—(Hear.) The principle is the
more equal representation of the wealth, property, and po-
pulition of the country ; and that principle, I contend,
Prevailed in the representation at former periods, though
the machinery by which it was carried into effect was pre.
ciaely or very nearly the same as that which now produces
such different results. The plan of representation now
proposed includes all the intelligence and property of the
country, as fairly and fully as they can be included in any
general measure. It is in the spirit of the Constitution,
and we adopt and recognise that spirit when we propose
to extend the constituency of the country.—(Cheers.)
fhe arguments brought forward in this debate, I con-
ceive, go against all representation—properly so called. It
is said that every interest now find what gentlemen are
pleased to call a representation in this House. It may
be true that persons belonging to every great interest can
find their way into this House by means of the borough
system. But is it nothing that a person connected
with any particular interest has that interest repre-
sented in this House, by one in whose nomination to
represent that interest he has no choice ? Has be not
a right to choose whether his interest is to be repre-
sented by some one of his own class of life and his
own business, rather than by one who may have no sym-
pathy with him. I apprehend that a person so situated
would think it a great advantage that he should have
something to say in the choice of the person who was to
represent the particular interest with which he happened
to be identified, rather than that the representative should
sit for some borough with which the person whose easel
am putting has no connection, anti over which he has no
contreul.—(Hear, hear.) My Hon. and Gall int Friend
(Sir J. Malcolm) proposed that there should be repre-
sentatives for India ; and I heard him make that propo-
sition with great surprise, for I knew from what I heard
!din say on previous occasions. as well as from conversa-
tions which we have had together, that he did not feel
that the population of India were in a fit state, as re-
garded intelligence and education, to enable them to
choose fit representatives if the power was entrusted to
them. Upon looking more considerately into the pro-
position of my Hon. anti Gallant Friend, however, I find
he is consistent with himself and his former arguments.
As he thinks that Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds
may be properly represented by Members chosen for Got-
ten and Old Sarum, so he thinks that the people of India
can he properly represented by Mernlers chosen in Leaden-
hall-street.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. MALCOLM said across the table, I did not
say the people of India, I said theer interests.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Just so.
My Hon. and Gallant Friend thinks that as the interests
of the inhabitants of Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds
are fully represented by the Members for Gatton and Old
Sarum, so the interest of the people of India may be re-
presented by the proprietors of India stock. I don't say
that they might not be proper representatives as regards
Indian affairs, though not as regards the feelings and in-
terests of the people. If the Members for Gotten and Old
Sarum however are fit representatives for Birmingham
and Manßester, upon the same principle they are fit re-
presentatives for India ; and the people of India may do
without any additional representation. Returning to the
arguments of the Hon. and Learned Member for Rye (Mr.
Pemberton), lie says tint the public expectation is so ex-
extravagant and has been so much raised on this question,
that even if the Bill passes, there will be danger from the
reaction arising from the disappointment of those hopes
and expectations which the people have indulged in, sup-
posing the Bill to be carried into effect. Now I doubt
much whether the public expectation has been raised to so
extravagant a pitch as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
supposes. Ido not believe that the people, who have
shown such an anxiety for this measure, expect such
great and wonderful effect from it as the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite wish to suppose. I believe that
this Bill will give the people such an influence in
this House as will cause clue attention to their inteteste,
and that if this cannot produce any very great im-
mediate good, it will yet prevent the recurrence of the
evils under which they have suffered. And as to reaction
in their desire, if such took place, what would be the cure
far it? Why at once to reject the Bill. But, Sir, I be-
lieve the effect the BIP will produce to he this, that if the
people do not attain great good, they will be more satisfied
under sufferings and distress when they have their own
representatives than when they are legislated for by those
over whom they have no controul.—(Hear, hear.) My
Hon. Friend, the Member for Thetford, asked a question,
which, he said, he had never heard answered, namely, how
the Government was to be carried on when this Bill was
passed—how Ministers were to be chosen, and how they
could get on with the public business? It is certainly
true that then, more titan at present, the Administration
of lie day must be popular, and I cannot see why any dif-
ficulty should be apprehended as to their not having seats
in this House. The largest portion of the Ministry must,
I take it for granted, be already Members of this House,
and Members who will, on a popular change of Adminis-
tration, he re chosen. This, therefore, is not a practical
evil of such a character as to cause the rejection of
this Bill. But, suppose the Ministry once seated, then
there is the less difficulty. But I would ask my 111 m.
Fritni whether the difficulty of an Administration going
on now without Reform will not be infinitely greater
than that of securing seats to Mini-tors after the
passing of this Bill ?—(Lothl cheers.) My Honourable
Friend also said that we now left a few close boroughs, and
thus constituted an oligarchy which must have great power,
forgetting that there was such a thing now in existence ;
hut it appears strange to roe that their power should
be
geeater, when reduced, than it is now in its plenitude.—
This is, in fact, as notch as to say that a
Rat will De greater
than the whole, anti that, the lesser the number of this
body, the greater will be its power.—(Cheers.) It is also
said that we are now about to demolish the Constitution,
but, as was well expressed by a Noble Friend near me, the
Constitution, after this Bill, will stand as it lees now .
all the writers on our laws and institutions. It will still
stand en the three estates—the King. Lords, and Com-
mons.—(Cheers.) And as to the diminution of the in-
fluence of property—of aristocracy, properly. so called, I
mean property--I do believe that no Act of Parliament
which ever has, or ever will pass, could dimiulsh that in-
fluence in this country. Undoubtedly, this Bill will spread
it over the whole country. At present, that influence is
confined to those only who are proprietors of boroughs, and
therefore the reason urged by toy Hon. Friend why this
change will lead to a democracy's—namely, that power should
be equal to property, is entirely aeainst for this
is
exactly what the Bill will give.—( Hear.) Much has been
said with respect to the House of Lords—that it is un-
possible that House can stand after this House shall
become a purely popular represent itien, for my Hon.
Friend has said th it there is no instance in history of
a purely popular assembly co-existing with a King
and Aristocracy. Very true, but the experiment had never
been trio,'. —(Cheers front the Opposition,) There was
something like it hi this country, when the representation
was more like a real representation of the country, and
its feelings and its intelligence. The Government then
went on well, and, therefore 1 can see no reason why this
House, when it does really represent the country, should
at once destroy those institutions to which the people are
attached, and which are only supported by their attach-
ment and their veneration. The power of the House of
Lords consists in its proper ineuence, and is based upon
public opinion. It also consists in its share of the Legis-
lation but no one attempts to take that from it.—(Cheers.)
But the great argument, in favour of the House of Peers,
deperCs on the knowledge the people have of the benefit
which is derived from having one branch of the Legislature
independent both of the molar voice and of the Crown.
The House of Lords can be in no danger while it retains
hold of public opinion, aad therefore there is no reason
why, from the passing of this Bill, it should lose that
weight which it has, and which I hope it ever will pos-
sess, in the Government of this country. Another argu-
ment to which I shall apply myself, though I forget by
whom it was used, is this statement—viz. that the effect
of making the Government of the country more democratic,
so far from preventing great expence, aial rendering as less
liable to wars, would, on the contrary, be that we should
be the more likely to enter into war rashly, and to get
out of it dishonourably. Ido not know from what source
of experience or from what part of history this conclusion
is drawn. If we look to the greatest republic in the world
r have
e been
r daysoout
the suchov de we see that there no such danger exists ; and I do hope
n
that wn e are now progressing fast towards that state when
the wisdom, the good feeling, and the good sense of mail-
kind will render us disinclined to war, anti that the wast-
ing passion of glory, as it is called, will be estimated as it
nunh
m n---(Leuel cheers.) if we do see that the republic of
fotvrtrth o t ha en rd people,
lteo,
e
esire in modern nifeorrnrepublics;
hgettingv fmtao'satr
perseveringwitli dish dishonour,
hostilities. republics I
tlia
sa
generallylso
been said that the effect of this Bill will be to cause an in-
crease of bribery at elections, but I cannot see how such
'c
r e

an effect trill he its result: There are provisions in it
which have a tendency directly the reverse. That for the
shortening the duration of the polls will act so, for bri-
bery always increases in proportion to the length of time
the polls are kept open. The different places of voting will
act in the same way, and the raising of the qualification
of voting will also be a security against bribery. It has
been said that the contrary will be the case, because in large
towns the right of voting has been bestowed upon a very
low class; hut in the large towns bribery will be less likely
to occur. I do not say it never does occur, but it will not be
I ikely,hecause bribing a few voters will produce no effect,and
in the small towns the voters will now be of a higher and
more respectable class. One Honourable Member has
complained that this provision trill increise the influence
of landlords, and that, if A and B have 100 houses each,
they can join and return theaMembers. But the'cases in
which weekly and poor tenants are allowed to vote, are
only those of large towns, where if A and B and all the
letters of the alphabet, were combined, they would not
produce any such effect as is stated.—(Hear, hear.) My
Right lion. Friend, the Member for Montgomeryshire,
has told me how far he would be willing to reform, and
I am very glad to hear him, as, although we had the
benefit of his vote for the second reading of the Bill, yet
in Committee, I believe, he opposed every one of its
clauses. My Right Hon. Friend has found fault with this
Bill, as being too extensive ; but I say that, if we did
not go as far as we have gone, we should have done what
is charged against this Bill—we should have made a change
which would not he permanent. I hope and trust that
the Bill will be permanent. I do not believe, perhaps,
that all reasons for discontent will cease ; but neither do
I believe that some boroughs being left to return two
Members, and possessing a smaller number of voters
thin some of the large new boroughs, will lead to such
discontent as will make the people call, as they now
loudly do, for change. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man opposite his, in his rather lengthened speech—
(A laugh)—addressed the main portion of it to the
subject of the French Revolution, of some of the events
of which he says he was an eye-witness. For myself
I was at the period but a boy, and only recollecting the
horror with which I was struck at the disgraceful and ca-
lamitous events which marked its progress, I, of course
cannot speak with authority on the subject. But this, at
least, is evident, that the state of France before the revo-
lution was as different as it is possible to conceive from the
state of this country at present..—.(Loud cheers.) When
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that the Nobles of
France suffered from giving up their privileges, lie should
also recollect how long those privileges had ground and
oppressed the people ; and that, although there were
traitors amongst that class, yet it was not until long after
the revolution had begun that the Nobles gave up their
privileges. The revolution began in 1789, and it was to
the period of 1792 that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
addressed himself. Danger has been dwelt upon, and
danger there undoubtedly may be, for it cannot be ques-
tioned that there is always danger in delaying until you
ran no longer refuse; fur in the first instance you excite
the people's indignation, and in the last, their contempt.—
( Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in reply
to my Right lion. Friend's argument, referred to the
increase of wealth and population, which my Right
Hon. Friend urged as a reason for a change; and the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman has asked how we can
reconcile this increase with a diminution in the number
of this House ? I cannot see how this reasoning ap-
plies as the number of representatives, but I do see
that, if the number of the people has increased,
it is a very good reason why the number of the con-
stituency should be enlarged —(hear.) But the ques-
tion here is, will the number that is to sit in Parliament be
sufficient to do the business of the country, extended as it
is in wealth and population ? No man can doubt that it
will. Then it is asked, what have we done with the
other Membeis ? We declared that, when we abolished
the small boroughs, we also gave representatives to the
large unrepresented constituencies, and the only way in
which we could preserve our former number would be to
rennin some of those boroughs which ought not to keep
the power of returning Members. The lion. and
Learned Gentleman, when speaking of cases of deformity,
says that we still retain those deformities, and that Caine
and Horsham, and Halton, are examples. But the lion.
and Learned Gentleman should recollect that in the Com-
mittee all these topics were repeatedly discussed ; and 1
believe that, after the passing of this Bill, the interests of
those who now possess the chief power in these boroughs
will cease. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman shakes his
head ; but I think I have as good information on this
point as he can have, and I have every reason to believe
that the interests now predominant in these places will, if
they do not come altogether to an end, be very greatly di-
minished. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman also ad-
dressed a great part of his speech against the pamphlets
and newspapers, and he also said that he was
glad that the gentlemen at this side of the House
were, at length, glowed to speak ; hut it is,
therefore, rather odd that he should not reply
to the speeches here, but to the pamphlets out of
doors.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man must be aware that these publications carnot by any
passibility he under the controul of the Government; but
I must say that, however I disapprove of the violence of
some passages in these publications, still this umst be ever
the case while popular rights are under discussion ; and
on the Catholic question I am qiiite sure there was lan-
guage made use of quite as violent as any in the strongest
of these publications. We can have no controul ovt r
those who agree with us in general politics; and their
opinions, and the expression of them, is totally out of our
power. I have now stated the different points to which
I wished to call the attention of this House. We are now
at the close of a great and most important discussion, and
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had accused us at this
side of great violence of language. If I were to give my
opinion of the whole discussion, I should say that
never was there a question of such importance, and one
which necessarily gave rise to party feeling—never, I say,
was there such a discussion conducted with so much good
temper and discretion. Undoubtedly hard words have
been used, but they have been used at least as much on
one side as the other. I might perhaps quote a few spe-
cimens, but it is not the way to produce moderation to
quote ; and if hard words have been used, I am ready, if
they have been uttered against the Government, fully to
pardon them, and I hope our opponents will freely do
the same.—(Loud and long-continued cheers.) This is a
question, which, whether looked upon with friendly or
with hostile views, is one of so much importance, that
no man can form an opinion without being eager in its
support. I have long been of opinion that it was essential
to tee peace and good government of the empire that the
state of our representation should be considered, and that
we should see whether the state of that representation
should not be made more real and more accordant with the
the of the Constitution. It appears to me that this
Bill will have this effect. We take away representation
from places that are not worthy of it—we give it to
laige manufacturing towns—while we increase the
county representation in a larger proportion, and
taitik the apprehension which the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman attempts to raise, that this
Bill will destroy the landed interest, is entirely chimed-
cal. Indeed 1 have been accused of the contrary, for
having supported the division of counties, as being a too
great increase of the power of that interest. What I did
;,,y on that subject was, that the power of the landed in-
terest would be increased by doubling the number of
county Members ; and whether that took place by the di-
vision of counties, or otherwise, the same effect would
flu e. There is no danger to the landed interest. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman speaks as if there was no
one to defend the landed interest but the county Alembers.
But one of the complaints against the Bill is, that it would
localise representation ; and if this be so, then country
gentlemen will be the representatives of the smaller bo •
and they will have their influence and their weight
in tliC country. Feeling this to be the case, and that we
vto e thesy sntleamn u
faavehtiuc
nlg hop:ln de
alsoand
trustliast propose
gleirli,eadrueepvvreeseignitltat
to the landed interest feeling thus, I am eager in its de-
fence, and I now feel great happiness that we are so near
the conclusion of our I.bour.—(The Noble Lord sat down
amidst enthusiastic cheering.)
Sir R. PEEL rose to address the House, but gave way to
Sir JAMES SCARLETT, who explained that he had
never said that the Trial by Jury was l• •
country. He hid only said that the way to get popula-
rity at present was to attack all institutions of the
emir:try. On his taking his seat there was great calling
for Sir Robert Peel, but
Mr. BARING rose to explain, though his explanation
was not beard in the gallery.
Si; ROBERT PEEL began by alluding to the late-
ness of the hour (nearly two o'clock), and that
the best way to ensure himself the indulgence of
the House was to
be as short as possible, and he
would be
Very short, considering the momentous
importance of the question under discussion. He
would not enter into the details of the Bill, which had
been discussed in a most masterly and unanswerable man-
nor, and be would forego the exciting topics of the French
Revolution ; lie would not enter into the details, because
one of the least important of the effects of the Bill would
be that the Bill would be impracticable. The only point
lin which he agreed with the Noble Lord was in his wish
that the memory of 4riy hard words might be obliterated;

'and he would say for himself and those gentlemen around
him, that, if any personal expressions had escaped them,
it was in the vehemence of debate, and without any inten-
tion of inflicting personal pain. He had listened with
ereat attention to the speech of the Noble Lord, as
he entered into a varieiy of details, and he must
say that that speech had disappointed him. He ex-
pected that the Noble Lord would have shown that some
great practical evils resulted from the present system of
representation, and he expected that the Noble Lord would
have explained in what manner the mighty change he re-
commended the House to adopt would remedy those evils.
He had expected a great statesmanlike discussion on the
evils of that representation, to ascertain whether these
evils were inherent in our Constitution, or whether they
arose from the constitution of human nature, and could
not possibly be got rid of, but must exist whatever form
of representation were adopted. He expected that the
Noble Lord would have shown the practical evils of the
present system, and the probable results that great change
proposed, and bow it would operate to prevent these evils.
That was the occasion, if ever, for making such a state.
merit ; but the Noble Lord had not taken any such view.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had, in making
this great change, contented himself by saying, that the
Lords and the Monarchy would remain unaltered. Oh !
Sir, exclaimed the Right Hon. Baronet, what is that to
rne, that the Noble Lord leaves in existence the nominal
authority of the Lords and the Sovereign—(Cheers)—and
takes away all substantial power, and when all that autho-
rety which they possessed in a mixed Government was not
preserved ? At what time, he asked, at what period of
history, and in what country, was power usurped, whether
by an individual tyrant or by popular assemblies—at what
time or what country, was power usurped, and the forms of
other institutions not suffered to exist ? In the Roman
history—in the history of France—in the history of this
country, the name of the old institutions, of the popular
assembly, of the Kingly office, were preserved in name—
an unreal mockery substituting the unsubstantial pageant
of a dishonest homage for what they destroyed, because
they felt that they could not violate the feelings of man-
kind with too rude a hand.—(Cheers ) Where was the
populous assembly in which a monopolizing power did not
feel it convenient to preserve the forms of the Monarchy ?
The National Assembly, when it usurped the judicial and
executive authorities, did not annihilate at once the name
and pageant of a King ; but
~ Upon his head they placed a fruitless Crown,
And put a barren sceptre in his hand."
They did not think it right to abolish the Monarchy at
once. No, they kept in temporary existence the pageant
of the Monarchy, aware that they would shock public
feeling if they did not wait for an opportunity of slowly
weaning the people from their ancient habits. It was no
satisfaction to him to hear that the Peerage and the Mo-
narchy were not to be annihilated, when:no person could
show him that, concurrently with the great change to be
made in the House of Commons, measures were taken that
the real aad substantial power attributed by the Constitu-
tion to the Monarch and the Peerage might be main-
tained. The Noble Lord sail that the change proposed in
the House of Commons had no democratic tendency. But
if ever there was a change which tended to increase the
Idemocracy by the influence of positive institutions on the
one baud, and by removing every check and controul on
the popular will to which we had been accustomed on the
other, it was the change now proposed to be made. It
was the greatest change that ever was deliberately made
in any country, at any time; and from his conscience he
believed it was made without the smallest necessity.—
(Cheers.) It was the greatest change ever made, though,
as the Noble Lord said, they adhered to the forms of the
Constitution. They transferred power from one class to
another—from one rank to another ; they added to the
popular power on the one side, without diminishing it on
the other by any popular subduction. In the first place,
the change greatly exceeds the principles of the authors of
the change. If it were granted that the time had arrived
when the nomination boroughs ought to be done
away, when the boroughs in Schedule A and Sche-
dule B must of necessity be disfranchised, where was the
necessity of altering the whole constituent body of every
county, of every city, and of every town in the whole
United Kingdom? If the alteration in the constituent
body were not necessary, what necessity was there for
altering all the limits and boundaries of every town in the
kingdom, or rather, giving power into the hands of cer-
tain Commissioners to alter them; and if that were not
necessary, where was the necessity of altering the relative
proportions of the Members for the different parts of the
United Kingdom, which bad been long established ?
Where was the necessity for making all these changes ex-
cept in the minds of those who desired change for the sake
of change itself? According to their own principle every
one of these changes were unnecessary. The Bill was bad
when it went into the Committee, and the Opposition
had laboured assiduously to mitigate its evils ; but they
had failed. He would, however, do justice to the Noble
Lords ; they had also endeavoured to mitigate the evils of
their Bill, but they too had failed. It was true that they
had decided against the weekly payment clause—(Cheers)
—and here was the danger—there was a power extrinsic
greater than they were which exercised a controul over
them, and stopped them in the first step towards their plan
of mitigation. The Noble Lord had established an uni-
form right of voting, and that right went to introduce a
far greater change than be had contemplated. Could any
man say what was the character of that new constituency
of 10/. householders? Had they inquired of the Magi-
strates in the towns what they thought of these 101. house-
holders? But where they were most to be dreaded—
where they were most densely crowded together—where
the influence of the Press was most powerful, there they
had given the greatest power to the 101. householders ; and
there this change, which gave votes to those who paid 3s.
10d, per week, would be most dangerous and fatal. There
was great danger in conferring votes on such people.—
(Cheers.) Had they inquired into the respect which these
people had for property? If no inquiries had been made
amongst these people, how could anybody answer for them? i
They had proceeded as far as the clause with respect to the
weekly tenants was concerned, in complete ignorance of
the subject, for he knew, on the best authority, that in
Manchester no one would accept the securities of a
weekly tenant, whatever might be the amount of rent
which he paid.—(Hear, hear.) While at the same
time they displayed this ignorance of the subjects with
which they were (healing, and while they had those great
changes, they had at the same time swept away all those
parts of the representation which offered a check to the
influence of popular will, or controuled the force of po-
pular passion.—(Hear, hear.) He did not then mean to
contend that Corporations were good or bad, but this be
would say, that the Corporation Members gave a controul
to the popular passions, and exercised a salutary influence
in checking the violent ebullitions of popular - zeal.—
(Hear.) While, however, they were discussion; this Bill,
they seemed to forget that there were two other Bills to
succeed it, which altered the Scotch representation,
which, whether good or had, was always notoriously 0,,-
posed
to violent popular changes, and checked the popular
vehemence ; and they were at the same time sweeping
away that amended representation of Ireland which three
years age) had been devised as the very best means of
affording a salutary influence to property, and a security ,
for the power of the Church of England.—(Hear.) But
in addition to all this, the influence of the Peerage in that
House was also to be destroyed ; so that at the time when
they were preparing to increase the power of the people in
selecting the Members of the representation, they were
also diminishing to a great extent, by every means, the
influence of the Aristocracy.—(Hear, hear.) But it was
said in the course of the debates, that there would still
be this consolation left—that if the power of the Lords in
the House of Commons was destroyed, as they con-
tended it ought to he, the House of Lards would be set
up in all the plenitudes of en independent jurisdiction.
Indirect influence, it was contended, must be abandoned,
as contrary to the principles of the Constitution, but no
rue at the commencement of these debates had ventured
to assert that the independent authority of the Lords was
to be curtailed. Bat what was the case now? Why it
was now avowed, with the language of menace and vitu-
peration, that if the House of Lords dared to judge for
itself with respect to the Bill, or presumed to act con-
trary to the commands of the Commons, they ran the risk
of sealing their own destruction.—(Cheers.) He would
not call this revolution, for it might be offensive; but he
would ask them to consider what a change must have
taken place in the opinions of men by the progress of these
discussions, when one of the sworn legal advisers of the
Crown, the Solicitor-General for In-land, had that night
also given it as his deliberate opinion that it was compe-
tent for that House to act without the House of Lords—
(Cheers)—andthat should the Lords exercise their inde-
pendent right, and reject the Bill, that House might ad-
dress
issuing writs th eC ro sfvonr taony dissolve
places thel%l i
ch Parliament,il
is
Majesty's
should think it fit to dispense with.—(Louth cheers.) So
then they and their constituents owed their existence purely
to a majority.—(Cheers.) The Hun. and Learned Gen-
itlieerunctii:dn% to be sure, omitted Milborne Port from this
but he condemned
Garton, without recol-
lecting that
the contributions to the State, even of Gotten,
were greater than those of Milborne Port.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) The opinions of the Hon. Member had, it
was true, been diselaitned by the Noble Lord at the bead
of the Government ; but the respect which he (Sir R.
Peel) felt for the 11350 and for his office, led him to believe

that the lion. 'Member ceuld not have made such a d•elifee-
rate declaration, if a material change with respect to the
House of Lords had not taken place in the ruiteis even of
well-judging people.—.(Hear.) He repeated, therefore,
that popular authority was increased, while all salutary
checks were on the eve of demolition. It was not for
hmh m
etn,
ttlso say o
elsewhere,
einugveht ,
haetra
et gfeahtet be
et
certainly
aitnlhe
ll
y thew workingaschangeso
ppnef isente
d,
made
eon
ietnwh
eG systeman.ten
altera-
tions tions now proposed, unless they produced some strone
to public opinion ; hut before he did so, he should like to
tting
have something definite befere him as to the extent of
forrpf ioortof of t
the
alli
bs e e otifi Commons,
from
erso,intinecessity.thait t
to
hoe andtn people
t
do‘ thateprelver a
undervalue
''evec rhes o
theandgnpi change g
propriety
oaawptrirasisfiue
temuydnenanwyft unavoidable,
i ofie
their wishes ; and he should like also to know the value
of the sacrifice he was called on to make.—(Hear, hear.)
He was willing to make the sacrifice, but he must first he
convinced that it would prove a permanent benefit to those
who demanded it. Surely, however, something more was
required from the representative than the passive obedience
to the will of the represented.—(Hear, hear.) They in-
verted the order of society when they yielded, without
having their reason convinced, to the clamours of the
people.—(llear, hear.) sand one of the greatest objec-
tions he had to their so yielding, without conviction
and without absolute necessity, was, that these de-
mands, thus yielded to, would be of perpetual
recurrence.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was easy to
say that the people were always the best judges of their
own interests. He knew it was unpopular to contradict
that assertion, but he did contradict it.—(Cheers.) If in
private life be saw individuals—the gambler, for instance,
or the spendthrift—always the best judges of their int!.
rests, always governed by reason, and inaccessible to the
influence of violent and destructive passions, he might be
inclined to yield to the assertion that large bodies were
always the hest judges of their own interests ; hut know-
ing how much such bodies were under the influence of
sudden prejudices and violent excitement, he objected to the
removal of those checks which experience had proved to
he so salutary. It was said, however, that the theory of
the Constitution was not preserved, and that the system
was full of injurious anomalies. Why, all institutions were
full of anomalies. The Noble Lord was, be believed, a
great admirer of the Jury system, and had declared, that
nothing could induce him to give it up. If a foreigner,
however, unacquainted with our institutions, was told that
a matter of civil contest was to be referred to twelve men
who must all agree, and if they could not do so readily that
they were to be starved into agreement, he (Sir R. Peel)
was sure that such a man would pronounce the Jury
system a monstrous and ridiculous anomaly which should'
not be suffered to exist in a country boasting of
civili-
zation. Gibbon, too, said that the greatest of all
anomalies was a hereditary Monarchy, where a mere
child was frequently called to govern a people possessing
numbers of great Generals and Statesmen who were so
mach fitter to command respect to their rule.—(Cheers.)
The hereditary Peerage was also a great anomaly.—
( Hear, hear.) A mixed Government was an anomaly ;
but yet he was by no means disposed to regret all times,
things because they were so. The Hon. Member for
Tivistock (Mr. Hawkins), who had pelted the House for
half an hour with prepared antitheses and inflated meta-
phors, for which he would find that the day was gone ny
—(Cheers and laughter)—had asked why they objected to
the anomalies of the new Constitution and passed over those
of the old ? Why, it was because they were old.—(Hear.)
There was a material difference between those which had
existed for ages, and those which they were now about to
sanction with their adoption.—(Hear.) He was not quite
sure, either, that those which had existed for centuries
were anoseeelles.—( Hear.) The feelings with which thee'
were regarded were about the same as those with which
the people would contemplate the honours of the Russells,
the Howards, and the Cavendishes compared with his pa-
tent of Nubility if he had been sent up to the House of
Lords to support the Reform Bill.—(Loud and general
cheering.) Tie Hon. Member for Caine (Mr. Macauley),
in a speech of great force, had endeavoured, as before, to
prove the extent of the evil- which the Bill would remedy ;
hut, as before, he had failed to convince him that the Bill
would have any such effect.—(hear, hear.) The old
Constitution to which they wished to return had not
reined manna on the people, nor did he think the new
one could do much to relieve the distresses of the people.
Under the old Constitution there were monopolies and
exclusions, even with all the advantasses of perfect re-
presentation. But, said the Hon. Merriher, there was
one thing they wanted, anti that was perfect freedom ire
the accumulation of property, and perfect liberty in the
enjoyment of it. Have they or have they not had a per-
fect freedom of accumulation, and perfect liberty in the
enjoyment of property under the old Constitution Y.
(Cheers.) But then, said the Hon. anti Learned Mem-
ber for Caine, the Reform would give a security aeainst
war. Against war.—(Cheers and laughter.) It was
lather an extraordinary proposition to advance, that after
having been for fifteen years at peace under the unreformed
Parliament, they were to have a reformed Parliament to
prevent their going to war. Fifteen years ago it s-ems they
should have passed the Reform Bill, for the sake of pro-
curing peace at the time thai they had peace.—(Hear, and
a laugh.) These were aegu inents—(A laugh)—at least they
were put forth as such.--(Hear.) Then they were told
they wanted the destruction of monopolies and free trade.
If there was any thing in which the unreformed Corn..
mons had made itself most unpopular, it was this very
question of free trade ; and he doubte i much whether th-e
:most ardent prayers and the most strenuous exertions of
the IW. householders of Woreseeter, and Monmouth, and
Macclesfield would not ha directed to the continuance.
of the exclusive system, rather than to the promtitien
of freedom of trade.—(Cheers.) Then the Hon. Mem-
ber said they wanted improvements in legal jurisdic-
tion ; but he appealed to the evidence of the last thir-
teen years to show that the House hal not been inat-
tentive even to that subject. Then there was the
Beer Bill paned by that House ten the principles of this
free trade, which was, it seems, so mild' desired by
the people, and what was the result? Why, that his
Majesty's Government in the other Howse, were at that
moment occupied in devising means to limit those freedoms
which they themselves conceded to the beer sellers.—
(Heat, hear.) Again, the House, endeavouring to adel to
the comforts of the people, had abolished the use of spring
guns in gardens, at the suggestion of the lion. Member
for Stamford (Mr. Tennyson), and what hail been the to
silt ? Why that a Bill was at that moment before them,
introduced by the Hon. !!ember's colleague, for the par-
tial revival of the use of spring guns.--(lleats) Thus in
two cases where the unreformed Parliament had proved toe
liberal in granting relief to the poor, and in complying
with the wishes of the people ; in two case, where they
had allowed the Government to proceed without a check
or controul in its information, the same liberal and Re-
ortned Go: cm were now of in an endeavour
to correct the evils which had arisen from a compliance
with their wishes.—(Clouds.) The Hight lion. Goa-
tleman then again applied himself to the question of war„
and having ridiculed the arguments used by the Member
for Caine on that su.,ject, he c,ontentled that was was not
within the power of Government, and that if at the time
Bonaparte had a camp at Boulogne, in the year 1805, the.
Government had refused to provide the means of resie-
tance, an indignant people would have compelled them to
do en. Adverting to the expenditure which had been in-
curred during the late War, he acknowledged that it had
been great ; but an were the objects for which the war
it n 130
tie
arn
h‘vfraaidi,tii crawler; on.
he peed l regretted
coie(en)t
e(aid
ebhohhueesaettl
institutions
tis,:itupiluf,iloartiitesittibieaiaaonri
ttirl
et
posterity—at
ntt year
he
elrs-
-
ttocifirelrnyooi
si;itiadirfyntdolte)
e,,,sppottuoiaptmleLf
thhleef,lpliienoopwpe,•el
terhse,egyrt
regretted
depetini
their clopaitoe:llartti:essanitititcauhT):ete.t.
glory
oh would
l
the
ablest
att
totrtni uto;thil:fetaxation could not be denied ; hut
Ire ihmitadtnhoteltirecy
had the authority of Mr. Rimini° anti Sir Henry Parnell
for declaring—that the people of this country were taxed
less in proportion to their means, than the people of any
country in the werld. The Right lion. Baronet here
read an extract from Sir H. Pernell's work, entitled, " Fi-
nancial Reform," in which the author t.poke of the ener-
gies whirls existed in this country, and treated the diffi-
culties under whiele it was labouring as temporary in their
character. How, with such opinions, the Rig-ht Hem Be.
ronet could call upon him (Sir R. Peel) to censent to alter
the Constitution of the country he seas at a loss to con-
ceive. To the
,c.htahni
thing,
beforeeg
,tnhtnhewye
rrepefort tirirpee,odshefend
opttlit was
raleoiz:
so
isis
pi
,e
if r
him to consent. He had no plan of Reform himself to
om
e
e
propose ; but lie had no difficulty in saying that that coma
prehended in the Bill on the tilde tended to the uproot'ag
of all the most valuable institutions of our anceetere. Of
this, too, he was certain, that the arguments welch bad
been urged by the Reformers of the present day against
those ancient institutions would be urged by the Reformers
of a future day against the new plan which it as c-q?
ot of
the establish.
B thatill, On
cl itoeretnr, • .
maintainsed'y
which
the security of the State had neer,
ont
rdi ePs‘:snu sniping-piece,
Pdi ear
tideltivs:
they would at least etude .vour.
om
th e ramparts.twtett
against their new b form of renee-
rry
missile would be directed
sentation, whenever
le with st. Oa time grounds, Le Mt it hit
tidy the people twenty-four
eproluvni:deneyrthttohime,,,,irgafri::i.:4Peisdr