The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-05 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 4.

The doors of the gallery were opened at a very early
hour, and in a few minutes it was filled almost to suffoca-
tion. By Four o'clock, when the SPEAKER took his seat,
there was a large attendance of Members, most of whom:
had taken their places by previously affixing their names
to the backs of the seats. This mode of taking seats led
tr come inconvenience, as will be seen by the following dis-
cussiou

Mr. HUME acid he was anxious to know what was
the rule of the House regarding the taking places. Having
understood on Friday last that an attempt would be made
to-day to dispossess him of his seat—(Laughter)—
he meant of his place, he requested an Honourable
Friend to attend at eight o'clock to put down his
name, and be came to the House at ten o'clock himself to
see if it had been done. He, however, found that so early
as seyen o'clock, even before the doors were opened, up-
wards of 20f) Members had found their way in—not by
the usual mode certainly—he, therefore, wished to ask
the Right Hon. Speaker firs:, whether after the House
adjourns over night, it was competent for any Member to
enter and pat his name on any place? Secondly, whether
it was competent for any Member to come in and put up
the names of two or three tither Members, as bad been
done to day ?—(Hear, hear.) And thirdly, whether gentle-
men, whose places had thus been taken, should not be in
their places when prayers were read ? It was quite
necessary that every gentleman in the House should be fully
informed upon these point:, for he had found some lion
A'lember had taken his usual place, and be had taken the
liberty of taking the paper off and placing it on s back
seat.—(A laugh.) If it were competent for Members to
come and take places befnre ten o'clock, it was also com-
petent to do it at three o'clock in the morning, a plan
he could adopt if necessary.
The SPEAKER said, he was at all times
ready to facilitate the general accommodation of 3lenl-
11
latterlyers.— (bHe
eena ri.2fi n iNtVe
liythmroe,sepedcitffitcou
lt
tayk itniga
nphl aaede se
vthere
fhoadi e
existed ; that perhaps was caused by the state of the times,
or the importance of the subject-matter to be discussed,
or perhaps both together, which created a difficulty • in a
place which was not over large. The strict rule was, that
the places should be taken at prayers; and when bills were
placed on the seats, they were supposed to intimate that the
in if ival al* themselvv. would be there when prayers were read,

It was difficult to lay dow❑ a rule, and therefore it w
that some courtesy by accommodation was desirable. If
livisions tool<place, or if the House went up to the bar of
the House of Lords, the rule was that the places were
lost; that was the Parliamentary principle, but he hoped
that the House would make up by courtesy and complai-
sance what strict rule could not accomplish.

After a few words from COl. LINDSAY and Mr. HUNT,
The SPEAKER again repeated that the only Parlia-
mentary rule as to taking seats was at time of prayers.

The subject was then—dropped.
Colonel ROCH FORT presented a petition from the
county of Westmeath against the Reform Bill, signed by a
great number of landed proprietors, including clergymen,
magistrates, and farmers.
Mr. CHAPMAN denied that the appended signatures
were those of the majority of the landed interest,
and of the respectability and intelligence of the
county of Westmeath. It was not got up at any
public meeting, but by private individuals, and Bent round
from house to house for signatures.—The petition was
read and ordered to he printed.

Mr. STRICKLAND presented two petitions from two
places in the hundred of Holderness, in the county of
York, praying that they might be jointly allowed to return
representitives to Parliament. The petitioners were
placed in the unpleasant position of being included in
schedule A, but they were deserving of notice from the
fact' that the). wished for no exclusive privilege.
An HON. 31emBER, whose name we could not learn,
said he should bring the subject forward in the Commit.
tee on the Bill ; for if consistency of principle had any
influence in the promotion of the Reform Bill, the prayer
of the petitioners could not but be attended to.
The petitions were then ordered to lie upon the table.
Mr. HUNT presented a petition from the working classes
of Blackburn, which he said was respectfully worded and
needed no reprobation even from the tender nerves of the
Hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Wellesley). It was signed by
6,481 male adults of Blackburn, including every man who
was to be excluded from a share in the representation by
the provisions of the Bill. They were not hostile to the Bill,
but they conceived it would be inadequate to satisfy the
just demands of the productive classes of society, and that
they, the producers of property, w ere excluded ; they viewed
with alarm the enormous weight of taxation, the standing
army, and the national debt, and they prayed that such an
alteration might be made in the Bill as would give them
a due share in the representation ; they also prayed for
annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by
ballot. He was authorised to state, that the peti-
tioners would have waited for the operation of
the Reform Bill, had it not been for the contra-
dictions which had been last Session given to some of the
statements made in this House by him (Mr. Hunt). He
had also a petition from Manchester, signed by 20,000
persons, upon the same subject. The petitioners were riot
factious parsons, or anxious to defeat the measure before
the House ; but as they had fur years contended for that
for which they now prayed, they could not allow the pre-
sent opportunity to pass without enforcing it on the
attention of Parliament. The deputies from many places
in the country had waited upon him, and stated that they
had waited upon many Members of the House, in
some instances upon some Ministers who had advised
them tro wait until the Bill passed, and then they
(the Ministers) would go heart and hand with them in
what they wished.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.)
He had given the deputies no advice upon the subject, but
he had advised them to send petitions to him respect-
fully worded—(Hear, front 311.. Wellesley)—yes, re-
spectfully worded, for though he had been so incautious on a
former night, he would not incur the Hon. Gentleman's
cheer ; be repeated, that this country would never be
cheerful and happy again until those measures were
adopted ; there never would be peace until every male
adult who paid taxes was allowed to vote, which he con-
ceived would be one in every five or six persons.—The
petition was read, and ordered to be printed.
The HON. MEMBER next presented a petition front
Richard Moran, of Somet villa, in the city of Dublin,
Gentleman, complaining of the effects of the Legislative
Union, to which lie attributed all the distresses of Ireland,
and praying for its repeal as the only means of bringing
back peace to Ireland. He regretted that these petitions
were entrusted to hint instead of the Hon. Member for
Kerry, who, it seemed, was so absorbed in the question of
Reform as to allow the question of the repel' of the Union
to lie dormant.—(Fleur, hear.) He (Mr. Hunt) had
been informed by all his Irish correspondents, that the
Reform Bill was looked on only as a stepping-stone to-
wards the repeal of the Union.—( Hear.)

Mr. O'CONNELL should like to know whether the
Hon. Member could do any thing else to retard the pro-
gress of the Ref"rio Bill.—(l.oud cheers.) It was
wholly unfounded to state that the question of Re.
form was looked to as a stepping-stone to the repeal
of the Union ; the object of the Bill was to obtain cheap
Government and cheap institutions; and the people of
Ireland were calumniated, when it was said they wished
for a separation from this country; although a local legis-
lature would be desirable to them, they were willing to
make an experiment of the effects of the Reform Bill
in a Reformed Parliament, and to see if they could obtain
good Government and cheap institutions.—(llear.) As
to the Hon. Member for Preston presenting so many
Irish petitions, he had presented four of them, and the
present one was signed only by one person, and in order to
give it greater effect it was intrusted to the lion. Mem•
her.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HUNT obseived, if the Hon. Member thought
that the House would he deceived by him (Mr. Hunt), or
by the Hon. Member's apostacy, it was a mistake__
(Murmurs)—he meant only political apostacy.—(A laugh. )
Hiving, in the presence of 30,000 persons at the Eagle
Tavern, stated that he was for annual Parliaments, and
universal suffrage, by which he would stand and die, be
now turned round and bedaubed his phrases.—(Laughter.)
Mr. O'CONNELL was obliged to the Honourable
Member for his politeness.—(Loud laughter.) lie (Mr.
O'C.) wished the Hon. Member would be an apostate to
this extent, that from being the long practical enemy of
Reform he would become even neuter.—(Cheers.) Ile
(Mr. O'C.) had always been a Radical Reformer, but in-
stead of annual Parliaments, he stated on the occa-
sion referred to by the Honourable Member for Pi eston,
that he was the advocate for triennial Parliaments. He
did then speak of universal suffrage ; and the reason he
did not now advocate it was, that lie thought the proposed
Reform Bill would have the effect of causing the people
to be effectually and substantially, and not nominally re-
presented.—(Cheers.)
REFORM BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the order of the day
for the second reading of the Reform Bill.
Mr. ESTCOURT wished to address a question to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer before the House pro-
ceeded further upon this motion, relative to a
circumstance which had transpired, and given great un-
easiness to a highly respectable individual. He alluded to
Mr. Gregson, i❑ respect to the alteration that had been
made in the Reform Bill, and he wished to have it
stated now to the British public who had been much
abused in relation to this measure with respect to Mr.
Gregson, whether he was or was not in any way whatever
to blame.

Lord ALTHORP said, the circumstance to which
the Honourable Gentleman alluded was a statement he
supposed which had appeared during the last week in some
of the public papers, reflecting on the conduct of Mr. Greg-
son, by insinuating that he bad made an alteration in the
Reform Bill unwarranted by Government. He (Lord Al-
thorp) had not seen the statement, but the moment he
was told of it lie mentioned the subject to Mr. Gregson and
said he should take the first opportunity of stating to tie
House that Mr. G. bad nothing to do in the concern—
nor had he. The proposition was made by Government for
the alteration in the right of voting to rents payable
half-yearly, instead of leaving it in the way it was before.
This was intended for the sole purpose of rendering effec-
tive the value of the 101. occupation, and only fur restrict-
ing any thing below that. Undoubtedly his Ma-
jesty's Ministers were bound to admit that they had
fallen into a mistake, as they were not aware that in
making that proposition they would by it disfranchise so
many individuals. Immediately this was discovered,
they determined to abandon the alteration at once.
Mr. Gregson was perfectly free from imputation
on the subject. He had certainly said there would be
some difficulty arising from the alteration, but this ob-
servation was made by Mr. Gregson after Government
had determined to make it, and therefore he had re-
quested Mr. G. to proceed in the preparation of it.
Mr. ESTCOURT could not admit that the Noble
Lord's statement was altogether satisfactory. If lie
(Mr. E.) was correctly informed Mr. G. had pointed out
the consequences in a very able manner that would arise from
this alteration, and notwithstanding that, the Noble Lord had
directed him to proceed ; and if the matter was left to go
forth to the public as it now stood upon the Noble Lord's
straement, it would appear that Mr. G. had not been clear
and precise in what he had said. No one who knew
Mr. G. would ever doubt the precision and ability
with which he must be presumed to have made Lis state-
ment. Under such circumstances the Hon. Member hoped
the Noble Lord would not hesitate to state that neither pro-
fessionally, directly nor indirectly, could any blame be at-
tached to Mr. Gregson.
Lord ALTHORP had no difficulty in repeating what

he had said before, that in his opinion no blame was to be
attached to Mr. Gregson. At the same time he felt bound
to observe, that Mr. Greg•on did not state to him, accord-
ing to his recollection, and probably his Noble Friend
(Lord J. Russell) could bear him out in that recollection, that
the rents were not paid quarterly, itnd that therefore s,.
many would be disfranchised. He did not give him to
understand any thing like the disfranchising extent to
which the clause would have gone.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL's impression of what took
place was the same as that of the Noble Lout who
had just sat down. When the alteration agreed upon by
his Majesty's Government was communicated by his Noble
Friend (Lord Altborp) and himself to Mr. Gregson, that
gentleman said there would be objections against it; and
undoubtedly he mentioned the circumstance that
there were persons paying a very sufficient rent, but not
paying it quartetly, who would be disfranchised by the
clause ; but as to any thing like the extent to which the
disfranchising would go he (Mr. G.) had certainly con-
veyed in any thing he said, nothing like it. In a Bill
like the present, comprehending so many clauses requiring
to be considered, and reconsidered, so many times, there
must have passed on the part of Mr. Gregson and on the
part of those representing Government, who gave him in-
structions, a great variety of discussions. Objections and
discussions were consequently started on various occasions,
hut Mr. Gregson had said nothing in respect of this alte-
ration which had left any greater impression en his
mind than respecting any thing else. He felt bound to
say, that though exceedingly sorry any persons should
have blame thrown upon them, and Mr. Gregson on this oc-
casion was in no way to blame, yet the publication of
any communications so confidential as those which passed
between the Government and the person whom they
selected to draw up a Bill like this for the purpose
ofoubmitting it to Parliament, must be very preju-
dicial to the public service.—(Hear, hear, hear.) And
he was sure that when Mr. Gregson came to his
Noble Friend he must have had this feeling, that
if a contradiction was to be given to an autho-
rised publication, it should be given in this House,
and that it should not meet the public eye by other
statements wholly groundless, and intended and calculated
only to throw reflections on the conduct of those who had
been the promoters of the Bill, statements made with a
total disregard to truth, and every possible disrespect
to the character of his Majesty's Government.
Mr. ESTCOURT felt it almost impossible to abstain
from entering more into detail on this subject, unless he
could obtain from the Noble Lord opposite a simple, plain,
unsophisticated declaration, that no blame either
professionally, directly, indirectly, or otherwise, was to he
attached to Mr. Gregson. He requested to have a plain
unvarnished statement to that effect.

Lord ALTHORP had no hesitation whatever in saying
that Mr. Gregson had no concern in any way wi.h the
clause in question, except being employed by the direction
of Government to draw it up.—(Hear, hear.) He wished
to exempt Mr. Gregson from any blame whatever.—
(" Hear, hear," and cries of " Quite enough.")
Sir R. PEEL could not help adverting to the state•
men; made by the Noble Lord at the conclusion of his
speech, of some diverging from the sacredness of confiden-

tial communications: that the Government had to com-
plain of. lie dial think there was allusion here
to the communications that had taken place between Go-
vernment and Mr. Gregson. If imputations were
meant to be thrown out by the Noble Lord upon the
integrity of that gentleman, he could a•sure the
House that it did great injustice to Mr. Gregson, who
valued professional honour and sacred integrity more than
life. He (Sir Robert Peel) had the honour of select-
ing Mr. Gregson, some years since, to draw up some
Bills to consolidate and improve the state of the laws,
and, although habits of private intimacy had therrby
been superinduced, so scrupulously had that gentleman
discharged his duty to the presort Government, that he
had entirely abandoned that private intercourse, and on no
occasion had he made any communication at all to him
(Sir R. Peel). If no such reference were intended to
Mr. Gregson, he was sure that the Noble Lord would be
glad of the opportunity so affirded of altogether dis-
claiming it.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and said, he had made
no such reflection on the character or honour of

the gentleman alluded to, nor had he east any imputation
on him whatever with reference to his conduct in this
proceeding. If the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth
had recollected what he (Lord John Russell) had said
in his former statement, he should have remembered
that Mr. Gregson had declared himself of opinion, tkat if
unfounded statements were made with respect to him
in the public papers, the only way he could obtain redress
was by coming to the Members of Government and obtain-
ing a contradiction from them. He (Lord John Russell)
added, at that time, that he thought the pra,tice itself of
giving garbled accounts of what had passed between Go-
vernment and their confidential agents, was a practice
much to be deprecated, as prejudicial to the public service,
and therefore he hoped that another instance of it would
not be presented.—(Hear.) He thought the Right Hon.
Member himself might have felt aggrieved if, when he was
Secretary of State, and when engaged in drawing
up any Bill of importance for the consideration of the Le-
gislature, a garbled statement of what had passed be-
tween him and Mr. Gregson had ever appeared in
the public prints.—(Hear, hear, hear.) While however
he deprecated the present practise as detrimental,
he would repeat that in all his intercourse with the
gentleman lie had just alluded to, he had uniformly found
him a man not only of great ability and professional expe-
rience, but one on whose integrity he could implicitly rely.
Sir R. PEEL was perfectly satisfied with the open and
honourable statement of the Noble Lord.---( Hear. )

Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the order of the
day for Reform in Parliament be re,d, and the Bill for
Amending the Representation was read a second time.
Sir J. WALSH rose and said, that on a former occasion,
when a measure which, however differing from the present,
in its several important details, yet resembling it in
its general features, was submitted to the atten-
tion of that House, he had expressed himself une-
quivocally hostile to it. These first impressions he had
reiterated to his constituents, but if, on any subsequent con-
sideration of it, if by the investigation of the details which he
might afterwards give to it, he had in any respect been
led to alter these impressions, he could assure the House that
no false shame, no pride of consistency, would, on a subject
of such importance, have deterred him from coming forward
and boldly declaring that he bad taken a hasty and erro-
neous view of the subject. But he was equally bound to
state to the House that the most mature, impartial consi-
deration he had been enabled to bestow on the subject, had
not produced such a result. The more he investigated
the principles Lnd bearing of the measure, the more
was he convinced of its unconstitutional character
and dangerous results. Hon. Members on the other side
of the House had deprecated all irritation and bitterness of
party feeling in its discussion, he went along with them, and
with coolness and rnoderatisn he would wish to discuss
the measure. He lamented, however that the virulence of
party feeling had already been excited throughout the
country, and that a spirit of partizanship was abroad in
the community. Ile did not allude to the state of feeling in
the metropolis but simply to the excited state of popular
feeling throughout the country in favour of the
Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill.—
Ile would put it to the Members of the present House of
Commons, whether in the short period that had elapsed
since this subject had been brought forward, feelings of the
kind he had alluded to had not been created, which he was
sure had no parallel in the recollection of the younger Mem-
bers of this House. This in itself clearly proved the evil that
would result from such a measure. He considered that the
present Bill was fraught with the worst consequences.
He did not mean to refer to the discussions that
had taken place on the subject of the recent
dissolution, or upon the propriety of it. That had
already been sufficiently discussed, but there were sonic of
the consequences of it which had produced symptoms of a
temper and feeling in a large portion of the community
which had a direct bearing on the subject. It bud even been
made a boast that a very large portion of the Hon. Gentle-
men bad been returned pledged to vote for this measure,
in all its bearings and extent. Pledged to vote for it
without consulting their own judgments—(No, no)—they
bad been returned, pledged to vote for the measure,
without having the advantage of a second thought,
pledged probably without having fully and in all in-
stances having bad a previous opportunity of under-
standing it. If he wet, as favourable to this measure
as be was against it, he should say that far any measure
passed under such circumstances, a vast number of its
upholders being precluded from exercising their own °pi-
pions, it would be fatal to the principles of represen-
tative Government—(Hear, hear, hear)—that the
moment that Bill parsed it would cease to be
a representative Government, such as had been practised
in the country for the last century._( Hear and laughter.)
He did not think that he was laying down any new doe.
trine, and to prove it he could refer to the authority
of those who were far better judges than himself, or manyy
Membersalluded
t oi n
thet a t
authorityse o n
fs o
arimportantdw.theireißsenuosrpfkieiaeeea:
speech
isGu,aauobt;:eicracatintilitteaitnil
that
sowinnhelei nioafrthheteo
pwatarhst
aH). stauncheonealalluded
NdVtehdhei gtloe,
is.
Honourable Gentleman made at the election for
Bristol, shortly after which be changed hia qtatemeuti upon

politics. But the pledges had not been the only effects o'
the recent elections. He added, from those on whom In
could place great reliance, that in many instances th,
excitement which had taken place on the subject of
Reform had led in various districts to riot and disturb-
ance. This was one specimen of the democratic in-
fluence which was so ready to snatch at every thin; ti
gainsay the laws, and by the present Bill that influence
would he in a great degree extended. lie rued only allude
to the occurrences that had taken place at Rye, Banbury,
and the riots in Scotland. Other disturbances had
taken place, which had led to considerable loss of
life.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") Ho-
nourable Members did not give entire credence
to this ; but, perhaps, they would allow him
to read a few exti acts from a Paper called the Cam-
brian, published at Swansea, which gave a detailed
account of the meetings of the miners at Merthyr Tydvil,
and the riots that had taken place there. At those meetings
great praise was betowed on the Reform Bill, and
it was said that it would certainly be the means
of obtaining for the people their rights, and that they
would be properly represented in Parliament.—(Hear.)
The Hon. B rronet believed he was not quite in order in
alluding to a speech of the Noble Lord's opposite on e
former occasion; but he hoped the House would on this
occasion excuse him if he did so, as he had not then
an opportunity of observing upon it. The Noble
Lord upon that occasion took an opportunity of adverting
to a publication of his, Sir J. W.'s, and in terms not consis-
tent with his usual courtesy charging his objections ta
the measure as tending to lessen the gradations in society.
He could not, however, but think, notwithstanding the
Noble Lord might have supposed him ignorant of
the subject, that he was well enough versed in it.
He did not go into ancient history for information, nor
did he dive into black-letter hooks, nor even into
the history of the Tudors, but he confined him-
self solely to modern times. He thought the borough,
which thisßill intended to disfranchise, were Imo e peculiarly
those by which gentlemen of moderate fortune, of country
lives, could obtain access to this House. He did not—se
had been stated—allude entirely to local interests, but
they afforded access to gentlemen who would be precluded
by the operation of this Bill.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He could not think this view of the subject was
entirely without ground. There was an argument of
the Noble Lord's that struck him as very singular.
The Noble Lord took occasion to observe that it was
satisfactory to this House to know that no less
measure than this would do, because it was clear Ministers
were not bound by any specific pledge, that they had
a discretion as to what measure they should bring forward,
and they, in their wisdom, had determined on this
measure. Therefore no less a measure would do. That
was an argument, therefore, rather to the faith of
the House, and went to the infallibility of /11inisters.—
(Laughter. ) It was,however, an argument nut likely to gain
many converts on his (Sir J. Walsh's) side of the
blouse. He opposed the Bill firmly, honestly, and
openly in all its stages, and in every part of it.
He gave it his most uncompromising opposition. 112 con.
eluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time
that day six months.
Mr. FYNES CLINTON seconded the amendment ; in
doing which he began by contending that a Reform such
as the advocates of the Bill proposed to effect would go to
destroy the deliberative and independent character of that
House. It was asserted by men of ail parties, and de-
nied by none, that the majorityof those who in the present
Parliament were returned for populous places were so re-
turned on the express and positive condition of voting
under all circumstances, and at any hazard, for the pre-
sent Bill. That obviously took away from them the cha-
racter of a deliberate body, and deprived them, he might
well say, of every thing like freedom of speech or action.
In his opinion the House of Commons of this day were
more identified with the people than any which had gone
before it. Could any man doubt that who reflected upon
the rapid increase and extension of knowledge in modern
times, and the increased and increasing power of the Press,
a power which had given to public opinion a weight and
influence unknown in the past times of our history.—
(Hear, hear.) As an evidence that public opinion ought
not at all times to govern the decisions of that House, he
would call or rather recall the attention of Hon. Gentle
men to a fact that could not have escaped many of those
whom he had then the honour to address ; it could not
have escaped them that there was one question which, far
more than Reform ever had done, occupied the minds and
attention of men, which, at public meetings, at popular
elections, in petitions to both branches of the Legislature,
and in addresses to the Throne, formed the only topic of
declamatory appeals, remonstrance, or supplication. It
must he well known to almost all who heard him that even
in last Session the petitions on that subject, when compared
with the Reform petitions, were as 20 to one; and petitions
proceeding from most respectable classes of society, what did
those petitioners demand ? Nothing less than the total and
immediate abolition of colonial slavery. If that House
then were prepared to follow their constituents in all that
those constituents required, they would find themselves
compelled to do that which all well informed men not
only thought would operate great injustice if not proceeded
upon with the utmost caution, and which at all times
and under any circumstances, could not fail to be attended
with the utmost difficulty and embarrassment.—( Hear.)
Another ground taken by the advocates of the measure
was, that the representation of the country in that House
was imperfect and incomplete. It was the easiest thing
in the world to point out anomalies in the British Consti-
tution. and peculiarly easy to make them subjects of de-
clamation in that House ; and it was, perhaps, no very
difficult matter to sketch out a more regular and equal
scheme of representation—indeed, so easy was it, that
the Noble Lord who had brought in the present Bill had
himself presented to the House three or four plans of Re-
m tfoor
sa
ya,t
tlehaastt
a;
mbuotrewe,rffirueldienhteHoorusaenoyf oct hoenrani noann, undertake
produced by the new Bill—that more careful guardians of
the public purse would be elected under the provisions of
suchleast aofßtihlle—it,hreasnent
th a t
mewashuitr•he, niotw xne,asisteedxp? To say the
experimental
l and
doubtful, and no man could decisively say how it would
work; of this, however, at least, its supporters seemed
confident, that they could recommend it to the favour
of moderate men, by saying that it was not a democratic
measure, but one which would give to property its due
influence. But all the while there were found those who
agreed with his Majesty's Government in saying that it
was not a democratic Bill, but who added that it was an
aristocratic Bill, and even wilder opinions than that
which found favour in men's eyes at the present moment,
especially when it was remembered that the measure then
before the House went to disfranchise all the Corpora-
tions in England, and to invest with the privileges of
constituency six times the number that were deemed ne-
cessary to give effect to French Institutions.—(Hear.)
The promoters of the present measure seemed to think
that they had possessed themselves of the support of the
people at large because they bad gained over the present
and temporary assistance of men who would be anything
but content with the Bill as it stood. They supported
the Bill, not because it was an aristocratical Bill, but be-
cause they regarded it as the means of effecting ulterior
objects, that it would bring them nearer to the great aim
of which they never lost sight. The Hon. Member then
referred to the period when republicanism triumphed in
this country—when the people were declared to be the
y
ooto cf.l ofbosi pronouncedroo
diugnssrecewi
wast°al t:bioucl
useless
tetsbcis legitimate
theirsan
Bitdteyi immediateowe
iru,
esdv dtol
ieulonecsrtl
mischievous.
or' edonlduun;:teeht:hanoetfl
if then Commons
House,
h
ll
e
iithll,ol:oosuui
tsssnaee:tesae
tfcwoaLirhannodiecerh:tilinis,tet o%ltyvhococaouuottillid,liiiitstiii:onecyneov:ilitrtteleal requiredsabetltnyic o u 1 d nod
ogurbe
ta t sagacitytbat ti)e
gtpliivieaenwwcaaol
yln.
innTeeilditehr:veri
within
there any rational man there, or elsewhere, who would
itself the seeds of future discussion and agitation. it had
been alleged that the Bill proceeded upon principles conso-
nant with the practice of the Constitution, but nothing
could be further from the fact, for, with the exception of
enfranchising some of the great towns, there could not be
found a single precedent, from the time the House ofCom-
mons was first called into existence, to warrant any one
of the provisions of the Bill. It was a measure which
professed to be governed by the amount of population, and
yet it was full of anomalies. A Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite had elsewhere asserted, that in the early periods
of our history there were many inconsiderable towns which
did send Members, but that there was no opulent town
which did not send. Now he believed that an instance to
the contrary could be found, and perhaps oven more in-
stances than one. There was Boston, in Lincolnshire, of
which he harrsome knowledge. That was a town of no tri-
fling magnitude and opulence at a very early age,
but it was not till the reign of Edward VI. that
then con-
the
not
imposition
a privilege—it
it sent representatives to that House. Writs
being sent to any partiwcualsar
regardedplace
L w e
'es
of a burden, and many petitioned to be relieved from it.
Amongst others, Queen Elizabeth received a petition from
her poor and decayed borough of Liverpool, praying to be
relieved from the charge and burden of sending Aleurbers
to Parliament. The greatest political problem which
could be presented for solution was that wherein it was
proposed to unite the greatest degree of public liberty
with the preservation of public order, The whole history

of this country, from the period of the revolution to the
present time, presented a solution of that problem. The
prosperity which the country enjoyed—and be would, not-
withstanding all that had been said to the contrary, affirm
that that prosperity continued—afforded the most satis-
factory proof, that not only did the existing system solve
the problem to which he alluded, but promote what
ought to he the great object with which to frame any
political system—that Of promoting the prosperity of
the people.

ti Bankero
ieiw.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH, after complimenting
the Hon. Menthe'. who had just sat down, declined to fol-
low him through all his observatiens, contenting himself
with but a few remarks upon two topics which appeared
to him of greater importance than the rest. In the first
place, he would observe, that all free Governments neces-
sarily supplied the materials for excitement, and did call
forth all the fectilties of the human mind, atl'ording, per-
haps, the noblest excitement of which human nature was
susceptible. The authority of Mr. But ke had been re-
ferred to for the purpose of showing what had F 0 often
bean shown before, that the Members of that house were
not the mere medium by which the sentiments prevailing
among constituents at the moment of election were to be
conveyed to that llouse, but were free to deliberate and
decide up, n their own ressmnsibility, and according to
their own judgments. But was there any one in that
House prepared to affirm, that Mr. Burke forbore fully
and freely to state his sentiments to his constituents
upon great public questions? Did he not labour to
remove from the minds of those whose favour and
confidence he desired to obtain any evil impressions
which he apprehended might influence their votes ?
Did he not tell them that he was a zealous advocate
for eve y branch of trade in whiCh Bristol was con-
' cerned ; and if he had thine so—as unquestionably he
had—would arty man say that there was in that any thing
of undue influence— and might not electors say, that till
they knew his sentiments upon a particular point they
would decline to afford him the benefit of their votes?
All that having occurred in individual conversations,
might not similar questions be put at the hustings ? and
if they had been, did any one suppose it would be incon-
sistent with the principles of Mr. Burke to have answered
them ? Might not an elector come up to the hustings, and
ask whether the candidate was prepared to support or op-
pose a particular measure ? That passing between a con-
stituency and a representative, surely put no restraint upon
an Hon. Member when be got into that House. On the
hustings he declared what was then his opinion ; and if
he could find, in subsequent occurrences, a justification for
altering that opinion, he west still free to deliberate and
decide. A candidate, by declaring his then opinion upon
the hustings, did not bind himself to shut his ears to state •
ments of facts, and never lis'en to reason. His Majesty
had declared, in his gracious Speech from the Throne,
that his object was to ascertain, by a new general election,
what the opinion of the people of England was upon that
very question of Reform ; and the people of England
would not have answered the requisition of their Sovereign,
if they had not most distinctly and unequivocally given a
reply by sending Members into that House who had ex-
pressed decided opinions. They had met expressly for the
purpose of deciding that great question--a purpose which
restrained them from giving expression to their sentiments
with reference to what was going forward in another
part of Europe—sentiments, the expression of which
would not have been waived upon any less conside-
ration. He was as ready to acknowledge as any Member in
that House, that they were met to consider that great ques-
tion at a time when the principles of free government
were materially influenced by whet was taking place on
the Continent. There could be little question that the
aggressor in the contest now going forward had opened a
door which it was past his power to shut. Whoever might
be the author of these events, they were not immediately
produced by the friends of popular liberty, or of popular
principles. It was, on the contrary, indisputable, that to
whatever danger Europe might be exposed arose from an
endeavour to subdue democracy, and to establish un-
bounded and lawless power. As to the elections that had
recently taken place, they constituted a result in itself
irresistible—a result brought about, he would say, not.
withstanding all that had been asserted to the contrary,
free from delusion or violence. Ilis wish was, that all
who practised violence should suffer by it, and that all
who dealt in delusion should be deceived in their turns,
though he thought that some ingenuity would be required
to discover where that delusion existed—(Hear, hear)--
and he could assure the House that he made this appeal
with no less confidence and reliance than the Hon. Gentle-
man. For his own part, he knew of no delusion prac-
tised by the Government, nor by any Member of the
Government, nor by any candidate l'or a seat in Parlia-
ment, whose intention it was to vote in support of the
Government. All that he had heard of were scenes taking
place in three or four towns, which were much to be de-
plored ; but, at the same time, as he had_ stated before,
however lamentable such scenes might have been, they
were but as dust in the balance when compared with the
great question that had agitated the country during the
election. It had been very ingeniously, but very mis-
takingly, argued to the effect, that as the people had shown
such disposition to violence before they bad any share in
the representation, what. was there not to be expecttal
when they should be admitted to the privileges which this
Bill was to confer ? But this mode of argument appeared
to him to be begging the question. Was it not likely, he
would beg to ask, that when the people had a legal and
regular vent, there would be much less display of feeling
than when they were shut out from all such expression of
sentiment?—(Hear, hear.) No one could even doubt that
the liberty of expressing their opinion, and the liberty of
voting at elections, would act as a sort of safety valve to
the public mind : it would prevent an explosion by per-
mitting the feeling to escape. It was not his intention to
enter into the delicate question respecting the Crown and
the Peerage, which had been touched on by the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had just sat down. That Hon. Gentleman
had referred to what the Crown and the Peerage had been
in former times. This was a difficult question to touch
upon ; and, indeed, with respect to the Monarch, be should
carefully abstain from making any observations. With re-
spect, however, to the other part of the Hon. Gentleman's
position, he wished to say a few words. The Hon. Gentle-
man seemed to fear the House of Commons coming to such
power that the House of Lords would possess no security for
the station which it ought to hold in the Constitution ; and
lie had contended that the only way for it to possess that se-
curity was by its continuing to hold that influence which
it had exercised over the elections of the House of Con-i-
-ntone, in a manner which was said to be most in accordance
with the theory of the Constitution. Now, as to what was
the theory of the Constitution, lie would not stop to con-
tend ; but, at all even's, this influence was most contrary
to the letter of the law.—(Hear.) In his opinion, the
relative position of the three divisions of the Legislature
would continue as now, when the Reform Bill was past,
in conformity to the laws that were really in effect. Sup-
posing the doctrine were true, that the Supreme Power
of the State did, in consequence of the Revolution of
1688, pass in a great proportion into that House, yet, at
all events, it was not less certain, that the existence of the
Monarchy and Aristocracy was recognised as useful por-
tions of the Constitution. The next question which the
Hon. Gentl man had discussed, was one which appeared
to him (Si. &I. Mackintosh) to be equally untenable. The
Honourable Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed
that the present Government was the• first to lay
down the doctrine, that the proper plan for Reform-
ing Parliament was taking away the suffrage from
those boroughs that were unfit to possess it, and giv-
ing it to those that were more fit. The fact was,
that this, in substance, was only the renovation of the
ancient law of England. He wished that the Hon. Gen-
tleman would take the trouble of reading the speech of Mr.
Pitt, in 1785, in which be bad laid down this doctrine.
Mr. Pitt's plan was to buy up.--(Cheers from the Oppo-
sition.) He was sure that those cheers were very prema-
ture ; and indeed it seemed to him that if Honourable
Gentlemen should sometimes be called to analyse their no.
tions for cheering, they would find themselves most terribly
in the dark.—(Some Honourable Members here cried out
" Money, money !" which was responded to by a cry of
" Order, order !") It was true that Mr. Pitt proposed
to buy thirty-six boroughs ; and it was. also true to the
honour of the late Member
cfmorraDuocienegtsthoirae (vAiller.trßaffianck,etsh)e,
who was the zealous and independent supporter of Mr.
I)itt,thattltougli lie supported the Reform of that Mi-
nister, he deprecated the payment. of money for the ho-
roughs—(Hear,tendency of which would be to compensate the possessors
of those boroughs— not the poor Members of the Corpo-
rations, who, according to the specious arguments which
absurdityw as
so id)l;me ataihst
it
something
what
t,ivsaeitdt
was
al.
tanuesetrie,gaoe,l
,odnewl
tvitwil
represented
not
tlravoerasbesel
somethingnui
egitvneeideddne tttn tu
lookbptt
eoho anaht
il %dux,
vnlepra
si
0).
ttnhPtooatifhtt
btedse,
out
bribeaht the
great
were now made use of, were the sufferers—(Hear, hear)---
but the controllers
.of those Corporations. When Mr.
isliaiGentleman had acknowledged that this was time
tender part of the affair, but be looked upon it as a ne-
cessarywo
ne-
cessaryul d not
evil, Laveli a
le
ss been
li a
had
believed
orator, and so acute a master of language as Mr. Pitt,
callitno guiltyeliefv estul chtlbaatnit
as a right : Mr. Pitt had looked upon it as a bribe—and
a necessary evil. One of the great periods of changes its
the representation took place in the reign of Charles 11.-
At that time many boroughs ceased to send Alernbrat and

many wi
reipPot
buspensic
the spiri
lateJ, if
Dim of t

straction
the Cons
did he
thorities
Fox ; ar
could no
but at tt
that grea
and, ind
doubt tl
effect, ti:
tution.

times of
Plantage
the Lion,
borough
them, ht
Gentlem
summon
Centlem
liorough!
been sun

had not
further
those be
that Hoi
lie bell,
of Law
presume
'feiture o
place.

lie view
principi
doles of
was the
into tiee
grown i

election
once es

comet
count;
lion.

certa

d OWI
whit

one
just
Stat
pssir
been
jug I
the
him
atter
able:
Diu
(Out
ing
witl
Min
(pies
mar

„

revolution to the
problem. The
d be would, not-
contrary, affirm
the most satis-
;Mg system solve
t promote what
!h to frame any
le prosperity of

complimenting
, declined to fol-
ntenting himself
which appeared
:t. In the first
'ernm9nts neces-
Nat, and did call

, atiording, per-
man nature Was
e had been re-
st bad F o often
hat House Were
rents prevailing
:ion Were to be
deliberate and
-id according to
nly one in that
ke forbore fully
its constituents

not labour to
se favour and
evil impressions
e their votes ?
ealous advocate
ristol was con-
questionably he
a that any thing
ors say, that till
ular point they
t of their votes?
I conversations,
hustings ? and
would be incon-
o have answered
he hustings, and
) support or op-
between a con-
o restraint upon
House. On the
opinion ; and if
justification for
;o deliberate and
n opinion upon
his ears to state •
His Afajesty
om the Throne,
;eneral election,
I was upon that
le of England
their Sovereign,
vocally given a
tee who had ex-
apressly for the
purpose which
:heir sentiments

'ard in another
!ssion of which
ly less conside-
r any Meml:er in
that great goes-
free government
aking place on
testion that the
d had opened a
Whoever might
lot immediately
r, or of popular
putable, that to
arose from an
establish un-
actions that had
result in itself
vould say, not.
o the contrary,
I was, that all
t, and that all
in their turns,
iuld be required
Hear, hear)--
ide this appeal
ie Hon. Gentle-
delusion pray-
Vernber of the
seat in Parlia-
support of the
!re scenes taking
much to be de-

many were restored to their ancient privilege : and witl

respect to this he would observe, that consi lerine; tt
u s pen s ion of the former, awl the restoration of the latter

the spirit of the Conititution must have been grossly Viii
lateJ, if it was true (which he (iebied), that the exten

Dion of the franchise to one set of boroughs, and the al,

straction of that right from another was a breach

the Constitution. Neither on this point nor on any othet
did he wish to quote the names of great men as au-
thorities: he would not do so even with the name of AIL
Fox ; and, therefore, in mentioning that of Mr. Pitt, it
could not be supposed that he was acting with Out view
but at all events it would be the means of showing that

that great and able man took the same view of the subject ;
arid, indeed, he could not conceive that any one could
doubt that the plan which was now proposed was, it
effect, the renewal of the ancient pt inciple of the Consti-
tution. It was not his intention to go far back to the
times of antiquity, nor to meddle with the period of the
Plantagenets ; but with respect to what had fallen from
the Honourable Gentleman with reference to the right of
boroughs once having sent representatives always to send
them, he begged to remark, that surely the Honourable
Gentleman could not doubt that formerly the right to
summon was inherent in the Crown ; surely the Hon.
Gentleman could not doubt that there more than 45
boroughs and one city (that of Ely,) which had formerlv
been summoned to send Members to Parliament, but which
had not exercised that privilege for centuries ; and he would
further beg to ask the Hon. Gentleman by what means
those boroughs and that city were to appear at the Bar of
that House, and claim their right ?—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Ile believed that it would he fsamd, that even a Court
of Law would reject such a claim, and that it would
presume, after so long a lapse of years, that some for-
feiture or sacrifice, or surrender of the right had taken
place. But his argument did not require this position.
He viewed the case as Mr. Pitt had viewed it. The
principles which were embraced in three of their sche-
dules of the 13;11, and which it was their object to effect,
was the disfranchisement of those boroughs that had fallen
into decay, and the enfranchisement of such towns as had
grown into importance. Both of these principles were in
accordance with the ancient practice. He would not take
upon himself to say whether the case of Boston might or
might not be an exception to the general rule, that all
great towns were to send representatives to Parliament.
When the famous case of Newark occurred, in the time of
Charles 11., it would have been the easiest thing in the
world to have provided a law of equality of representation,
by which means the arrangement would have been gradual,
and no shock would have been produced. If it had then
been provided that every borough which contained a cer-
tain number of houses should be entitled to send Members,
and that in the event of its falling below that number the
privilege should cease, the whole principle of Reform would
from that moment have been in operation. Why was the
Government now told that it was going too far, and that
it was cutting too deep ? Gentlemen would not remember
that all this time the Government was only going on the
old principle; and that, in what it was proposing, it was
following the footsteps of all the eminent Reformers of
late days•—:(Hear, hear)—and that the great plan laid
down in the five schedules was as distinctly laid down in
Mr. Pitt's speech in 1765, as in the Reform Bill that was
at that moment before the House.—(Hear, hear.) In fact
it was impossible for Parliament to transfer the right of
election from a corrupt to a sound borough, without at
once establishing the whole principle of the measure. It
was impossible to conceive any sort of Reform—it was im-
possible to acknowledge any amelioration of the Constitution,
without admitting this. But it had been asked, " Will
you point out any present expediency that demands so
great a change? Will you show us any evils that have
arisen of sufficient consequence to call for such alteration?
It works well." If he were of this opinion he should be
the last man in the world to derogate from the present
state of the English Constitution—a subject, the study of
which had engaged the greater portion of his life—(Hear.)
But the reason why he would Reform the English Consti-
tution, was because he loved it; and because reformation,
in his opinion, afforded the most probable means of making
it the perfect thing which he wished to see it.—(Hear.)
But in answer to the cry that it worked well, he would
show the House how, during the eighteenth century, it
hail not worked well. It was during that period of
years that the system was adopted which silently worked
out of the hearts of the people all regard and affection for
it. It was during this period of years that they were
silently but surely taught to distrust the rulers that were
chosen by means of this system. The people, perhaps,
were not capable of balancing the advantages of the
whole result against the details of the fraudulent means
which came to their knowledge, and in so doing they did
right, for they preferred the innate feelings of morality to
abstruse questions of Government, which were beyond
their comprehension. If he might he allowed to say so
..-the very excellence of the Constitution had contributed
to its destruction ; for the morality that its principle
had awakened in the minds of the people had inspired
those feelings that had at length undermined it. If any
one would look at the lists of the House of Commons under
the Stuarts, he would find that they were generally filled
with country gentlemen, and the younger sons of opulent
gentlemen in the neighbourhood ; and nothing was to be
seen of candidates coming from a distance to seek the re-
presentation of et place, so that contests were very little
known. The introduction of a different system had
necessarily been attended with the growth of those prac-
tices which, it was now on all hands acknowledged, per-
vaded every class in the community. But while the
Aristocracy had thus been gradually losing the respect of
the people, the people were also gradually becoming
better informed, and consequently more shocked at those
scenes to which the elections gave rise. In the mean time
other great events arose, by means of which the people
were still better able to appreciate their power, and their
comments upon the state of the representation of the
country became still more 'narked and observable. The
lion. Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had in the last
Parliament, when the Reform Bill was before the House,
contended that all these feelings were merely transient ; but
certainly the Hon. Gentleman had taken a very curious
method of proving that statement. The Hon. Gen-
tleman, in referring to the question of Reform, as agitated
towards the close of the last century, said that it was at
that time attempted to instil into the minds of the
people that they were nut well governed under the
present representative system ; but that, notwithstanding
the forcible description entered into by Mr. Burke,
the sensation that was produced subsided. Why, so it
did. But the next stage of the transaction, had the Hon.
Gentleman inquired into it, would have confuted his posi-
tion ; for though it subsided then, it was revived in 1782
and 1783, and 1785 and 1793, and 1797, and at last in
1830; so that, so far from there being flashes of transient
feeling, they might rather be looked upon as symptoms of
a deep-rooted disease, which, though occasionally checked
and stifled by great efforts, continually returned with re-
doubled strength and vigour. What could better prove
this than the fact of every error of the Government, every
commotion abroad, and every distress at home, being
traced by the people to the one cause—of the want of
Parliamentary Reform? This was, perhaps, open to some
exaggeration ; but what was to be concluded from this cir-
cumstance? That complaints were distorted by the na-
ture of the disease—that the country was sure to be agi-
tated in the most violent manner from a cause which was
certain to re-appear, whatever might I;e done to keep it
down for a time; and that the most dangerous state in
which a community could be placed, was that in which
one strong party imagined they were withheld from their
just rights and privileges by another strong party of the
State.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware that he was tres-
pssing too long on the patience of the House, but having
been prevented by a variety of circumstances from deliver-
ing his sentiments when the Reform Bill was last before
the House, he trusted its indulgence would be extended to
him for a short time longer. He would now just call the
attention of the House to the observations of one of the
ablest opponents of the Bill—he meant Mr. Henry
Drummond—who in his address to the freeholders of the
county of Surrey (and a most able document it was, coin-
ing from a gentleman who could not certainly be charged
with excessive partiality either towards the Bill or the
Ministerial side of the House), gave a short history of the
question of Reform, and made use of the following re-
mark :—" The declaration of the late Ministry against
Reform proved their ignorance of the national feeling, and
drove the people to despair."—(Hear.) This was the
judgment pronounced as to one of the causes of the agite •
troll of the people, by one of the ablest opponents of the
Bill. It had been said, as an argument against the mea-
sure, that the power of the people was already great, and
that the Press gave them an immense additional influence,
although they had not all those legal rights which the sup •
porters of the Bill said that they ought to have : it was
also contended, thati the
people of this country had greater
power tha%lnthetir'oese countries where greater political
privileges! favour, in point of form, existed. But,
tl •
in his opinion,
.iat very state was the most perilous in
the picture of a county which a community
could be placed—(Hear, hear)—for
which was inhabited
it exhibited the
by a' Peer and ex
owerful from y
their possession of strength
and intelligeaFe) atdagbaierersatustehe
tahreiystowcerraecy—alienated from the Constitution,aspe r
ex-
cluded from their rights.
He held it to be a maxim
Government to attach to the commonwealth,
of sound
by legal ties, all those that were Powerful either from
Wealth, intelligence, or numerical strength—(Hear, bear,

hear)—and every thing that professed to exclude such
slaimants was at variance with justice. and of a moo.
dastard and destructive nature.—(Hear, hear, hear.) A,
soon as they saw a body of the people rising to opulence,
and contributing to the State, they were bound imme-
lia.ely to attach that community to the State—(Hear)—
old when it was said that the people of England had
tlready great share and weight in the public opinion, that
vas to him only an additional reason for endeavouring, for
the safety of the State, to bind the great body of that people
to the Constitution by formal as well as by substantial
rights. The Hon. and Learned Member for Borough-
midge, during the last Parliament, had dwelt with great
acuteness and facetiousness on the term " Corporation
robbery," as appred to this Bill. But he (Sir J
Mackintosh) begged to ask, whether the two Unions with
Scotland and Ireland were Corporation robberies? By the
Union with Scotland the sixty-five boroughs of that country
were reduced to fifteen—that is, each of the sixty-five was
reduced to one-fifth of its former value. If it was a Cor-
poration robbery to take away the whole of a franchise
from a place, certainly it was also a robbery to take away
four-fifths of the franchise.—(Hear, hear.) He, there-
fore again asked, whether the Union with Scotland was
to be called a Corporation robbery? The same question,
might be put with respect to the Union with Ireland
though he did not intend to enter into the whole history
of the representation of that country. At the time of
tie Union with Ireland, a Parliament of three hundred
Members was reduced to one hundred; and the number
was reduced on the strict principle of Parliamentary
Reform, for one hundred of the closest boroughs of that
country were disfranchised, on payment of a sum of money,
not to the corporations of these boroughs, but to the mana-
gers or proprietors of them,who had trafficked in them already
to a considerable amount, and who, if common fame was not
wrong, had obtained other advantages still more repugnant
to one's feelings as to what ought to arise from the repre-
sentation of a country. Unless, then, the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman was prepared to throw on all the
authors of both these Unions the term of corporative
robbers, he was not in a condition to contend that these
disfranchisements were any robbery at all. Another argu-
ment against the phrase emphiyed by the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman was, that when he talked of disfran-
chisement being a corporation robbery, he must mean the
taking away of the right of election ; and then, whether
this right of election was taking away from a single
borough, or front all those set down in schedules A and B,
the robbery was equally the same ; it would be in vain,
too, to talk of guilty or innocent boroughs ; individuals
might be guilty, but tie b rough could not be ; there
could be no trial—there could he no conviction on oath—
there could be no legal conviction : and therefore any taking
away of the franchise must, according to the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, be an act of lawless violence. But
why was the very contrary of this really the case ? Be-
cause the right of supreme power was extended to Parlia-
ment in this case, for the very purpose of taking away this
trust when abused, and vesting it in the hands of those
who were likely to use it better.—( Hear.) Thus, in the cas •
of the Union with Ireland, it was merely for the means of
convenience that the elective franchise was so extensively
withheld, but it was not on the principle of any trial or any
conviction that the disfranchisement took place : for if so,
by what principle of equity were those who were unborn
to he punished for the misdemeanours of those now
living? And why were the minority to he punished for
the crimes of the majority ? In the time of Charles, the
right of renewal of the elective franchise was in the
Crown ; but this was not owing to the Union with Scot-
land ; for thirty years took place between that event and
the celebrated Newark case. Since that period 160 years
had elapsed ; and owing to there not having been intro-
duced at any time any provision for Reform, they were
now called upon to pay the arrears of the Constitution
which had been accumulating during a century
and a half ; they were now called upon to ba-
lance the accounts of the Constitution with the
people on tire score of elections. That period of
160 years had witnessed more prodigious changes in the
affairs of the country than the previous 300 years ; and
yet no change in the representation had taken place, while
Elizabeth had added 60 Members to the House, and the
house of Tudor had in all added 150 ; and from the acces-
sion of Henry VIII. to the time of the case of Newark,
200 had been added. The present Reform Bill, then,
was no more than paying the arrears which had so long
been-due to the country ; arrears which, if they had been
avoided on principle at the time of the Newark case, would
no now he due; and it was our ancestors who had be-
queathed us the task, by allowing the real principle of the
Constitution to fall into disuse. But one of the argu-
ments that was most to be relied upon as decisive against
the Bill was, that its effects would be the destruction of
property. But who was it that would venture to make
such an assertion Wire was it that would endeavour to
persuade the people that real property, justly acquired, was
to be weighed in the same scale, and placed in the same
rank with the property of Gatton and Old Sarum ?
For his own part, he could not conceive a doctrine,
against the promulgation of which he would more hear-
tily, and with all his soul, warn every one. The Revo-
lution of 1688 had determined that they were not proprie-
tors, but trustees of the elective franchise. If man could
be the property of man—if there were any remains of that
odious principle lurking in any man's bosom, that indivi-
dual should remember that the maintenance of that doc-
trine bound him to place the heir of the house of Stuart—
if, indeed, such heir could now be found--on the throne
of these realms, from which James was driven for support-
ing that very doctrine. But it bad been said, that all
property was a trust : so it was, as far as a man was an-
swerable to God and his conscience for the right disposal
of it ; but as regarded the law and the 111agistrate, to
them he was not responsible for the management of his
property ; but with respect to the right of voting it was
quite different—that was a trust in the strictest sense of
the word, and could in no way be legally converted into
a property ; for though it might be true that there was an
incidental benefit arising from it, that benefit was small,
and lost in the more important consideration of the gene-
ral object for which it was given. He had felt it to be
his duty to set this point more fully before the House than
perhaps might have been agreeable to some ; anti he bad
done so because he did not feel sure that, in times so
eventful as those in which they lived, they might
not have to consider this question frequently and
attentively. What the Commons must perform in
such cases must appear to the people a mere farce :
when the persons who were called their representa-
tives introduced measures in which they had no con-
cern, they were told a falsehood, for falsehoods could be
told by acts as well as by words ; and when they saw the
Constitution every day so caricatured, so disgraced, and
so brought into contempt, by these continual violations of
propriety, they naturally lost all confidence in it. Under
such circumstances, when real nomination was substituted
for pretended elections, more was done to undeceive the
people, and to deprive them of all love for the Constitu-
tion, than by the open and less injurious practice of buy-
ing and selling votes. He looked on both as great evils,
and in this sense he said the Constitution worked ill ; that
its advantages were turned aside—and that it was deprived
of the effects of those excellent results of its spirit and
its principle which were calculated to attach the people
to it, and they were thus alienated from what was in it-
self admirable. He might be told, as he had been told
before, that the Schedules of Disfranchisement would
destroy a positive good. In an able publication it had
been asserted that the close boroughs were the most unex-
ceptionable part of the Constitution ; yet they were a
breach of the law, for the sale of boroughs was as much
a breach of the law as the sale of votes, and this breach
that,
they
of the law it regarded as the best part of the Constitution.
f
—(Hear.) This was so absurd that it stated, as the
ground Reform, tli t
ha tt things
w
sioeuld
ex-
clude existedr
whichey
were
told,
why theret variance
should
t off withe
thesetoh
Constitution.
boroughs,e
experienced and rich men, as well as young men of
talents, who now found their way into the House ley
means of the boroughs that were placed in the schedules.
That principle went too far, and he had once heard it
pushed torts proper extreme of preventing all changes in
the Constitution. There was formerly a gentleman in
that House of great eminence in the city of London,
whom he respected more for his talents and his probity
than for his great wealth—he could not mention his name
.—but that gentleman had always argued upon this prin-
ciple, that they ought not to disfranchise any one
borough. The boroughs they were told were the
means by which the mercantile and manufacturing
interests got represented in Parliament, arid those
only were consistent opponents of Reform, who, calling
these boroughs the good parts of the Constitution,
maintained that it was wrong to disfranchise any of these
boroughs, which were the means of supplying g the House
with its best Members.--(Hear? hear.) Let them see by
the argument, if followed out, in what the doctrine which
was laid down would end. Let them suppose that the
colonial interest was found to grow in numbers and in-
crease in wealth, 'as he heartily
wished it might, and let
them suppose that the geratlernen connected with the co-
lonies found themselves hampered for seats in Parliament,
that there were no nomination boroughs for sale or for sale
at a much higher than the usual price; suppose that—and
he should expect that they would come forward with a
counter Reform—he should expect that they would appear
at the bar and allege that the price of boroughs had risen
in Suffolk ; that they were dearer than they had been in

Wiltshire, and that ti ey could no longer order the repre-
sentative of a borough up from Cornwall as they ordered a
pipe of claret from Bordeaux. According to the doctrine
of the opponents of the Bill, this might be alleged as
a grievance; and if that doctrine was correct, it was ab•
surd to punish people for doing what promoted good.
What a mockery, what an inconsistency it was to punish
unfortunate voters for what, according to the advocates of
the present system, was the chief means by which tvise
and enlightened men obtained seats in that -House. Ac-
cording to this doctrine, then, instead of respecting the
law, it was wise and proper to do what the law pro-
diiited—an inconsistency which he should recommend
them to get rid of, by at once acknowledging the pro-
priety of dealing with boroughs as a commodity, or
adopting the Rill. He had been somewhat surprised at
the line of argument which had been taken by the Hon
old Learned Gentleman on this point, as he had been
surprised to hear on a former occasion the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) quote the great names of the
persons who had been introduced into the House as the
representatives of boroughs. But what did that prove?
Nothing more than this—that there was in this intelli-
sent and well-informed community a great multitude of
men well qualified by their talents to take part imm
public affairs, who would always find access to Parlia-
ment through whatever channels were open, and who.
finding the boroughs open and easy of access, came in
through them. The argument of the Right Hon.
Baronet would he an equally valid defence for the Court
of the Star Chamber—a Court which had been de-
fended by the greatest of great men, the Lord Chan-
cellor Bacon, who had called the Star Chamber a
Court of Equity, which he considered as the most
elorious part of the English Constitution ; and what the
Right Hon. Baronet said of the boroughs would equally
apply to that Court, when such men had sat in it a'
Sir Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor Bacon, the most
comprehensive philosopher of any age ; as Lord Coke, the
great patriarch of English Law; such men as Walsing-
ham and Burleigh, who, of all English Statesmen,
was perhaps the most admired and reverenced ; all these
great men were members of that great tribunal, and when
it was done away, it might have been said, after pronounc-
ing a panegyric on this Court on account of the great
men who had sat it it. " What, will you in these times
of danger—when the rage of innovation is abroad—(Hear,
hear)--when all minds are tormented with a desire of
change—(Hear, hear)—when agitation prevails through-
mmut the world, when we are threatened with a rebellion in
Ireland, when the regal authority is insulted and almost
openly condemned—(Hear, hear)—will you abolish a
tribunal which is the great guardian of the regal power
—(Hear, hear)—and the great organ of the Royal autho-
rity ?"--(Cheers.)—He could not call to mind a single in-
stance in the progress of reformation where there was not
a cry opened against Reform similar to that now set up
against this Bill. He did not know what the forty Barons
could have said against Magna Charta ; but to have urged
some similar topics, they must have said, " That it was an
untried scheme—that it was a scheme levelling all distinc-
tions—( Hear)—that it was giving power to burgesses and
merchants, a set of fellows who were yesterday slaves, and
it was raising them to a level with the Plan tagenets in the
power of making laws—that this was not their business—
and they might ask, what could be expected from putting
power into the hands of recently emancipated villeins
but that they would be more turbulent than they
had been before, and seek to obtain more power by means
of the power then to be put into their hands.--(Hear,
hear.) Such, at least, must have been the objections
taken by the opponents of the Bill if they had lived at
that period.—(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman who had urged these topics had now the benefit
of experience, and he must know that these people were
not intoxicated by their newly-acquired power, or by
being brought into a high station ; and he must know
that they had blended into a harmonious union with the
other classes, which had continued with the greatest ad-
vantages to the present day. What would the Right Hon.
Baronet say to the period of the Reformation ? Let any
man read the controversies of that time, and he would find
them abounding in predictions of evil—predictions, too,
some of which had been accomplished—but in reading
them, he could not avoid concluding that the greater part
of them had never been realised, and that the dangers and
evils of the Reformation have been much outweighed by
advantages. He would come to matters of a later date
—he would refer to the Petition of Right, to the abolition
of the Star Chamber, to the discussions which took place,
and to the abatement of the King's prerogative before the
civil war; and, in all these cases, he always found that
the same arguments had been used. But there were the
same predictions of evil, and the same threats of danger
that were uttered at the present time. There was one cir-
cumstance he would mention, as it must be gratifying to
the feelings of a Noble Lord, who was, he believed, in the
House ; and this was, that when Lord Shaftesbury, who was
the real author of the Habeas Corpus Act, first introduced
it to the House, these topics were strongly urged against
it; and not only urged, but were very influential ; and it
was now known, from the confidential correspondence of
Charles the Second and James time Second, that they
thought themselves deceived by Shaftesbury, who bad con-
trived and invented this law, for the purpose of compelling
them to govern by means of the army ; because the exis-
tence of the habeas corpus was incompatible with all civil
government. They put faith in the assurances they re-
ceived, that this excellent law would emancipate the people
from all order, and release them front the controul of all
law. We, however, had now the experience of 160 years,
during which the greatest order had prevailed, though when
the law was passed it was stated that it would be destruc-
tive of all order. This was believed by Charles the Second
and James the Second, for the fatal effect of absolute power
was to corrupt the judgment, and make those who exer-
cised it suppose that nothing but absolute power could pre-
serve order in society. The advocates of the Bill were
then asked what evils the measure would avoid—that they
were attempting a great alteration, without knowing what
good it would do. To that he would reply, that it would
remove the matter of discontent, which, as Lord Bacon
said, had this wisdom that it took away tile cause of griev-
ance. It would remove all the condemned machinery of the
nomination boroughs, and it would get rid of that abomi-
nation, the open sale of seats in Parliament.—(Hear.) He
might be told that the sale .of seats was not so bad a thing ;
hut if that were not so, why not sell the seats in a
Court of Justice? There could be no difference, and no-
thing but custom warped the judgment, and made them ap-
prove of that in the one case which they condemned in
the other. The practice of selling seats in the Courts of
Justice had existed in France ; and when it existed there
were not wanted clever men to apologise for it ; but now
it had been swept away it was universally condemned, and
was every where considered intolerable. But if it were
wrong to sell the seats of justice, when the Judges were
only called on to give decisions for a small portion of affairs,
must it not be worse to sell the seats of those who were
called on to make the rules which regulated all the con-
cerns of life? To introduce venality into Parliament was
worse than selling the judgment seat ; it was as bad as
selling a judicial decision.—(Hear, hear.) That was his
opinion, though to some it might appear fanatical ; and
he could not bring himself to think that a Bill which had
the great advantage of removing this stain from the Con-
stitution would not remove a great evil—an evil which, if
continued, must drag down the whole Constitution to
ruin. It was said that the great proprietors would lose
their influence from this Bill. lie saw no probability of
that, except that they set themselves up against the people
and were determined to treat them as enemies. If they
distrusted the people indeed, the people would place no
confidence in them ; but he did not fear that the people
would not be influenced by generosity, and would
not be grateful for kindness. If the great proprietors
should dread the people, and should act on that dread,
they would sow the seeds of permanent discord, and make
that Bill the source of strife which was intended to be
a treaty of conciliation and peace. He had no fear that
they would, when he recollected the character of these
great proprietors, and remembered that the most illustrious
of our nobility—those persons whose possessions were
most ample—had always shown themselves the most ge-
nerous and confiding, and the warmest friends of the
liberties of the people.—(Hear.) He could not conceive
that any danger could arise from a measure which bad
already had the effect, as was stated hy his Noble Friend
the other evening, of inducing all classes, the highest and
the lowest, to make a cheerful sacrifice of individual ad-
vantages for the general good.—(Hear.) No great danger
could possibly result from a measure which had already
had such beneficial effects, which might be taken as a sign
of what it would hereafter produce. A sympathy had
been excited between the. different classes, and they had
shown themselves willing to act for the greatest public
advantage. If, therefore, the great proprietors and
the higher classes opened their arms to the people—if they
gave the people a signal proof of their confidence—if they
put their trust in the people, that trust would be re-
turned; if they showed by signal and striking acts, not
by the coil formalities of laws anti by unmeaning forms of
words, that they were willing to rely on the fidelity, the
honour, and the conscience of the people, they might be
assured that they would not lean on a broken reed. It
was not true to say, though it might be one of the wise
saws in use, that there was danger in trust and con-
fidence, and that policy and generosity were at vari-
ance. That he held to be a fatal and a mischievous
error. It was true lather what Burke said in his se-

-sod speech on American affairs. In the beautiful pa_
oratioei to that speech he said—" Magnanimity in pct_
tides is not seldom the truest wisdom; and a great em-
pire and little minds go ill together. If we are con-
scious of our situation, and glow with zeal to fill our place
as becomes our station and ourselves, we ought to auspicate
all our public proceedings on America with the old warn-
ing of the Church, Sursum corda ! We ought to elevate
our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order
of Providence has called us." The only question before
'he House was, the comparison between the safety and
:he danger of the three plans which were offered to the
acceptance of the House. The first was an industrious
adherence to things as they are ; the second, that of gene-
rous concession; the third was that of evasive Reform.
But what would the people think of such a Reform, com-
ing from persons who, if they were consistent, must resist
he smallest proposition for Reform, and who would not
sacrifice a single borough to give the elective franchise to
liirmingbana—( Hear, hear)—a capital of the industrious
world, and from whose hands the people would expect no-
'hing but a scheme that was to be fallacious and deceitful?
If such Reform were proposed by such persons, distin-
!uislied for their hostility to Reform, it would only drive
the people to despair. Could they repose confidence in
min as sincere. Reformers who considered all Reform an
evil, and who, if consistent—and he believed them to be
sincere and consistent—could only take up such a measure
in order to fritter away what they were unable to oppose?
The question was of comparative Reform. The oppo-
nents of the Bill said there was danger in Reform
—was there, then, no danger in not reforming ?
They treated it as an unilateral question not having two
sides ; but if there was danger in reforming, there was
certainly great danger in not reforming—and the only
question was, which would be productive of the greatest
evil? In his opinion: of all the three plans, there would
be most danger, and certainly there would be most odium,
in giving only niggardly Reform. The spirit of the times
and of circumstances made a large and liberal Reform ne-
cessary; and a niggardly Reform would only keep the
people in suspense, and naturally excite their resentment
against what they would regard as intended to deceive
them. The opponents of the Bill made it one of their
strong arguments against it, that its extensive changes
would cause great danger ; but in appealing to the history
of the world, he could confidently say that late Reforma •
tion, that dilatory Reformation—(Hear, hear)—that the
refusal to make just concessions at the proper time, that
allowing the critical moment to pass—and it might pass
irrecoverably in the twinkling of an eye—be could confi-
dently say, that the refusal to grant concessions had been
the great cause of all the convulsions of society.—( Hear. )
He did not wish to go back to any very distant period, but
the Right Hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion
quoted Cicero, and had done him the honour to refer par-
ticularly to him. He might, therefore, be permitted to
refer to the opinion of Cicero as to the power of the
tribunes. His brother had referred the delay of Rome
to the power of the tribunes ; but what was Cicero's an-
swer ? " Con Tessa plebi a patribus ista potestate arms
ceciderunt : restincta seditio est : invent= est tem-
peramentum, quo tenuiores cum principibus 2Equari se
putarint : in quo uno fuit civitatis salus." It would not
be said that Cicero was a Radical or a demagogue;
and he did not say that the Tribunitian power—that most
formidable power, by which the five men could, by their
veto, stop every law—Cicero (lid not ascribe to them the
energy and the spirit of the Republic, but its safety and
its security. They protected the weakest, and all were
rendered one harmonious body. " In quo uno fait civi-
tatis solos." He quoted Cicero, not as an authority, but
a witness. The ancients were better acquainted with de-
mocracies and the effects of demagogues than we were;
and he quoted Cicero as a witness to the effects of popular
institutions ; and that the security of States was to be
found in confiding in the people, and granting their just
demands. All history was full of proofs. What prevented
Philip the Second from remaining master of the Nether-
lands ? Not because be granted the wishes of the people,
but because he would not ; and because he would nut even
allow his subjects to remain in the enjoyment of their
rights. What was the course of Charles I. before he lost
the confidence of his people? If he had adhered to the
petition of right, if he had forborne to persecute the Puri-
tans, could any man believe that he might not have reigned
over England all the days of his natural life, and brought
that reign to a prosperous and happy conclusion ? They
might read in the first volume of Clarendon the proceed-
ings which took place in his time, and they might see that
similar causes led to the destruction of James 11. The
people would have borne with James had he not
leagued with Foreign Powers; and had he not assailed
the liberty of the people, his posterity might have
reigned over this country to this day. What but op-
pression, too, prevented the United States of America
from beim,. British colonies to this day? Was it not
probable that if we had not refused them that confidence
which was the cement of society, they would have con-
tinued under his Majesty's Government till now ? And
was it not certain that, with justice and wisdom, they
would have continued united to Great Britain till the
latest time ? The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to
some more recent examples, of which the results were not
yet known from experience, and of which he could not,
therefore, positively speak, but of which he had no hesita-
tion in saying that they had been brought about by obsti-
nanee inflexibility rather than by generous concessions.
Those who opposed Reform inflexibly, with steadiness and
firmness, held out no other option to them but Reform or
Revolution. Ile would not do more than allude to one
Hon. Gentleman, who had expressly declared that he was
preparing for the worse who looked only to increasing the
restrictions on the people, to those restrictions exciting dis-
satisfaction, to still stronger measures, and then to the
scuffle which, at last, must take place. The Constitution
might be endangered by Reform ; but of one thing he was
quite certain, that safe and sound the Constitution could
not come out of such struggles ; and though it might
stand under successive Reforms—under successive conflicts,
it must go to ruin. The opponents of the measure dwell
much on the danger to result from Reform, and lie did
not think this an unfair argument ; but when the advo-
cates of the measure pointed out the danger of not re-
forming, they were told that they used threats, and
they were cautioned est to employ menaces.—( Hear,
hear.) The opponents of the Bill had therefore different
weights asd measures ; one for their own arguments, and
the other for those of their opponents. lie was clearly of
opinion that to reform the Parliament afforded the greatest
probability of preserving, for a long period, the funda-
mental institutions of the country. But it was said it
would not be final. What was final of human affairs ?
The same arguments, he remembered, were used against
conceding the Catholic claims ; and the same answer which
those arguments then received might now be given to
them. It was said that the people would not be satisfied,
and that they would only use the Bill as a weapon to get
more power. He denied that now, as lie denied the same
assertion when made as to the Catholics, and he should
always deny that just concessions would lead to unjust en-
croachments. He denied that for the people of England.
He would appeal to experience, and would call on any men
to lay his hand on his heart, to consult his understareiing,
and say what evils or what mischief had been brought on
England by her just concessions to the Irish Catholics?
He would only say, speaking with sober truth, and much
within what he thought was really the case, and looking
to the events which had happened in Europe, that eman-
cipating the Catholics had materially improved the con-
dition of Ireland and the condition of England. The only
reasonable sense in which the measure coe'el be final was,
that it would satisfy the great majority of the people. That
was the test of its goodness. It might not satisfy the violent,
there might be sotne who would not trust the Bill, bet they
would be overborne by the acquiescence cf the greater
number, who would find it fully equal to their wishes. After
it was passed, if the people desired more they would desire
that what they asked should be calmly discussed in a re-
formed Parliament; and he would ask whether it were
better that their fuether claims should be disaussed in Par-
liament, or they should
give up to agitation elsewhere?
Let it be considered that in this case, as-in the case of the
Catholics, the Parliament did 11,0 t bestow etrength that
possp4sed all whiele the Patliamenebestowed,
determined, ail which it could determine, was
allvh ,sae
WfaolleiritCenh a'laiyntd the manner in which that strength should
be exercised, and it was for the Parliament to say„ by
sharing political power with those who had the strength,
whether the discussions should he carried on quietly in
subordination to a scheme of general policy, or should
agitate the whole land.—(Hear.) The receptien which
the BO haul met with induced him to think it would
content the people, and that they would not desire further
concessions. Looking at the petitions, he found them
nearly all in favour of the Bill, the exceptions being just
enough to show that epiLion was unfettered. If the dis-
sidents were numerous—if there were any great mass of
the people opposed to the Bill, why did they not show
themselves? He had no fear of the dissidents ; they were
not enough to do harm to the measure, but they were
' enough to convince the world that the people had formed
their opinions in
perfect freedom. If, then, there was no
other option butef granting Reform or of encountering phy-
sical force—if they were to decide between concession and
bloodshed, and if it were cowardly to be afraid of the latter,
he would own himself a coward. If it were cowardice to fear
that, he pleaded guilty; and if it were a menace to remind
them of that alternative, he must confess he was wrong; but
when he considered the scenes likely to arise...when be looked

it the general state of Europe, and remembered the agita
ion of the times, he saw many reasons for deprecating
ompuleory measures, many reasons for laying aside the
distrust of the people, and many reasons why trust and
confidence should be reposed in them. When lie costern.
plated the chalice of the comer). twine exposed to the dan-
ger of excessive convideiiins, he telt iiiinself a coward, and
he should not show respect to the (louse if he concealer'
its apprehensions, and did not use his utmost exertions to
nduce them to pass the Reform Bill. He must wart,
them openly and solemnly against adopting the argument,
that politicel privilege was property ; for if they embraced
that, they must take with them all its logical consequences;
and if privilege were property, property would not he
more inviolable than political privilege, and a sinecure
could be as safe as a legal estate. Let them, then, le
careful to make and enforce th:s distinction, for if they
nade privilege a property, they would surely enable the
•poiler, who was looking for his prey, to sanction by their
arguments his insatiable ambition. He conjured them tr
'seep asunder what nature had separated, and not to let in
.onfusion by confounding privilege and property.
Mr. BRUCE, in rising to address the House, requested
heir indulgence to a new Member. He was desirous t,
ecall the attention of the House to the real question be-
`ore it ; namely—not whether or not there should be any
Reform in Parliament, but whether or not the Bill
which had been introduced by his Majesty's Govern-
ment should be adopted.—(Hear, hear.) To that Bill he
eave his uncompromising opposition. To allow the system
of representation to advance with the advance of society—
to extend the elective franchise to all those new and im-
portant interests which were growing up in the country,
were objects to which he was decidedly friendly. But ht,
was as decidedly hostile to so rash and so irrevocable a
measure as the present; a measure which threatened the
destruction of the soundest principles of the Constitution
and the most valuable institutions in the country.—(Hear,
hear.) He was happy to observe the spirit of conciliation
which had manifested itself on the part of the authors ce
the Bill in the important alterations which they had intro
duced into it ; but notwithstanding those alterations, hi
maintained that the Bill was entirely unworthy the sanc-
tion of the House. Its tendency was to extend the elective
franchise to large classes of the people, who were minors than
any other classes obnoxious to that corrupt influence which
it was the professed purpose of the Bill to diminish or de-
stroy. The great excellence of the present system of repre-
sentation was the variety of the suffrage—the combination
of riches and numbers. The tendency of the Bill was to
put an end to that variety and combination. It was cal-
culated to bring those who had property, and those who
had none, into violent collision. It was calcul ited for the
present constitutional variety to substitute a uniform qua-
lification. To that he was most strongly opposed. It was
calculated to introduce the domination of the mob. It
was calculated to exchange an aristocracy of rank, wealth,
and talents, for an aristocracy of demagogues, and base
and hireling political writers. But his greatest objection
to the Bill was its flagrant injustice; and the sweeping
manner in which it disfranchised a number of the smaller
corporations. While the principles of justice were immu-
table; while there remained any difference between right
and wrong, he should object to such a proceeding. It
might be thought by some to be expedient. He could not
so consider it ; but even if he did, he could never consent
to sacrifice the legal vested rights of bodies or individuals
to[any considerations of mere political expediency.--( Hear.)
If such a principle were once admitted, who could tell
where it would stop? If Corporation rights, and the
rights of property, all held under long legislative sanction,
were thus to be swept away in a mass, who could tell
where the work of destruction would end ? All the argu-
ments which had been so ably urged in that House and
elsewhere to show that a mixed form of the elective
franchise was indispensible to the very existence of our
Constitution remained unanswered, and were, in fact,
unanswerable. The efficiency of the present system, in
the introduction into that House of men of talent and in-
formation, had been abundantly manifested. It was true
that popular elections might frequently be the means of
admission to such persons ; but where would be the advan-
tage of excluding th6se men of talent and information who
might be averse to popular election ? Under what other
principles than the present would the great Aristocracy of
the country be able efficiently to protect their legitimate
interests? And with respect to abuses, there were some
maintained in the proposed measures which might be very
advantageously got rid of. If the Scotch Reform Bill
went into a Committee, he would state some curious facts,
that by some elective attraction all the franchises would go
to the Whig party.—(Hear, hear). As to the presumed
influence of the Peers, he was of opinion that the just
authority of the Peers required to be aided rather than
assailed. That authority had been established and consoli-
dated by the wisdom of past ages, and ought not to be
rudely and inconsiderately sacrificed. Attachment to the
people was, in his opinion, perfectly compatible with at-
tachment to the Aristocracy. To that Aristocracy the
people of England were indebted for many great and glo-
rious services to the cause of freedom ; and it ever, goaded
by a violent and disaffected Press, an attempt should be
made by Ministers or others to invade the privileges of the
Peers, he trusted that many a loyal hand would be raised
in that House—aye, even unto the death—to their sup-
port; and he was convinced that the great majority of the
country would stand by thern.—(Hear, hear.) He knew
that there were some high and honourable minds who
were shocked by the interference of the Aristocracy in
certain elections. But he thought that, if those indivi-
duals looked at the great infusion of late years of popular
feeling in that House, they would be more moderate in
their opinions. He also knew that there were many high
and honourable minds who abhorred bribery at elections.
He abhorred bribery as much as any man, whether it as-
sumed the shape of money, or of unconstitutional pledges.
—(Loud cries, of " hear, hear.") As a nation, we haul
the greatest cause for gratitude to that Providence which
had conducted us with safety through so many imminent
perils—

" From seeming evil still educing good.'"
Of all the people on the face of the earth, the people of
this country were most bound to guard the Temple of
Freedom from being disturbed and polluted, either by
despotism on the one hand, or by anarchy on the other.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) They had been told by the
Press and by Government that the proposed measure
was so unanimously approved by the country that Par-
liament had no choice hut to pass it. He confessed
that, judging from what he knew, he very much
doubted the existence of that unanimity.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) For instance, he had read in many of the
newspapers that every village and town in Scotland was
favourable to the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the
Bill. Now, that he knew to be grossly and notoriously
untrue. The great farmers were opposed to the provision
giving the franchise to leaseholders of Q.i. a year, the ten-
dency of which they considered to be to cut down large
farms. The small farmers—from 5/. to 301. a year—
were averse to the Bill, as calculated to intro:ince the bane-
ful system of middle-men. The proprietors (with the ex-
ception, perhaps of the great aristocracy) were apprehen-
sive that their interests would be prostrated between the
la voters on the one hand, and the 501. on the other.
The smaller boroughs, although they liked the Bill in the
first instance, began to feel thnt is would operate upon
them as a disfranchisemeat ; for that, voting ire
they would, in, alf;As cases, be in a hopeless minnrity. As
to the (!:,ritit:es, whom the Lord Advocaie proposed to
nizawry, they had forbid the baths.—(Hear.) Scotland
was desirous of a well-considered Reform, although not
of the present tneasnr. Even that desire was not of
ancient standing. But a year or two ago, Scotland cared
little for Fteloi•in. Now, however, th;xo was an unani-
mous desire on the subject, and he was glad of it. He
roust say, however, in justi.:n to the upright and intel,li-
gent individual, no !palter in that House, who was hitely
a Member for Edinburgh, that that Hon, Gentleman's
statements of the indisposition of the people of Scotland
towards Reform were perfectly well grounded ; inasnmeh
as at that perio,d this change had not occurred.--,,,,',Mueb
coughing.) He begged to assure Hon. that
phc, was not to be put down in that r.xinner. He had ad-
dressed as numerous and reapoctable assemblies, and had
always been heard w'ith courtesy. With respect to the
measure undo; consideration, what had thcrc. been in the
comlnet of his Majesty's present Ge,yrrnment to inspire
the House with confidence in, any proposition which pro-
ceeded from them Let them be judged, by the',-;
acts. The;r unanimity was extraordinary. Befar4a they
carne into office, they were unanimous mn calling for the
reduction of the Civil List. As sekao as they came into
office, they were unanimous is rejecting the recommenda-
tion of the Committee. Before they came into 0.74c,e,
they were unanimous in calling on his Maiesti'a late Go-
eminent to economise. As soon as the.y came into office
they were (very wisely) unanimous in refusing to act on
the principles of economy which they had previously ad,
vocated. Before they came into office they were unani •
mous in condemning the course of foreign policy which
had been pursued by his Majesty's late Government. As
soon as they came into office, they were unanimous in
the adoption of the banle course. They were unani-
mous in the maintenance of every point of that mo-
nument of financial wisdom, their Budget. Soon
after, they were unanimous in withdrawing every
point of it from • public observation. They were
unanimous in reprobating the appointment of a plu-
ralist Bishop of Exeter. Scarcely, however, had the sound
of their virtuous indignation ceased, before they appointed

ein'ituhraatiilsbteDene'onn'e'f ofri 'urtnti.iintouls" contradiction.—(Hear:)
Ind was the House to listen to 'be suggesti,ns and re-
anmendations of men like these ? Although they might
4! hacked by the whole revolutionary Press of the c entry
—although they might be cheered on by Cobbett—',y in-
Fuld Taylor—by the whole congregation of. the Rotunda,
Lad hoc genus ()owe, he trusted the Legislature wialld
cause before it was influenced by their advice. The ge-
-1..ral eagerness to beein the work of spoliation, was No-
hably founded on the Horatian max,m—
Dimiditim facti, qui czopit, habet.
1-le trusted, however, that the discontented and worthless
::;isrttriactlci,,s of which that
m,wa:composetpi,illar of Rand,
would
notbetle ptennprietsteendttA. dhm-
avie
ny weight in influencing the decisions of the House
"Hear, hear.)—[We repeat that, owing to the circum-
,ance which we have already men'ioced, our report of the
II in. Gentleman's speech is very imperfect.]—lt would
,i,cupy much more of the tine of the House than he had

a right toolaitn, to state one-tenth of his objections to this

atisiird Bill; but in what he had said he had discharged
iy duty to his country, his constituents, and himself.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON began by complaining that the
last speaker bad anticipated a debate yet to be entered
upon, regarding the principle and details of the Scotch

teforin Bill, which did not, in any way, belong to the
present discussion. Speaking of the part of Scotland with
../bich he ("Mr. Fergusson) was best acquainted, he could
. .

give the Eton. Me; bet's statement a flat contradictirn.
lmong the freeholders, indeed, there had been a difference

f opinion, but all the other classes were nearly to a rraU
in favour of Reform.—(Hear.) He was no friend to
pledges—he thought them in general unconstitutiond

he had given none, and none had been required of him ;
but if ever there was an occasion when the constituent
body had a right to demand them, it was at the last

lection.—(llear, hear, hear.) This was a Bill upon
which the electirs were as competent to judge as the elect-
,4l.—(oh, oh.) Without arguing that proposition, which
he cobsidered almost self•evitlent,he would proceed to that
most important branch of the question—disfranchisement.
It was abrulutely necessary that something should he done
to get rid of rotten boroughs ; and these who thought the
existence of such places as Gatton and Old Sarum a libel

upon the Constitution,would do right to vote in support of
the Bill to disfranchise them. For fifty years the questi,ai
of Reform had been bandied between the House and the
people: it was undeniable that more than 150 Members
were returned without the voice of a single elect,r—anti
tit Members were the representitives, not of nine hundred
thousand people, hut of nine Peers.—(Hear.) The ques-
tion then was, whether it was fit that the House of Corn-
mons, instead of representing only the Commons, should re-
present also the Lords ? If it were said that the people were
not good judges of who ought to represent them, it might be
a'ked in return whether the Peers were better judges.
Some objected to this measure, because it was not final—

..—.—
.
(Hear)—others because it was not gradual—(l-lear)
in short, no Reform could satisfy those who were resolved
to be dissatisfied, whether the plan were the general reno-
vation so long contemplated by the Member for West,
tniuster, or the more particular scheme of disfranchising
boroughs proved corrupt, formerly advocated by the Noble
Lord (Lord John Russell). The people at the present
moment were disgusted—the house had lost their confi-
dence.--(" No, no," and cheers.) Without the confi-
dence of the people no Government could stand, and the
Members of the House were regarded by the great mass of
the population, not as their guardians and protectors, but
as their worst enemies.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that
he should not have had the courage to propose a measure
of such bold and extensive Reform, but he should have
failed to satisfy the just expectations of the nation.—
(Hear, hear.) What sense was the House of Commons,
properly constituted, to speak, if not the sense of the
people ? and Mr. Pitt long ago had said, that between the
representatives and the people there ought to be the
closest union, and the most perfect sympathy. Let any
man turn his eyes to the House of Lords, and see how
many had been raised to the Peerage on account of their
influence in the House of Commons: formerly, any man
who had three or four votes at his command, must
be worse than " sand hlind"—lie must be " high gravel
blind"—who could not find his way into the House of Peers.
He would not proceed to that part of the Bill which ex-
tends the elective franchise ; and here he might observe,
in the first place, that the fitness of communicating the
power of sending Members to large, populous, and
flourishing towns, was not disputed on any side. The
Hon. and Learned Member for Boroughbridge had said
that nothing could be more honourable than the connec-
tion between Member and nominee. In his case, no
doubt, it was so ; but he (Mr. Fergusson) did not think
that even he could be an independent Member of Pat lia-
ment. It was a matter of honour that he should not
vote against his patron ; and it was impossible for in-
dividuals so circumstanced to tell whether they were or
were not biassed. Much had been said on the extension
of the franchise to ten.pound householders, and it was
asked upon what principle it was founded ? His answer
was, that it was founded on the common law of England.
(Hear, hear.) The common law right of voting in this
country was in the resident householders paying scot and
lot. What, then, were the inhabitant householders rated
at 101. a year? Did it not include persons of every class
and occupation? It was urged that it did not include
pot-wollopers; but the fact was, that clean or unclean,
washed or unwashed, they were embraced by the measure,
and non-resident freemen were the only persons abso-
lutely disfranchised. At present the yeomanry, farmers,
and tenants in general, were unrepresented ; whereas,
by this Bill, the right was communicated to them. In
future the number of county Members would form two-
fifths of the representation ; and how could such a meae
sure be fairly termed revolutionary ?—(Hear, hear.) It
was high time to concede to the reasonable wishes of the.
people, and it was true wisdom not to delay concession too
long ; all the greatest misfortunes that had befallen nations
had arisen from postponing concession too long.
Lord PORCHESTER complimented Lord J. Russell
on the excellence of his writings, which had, however, led
him (Lord P.) to a conclusion widely different from that
of the Noble Lord. All his early prejudices and personal
partialities had been in favour of Reform. To that mea-
sure, which the Ministers showed themselves determined
to carry at all events, without respect to the circumstances
by which they were surrounded, and without modifica-
tions—a measure which, if passed, he believed, would
leave us little of our ancient Constitution—to that measure
he must offer his most unflinching opposition.—(Hear,
bear.) He did not deny the authority of Parliament to
make this great change, but still he thought that such a
measure as the present could only be justified by the most
urgent necessity. He did not believe the people were not
satisfied, and would not be satisfied, without a measure of
this most extensive kind; he was sure the people were
not bent upon having this specific meesure.—(Hear, hear,
hear, from the Opposition, answered by Hear, bear, hear,
from the Ministerial Benches.) The measure, in the first
place, was one of the most extensive disfranchisement. In
support of that, the seise of the forty-shilling freeholders
in Ireland were appealed to ; but that example did not
satisfy him of the wisdom or justice of the present mea-
sure, It was true that the Irish freeholders were called
ins to forego an invaluable right : but, in compensation,
they were granted a boon beyond all prior--(Hear, hear,
hear.) It was true by that Act they were depressed in the
scale of representation ; but then, at the same time, they
obtained an Act that repined their country in the scale of
nations,—(Cheers.) Be thought that those Members on
his side of the Mouse had a right to complain of the
partial effeoa of this measure—while the interests of
voters ,11 large towns were respected, but in the small
beereughs no friendly arm was raised to protect the humble
"voters.—(Hear, has'.) Having spent a great portion
of his life abroad, he should perhaps, be pardoned if be
made some iew observations upon foreign countries ; and
be could not avoid remarking, that while all the representa-
'o five Governments which at different times were attempted
to be established in them had been shaken to pieces, that
of Great Britain flourished as Fondly as ever. In Cor-
sica, iot Portugal, and in Belgium, Constitotions had been
s teamed upon the British model, and bow had they suc—
ceeded ? Where were they now ? All had failed, and
their failure was so be attributed, according to some, to
the diffeeee.ce of national feelings, to the different distri-
butiesu cf property, and to other merely local causes con-
' netted with the habits and prejudices of the people. He,
however was of a different opinion. He had no doubt
that there were peculiar circumstances in each par-
ticular State which exercised a certain degree of in-
., fsuenee, and contributed partially to the failure of.
Ithese Constitutions; but the failure was to be at-
tributed to other causes. The framers of these foreign;
i Charts:is hadodopted the forms of free States; they thougni
they had a good capacity for Representative Government,,
and they took the Constitution, not because it was -attest
for them, but because they found it upon paper they"
adopted it, not as it was in reality, but as it would be if.
this Bill were to pass.—(Cheers.) Hp would call the se-
tendon of the House to the State of Francs,. it wee
framed by a Monarch who was no stranger to our Con-
son;
otirtu
ytioranLeancdominpoi
Did it work well ? In theory it appeared to do so,—it aa-
smeditaotifonKoifngi,t he
Lords,bad ft
a. anndt etic a.
,C..a.losorntes
.1-
peared even better than ours--but iss practice it seas much
worse. It did not calmly reflect the opinion of the French
community, but was blown aside by every gust of feelitte,
and fluctuated with every fluctuating passion of the
lutli,

titutle, and sometimes of a single man. Who did not re-
member the almost marvellous changes worked in the con-
duct of the Chamber of Deputies at different periods ? At
one tine their most popular orator was driven from their
thteshold, and a crusade against the rising liberty of Spain
was determined upon. In a few years more further
fluctuations took place, arising from Parliamentary vio-
lence and regal encroachment, and the sway of the
Bourbons was for ever at an end. He did not mean
to justify those criminal °Mont-einem which bad pro-
duced their downfal ; but he must say that any mm
who had watched the progress of the French Constitu-
tion, must have felt satisfied that far better policy on the
part of the Government could not long have avoided a col-
lision between the Crown and the people. These fluctuating
changes were attributable to the uniformity of the fran-
chise. That uniformity often had the effect of throwing
the election into the hands of a single man. There was
no peculiar influence such as was connected with our
borough system that conld regulate their effects ; an influ-
ence which those who now supported this measure were
ready at once to disregard. He repeated that the changes
in the opinions of the representatives in the French
Chamber of Deputies occurred with every change of the
prejudices of the people. In one Parliament the popular
voice threatened the very existence of the Monarchy.,
while in another it was hardly represented by seven Depu-
ties. The Government of that country some years ago
felt it necessary to erect a sort of breakwater against the
effects of the waves of popular feeling, and that too in a
country in which the qualification for a voter was much
higher than in England. They endeavoured in that man-
ner to approximate to our system of close representation.
That was, in fact, the principle of stability in our Govern •
Inent ; yet that principle we were called on to throw away
as it was opposed to the passing spirit of the moment.
That principle the French Government endeavoured to oh-
(min, hut they could not preserve it, for it had not grown
with their growth, and strengthened with their strength;"
but had been introduced as a novelty, and could not be
amalgamated with their pre-existing institutions. He ad-
mitted that nomination boroughs were objectionable in
theory ; but though he believed they were salutary in
practice, yet be should gladly see them removed, if in that
Bill he saw the elements of stability.—(Hear, hear.) He
must, however, declare that he saw no such thing. On
the contrary, he believed, that if a man wished to draw a
Bill—removing some anomalies to create others, and to sow
the seeds of perpetual change—he could not better have
succeeded than by drawing this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) They
were told that the people were only asking for their natural
indefeasible rights. What were the natural indefeasible
rights of the 101. a year householder, or in what respect
were his natural rights better than those of the nine-
pounder ?—(Hear, and laughter.) How was it again, that
40s. freeholdets in England were qualified , while in
Scotland the 101. freeholders were only just entitled ?
Surely, for the honour of Scotland, the Scotch Mem-
bers ought to look after this. How could the pro-
posers of the Bill reconcile the fact of the leaseholder of
501. being entitled to a vote, while the substantial
farmer, who paid an annual rent of 1,0001. was entitled to no
sea privilege. It might be said that the latter was a
tenant at will ; but was not the 101. householder in the
town also a tenant at will ? Surely the Ministers could
not hesitate to remove these objections and anomalies from
a system introduced for the purpose of amending the repre-
sentation. They would have the less difficulty in doing
this, for their scheme was not endeared to them by the re-
collections of past ages, nor had it taken deep root in the
habits of the people. Another difficulty was this—How
would they provide for the Colonial representation ? The
Colonies were now virtually represented. At some things
they were dissatisfied, and their dissatisfaction would be
increased when they saw the men who now represented
their interests removed from that House. On their own
principle, on the principle of this Bill itself, the Ministers
snust meet dissatisfaction, by resorting to direct Colonial
rept., s entation. Had they weighed well the evils of such
a system ? That system had been tried in the Peninsula
--it was tried by men of a most estimable character :
they promoted local interests at the expence of the general
welfare. It was said by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
that this Bill could not have an injurious tendency,
as it had the support of men of weight in the king-
dom. That aqument would be found of no value
when it was remembered that that had been the
ease in all revolutions. " I like renouncing my rights
and privileges," said a person in this country, in the times
advancing to a Republic, and yet that did net prevent the
man from suffering in common with the peerage. The
same thing occurred in France at the time of the Revolu-
tion; and the men who made the sacrifice did not escape
the common ruin. The same thing happened in 3820 '0
the Spanish Revolution. He spoke this from positive
knowledge. All the talent among the Aristocracy—all the
rank and fashion of the country, went with that Revolu-
tion, which, in the end, deprived them of their home
and their country.—(Hear, hear.) He knew they were
told that there was no party which desired to overthrow
the Constitution—or, if there was, that there was too
much wealth and property arrayed in its support to render
such a project feasible. To those who doubted of the ex-
istence of men entertaining such dangerous schemes, he
recommended a visit to some of the haunts of sedition
in this great metropolis. Let them go to these places,
and there they would hear, sometimes from talented men,
the most violent expresions of sedition, received by a
crowded, and not always an uneducated, audience with sa-
vage cheers of approbation.—(Hear, hear.) If he could
be convinced that the measure of the Noble Lord would
secure the real liberties of the people, and promote their
happiness, he would unhesitatingly vote for him, notwith-
standing the peril into which the Bill must bring the Aris-
tocracy and the Monarchy.—(Enthusiastic cheering.)
Mr. GALLEY KNIGHT said, that when he saw
every proposal for a moderate Reform rejected. and every
attempt defeated to tranfer the franchise from poor and
corrupt to flourishing and independent towns, it became
clear to him that no less effectual measurg than this Bill
would secure the permanence of those institutions, to the
preservation of which the Noble Lord who last addressed
the House was so devoted.—[From Hon.Mensbers leaving
the House it was very difficult to catch a sentence.l—Our
forefathers had never meant, by their enactment., to close
the door against those alterations and improvements, which
time renders necessary in all human institutions. It was
now the more necessary to look to those parts of the Con-
stitution in which change was necessary, in ecosequence
of the agitations which pervaded all Europe. To pro-
tect ourselves from similar Wrsubles, the best mode was
to leave the people no cause of complaint.—(Cheer'.)
Mr: R. A. DUND AS moved that the debate be adjourned
Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion, agreed to.
CUSTOMS' ACTS.

The _reports of the Committees on the Customs and
Excise Aete were brought up and received.
Mr. C. W. WYNNE presented a petition from the
county of Merioneth, praying for another representative
in Parliament. . . _

An HON. MENDER. presented a petition frntit Like
corporation of Montgomery, praying that in effecting a
Reform in Parliament their rights might be protected.
The Cotton Factories' Regulation Bill was read a first
time, and ordered to be read a second time on Thursday
next.---Adjourned at One o'clock.

THE LATE MR. ROSCOE.—We had lately ttS
announce the death of Mr. Roscoe, of Liverpool, and
with great regret, for it is only with a sentiment of this
nature that we can lose so distinguished a man, though he
died at an advanced period, in his 80th year. lie is at;
example to show the eminence to which an unassisted in-
dividual may ra;re himself in this co,intry, by his talents
and his virtues. Originally sprung from parrots, to whom,
however respectable, he could owe no advantages of situa-
tion, he became a poet, an historian, a man of letters,
known all over Europe—eminent for his love and know-
ledge of the fine arts; the representative of his native town,
of which, through a long life he was the ornament and the
boast ; uniting great practical knowledge with all the
comprehensiveness of thought and design which belong* to
the character of genius, it is to him, ira conjunction with
Doctor Cukatg, the eampanion of his early years, and
his " prwsidium" in all the struggles of his youth, that the
great mercantile community, of which he was a member,
;may refer the rapid intellectual progress which it has made
within the last half centur well as those various literary
establishments and liberayCianstitutions for which Liver-
pool is distinguished. Not, however,co all his zeal for the
local interests of that mart of 7,eree, could prevail
over that more enlarged passion of
cherished throughout life. philanthropy which be
the first to de-
nounce the Slave Trade (in one of histßieargl
he had the happiness to assist in the delibyeraptiloentlss)Ofraot4hde
Legislature which ratified its abolition. The i
idence of a too sanguine temperament involved him r. evnil
terprises of a private nature, by the tissue of which his
dot ;ining life was mournfully chequered; and being an
ardent friend of civil and religious liberty, he was actively
ea.groseed in all the political controversies of a revolu-
tionary period. Yet such was the charm of his manner_
of his unaffected cheerfulness—of his conciliating disposis,
his playful humour—of his natural eloquence._
his open and candid dealing—of Hs evident and unceasing
kindness of heart, and universal benevolence; such his do-
suestic virtues, and such
at
home variouands and
abroad, brilliantloved talentands,
that be was everywhere,
admired, and he died, as 1e bad lived, without an enemy.
.--Morning Chronicle.