The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-25 00:00:00

,fispu..J.l great pationagc tinder Government.
"Die Rutland i. in fact, die person who held the

powtr over the repr...entatlon for the borough of
Cambridge, and sends two Aletriers to this Ihm,e,
a gentleman Iron Ireland, an I another
a Noble Lorl from this country. My mal-ive, Sir, for
mentioninz the names of these gt-ntlemea is, because
it was stated that his Maj,sty's Government meant

to des!roy part of the representation of England.—(ll„„,..)
That, Sir, is a, fallacy; the re,u;t of our Idlionrs will have

a eintrary effect, ani instead of a person being sent from
Ireland and ano:livr fr.m Scotlind to represent an Eng-
... _ . .

ish county, we n-store the powtr of choosing representatives
IA the towns who are to semi 111,mbers to Parliament; ::11:!
,ve shall destroy that system of usurpation, which for the

last sixty years has deprived them of that tight. A similar
4rgumeot was made use of by an Hon. Baronet in
a pamphlet which has been published, in which he
says, the cfre..tt of one measure would be to deprive the
small country gmtlemen cf their influence in the country,
:ml to give the whole to great landed proprietors,

. .
and to persons connected with trade and manufactures,
Now, Sir, I will ventale to say, that the person who

. . . . . .
could put forward a statement like tkat must be en-
tirely ignorant of last history and present tint ,s;
fir if lie will take the pains to look at the return,
made to Parliatnent in piss times, lie will finil

through a long courie t.f hiltory, that various Fina i 1
Iroroug'ls were accustomed to send small country gentle-
..

men Parliament connected with them. Th it practice,
Sir, bas seised and diminished, by the eff ct of the changes
that have taken place ; so that whatever maybe the result

oar Bill, thryast thing that can be imputed to it, is that

it tends to diminish the fair influence of the country gtn

tleman. N Sir, Plymouth ia 796 hal 200 voter,
—it has not near Sj many now. Portsmouth for-
merly lid 400—it is now dimini•hed to 59, and,

Sir, there are various other places in which the
constituency, even a century ago, was larger
than it is at present, and while the towns have been in-
creasing—while the tracL has increased—while trade
and we•o-ilth have increase !, the number of voters,

incon4ruous as it may appear, has
So that though there had been an increase iu those

who ought tt.) eleot, an actual diminution has taken
place in those who do elect. This at length ex-

cited the att.- trion of this House, so that for nearly

50 ye.trs debates have taken pl;ce, whether the n
mi-
uation or sale of seats, and the limited state of the f; an-

chise, should he continued. In the conzse of those divus•
ions, great wen had taken one side or the other. The

pirt of Reform has been taken by the great and
yii;orcus mind of Lord Chatham ; and Pitt, not in his boy-
hood, but after being six years before the public, said that if
the French revolution were not raging, it would be desirable
to acopt better measures for securing the rights
and liberties of the people. Great no n have also
taken the o-her side of the question. I will not
enter into the history of these debates ; but I think
I may say, that usual as it is to allow questions in
this country to he many years under di.eussion, bofm e
any measure is ad •pttd, a period of 50 years is surely
sufficient; and now that his Majesty has called
Parliauaent together to consider a subject so ripe
for it, we may discuss it without the imputation
that it is rashly brought forward, or that we are at-
I tempting that which is a novelty in Parliamentary history.
.

But; sir, t!,ough a Reform in the repreientation has 1)::e.n

so many years under discussion without progress being
made, yet the sane c.innot be said with regard to the repre-
sentatian of the two sister countries, Scotland and It eland.

With regard to those countries no respect for vested rights
had been shown such as was now contended fog with
respect to the English representation.—(Hear.) As re •
specs Scotland, Lorl Somers, whose authority had been
used on former nights, was the person who had swept to-

gether knights, citizens, and burgesses to the number
of forty-five. He was one of tho,e persons whom
the admirers of antiquity professf d to hold up, and
who is quoted as one of the great light.. Let us see
the course of the political life of Lord Somers. He
began by writing a work regarding the construction of
Parliament; his first act was to as‘ist iu exchuling
one King from the throne, and recalling another. His

next act—was to call the House of Hanover to these realms ;

and in another act he took part in the union of Scotland
with England.- So that, whatever may be said of Loid

Somers, he cannot reasonably be quoted but as the friend to
innovation, and as a man prepared to put himself forward
to make those changes which he thought necessary for the
welfare and the rights of this count, y. It was said on the
occasion of the Scotch Union, why make such a great
change? and I have here a protest of certain Peers eif that
time, which contains words similar to those used upon
this occasion. Those Peers say that because the Con-
stitution of the country was so good, they did not think
it prudent to change it ; and it was signed B. aufort,
Buckingham, and Stawell.—( Hear.) But was Lord
Somers deterred from his purpose, because those au-
thorities said the Constitution could not be altered but for
the worse ? On the contrary, he left a note behind him,
in which he states the first objection—" that too sudden
alterations are dangerous." Lord Somers, in his note,
saes, "This is true, unless tnanifest danger arises from
delay itself."—(He .r. ) I say then, Sir, we are following
in the footsteps of this great man. I say there is more danger
to be apprehended from delaying Reform than from ailoi)t-
ing our measure. I call on the House not to be influenced
by any fear of touching the Constitution, seeing that it is a
fear which prevailed on a former occasion, but which
shortly after disappeared, and the Constitution derived great
benefit from a change which those ignorant worshippers of
antiquity were fearful of. The Scotch had a certain number
of Members (45) granted them, and in this practical and
sensible manlier was this great qu anion of Scotland settled.
Now, Sir, let me turn to Ireland. I ask has the repre-
sentation of that country never been touched ?—(llear,
hear.) And by whom? by some audeciens 'Whig, or
Radical in the House of Commons ?—No : the
b troughs and cities were parcelled out by the heed of
Mr. Pitt, whose memory gentlemen meet to celebrate,
and whose name they consider as the talisman by which
they hope to oppose Reform. But there is another change I
touched upon in thediscussion in the late House of Couninens.
I say upon what ground was the House of Comments
called upon by large majorities to disfranchise the forty_
shilling freeholders el Ireland, while Beeralston and such
other places returned Members. I never had an
answer to that question—and the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite said very fairly, " Make out as good a case for
the destruction of these franchises as for the abolition of
:he Irish forty-shilling freeholders, and I will not refuse to
support R-form." I hope I do not misrepresent his state-
ment, end I ask what was the ground upon which the
House of Commons was called to disfranchise the forty-
shilling freeholders ? Was it not that they were dependent
upon their • landlords ?—(" Not no," from the Opposition
side.) Was it not that they could not exercise a free
choice?—(" No, no.) Was it not that they were driven
to the poll like cattle—(" No, I:0 !" " hear, hear.")--
that they were carried there in crowds by the agents of
estates, without knowing for whom they were to vote ?
Hence the sacred trust was most improperly left in their
hands., Then I maintain that those who vote in nomina-
tion boroughs are more completely dependent on the nod
and beck of the proprietors than even the Irish forty_
shilling freeholders who were driven to the poll.—(l;ear.)
But there was another reason for their disfranchisement.—
It was: said that even where they were not dependent, they
were men so bigotted and ignorant that they were guided
and governed by:their Priests, and that they voted as the
Priests directed, because they thought it was necessary for
their salvation. Therefore the position was, either that
they were so dependent upon the landlord, or so controuled
by the Priest, that they were not in a condition to retain
and exercise the franchise. I say, that in al these bo-
roughs the voters arc &seer under the direct influence
and absolute dominion of the proprietor, or they are what
is called independent, which means voting for a particular
candidate on consideration of a bribe, the acceptance of
which violates Acts of Parliament, and is an offence
punishable in the Courts below. My position, then, is
this—that all the boroughs we introduce into the schedules
afford causes of disfranchisement as strong as thi).e which
convinced Parliament in the instance cf the forty-shilling
freeholders of lreland. I contend that they do not exer-
ise a choice, because they are either not independent or
corrupt; and I call upon you to destroy their franchise, to
purify their corruptions, and to restore the Constitution to
its word, letter, and spirit, and to what I hope before long
will be its practice.—(Much cheering on all sides.) I pass now
to consider what is the general state of the representation.
—(Hear, hear.) A certain number of boroughs return
Members by the influence of Peers. The elections at
other places are conducted by shameful bribery—some
cities and large towns have open and honest elections--
In some large towns, where the elections are open, the
expenses are so heavy as to deter men of moderate fortune
from contesting them. Let the House recollect the elec-
tions of 1826, during which. every kind of bribery and
corruption-prevailed ; when men were brought in masses
tee vote in. a state of drunkenness, noise, and con-
fusion, and received 'their price fur their vote.--
It shocks me to see that a majority of Members may be
returned by a few individuals—it offends me to see elec-
tions an excuse for every species of immorality ; and as
regards public policy, I regret to see places in which
'arge masses of intelligence and worth 'are gathered to-
'settler, which have no vote in returning representatives.
We propose to alter this system, and to substitute a better

•
!n place, altering as little a 3 poasib'e.—(La,ughter, and
hear, bear.) We propose about 150 Members to be sent
IT the counties which, by being divided, will give to each
division as touch population as a whole county possessed a
‘mndred years ago. I have gone through documents;
and find such to be the case, I find it nearly in every
eistanee from 70 to 120,000 persons. We then say that
there shall be about 180 members cent from the great
eitie7l and towns, not omitting Manchester, L •eds, or
S.Tflield, but giving members to those great towns,
anl giving also to the woollen, cotton, and coed
efttery, and other manufacturing districts, a share
art the representation which they have not hitherto
rule—(Lend cries of hear, hear.) Potting polbies aside
—I mean putting aside the immediate contests of politics
—will anv man deny that it will be a great advantage, in=
,toad of deputations waiting upon my Noble Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, from places of ereat wealth
,nd trade, to have Members in this place capable to watch
ever the interests committed to their ciharg,e, and capab'e
!f guarding them from any encroachment or injery ?
It
true the effect will be to displace a certain number of
Nlembers (representatives I cannot call them), well quali.
'led to make speeches of great amusement, and sometimes
et great eloquence. but whose presence does not, in my
mind, compensate for the absence of those who are imtne-
di itely connected with our commerce anl manufactures.
in the representation, as we propose to leave it, there will
still be a cliss which some m think a Vot on our sys-
tem, but the existence, I think, will add to the perma-
nence of Parliament and to the welfare of the people-1
- .

neon that there will he a hundred or mare Members from
;daces
wtis
lfln three,utfour,; five, or six thousand inhabitants,
o
perhaps, imtnediately represent any parti-
ealar int-rest, and who may, therefore, be better qualified
to speak and inform the House on great questions of ge-
;lent interest to the community.—( Hear, hear.)
U we had proceeded, as some persons recommended,
vie.—to destroy the existing system, and to allow
none but Members from counties, and large cities anti
towns, although it would have been a represents-
tino of the landed, commercial, and manufacturing in-
terest, something would still have been wanting to its
to impleteness. That something I find in a number of per-
sons not connected either with the land, cemmerce, or ma-
nufactures, but uho are certainly well worthy to enter
these walls, and able to give advice and advance opinions
important to the welfare of the cummunity. When I say
that the smaller boroughs will have an opportunity of
choosing such Members, I do not of course mean that they
will return at all in the way of nomination. By fair and
free mean-, candidates may obtain the suffrages of sail
constituents without any infringement of the Constitution.
Thus time will be an immense extension of suffrages in
counties and in large towns, and that ixtension will in
part be accomplished by the admission of copyholders and
leaseholdeis. The latter species of qualification we pro-
pose to extend, and in the original state of the 811 some
were omitted—l mean those who had leases for a long
term of years. I also propose now, that instead of four-
teen years, seven years shall be sufficient for leaseholds
paying 501. a year. Such will be the constituency—the
respectable constituency sent from counties. With regard
to towns, the suflaage will be vested in householders in
dwellings of 10/. a year rent or value.—(Hear.) This, al-
though not perlrape, the ancient right, I must hold to be
in the spirit of our representative system, and during the
last half century towns have so increased, that all !house-
holders are not to be consideied in the same light as house-
holders in the reign of James I. I apprehend that we
arc acting in the spirit of the Constitution and of
the well-known Resolution of the House of Commons in
the reign of James 1., when I say that householders of 101.
a year will form an excellent constituency in cities and
boroughs.—(Cheers.) I need not now explain that the
Bill contains every provision for the registry of voters,
which will tend to prevent the bribery that takes place at
elections, and the insertion of false votes, a practice known
to be frequent in the heel of contest. The regulation for
taking the pull in two days, I apprehend, will also prevent
disgraceful scenes we have so frequently witnessed, and les-
sen the possibility as well as the inducement to corruption.
But, I dunk, we are hound, if possible, to go even farther,
and the attention of Government has been most seriously
directed to those laws on our Statute-book which have for
object the prevention of bribesy and treating. Although
no plan is yet mature, yet I trust that, in the course of
the present session, I shall he enabled to present a Bill to
the House, which will make the existing laws more effec-
tual and executive.—(Cheers.) Let' me, however, remark
how much the measure I now propose to intro lute will
tend to the prevention of crimes of that description. One
mode in which the due punishment of bribery and cm rup-
tion under the existing law was interfered with was by that
argument often put in this House, but never so strongly as
by Mr. Fox, when he said, " How can you call to the bar
a wretched man, a poor labourer, earning only 10s. a week
and send him to Newgate for receiving a bribe of ten gui-
neas, when you know that there are Members sitting in
every p irt of this House who have been guilty of bribery
on the largest scale, by giving three or four thousand
poun 's fur the places they occupy among us?"--(Hear,
hear.) I trust that hereafter that forcible rejoinder,
quoted as a screen for bribery and corruption, will be taken
away, and that we shall find reformers of all degrees ready
to prevent and punish ibery, whether in the House or
out of it. I know that some persons still think that such
a Referm as would correct mid punish this iniquitous
practice would be suffici-nt to satisfy the nation ; anti upon
this point I have seen a declaration by a Noble Lord, who,
among others, started as a reformer in a northern county.
He saes that he shall be ready to. disfranchise all boroughs
convicted of bribery; but let me ask, is that the only cor-
ruption that ought to be punished—(Hear, hear)—or
could we fairly and honestly stop short there while we
allow men to sit here who have made a traffic of seats in
Parliament, or for other objects, not computable, perhaps,
in
nmPa(itutner of barter'd''shilling shillings, and
exchange?—(Hear, pence, have made representation
axchange?—(Hear, hear.) I come
now to speak of some few, awl but few, of the objections
urged to this measure in the various writings that have
appe ired from time to time. The first of these objections
and the most general is, that it is a plan far more exten -
sive than is necessary or proper fur the occasion. It is,
of course, impossible to answer a position of that kind
to the conviction of those , who take it ; but I beg to re-
mat k, that those who introduced this measure were
n
by any previous declaration with regard to the
nature and degree of their plan of Reform. Neither
.out pledged
banal
any previous promise—they were not
Load Grey, nor the Lord Chancellor, nor other Members
of the Cabinet who were formerly advocates for Ref arm,
have laid down expres-ly to what point they would or
would nit gut; and I think it fair to argue, that having
been bound by no promise or pledge, arid the course being
evidently much easier to do es than to do more, elta-
amuvieiction that they have brought forward this
they are satisfied it is necessary, in et-der
• hmnesahissr
to lay a lasting foundation on which to erect the repre-
sentation of the people, to support the Prerogatives of the
Crown, and to preserve the authority of bath Houses ot
Parliament. The House may remember that I myself
have been an advocate for a less extensive and thorough
Reform. I have said on former occasions, that if one
Member were taken from each of the small boroughs, it
would be a Reform sufficient and satisfactory ; but when
e
I cane to a consideration of this kind—attached to
Tweet
void belonging to a Government, I was obliged to ask
myself whether, if I propounded that the plan should go
no farther, I could say that the change would not
only be effectual but permanent. If upon my former
plan of Reform, Gatton and Sarum preserved one Mem-
ber each, would not the first motion in the Reformed
Parliament have been to do away with the remain-
ing representatives of those places? Had I wished it, it
would have been impossible for me to have resisted such a
motion, and what then would have been the state of
things? We should have proposed and propounded a
measure, as a satisfactory measure of Reform, when in fact
it would be only laying the ground for fresh dissensien.-;--
(Cheers and counter-cheers from both sides.) It would
be exposing the country to a discussion on the minimum
or maximum of Reform, at a tune, perhaps, when her
affairs could ill bear such disputes—(Hear, hear)—and we
should hive lest the opportunity, which we hoped to
have embraced, of giving a measure at once which ex-
posed us, as it may and as it has, to the risk of obloquy
and opposition ; but which, if carried, will give such sta.
bility and security to the system, that we may then pro-
ceed to the discussion of other great and pressing interests
without fear that the people will reproach us of not
having done what was sufficient for the protection of their
rialits and interests, or reproach ourselves with having
brought forward a scheme of Reform which could not be
final, or concealing or disguising that we thought other
measures intuit be its necessary consequence. But if this
Bill be not too extensive, it is found, as the next argu-
ment against it, that it is very unequal—that, after
all, it leaves such places as Halifax and Bradford
svith fewer Members than Tavistock or K b
mares orough
--(Cheers from the
Opposition.) Our opinion is that
anomalies of this kind ate •
not grievances that excite dis-
content..—(Hear,
hear.) It is the practical evil which
the country has felt, which calls for redress, and by reme-
dying that practical evil we trust that we shall be able to
defend anomaly, and stand out against those who wish to
see a complete model of symmetrical representation
(Cheers.) But do they who object to the inequality of
our Reform object in the hope that the plan they advocate
will be equal and perfect? On
the contrary, they say—

God forbid that Tavistoels rtr Kna.teshotoughi with
e.OOO or 6,000 inhabitants, should send -as many Mem-
linli as Halifax or Bradford ;" and I ask them how they
i!1 reconcile with that mode of reasbriing their determi-
ration that Cattail or Sarum, or tiny other place Frith 700
(le 800 inlethitents, shoeld send as tirtey Members to Par-
:iement ss Halifax or Pratiford ?—( Hsar, hear.) So that
the defenders of the C mstitutioti hate match more to an-
swerfor en the score ef inequality than we have ; they would
preserve a systsm more anomalous, mere irregular, and
still sa agreeable to the correct measure of- proportion.
en I speak of the defenders of tt-e Constitution, I am
eepposing that they mean themselves to adopt some kind
Reform, they at at once lose the benefit of the emu-
;trent of inequality. Mr. Catining's argument was, that
e we found representation an anomaly so we should
the it.—(Hear, hear.) But the strong pent rel taken by
Alr. Canning mid the Duke of Wellington is ab twinned by
eir less skilful associates. they h rye adopted a Reform
—they admit its necessity, and their lieforne is more mot-
es:ll,ms and irregular than our's; so that the We'rtreent
teainst inequality is that which destroys the very system
they would erect, and et once convicts them of inconsis-
tency and ahsurdity.—( Hear, beef, hear.) We can wish
for nothioe better than that they sheulti sd e'otstinue to
reason ; and we telly say with Cro7nwell, when he flaw
:he Scotch army descending from the hill into the plain,
The Loed has delivered our enemies into our hunds."-o-
Long and loud cheering re •etimed from each side of the
!louse.) Bat, besides the charge of irietplality interfering
..eith symmetrical proportion, we are charged with !teeing
taken an unfair basis, and with having thus endeavoured,
;iv undue means, to favour particular interests. Our an-
;wee is, that we took our measure front a well-known sta..
ti,tical book, as free from error and doubt as could be ex-
pected. Our advetoaries say, " What an incoiiistency
you are guilty of when you take population as a test of the
right to enjoy the franchise. and yet tit rice the right of
voting depend upon_ holding a house of 10/. a year ;"
eut I will call your attentien for a few moments
or the consequence of whetting a different course.
We thought that there was an unfairness in the
returns to the Tax-office of the number of !mits which
were of 101. a year value, hnd we iestituted S9IIF,Pe in-
rpeirice with a view to correct those returns, by sending
into the neighbourhood of some of the b troughs person+
who could inform us as to the real numberof houses which,
according- to our plan, would entitle the holder to the
ight of voting. The results vary so excessively from the
returns to the Tax-office, as to establish that we were
justified in suspecting that they ought not to be taken a=
the criterion. I will mention a few. At Chippenham
(we think that was the place aimed by the Noble Lord),
according to the Tax-office, there are only 25 houses of
he rent of 101. a year, yet the fact is, that there are 126
such houses.
At. Ashburton, the Tax-office returns gives 52 when there
are upwards of 300.
At Christchurch SO, when there are certainly 300.
At Grinstead 26, when there are perhaps 150.
At Shaftesbury 75, when there arc at least 150.
At Thirsk 75, when the real number is 110.
At Wilton 31, when there are 151.
At Wycomb 206, whenthere are 446.
And at Westbury only 14, when there are no less than 318.
Now, in Tavistock, although, according to the tax-return
the number is 281, the real nurnb-r is found to be at pre-
sent no more than 277. Let me show what might be
s rid if we had taken the Stamp•office returns as our guide.
We should be told that we had adopted estimates which
are well known to vary according to the ceplice of the
tax-collectots—(Hear)—who have each their partial
friends, with whom they make arrangements that, the
taxes upon those persons shall not be too heavy.—(Hear,
hear.) It would be said that, dhreg riling population,
which would have furnished a safe rule, and adopting
those estimat s which we ought to know, if we under-
stood the task upon which we had entered, were inaccu-
.rate and not to be relied on—(Cheers)—we had disfran-
chised Tamworth, a town having six or seven thousand
inhabitants, and presetseed Tavistock, which has no more
than two thousand six hundred and ninety-two inha-
bitants—we should be told dust we had chosen those esti-
mates, lux :use, they favoured our own partialities,
although we could know nothing of their correctness.—
(Hear.) For those reasons, Sr, we have not taken so in-
secure a basis ; which would have merle us liable to
such objections.—(Hear, hear.) It is quite clear to
one, Sir, that there are two places which, ac-
cording to the increase of their population, can.
not be comprehended in thedist on the score of population,
and yet, as we cannot make up 300 voters, to leave the
franchise with them would be giving the nomination to a
few individuals.—(Heir.) One of those places is Down-
ton—and it is but justice to Eatl Radnor to say that Cie
Noble Lord himself was the first to call our attention to
the circumstances with regard to that town.—(H ar.
hear.) Upon making the inquiry according to his sug-
gestion, we found it to be our duty to except Downton from
the rule which we had laid down, and to include it in
the Schedule of Disfranchisement. The other of those
towns—Sr. Germain's—is merely a straggling village
principally inhabited by fishermen, and comes under the
same exception as Downton.—(Cheers, and some laugh-
ter.) We shall, no doubt, be told that, in including those
two boroughs in the list of the dis'ranchised, we are in
some measure departing from our own rules.—(Cheers.)
I grant, Sir, that in these eases we have done so. But I
think it is impossible to devise any rule to which, upon
investigation, some necess try exception must tint be made.
I believe, Sir, that I have now done with the exposition of
our elan, and with the principal objections which may be
brought against it.—(Hear, from both sides.) There is,
indeed, one objection, Sir, and that a very cotnprehensive
one, to which I have not yet alluded—(A laugh)—that is,
the question which may be put to us, as to what benefit
we hope to confer upon the people by our plan of Reform.
—(Hear, bear.) We may be asked, " Will you relieve
the distresses of the people by Reform, or will you leave
them precisely as they are."—(Cheers.) But, Sir, I say
that such a question is totally irrelevant to the matter—
(Hear, hear, and much laughter on the Opposition side,)—
Sir, it might just as well be objected to toy Noble Friend's
intentions to relieve the pe ;plc by taking off the duty on
coals, " 011, what signifies your reduction? it does nothit g
whatever towards improving the Constitution."—(Laugh-
ter.) Any gontlemen might just as well arraign my Noble
Friend in this way as tell me that this Bill wou'd not im-
prove the condition or increase the comforts of the people.
Nor am I one of those who would debate the theory on
which such exceptions are founded. I am not one of these,
Sir, who would hull out, t t tie !Retitle vain hopes of imme-
diate benefit from this measure, which it coull net realise.
—(CI eets.) Neither am I one of those who maintain the
opposite theory, such as it is expressed in a well-known
couplet, which I remember to have been once quoted by
the late Lord Liverpoel--
o How small, cf all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or Kings can cause or cure."
Far am I from agreeing in the opinion which the poet
has so well expressed in those lines. When I look to one
country and another in the different epochs of their
history, I ant forced to believe that it is upon Kings and
Lords—or, upon law and Government—that the happiness
prosterity, power, and intelligence of a station di pen;l.
(Cheers). When I compare Spain (in which the traveller
is met by the stiletto in the streets, and by the carbine in
the high roads) with England, in the pocrest parts of
which the traveller passes without fear, I think the dif-
ference is occasioned by the diffeteut Governments under
which the people live.—(Cheers). Therefore, Sir, when
I propose that the people of England shall be allowed to
send into this House real representatives--(Hear)—to
deliberate respecting their wants and interests, to inquire
into their grievances, and to consider their desires, we put
into their hands that which will be the protection and the
safeguard of the Monarchy. Let what will be done, the
laws of such an assembly will not be voted by men hur-
rying from the country, almost ignorant for what purpose,
and arriving in this House at twelve o'clock at night,
in time to give a vote upon a subject of which they
have scarcely heard, and which they have never consi-
dered. In such an assembly, the representatives of the
people will consider, not with whom they are voting.
but for wlsat measure do they vote ?—(Cheers.) The
measures of such an assembly would be deliberately
weigned—would be carefully eieeigned to remedy the evils
which may have be n brought upon the country by bad
laws, and to rescue it from their operation.--(lease)
When lam told that the Government of a country does
not affect the condition of its people, I say, look to Ire-
land.—(Cheers.) What has caused the state of that country
to be such as it now is ? What, but the want of due,
kind, parental attention on the part of its Govetntnent—a
want of fellow feeling in the Legislature with the great
mass of the people?—(Cheers.) Therefore, i would
again assert, that if we identify this House with Aire
people of the three countries—England, Ireland, and Scot-
land—however slow may be our progress—however we
tnay be reproached by the factious for the tardiness of our
advance, in giving to the people the right of appointing
their representatives, we provide for carrying into effect
the acknowledged princip'es of the Constitution, preserv-
ing undiminished the prerogatives of the Crown, the au-
thority of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the
people—guarded by the faithful representatives of a flee
people, anal the loyal subjects of a generous King.—
(Much cheering.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that his object in rising at
that iaoment was to make a very few observations, and
which, in his opinion, would tend to the convenience of
all parties; and he trusted that, if he did limit himself to
those observations, he should not be precluded from enter-

1100 the 3ublect on a future occasion, on the ground of
is having sp.,i,.en before. The Noble Lord who had

le aught forweel the motion was entirely wrong in sup-
for a moment that so important a measure would
ii, permitted to go to a Committee without an anxious and
i!ngthened discussion.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
T Seble Lord had concluded his speech by saying that
le. had summed up the arguments in favour of the Bill, as
it as the main objections that bad been made to it, but
ae I Sir Robert Peel) trusted that the Noble Lord would
emit him and his friends to state for themselves their ob-
i -etions, though, it the same time, he had no further wish
o the present moment than to advance his claim to a full,
ee, and fair discussion upon the principles of the Bill, and
iieen the manner and the degree in which it involved
ell the permanent and essential interests of the country.
:le was willing to take the discussion, if it should ap-
dear to be the general sense of the House, on the se-
reading.—( Hear, hear.) In the last session of Par-
a iment leave was given to introduce the Bill without
aily division of the House. Although he did perceive
inos eesential alteration in the character of the Bill, he
ii ;old not bet recollect that there were in the present
Parliament many Meinoere who had not been present
it the discussion of the former Bill in the last Parliament.
Vita House could not but bear in mind that his Majesty'a
.ecoonovndation from the throne had produced from them
et answer that they would give an early and attentive con-
sideration to this subject. This, with the affairs of the
'reuse combined, did induce him to wave any opposition
anon the first stage of the. Bill, and permit it to be
iheinght in without any division. If this should be the
opinion of ether gentlemen, he should say that he did
'pink that to commence a debate which was not to end in
e division was a most inconvenient proceeding. He did
ant wish the House again to be betrayed into a debate of
al or seven niehis, which was to terminate without any'
aivision. He would permit the Bill to be read a first
:One, and he was even ready to forego the great tempta-
:ien which the Noble Lord had given to reply to some
parts of his speech.—(Hsar, hear.) He would forbear
answering the satirical allusions of the Noble Lord, foe
ence to las& a discussion would lead to a protraction
of a debate, which he very much wished to avoid
;,,t if he abstained from malting any reply to the
Noble Lord's taunts or satire, he trusted that no
inference would be drawn that he abandoned the right
ef answering those allusions which were applicable to
himself and to others who were united with him in his
opposition to the measure. For his purpose, he wished
but for one effectual discussion on the principles of the Bill,
ereviously to its going into the Committee • He spoke,
however, merely as an individual. He wished but for
one full and fair discussion, but he also declared, that
when that discussion did take place, nothing should pre-
vent his taking the sense of the House upon the question.
_(Cheers from the Opposition.) It was most conform-
able to the usage of Parliament that both the discussion
and the division should take place on the second reading.
He trusted that the Nettle Lord would give the new Par-
liament an opportunity of a full consideration, previous to
the division. He wanted no unnecessary delay, and when
he said this, he hoped he might appeal with confidence to
the course he ha l pursued on other occasions. He wished
for a reasonable time, and only that lie might have a free
discussion, for lie did not seek it for any unfair purpose.
Toe Noble Lord should recollect that be had made a speech
of two hours long. From this he (Sir Robert Peel) lead
a right to conclude that the Noble Lord considered that
the subject was entitled to and deserving of a full and fair
discussion, and that his Bill was to undergo a real con-
sideration. He hoped that before the House was called
to the discussion, it would, in fairness=, be put in pos-
session of the intention of his Majesty's Government
with respect to the Bills of Reform for Ireland and
Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) In his speech the Noble
Lord had said nothing of these Bills. In the last
Session he believed that the Irish Reform Bill was not
brought in until after the main discussion, but yet the
Marie was aware of what really were the intehtiera of
his Majesty's Government with respect to the Reform in
Ireland. Without insisting on all the technical details of
a 811 in a matter of such immense importance, it was
material that before the House discussed the Eoehisb Bill,
it should know what his Majesty's Ministers proposed with
respect to the Reform of the representation of Scotland.
The King's Speech had recommended the House to consi-
der the general question of Reform with reference to Ire-
land an I to Scotland, as well as to England ; and if the
liou-e proceeded to fulfil the promises they had given in
the Address, that they would proceed immediately to take
' into consideration the question of Refortn, they were
bound in compliance with that Address not certainly to
proceed with the Balls pari passu, but still to seek to
know what was to be done with respect to Ireland anti
S.oland. Ile trusted that he had fulfilled the promises
with which he had commenced addressing the House, and
had coafided himself within the proposed order of pro-
ceeding. He had only to express his hope that the Noble
L- ri! would name a day for the second reading so distant,
as to afferd a fair interval for the consideration of the Bill,
and yet not so long as to prove of any inconvenience to
pantie business. He trusted that in the interval the
Noble Lord would put the House in possession of the in-
tentions of his Majesty's Ministers with respect to Ireland
and Scotland.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was desirous of doing w'ert
was most generally convenient to the House. He intended
to bring in the Bill that night or to-morrow, and be wished
to fix the secant reading for Thursday next.—(Cries of,
" No, no no," front the Opp isition Benches.) With
reference to Scotland and Ireland, lie did not think, in
the present state of Parliamentary business, that it would
be for the convenience of Ireland to bring the Irish Bill
in
at the same time as the English. The Right lion. G.lt-
tlenaan, the Secretary for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate
of Scotland, were charged with the Bills of those coun-
tries respectively, and whenever his Majesty's Minister
were of opinion that it would be expedient to produce
those Bi ls, in course of the Session, they would give due
notice of their intentions.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was very far from wishing to coun-
teance a discussion likely to provoke any difference of opi-
nion ; all he wished fur was an amicable arrangement. He
thought that whit he had proposed was perfectly reason-
able, an I the common practice in bills of this nature. 'To
make such great and important changes in the Constitu-
tion of the country so precipitately, he thought hardly con-
sisten with al- practice, and he put it to the Noble Lord
whether he would not postpone the second reading of the
811 to Monday week. The reading, moreover, in that
ca-e might go on to its close, without the interruption of
Saturday or Sunday.--(Laughter). He would ask the
Noble Lord how it was possible to discuss the question of
English Reform without the House knowing something of
what was intended to be effected by the Irish Bill. The
Noble Lord bad said, draw what inference they might,
they must come to a conclusion that a reduction must be
made in the numberof Members in that House ; but really,
to determine the reductions for England without know-
g what was to be done in the other parts of the United
Kingdom, was not consistent with the fair usages of Par-
liamoat. He, for one, was most anxious that the Hou-e
should come to the discussion of the question without any
preliminary acerbity of feeling.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the interval between that night and Thursday next quite
sufficient, but if the Right Hon. Baronet really wished for
a longer delay, lie should not persevere in his objection.—
With respect to the Bills for Scotland and Ireland, he
thought the experience of the last Session fully proved the.
inconvenience of attempting to make them pass pan passu,
and that it was much better that the tlwee Bilis should not
be brought in together, as the Right Hon. Baronet had
said that he saw no change in the English Bill. He could
assure him that his Majesty's Ministers did not Furpose
to make any alteration in the Irish or Scotch Bills.
Mr. STANLEY sai t that with respect to the Irish Bill,
with which lie was more intimately acquainted, he should
not have the smallest objection to lay it upon the table of
the House previously to the second reading of the English
Bill. Ile hoped, however, it was not asking too much of
the spirit of compromise (ot a compromise not dishonour-
able, or entered into for any unworthy purpose), especially
as the Right Hon. Baronet had threatened the House with
a seven nights' discussion, if he begged that the Irish and
Scotch Bills might be treated in the same manner as the
English. The Irish Members must recollect that they
were treated very ill when the Irish Bill was debated.—
Upon the English Bill Irish Reform was discussed, but
when the Irish Bill was before the House, Members took
that opportunity not to discuss Irish Reform, but to make
long speeches upon Reform in general.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the speech of the Right
Hon. Gentleman answered every thing be had to desire.
lie had only to hope that the Lord Advocate of Scotland
was likewise to lay hie Bill on the table.—(A laugh.)
The SrEAKER now put the question, that leave be given
to bring in the Bill, and which was carried, one solitary
voice crying out " No."
On the motion of Mr. WYNN, the Lord Steware's
Oaths' Abolition Bill went through Committee. Repot t
this day week.
Mr. F. LEWIS brought in a B ll for regulating- the
livery of coals in the metropolir. Re id a first tim ;to he
reaLdoardseNcoUn
Ftß,ad
woad reading on Monday.
from
Mr. HUNT presented a petition
f •
useless oaths by revenue officers. -
Gd time
eTo luai‘(%l'eodnnethsde4ranbelext.a ill for l) dis.l.ing

I

lo

for Me extfost'Un of the elective franchise to all house-
holders, and for vote by ballot; and a petition from Stock-
port, fora repeal of the corn laws.

SIBTHORPE gave notice, that he should, when
the- Reform Bill was in Committee, move that all 50/.
leaseholders should be entitled to rote under the Bill,
wichout restrictions as to the period of their leases. By
the Bill 21 years was the minimum period.
'Nit-. PORTMAN would support the Gallant Member's
a eendment, the 'rather as he had intended to propose a
similar one himself. The Hon. Member presented a peti-
tion from BP.mborough, for an amendment of the laws for
the recovery of small debts.