The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-04 00:00:00

I

jority In favour of Reform ; and the only place in whicsli-
the tango cgs of Anti-Reform principles was heard suiccess.
fully was in a borough where the Government ha, p
sessed unrivalled influence; but where that influeicehaaudf
been appropriated hy some of the representatives
the former Government. He asked, then, could any
thing be more clearly proved than that those boroughsho
adhered not to the existing Ministry, but to those
could afford them patronage ? It proved, that iftwhetr:
was an honest Government, who were not disposed .
avail themselves of patronage, they would not support
them.--(Laughter, and cries of " oh, oh," from the Op-
Position benches.) He maintained there could not be a better
.r proof of
than thei their hostility to rational Reform,' a Bill which ld have the effs ct of
putting their fair share of legislationwou into the hands of the
People. The Noble Baron who spoke last objected to the
extent of the disfranchisement
w and he likewise protested
against the granting o representatives to so many lrge
tons ;
and, moreover, he took exception to all arrange-
ments respecting the West Riding of Yorkshire ;tint all
theee objections, he contended, did not affect the principle
ofhe the Bill; and he submitted to the Noble Baron, that
t tirne o urge them would be in Committee, when the
various clauses came under discussion.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble ,
"'di too, had made use of a very strange
argument indeed when he contended against giving addi-
tional Members to the great and populous counties, far he
id that if
It would h- 50Y
additional Members were to be conferred
lout coms-vtieal. e advisable to give
Or
them to the less popu-
Lord
ehserva:HARNCLIFFE, in explanation, stated his
be don 4 Was, that, considering the injury which. would
the Bile' t° the agricultural distric's by certain provisions of
be gives it Would be better if additienal Members were to
fer el to counties; that the Merrib•rs should be con-
there,„°Pon the smaller and agricultural counties than upon
trh,g,,er and manufacturingcounties. . at haule 4..4, -1 of AIULGRAVE, after expressing his sorrow
that ng misunderstood the Noble Lord, proceeded to say
Baron
, is
,respect to the dissolution, upon which the Noblet 'Wm - "a" spoken with such earnestness, there never ye
inni6ao,occasion upon which the Sovereign was more fullys
there e!' in tnaking an appeal to the people. Never wa
te.etta period in the history of the country when a muchd
klideatleharge was made in the views, and feelings, an
AN
I.oliteets of the Government, and never yet was
Idtad:euauge which in the least approached this in mag-
dist,' .and- importance, which was not followed by a
1,41... tt hen.
I (Rear, hear.) It was necessary that a new
the ttneot should be called to relieve the Ministry from
btamiltettilehl difficulties under which they laboured, in 1441:1„ --g Power after so long an exclusion and under so
lie, ' circumstances of exceeding disadvantage.—(Hear,
eh t') Poe •
kQ__ a time, however, the Government. were
d to avoid a dissolution, but difficulties were i
forcedlengtheusl ultiplied around them, and they were at
t!issit,le . into a measure which they would tit. , oechned. And now it was asserted that an alte-
t, kin had oak
in feeling respecting the
Worn, iten place the public raedietei li ; but the same assertion had been made id m?-
Never - Y after the dissolution ; and how was it sustaine
feeling was there a more decided manifestation of popular the t,h,an upon that occasion. What was the result ofd torwea;"°°? Of the twelve county Members who stood
th:on „" as the most violent opponents of the Bill, issly.n
~a° returned for his own county as a representative
the
deliver ye
Though all had expressed, in t e
hope rYn.l4 what Proved to be their last dying words, high
tope and
u cftihdence only one was successful in the con -
should tier-thn(tilieca.r... hear i The Noble Lord (Wharnclifle) should • te pleased the country that the House of Lords tore hit It° 'iger exist, they were ready to walk out ; but
the ,)r,!if he declared he had a very different id.ea
was
that Liity of their station—(Hear, hear)—rd.it
that natio that without envy or reproach maintain_
or one '"at be now supported this measure.—(
.Hear.)
to -ne he conceived it. jai; a slight sacrifice on their. parti
444..aecrdunre all their just tights and privileges, by simply
izetlenZ . the
unconstitutional power of
.eixetrueriesi ,
(hear.)
.%'Pon the other branch of the L. egia .
their Li,
.i he Noble Baron said, that if this Bill passed,
Lo resistin-t"hiPs would not thenceforth have the power
the
holt% 1 any
Measure which was sent up to them from_ a .
Peale
to- Lo ensure
; but this he contested, and le
'the twe history in support of his view of the question.and
4„.ttt 0 Lieu's's of Parliament had differed before4fuli
t`'at rella-at oP to the other House had been succea...diedy, dthtte4l_,-.Y. !her Lordships. But. it might be .
*tee r their Lordehips bad resisted successfully before,
11 they likel
%at of r, Y to do so hereafter against a
aßnedfomrmaiend.
,Lained et, 1-4olanions ? He contended they were, . .
"ow "'e change i h pr sentation could not min-
begg affect the relnatitvee representation could not inju-
the relative position of the two Houses.
uHe
trio, ue hail remind their Lordships, that the House of C mr-e
'er alt a 1 °nee consented to the expediency of a measure
ht ering an I • I law, contrary to
obeli,
i reformlng the 'lamina
Yet
thei 11
held by the Administration of that day, and
they d,d" Lordship( Lad rejected it. He regretted that
Atli. part He believed it las an inexpedient step upon
Of ret;-,t.t,
stdan he trusted they would take an opportunity
41,,,it0ir,4, ng hereafter. But here, he contended, was. a
1 htre . Dr°of of their Lordships' power and independence.
the ere
teas, however, one great distinction between
:ti!ale aehdet.e6e of their Lordships' .prerogative in thiswas
le PcsleilZ
,the case of the Reform Bill. In the one it
it
L.eurstislli..th'eu'otlaciere?'"e theta
of any direct motive ;
o'fvtahseir
Considering the influence many,
fito, _.lan.lll)Pl:_se.eire known to pasese in the other House, was
them credit
h t entire' °"otild they reject the Bill, t" give. 7
~e4r.) ve 41"nterestedness in their decision ..--(f.lear,.
Pethr:so..... il'aittortie., not the country know and
right
the r
ii:ltt I.,apeetufave
He ad a
a majority in their
.fay.our
pbekitiaer.7 the House of Lords in its proper positionre.;
pine die 14-41 that it would be always nicessary to p
betthh_etiveee atin,...4of the Constitution, and to act as um-
-1%4,4 at the :_ Sovereign and the power of the people ;
.%tate ly le, ~7anie ttme, must observe, that lie knew no
nal --et,
~N, ,anculated to resist the other branches of the
the 8- the wishes (.1 the King and the Ono.;
tn. till Hear,.k) The Lord. it was true, might reject
tnittlho_t. 4je-eutt
tvi:h. at would be thei. issue ?—(
Would be in a
Hear.) They
~, rit,
and in , but if they did so, they
a'ited n and in a
thei La et ‘‘,4minority of two to one—and he again
1,51 1 t 4 51 . "ld be the issue? Like all other minorities
5,1 to , Ps eaust yield •and they even would be com-
ad a, yield t •
shatto ,e, wen , 0 opinions so sustained
con.
hat."lted (11:4a. ended, as those against which it was
%Tatin the nY ight array themselves. The fact was,
sent°e ell;
o•-•sio,ustitution there- were r the ob-
,ttlee two.lion of any one branchporfavtilsieiaf Legislature to
elici4 '.f their the King opposed the views acnedssrietaptreed-
if . atiße ~ Lords and Cemmons, he was ne.
tr!' liou,'," advisers, and create a new Administraletio_not
fee„Z" and
the Commons Pertinaciously opposed
dtl S
t'Pp,,2lPeal e L'irds, there was a dissolution, an
.. thus a th -ed th ,e the people • and if the Lords, in the:c tutu,
e'e Iv e Soves • ' • d the Pe"Pl'''
avert. 41141,,, Peoples
and the Commons, an ,
tvew'rlg this " an ultimate resource. There were means otfi
hie , pro, °PPoeition, which might ceastitutionally, an
„io_d tl,tt,',"ahlV, be resoited to..—f Hear, hear.) He de-
kr;
tcou kilo:
vote of their Lordships on the presentoccac-_ 04 tn de°TBillered as fsirly settling
e tili the . enied even it could be so regarded, t , ,
ieeeived .. e''''tinv, state of excited feeling,
the question
h.af
rrdshipe" a 6041 decision of the uestiera. itwhweraialthl their
,°,ti iu 'tna.a ooe of 'the branchesg of the Legislature,
Nor'' of 5 P.4')ritY, and opposed, moreover, the views rd
the thi.factntZtitetc°Ple: 'Let no man conceal from him.-
(14a ", he voted lie voted against the second reading of
Reform.—
On t' heti hear against the prineiple of
4410,itiohri,Jen_,1, re echoed by some Noble Lords on the
Reform.—
the
fact in in the 1,) Ile now clearly saw that
.what he
(11„4" there tvuegiuning of his speech he suspected was_
' th '.) I a''' a division in the camp.
Nil, o conclesion
the v 'FY( lie look he declared, that from the state of it ~,°t" of that ed with great anxiety and agitation.to.
triao°,,Lld prove ight. If they rejected the Bill, he feaied esten-eu.---me,:_e,the Noble Lords opposite a melancholy_
him, ttione dt:id ' `_.) When such a body as the House o,f
me right e, 1, "red that the 1111 only conceded tlis pe'll'k s
(lier:rhpt,es.:ct,ou_nld not conceive a course more reckless.t or
meet , hear.) ",;(1 that. of offering apposition to i it.
Period Lordshie ,ff.eet of Vas decision was likely .
to
end as env of 9i influence in the State for as. 10145 a
Lop?rivilege%
... !heir Lordships had derived their titles
aj,d atei.,``,l.l_ rights from their ancestors.
4:74)1 rot
In said that the embarrassment he
Need in in addressing their Lordships was not dinii-
Jjelle.t of
tlePhreeentitig himself to their attention upon a sub-
,%, knowinn.,',llortientous interest. He rejoiced, however,
4 14 a urlisiO2nt arnong a majority of their Lordships there
0 their
~ '4 In wishes, in hopes, and in determination to
cotdi . duty and for 1 i e lf he feltgreat pleasure in
hauY auPPortie i j a",
„e_ %lope , g t ie amenunient ef his Noble Friend
Bar oes,
(4 In his Opinion Reform was not neces-
, oefe.Y.U_alUreeart?,--aii,
.de.lif it
duere, the
.Reform proposed was
tij.eull Pnalihl'Y grel,lel ttheilrie II not believe
.their L dshi I
assent. He. considered, too,()r thataPi
eitnpvieete for the re'eeti
allow *---(Cheers 3 r of. the Bill should be. pure
la ( For
.himself he was not dispos.et
.to
_then). etio'autpthaessevii complained of did exist ; but it it did,
Pirititio!ed
w'
as uorcetdly take care to Fee that the remedy
worse than the ,vil.—(llear, hear.)
a if
ill a tnatter o such extreme importance there was
heito prleeduuaeledoeufrbetettshat the remedy proposed would be likely
p.r:judicial than any which had
Me: -7141'0 underintQlsre
snoUld decidedly PeatiseiseLs
e they Proposed to remedy,
and deliberately consider be-

fore they ventured upon the adoption of this remedy.—
(Hear, hear.) He certainly was of opinion that the
measure proposed went upon the principle of trampling
upon the rights of property, and of destroying many of our
ancient and familiar institutions, which, however odious
they might be in the eyes of Reformers, be confessed he
regarded with the partial affection that a man might the
imperfections of his mistress.

" Veluti Balbinum polypus Agnw."
He believed that the very defects of the Constitution were
attended with advantage—(Hear)—and, therefore, speak-
ing generally of the principle of Reform, he must speak of
it as an evil. But alluding to it more in detail, he would
ask had the House of Commons neglected their duty to-
wards the people ? It had been asserted that for the last ,
forty years there had been a necessity for Reform; but ,
where were they to find the proof of this assertion? They
had embarked in a war which he would ever maintain was
a necessary war ; this was attended with great expense,
and with a consequent increase of taxes. But still the
main end of the war was answered, and all men were
satisfied because the great object of France, which was to
make herself, whoever might be the ruler, mistress of the
destinies of Europe, had been frustrated. A deht—an
enormous debt had been incurred to enable us to carry our
great object into effect ; and now it was well known that
one of the first acts of a Reformed Parliament would be
to propose a violation of faith with the public creditor,
who had come forward to assist the nation in the time of
need. The war, he had already declared, he considered
to be just and expedient, and he had now to add, that lie
believed it to be inevitable. Peace arrived, and be admitted
it gave us no great compensation for our losses during the
war ; hut still we bad secured ourselves from the domina-
tion of the French in Europe, and even had the inestimable
advantage of establishing peace upon a solid foundation ;
and to the firmness of the Ministry, and to the firmness of
the Parliament, was the successful termination of that
mighty war to be mainly attributed. Now, if the na-
ture of the House of Commons were altered, if that House
were simply to be an assembly of delegates representing the
feelings, and passions, and prejudices of the people, he asked
could such calmness, such coolness, and such firmness ever
be expected from them ? If there had merely been in Eng-
land at the time a House of Delega'tea, would the States
of Germany, would Prussia, would Spain have ever been
urged to, and maintained in their resistance to the power
of France? Would a House of Delegates, swayed and
guided, and imperatively influenced by popular passions,
ever have had the firmness or the ability to allow the Noble
Duke to display the Fabian policy which he had so suc-
cessfully and gloriously exercised in lying behind his lines
at Cintra, when, in this country, all the popular orators
were predicting that not a British soldier would ever
leave Portugal, and when these opinions found a voice
in the camp itself—(Load cheers)—when there was in all
probability only one breast which did not quail with ap-
prehension !—(Great cheering.) When peace came, 1 e
admitted that it did not bring all the benefits which might
have been fondly anticipated from it ; but in what was
the House of Commons to blame ? Was there any com-
plaint of the people which had been brought before them
which did not meet with due attention ? They had been
accused of servility, but he remarked that they had not
been guilty of servility in the time of Mr. Pitt, nor in
1827, nor yet upon a recent occasion, when they thought
proper to withdraw their confidence from the Noble Duke
(of Wellington), and thus compelled him to resign his
situation. Since the peace too, he contended that the
House of Commons had done all that they possibly could
for the benefit of the people—there had been, in the
first instance, a reduction of upwards of twenty-five mil-
lions of taxation—the interest on the National Debt had
been reduced—great improvements bad been made in the
criminal law (for which credit was due to the Right Hon.
Gentleman who proposed them)—economy had been car-
ried into all the public offices, and the amount of pensions
had been reduced ; yet the very first object of the Reformed
Parliament would be, to wipe away the National Debt,
regardless of good faith and the gratitude' due to those
who assisted the Government in need, and to do away
with pensions which had been won by the blood, and
labour, and glorious exertions of our soldiers and sailors,
which had procured for us a safe and honourable peace.—
(Cheers.) It was said that the people were inadequately
represented ; was this the case—did it appear to be the
case? In 1819, when there was a question of the re-
sumption of cash-payments, there was a great diversity of
opinion, and the great interests of the country were very
nicely balanced, yet the House pursued, without reference
to one side or the other, that course which they deemed
the best. Again, there was no reason to presume that
the House of Commons, in any question of moment and
difficulty, would suffer themselves to be overborne by the
popular voice, and the display of feeling created under an
immediate and exciting influence. There was the Catholic
question ; this was carried by the vote of the House of
Commons, contrary to the expressed wishes of the great
majority of Englishmen. They passed the measure be-
cause they thought it would be eventually advantageous to
the country, without in the least regarding the outcry
which was raised against it by the people ; and thus they
clearly proved that they were not to be influenced—arbi-
trio popularis aurce. This Reform Bill had been for a
time supported by the mass of the people, who were under
the influence of a delusion, from which he was happy
to find they had since awakened. It had been supported,
too, by some persons of property, under the idea that only
by Reform could that property be preserved and revolution
avoided. They, too, had been taught to regard the matter
in another light. It was supported, too, by the Noble
Earl and his Administration, who came in pledged to ad-
vocate Reform ; and amply had they redeemed that pledge,
for they had introduced a Bill much more extensive than
ever had been expected from them. By what he had
heard from some of his friends who in another place bad
been in the minority, he understood that his Majesty's
Ministers said they wished to place themselves on the
stedlist ground between the abuses which they were desir-
ous to amend, and the convulsions which they hoped to
avoid ; that they declared that no man in his senses could
say that the House of Commons, as at present constituted,
represented the people; that nevertheless there was a
time when the House of Commons represented the people;
and therefore that if it came to a question of right, the
right was in favour of Reform. He had been told that they
proposed to come down for proof of their assertion to the
times of Edward the First. When be heard that, lie con-
fessed it reminded him of the lady in Prior's Alma :

And lest I should be wearied, Madam,
To cut things short, came down to Adam."

- -
(A laugh.) To carry their principles into effect, they
ought to repeal the Act of Henry VI., for limiting quali-
fications. He understood that it was maintained by them,
that in ancient periods of our history there was the utmost
purity of representation and purity of election; and that
nomination boroughs and close corporations were in those
times utterly unknown among the institutions of the
country. Now that he distinctly denied. At all times
Members bad been returned to the other House of Parlia-
ment by the influence of the Crown, through the medium
of close corporations. In the time of Edward the Fourth,
two Members were returned to the House of Commons by
the Royal influence, especially as a reward for their services
to the King. (The Noble Eel' here briefly adverted to
some other.
..historical Theta, in the reign of Richard the
Second, &c., in support of his argument : but spoke in so
law a tone of voice that we are unable accurately to repeat
his statement). Coraiug down to a later period, he ob-
served that a, Noble Author on the Constitution, speaking
of the anomalies in question, said, " These unhealthy
excrescences could not prevent the Petition of Right, or
save the Crown horn the Roundheads." The horrid
tragedy alluded to in the last passage, however, was the
result of imprudent and unwise concession. It was
not imputable to the Constitution of Parliament ; but to
the determination of the House of - Commons to engross
the whole authority of the State. They succeeded in
destroying the Monarchy and the Peerage, but they did not
so succeed until the whole of the privileges of Parliament
itself had been subverted. By Charles 11. the Royal influence
had been resumed. But had it been resumed injuriously ? To
a Parliament constituted as the present, we owed the revolu-
tion. To a Parliament constituted as the present we owed
the succession of the House of Hanover. He would,
therefore, say, with an eloquent writer, " The Constitu-
tion is arraigned at the Bar ; if it cannot be saved from
condemnation, at least let its merits go in mitigation of
punishment." He denied that at any former period it was
supposed that a remedy would be found for esistitig evils
in a complete change of the Constitution. Still less
could
such a remedy be found at the present day, when the in-
fluence and patronage of the Crown and of Ministers had
been so greatly circumscribed. The Reformers could not
cite any time in the history of this country in which the
plan of Reform, which they so warmly advocated, was in
operation, attended by the advantages which they said
must flow from it. The Noble Author of the measure had
spoken of it with great ability; and he (Lord Mansfield)
felt the greatest respect for that Noble Lord. It was,
therefor•, with no uncourteous disposition that he selectee
as the observation made by the Noble Lord, which had pro-
duced the greatest impression on his mind, the remark to
the effect, " that if a man were to argue that as Govern-
ment was a matter of experience and not of speculation.
therefore things should rest as they were, his objection t
Reform would be sound." He would proceed to make
few observations on the Bill.• It proceeded upon entirely
fresh principles to reconstruct the State. If it were
adopted, he could not help thinking that those who rocked
the cradle of the infant Constitution; would ere long ac-

company its coffin to the grave. But to its adoption
there appeared to him to be the most insuperable objec-
tions. The Bill consisted of two parts; the one the
disfranchisement of the old boroughs, the other the crea-
tion of a new constituency and a new arrangement of bo-
roughs. He did not deny the abstract power of Parlia-
ment to disfranchise all the boroughs in the kingdom.
But such a proposition must be understood under this re-
striction, that Parliament could not do what was unjust.
Now, he considered the proposed disfranchisement of bo-
roughs as unjust and impolitic. Whether they were pro-
perty or trust the destruction of them was equally unjust.
I, they were a trust, the trustees could not be divested of
them unless mismanagement were proved ; ifproperty. the
owners could not be deprived of them unheard in their
defence. In the case of the abolition of heritable jurisdic-
tions, and in the taking of lands, Parliament had always
provided compensation. He considered the proposed dis-
franchisement of boroughs as impolitic; because be con-
sidered it to be impolitic to say that there was no security
in a charter from the Crown. Did their Lordships sup.
pose that those would be the only charters from the Crown
declared invalid? The abolition of the charters of Henry
VIII. granting confiscated land would not be approved in
that House ; but their Lordships might depend upon it the
proposition would find great favour in a Reformed Parlia-
ment. Against the principle of the Bill therefore he pro-
tested. Ile protested equally against its details. But that
subject had been so ably and unanswerably treated by his
NAle Friend, that he would not weaken by repeating his
Noble Friend's arguments ; and would merely point out a
few of the inconsistencies in the measure which particu•
lady struck him. In the first place, the Bill professed to
proceed upon the principle of population ; providing that
towns not having two thousand householders should be
disfranchised. But in taking this population, the authors
of the Bill referred to the census of 1821, although that
census was notoriously incorrect. Nothing could exceed
the unfairness of this. Since 1821 various towns bad in-
creased in population, so as to have a right to the elective
franchise. But they were told that the Bill was to effect
a final settlement of the representation. §o that those
towns were to be for ever excluded from that which was
nevertheless, according to the principle of the Bill, their
right. And this was the more strange, as the argument
of the friends of the Bill was, that because certain towns

had increased in population, they ought to increase in re-
putation. He supposed that it was for the purpose of
neutralising this absurdity that a double standard was re-
sorted to by the introduction of property as a principle.
It sometimes happened, however, that neither principle re-
conciled the matter to justice ; and that of two towns, pre-
cisely in the same circumstances, one was disfranchised,
while the other retained its two Members. The great
object of the Bill seemed to be to obtain a new consti-
tuency. Now, he had no objection to an addition to the
constituency ; but be confessed that he did not think the
class out of which the Bill proposed to increase the con-
stituency exactly the best that could be chosen. The Bill
then professed to give additional influence in counties to
the Aristocracy of land, as against the Aristocracy of houses.
In sotne counties, however, the house interest would
greatly preponderate. The division of counties, also, would
in several cases give to counties having a smaller number
of inhabitants, and paying smaller rates, a greater number
of representatives. He did not mean to impute mo-
tives of partiality or injustice to the authors of the Bill ;
but he must say that, as far as he could judge from what
had passed in the House of Commons, the arrangement
on that point had never been satisfactorily explained. It
wag the avowed intention of the Bill to get rid of bribery
and corruption; but in many cases freemen little exposed
to bribery were deprived of their just and natural rights,
and the elective franchise was bestowed on potwallopers,
the most expused to bribery. The Bill objected to the in-
fluence of the Peers, and yet in the division of counties it
occasionally gave great influence to Peers, tending to what
the petition from Durham termed " an overbearing oli-
garchy." In some towns the Bill confined the 'elective
franchise to the residents ; in others it admitted the non-
residents. All this appeared to he for the sake of pure
anomaly.—(A laugh.) An owner of an estate bad, in
many cases. no vote, while the tenant had one. And
then this was always described as a final settlement of the
representation. Was it possible that it could be so ? As
long as any individual in the country remained without a
vote, so long would that individual say that he was de-
prived of his rights. As long as any town exceeded in
population the limit placed by the Bill to the elective
franchise, so long would that town protest against its ex-
clusion. As long as there were any poor to be bribed,
and as long as there was any money to bribe them
with, so long would there be corruption. Against
the last evil there could be no adequate security but
l+igh qualification. So much for the details of the 11111,
but no alteration of the details could reconcile him to
its principle. He thought it very possible that some-
thing might be advantageously proposed to diminish the
expence of elections, to correct the abuses resulting from
bribery and corruption, and to provide for the issuing of the
King's writ to large towns at present unrepresented. On
those points, however, be would pronounce no opinion.
But he must say, that the large towns had never been able
to prove that they experienced any real injury from not
having any representative,. Some proposition might be
made with respect to the representation of Scotland. On
that point he would pronounce no opinion. If any dissa-
tisfaction existed on that subject, it was some consolation
to redeet that it must be of recent date. For it was „ply
lately that the Reformers complained of the apathy of the
people on the subject of Reform, sad especially of the people
of Scotland. Objecting to the Bill under their Lordships'
consideration as he did, it was very natural that be should
oppose it. But he was told that he roust not oppose it.
He was told that the interference of the House of Lords
with the Bib, although it was legal, was objectionable, and
that the people would have the Reform Bill. With respect
to the first position, it ought to be remembered, that in
1725, when a Bill to prevent bribery at elections was sent
to that House from the House of Commons, that House
made two important amendments in it; the one limiting the
penalty for the offence, the other rendering such votes legal
as were determined to be legal by the last adjudication.
Both these amendments were accepted by the House of Com-
mons. It appeared that the House of Loris then interfered
with a Bill of this character from the House of Commons
with success; and it might chance to be the same now.
And were not the House of Lords as much the guardians
of freedom of election as the House of Commons? The se-
cond point was, that the people must and would have Re-
form. He did not deny that a very large portion of the
people were in favour of Reform ; but he did not believe
that the feeling was unanimous. And although there
might be a great numerical superiority in favour of Re-
form, he believed that if the line were fairly drawn, the
great balance of property would be found to be against it
But let it be proposed, for the sake of argument, that the
people were unanimous in favour of Minn. The House
of Lords were not to obey the dictum of the House of
Commons, or of the people, but were to exercise their own
judgment upon any question brought before them. It was
impossible that, in exercising that judgment, they could
have any other objects in view that the interests of the
people. The interests of the House of Lords was, that
the people should have the fullest possible enjoyment of
those rights and liberties on which the happiness. of
stations depended. The happiness of the people could not
increase without their participation in it ; it could not be
Idiminished without their suffering deprivation. If, therefore,
selfish motives were ascribed to the Peers, he would even on
that foundation assert the impossibility of their withholding
their assent from any Bill which they really thoupht would
conduce to the happiness of the people. It had been well
observed by a Noble Friend of his, in presenting a petition
to their Lordships on the subject, "that it was not right
to say that the Peers had no interest in the Bill, but that it
was right to soy that they had no interest in it separate
from the people." He came now to consider the appre-
hensions which were enter tained of the consequences that
might results from the rejection of the Bill. Their Lordships
had heard it asserted by the Press, and that in no mea-
sured language, that their persons awl property would be
endangered by tile rejection of the Bill. Such threats,
was convinced, would have no effect on their Lordships.
Should any disturbances follow the rejection of the Bill,
he had perfect confi!enee in the firmness of his Majesty's
Government to put them down. He should be verysorry,
however, were any such events to take place, as the inno-
cent might suffer with the guilty. But it • was insisted,
that the people would be riotous if disappointed of this
their favourite measure. Why, what did the people ex-
pect from it ? Delusions. They expected to sell at great
price', and to buy at small prices. They expected to have
;he taxes reduced, the National Debt wiped off, the tithes
Abolished'. They knew not that all these things, if they
were to happen, would recoil on themselves. But how
was it possible that such consequences could flow from the
Reform Bill ? Nut flowing, would not the people fee),
would not they express, disappointment? Such being the
case, why should not their Lordships put their opinion and
that of the minority of the House of Commons in contrast
with the opinion of the people, but for their benefit? They
'lad done so on other occasions. In conclusion he would
ay that he would fain see the present effervescence subside.
If he knew the best means of restoring caltn and con-
idence to the public mind, it was to ask the authors
and friends of the Bill to renew for two years the charter
,f our Constitution, with all its anomalies and defects.
At the expiration of that period they might enter on
,a
vise and temperate consideration of the subject. But OAS

would not suit big Majesty's Afinisters..(Near, hear.)
They were fond of the continued agitation.—(Hear, hear.)
They seemed to forget that it was like a fever, which gave
the patient artificial strength for the moment, but left him
in a state of wretched debility. He trusted, however, that
the arguments which had been so ably urged against the
measure by his Noble Friend would have their due weight
with the House. lie trusted thattheyewleomueldatna,otnodtesetornoy.
those venerable institutions which bad been so long our
flhezit—ng,inhsotwituevtieorn,
but
sco
acting in opposite
in beautiful harmony, which
neither time nor chance could destroy, unless the aid of
that great power by which it had hitherto been upheld
were withdrawn. He trusted that their Lordships would
not countenance those rash theories and speculations, that,
if pursued to the extent to which their authors were dis-
posed to carry them, would make of society one vast
chaos, in which "Nell/ sea forma manebit."—(Hear.)
The Bill extended to all the institutions of the country.
It prepared the way for the abolition of the Law of Pri-
mogeniture as in France, for the abolition of the Peerage,
and for an interference in the succession to the Crown.--
( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) There might be persons
who thought otherwise; but he believed that the
theories which the Bill enforced would do* all that.
Heretofore the supporters of such measures had con-
fined themselves to theory; but he believed that men of
talent and of character—active and enterprising men--
who held these opinions would now be introduced into
Parliament to enforce them, by the suffragee of the new
constituency.—(Hear.) Their Lordships should recol-
leet that it was not the fate of England alone that re'ted
on their decision. The fate of Europe was involved in
the vote they came to on that Bill. All the institutions
of the country were at stake, and on them was placed the
repose of Europe. If England became convulsed, or even
if she suffered a bloodless revolution, the only barrier to
the progress of anarchy would be removed. War would
ensue—war, which all parties in and out of the House
joined in deprecating, would infallibly ensue; and its
attendant calamities would not be lessened, if, following
the councils of the present Government, the people of this
country found themselves arrayed on the side of their
former irreconcilable enemies, and opposed to all their
most ancient allies and friends.---(Hear, hear, hear.)—
This allusion to the policy of the Government reminded
him of an assertion of the Noble Earl, when he declared
he would stand or fall by the Bill—(Hear)—and that he
saw
ws
snyr determinedreasonable
na b
ineot
hopesto oafbanndarron;
carrying
it
l w
ffl
ear,h il e le
hear.)i
There were two ways of carrying the Bill,—one by a fair
majority of the Members of that House, and the other by
counselling the Crown to an undue exercise of the Royal
prerogative.--(Hear, hear, hear.) When the Govern-
ment, on a recent occasion, brought up twelve new Peers, it
was asked somewhat whimsically if the twelve would sup-
port the Bill? If the Noble Earl (Grey) should be in-
duced to advise the adoption of a further addition to the
number, he hoped his proposal would not be counte-
nanced; but if it was, these Peers might be asked if they
intended to vote by their Centurion.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
He (Lord Mansfield) bad now done. He would not troub'e
their Lordships further on this most important subject.
He would merely add, that the resolution he bad come to
of voting ag iinst the Bill was not the result of passion
or prejudice, but of long and most painful meditation.
Lord KING could not venture to place before his eyes
the picture of what the state of the country would be when
it was known that a proposal had been made to their
Lordships to give a positive rejection to the Bill—a Bill
sent up to their Lordships by a great majority of the House
cf Commons.—(Hear.) The Bill might be rejected, and
that rejection would probably be considered
" Ira leenum vincla recusantum."
lie trusted, however, that although these lions might gra-
tify their resentment, they would be at least chained and
rendered harmless. He trust( d that they would not long
he ;Bowed to exercise their undue power to the prejudice
of the interests of their country. The Noble Lord (Wharn-
eliffe) said in the course of his speech, that he would advise
the Government to leave the measure alone for two years.
--(Hear, and a laugh.) The Noble Lord said he wished
he could suggest some method of pacifying the country and
of stopping the progress of the present excitement. And
how did the Noble Lord, who was so anxious to put an
end to the excitement, propose to accomplish his object ?
Why, be would pacify the country by rejecting the Bill,
and leaving the people to indulge in all those feelings of
exasperation which the disappointment of their hopes must
excite. The Noble Lord and his friends had met the
question with a pure and simple rejection. The Bill was
in their opinion, too dangerous ever to be entertained.
They Would not even allow it to go to a Committee—
(No, no)—but if they met the question with a decided
negative, how were they to go to a Committee ?—(Hear.)
No, their Lordships weela eensider the merits of
the measure sent to them by the House oi
and they rejected it in such a manner as to say that the
country was not to hope from them that any measure
of Reform would be entertained.—(Strong expressions
of dissent from the Opposition side.) That was the
gist of the motion, and of all the speeches he bad
heard. —(No.) if it was not, he knew not what they
meant. He now came to another question. What were
the evils the country complained of?—war, taxes, and
debt. He did not deny that the people were too fond of
war ; but he contended that the people changed their opi-
nion of its necessity much sooner than the Parliament.
Would the first war with America have continued so
Cm: many
oyoesa; s undertitlhe at awnatshor noitty of a
th
in
only Reformed
evil—the Hus o
pro-
prietors of
t o.
prietors Parliament were also the proprietors of taxes.
He called them proprietors of Parliament, in the langu ige
of Grattan, because he did not wish to use the offensive
phrase of boroughmongers. He would tell the Noble
Lord bow this proprietorship worked. From a list of
places and pensions, above 1,0001. a-year, hid before the
House of Commons, and printed by its order, it appeared
that the Members of their Lordships' House receive above
300,000/. a-year out of the taxes and otherwise, under the
• places, and salaries. This was the re-
name of pen,'"''
suit of the proprietorship system, and the nomination of
Members of Parliament. The Noble Lord and his friends
laid great stress on the worst part of the system, and
seemed to think the worst possessed the greatest merit.
lie(Lcrd King) remembered the time when no one would
dare to mention such things, and when the Speaker of the
ether House would have called any man to order who
ventured to talk of nomination boroughs. Now, how-
ever, the system was recognised and acknowledged, and
Members seemed to glory in what Burke called the rotten
part of the Constitution. Corruption and all its at-
tendant abuses
losnegereer
artystr dispositionippednakedto n
to tchoe:air
it.
t..
There was no
They were told that the Bill proposed a new Constitution.
Whose fault was it that such a Bill was now before them ?
And he would say more, that if they did not note concede
this timely Reform, they would perhaps be compelled to
grant another Reform, which they would consider still
more untimtly than even a very moderate Reform was
tut ught to be some years ago.—(Hear.) He would not
say what might be the consequence. They were implored
to grant this Reform to preserve the peace of the country,
and they should take heed lest they forced the people to
that general understanding respecting the non-payment of
the taxes which they had ahreatened. The people, it was
well known, had for some time thought that the taxes
voted by a condemned House of Commons might, under
certain contingencies, be refused. lie would not trouble
their Lordships further than to implore them to consider
well the consequences of what they were about to do.
The Marquis of BUTE commenced by contending that
his Noble Relation (Lord Wharncliffe), although he had
moved a direct negative to the Bill, was not, therefore,
to be considered wholly opposed to Reform. His Noble
Relation was to be judged by his arguments, and not by
the motion, for, as far as he understood the opinions of
the Noble Lord, they were favourable to a very consider-
able degree of concession to popular wishes. No man had
ventured to assert in that House or elsewhere, that the
present system was perfectly correct ; but what they ob-
jected to, was the Bill. They said that, if they were to
have Referm, it must be a Reform rather more in confor-
mity with the existing institutions of the country. He
(Bute) was decidedly of opinion that the people would reap
no great degree of benefit from any scheme of Reform
which could be proposed ; but at the same time he was
prepared, in common with others, to make just and proper
concessions to the feelings and opinions of those whose in-
telligence and high moral character entitleol them to de-
mand attention. What he complained of was, that the
Noble Earl (Grey) had in the Bill united the most oppo-
site principles; and the only hesitation he felt in opposing
it arose from the respect which he was accustomed to pay
to all the Noble Earl's opinion?, and to the respect he had
far his character. He contended, however, that the
new system would give as many nomination boroughs as
the old, and that the Bill merely transferred the nomina-
tion from one hand to another. It was said that these
nomination boroughs were dangerous to the liberties of
the country. He cou!d not understand that. It might
do as an assertion for the hustings of a tavern dinner, but
it was too puerileud
to than
a s
Under
those nadinconsistentert t
whicha a
w a
b e used
tre the
elsewhere.
Did any one mean to any that there
was not greater secu-
rity property dy of
timesaction
the hest and brightest of the Constitu-
tion ? The boroughs were created under the Tudors,
and they were selected, not for their riches or the number
of their population, but because the Crown wished to
oftpeseernrn e-
t
tl re d moment
of

make ttse of them to promote its own arbitrary views.
The necessities of the Crown having, at a subsequent
period, compelled it to part with its property and, the
estates on which the boroughs were situated, they became
the property of the Aristocracy; and they, in their turn,
had also been compelled to part with them ; the conse-
quence of which wa., that the power of the Aristocracy
was now infinitely less than it was at the accession of the
House of Hanover—the period so often triumphantly re-
'erred to as the most glorious of the Constitution. But
how did the Noble Lord propose to get rid of the nomina-
tion boroughs? Why, by sweeping away a great part of
these boroughs. by destroying the Corporations, and ash-
stituting for them a uniform system of ten-pound and
three-and-sixpenny voters. Every one knew the influence
exercised in country towns by attorneys and a certain class
of moneyed men, and the consequence would be to place
all the constituency under the dictation of one or two in-
dividuals. The Noble Lords wished, he had no doubt, to
promote the liberty, and happiness, and morality, of the
people ; hut this Bill was not calculated to promote their
views. Nothing was more carefully attended to by our
ancestors than to preserve the hereditary principle of our
C institution in all its parts. That principle was the soul
of the Monarchy. But by destroying the Corporations—by
taking away those privileges which the presen t race of freemen
enjoyed, and which they expected to transmit to their
children, this Bill destroyed that, and by destroying that
would injure the hereditary principle, and would certainly
injure the Monarchy. He was not a friend to abuses, and
it such as existed could be corrected, he should not object;
but he could not consent to the great changes proposed by
this Bill. It would not get rid of nomination and cor-
ruption, and for these reasons he meant to vote against the
Bill; though he repeated that he should not object to any
measure which would get rid of abuse. The Bill, how-
ever, went se far—the changes it introduced were so nu-
merous and so violent—the principle was so new, that he
could not by any possibility go the length of the Biil. He
knew that many Noble Lords who went further than he
did would not consent to this Bill. With reference to that
country with which he was connected (Scotland), he
would offer one observation. He admitted that the system
of represention there established was incorrect in principle ;
but he denied that it had been injurious in practice. He
wished to say for himself distinctly, and with respect to
the county which bore his name, that what had appeared
in the papers was not correct. He admitted that there
was an influence exercised there; but it was nothing but
the influence of property fairly exercised. As far as he
was concerned, that property would not be injured, nor
the influence lessened by the Bill. Individually he was
satisfied that his interest would be the same as before. The
Noble Lord concluded by reiterating his determination to
vote against the Bill.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that he understood that
the motion he had made to reject the Bill would be con-
sidered as an affront to the House of Commons, which he
had no intention of offering. When he moved that the
Bill be rejected, he was not aware that such was not the
usual course, or that the House of Commons would con-
sider it as an affront. With their Lordships' permission
he would beg leave to withdraw that motion, and substi-
tute for it, " That the Bill be read a second time this day
six months."

Lord HOLLAND could assure the House that he was
disposed to adopt the usual courtesy of the House, and
grant the request of the Noble Lord ; but when be con-
sidered the motion for the rejection of the Bill was in-
tended to show to the people of England that it was to be
wholly rejected, not merely put off, he must object to the
motion being withdrawn.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Earl opposite (Earl Mansfield) had assigned as his reason
for supporting the motion, and for rejecting the Bill, that
it would take away from the people all hope of Reform.—
(Hear, hear.) He hoped he should not be considered
pertinacious, therefore, if he objected to the withdrawal
of the motion.—(Cheers.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE—If his request were objected
to he would not divide the House on the mot*, and some
other Noble Lord could move that the Bill be dead a second
time that day six months.
Lord HOLLAND repeated that from the manner in
which the question had been put, and the manner in which
it had been supported, the question being then possession
of the House, he could not consent to the Noble Lord's
withdrawing it.—(Hear.)
Lord PLUNKETT said that the argument of the
Noble Earl who supported the motion turned upon its
farm, and by withdrawing the motion the Noble Lord
would deprive himself of that Noble Earl's support.
After the question had been put there could be no discus-
sion or withdrawal of it, and he for one should not consent
to that.

The Eorl of MANSFIELD begged I eave to explain
his own meaning. Whatever form the Noble Lord might
have put his motion in, his arguments would have been
jection of the Bill; he wished it to be rejected, and he
should have used the same language bad the motion been
to read the Bill that day six months.—(Hear, hear.)
Calls for the Lord Chancellor, and several other Peers,
who rose to address the House.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR said the motion had been
put into his bands, and he was bound to put it. The
Noble Lord, however, wished to withdraw the motion,
and that he was bound to allow if no Noble Lord objected.
But there was an objection, and he had no power to allow
the withdrawal.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY explained that the mo-
tien the Noble Lord had to put was, that the words pro-
posed to ba left out stand part of the question.
Earl GREY admitted that the interpretation given by
the last Noble Earl was correct, but the motion was put,
that the words stand part of the question, in order to sub-
stitute other words for them, and those other words in this
case were, that the Bill be rejected. Considering the
manner in which the debate had been conducted, and that
the House was in possession of the question—and con-
sidering that the Noble Earl had expressly stated that he
supported the motion in that form, bnause he would not
have the public deluded by entertaining any hopes of Re-
form—considering th:sl things, he could not consent to
the motion being withdrawn. It should be put in the
form it had been proposed on the records of the House,
and on that motion the sense of the House ought to be
taken, that it might he seen that their Lordships moved
to reject a Bill brought up from the Commons. Consider-
ing the circumstances under which the motion bad been
made, and the opinions expressed, he must object to the
Noble Lord's being allowed to withdraw his motion.

The Earl of CA-RNARVON said his Noble Friend had
made his motion inadvertently, and bad disavowed all in-
tention of affronting the House of Commons ; but the
Ministers fastened him to his words, and would not con-
sent to receive his Noble Friend's explanation. He did
not envy them their dignified position in availing them-
selves of such an inadvertence, end force his Noble Friend
to adhere to a form of words be wished to abandon. He
must say that he did not think that a single vote would
be entrapped by such a shallow, and, if he did not enter-
tain a great respect for the Noble Lords opposite, he
should fay, such a ',paltry objection.—(Cheers.) It was
only fair to allow his Noble Friend to correct his verbal
error.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord HOLLAND rose to order.

Lord KENYON rose to order, in the gallery; but
Lord WHARNCLIFFE obtained possession of the House,
and avowed that his object was to have the Bill rejected;
and whether be carried that into effect by making a
motion for rejecting, it or for reading it a second time
that day &x month., the effect was the same. It was of
no use to try to puzzle the people out of doors with such
distinctions. On the other side, there was an attempt to
force him into a course which would be considered as an
affront to the House of Commons and the country. Was
it so, or was it not?
The LORD CHANCELLOR spoke to order. There
was no question before the House. In order to give the
Noble Lord an opportunity of speaking, he would move
that the further consideration of the question be adjourned.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE repeated, that the Noble Lords
imputed to him a desire to affront the House of Commorts.
--(No, no.) He had not the smallest intention of doing
any such thing, and he gave the Noble Lords joy of their
triumph obtained by such means. But between him and
them the country would judge.
Lord HOLLAND repeated, that Ile would not consent
to the Noble Lord's wish, and assigned as a reason, because
putting the motion in that form would be Lighly advanta-
geous to the cause of the Bill.
The Earl of MULGRAVE said many of the arguments
of the Noble Baron turned upon the inadvertence of the
Ministers in drawing up the Bill, and the same species of
isioo gave
io ortlino7
form that hehe would
had
i n not
r intro.
t
inadvertence which he attributed to them in the details of
the Bill be had himself been guilty of.
Lord
;andes
gut
somei°n to a WHARNCLIFFEdivother Noble Lord would move that
dpre.sucedtheit
the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Earl GREY did not know what the Noble Lord meant
when he spoke of the triumph of the Ministers, and when
he wished them joy of their triumph
referred also again to the expressions
Mansfield, as his reason for not inset
being withdrawn. The motion' ought
the records of Parliament in the i
troduced.—(Hear hear .
The Duke of4t1.6141111*„
oaent of his Noble Frieocriffitll44r

Tirll4e 0 COM atone, it cer'ainly WAS a little extraor.lir ary
that the Ministers of the Crown were the persons who
opposed the withdrawing of this disrespectful arnerd-
went.—(Cheers.) He did not call upon Noble Lords to
decide immediately ; but as they were going to adjourn,
he would request them to take the subject into their COM_
sideration during the night.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, that the only palatable
thing which that House could do towards the House of
Commons was to let the Bill be read a second time; and,
therefore, if Noble Lords wanted to pay respect to the
House of Commons, they knew how to effect it.
Lord KENYON said, that the Noble Lord having state',
that the words of his motion were inadvertent, he thought
that he ought to he all need to withdraw it.
The Earl of RADNOR said, that as it appeared that
the Noble Lord had committed an inadvertence, he thought,
on the contrary, that the Ministers were fully justified in
taking advantage of that inadvertence ; as be understood
it, however, the Noble Lord had worded his amendment in
this manner to express his entire reprobation of Reform.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the only object of
his amendment was to get rid of the Bill ; he meant
nothing disrespectful by it.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM was about to adarots
their Lordships, when
The Earl of RADNOR remarked, that he had been
about to make a speech when the Noble Duke had inter-
rupted him.—(A laugh.) If the Noble Lord had not in-
tended more by his amendment than to get rid of the
Bill, he did not see any objection to his being allowed to
withdraw it ; but, otherwise, any advantage that cooed be
reaped from his inadvertence would be for the good of the
country, and his Noble Friends (the Ministry) would do
perfectly right to keep it now that they had got it.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said that he understood
that his Noble Friend had only moved for the purpose of
negativinz the Bill ; and his impression had been; that he
would have concluded by moving that the Bill be read that
day six months. If, however, his Noble Friend was not
a'lowed to withdraw his amendment, be (the Duke of
Buckingham) begged leave to give notice that he should
tike an opportunity of moving that the Bill be read that
day six months.—(Hear.)
The Earl of HADDINGTON said a few words, which
were inaudible below the bar.

Lord HOLLAND said, that after the Noble Lord bad
stated that he could assure the House that be had not
meant anything disrespectful to the House of Commons by
the wording of his amendment, he (Lord Holland) would
no longer oppose the withdrawal of the amendment.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE then withdrew his motion, and
as we understood, amid the confusion of their Lordships
quitting the House, substituted, " That the Bill be read
a second time that day six months," in its stead.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter past One, t.)
this day.