The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-08 00:00:00

ROUSE OF LORDS, Mar 7.

Loid SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Woo!sad:
at five o'clock.

delivered
redPrinestcoonpiaestteonfdred from
egulaion the East
saffecti Inugdia Fort
St.
tse and
, George.
Lord AUCKLAND presented a petition from the mer-
chants and guild of Leith in favour of Reform.
The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from :the
county of Ross, praying that the Distillery Laws might not
be altered.
The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from a
place we could not hear the name of, against the Govern-
ment system of education in Ireland.
Lord DUNDAS presented two petitions, one from York,
and the other from Richmond, in that county, respecting
the proposed measure of Reform; but in so low a tone of
voice, and which were repeated by the Clerk of the House
so indistinctly, that we could not learn their nature.
Lord FINGAL presented a petition from Meath,
against the Tithe System.
The Duke of RUTLAND presented a petition from
Cheveley, Cambridgeshire, against the Government system
of Irish education.
Lord KINNOUL presented a petition from Stirling,
and also one from Perth, to the same effect.
The Marquess of SALISBURY presented petitions
from the ship, smack, barge, and other craft-owners, of
Rotberhitbe, Blackwall, and Greenwich, against the
Gravesend Pier Bill.
Lord STRANGFORD presented petitions from North-
fleet, Purfleet, Erith, Rochester, Chatham, and other
places, to the same effect.
Lord CARNARVON presented a petition from Mine-
head, Somersetshire, praying that that town might not be
disfranchised.

a petitionl from Greatma,Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND Presented three petitions
from
rAdy r
R, ino sfsa vLoyu rso f
pt of
ee
eßnetfeodrtuiii
Grimsby, against that town being disfranchised. The same
Noble Lord presented a petition from the wives and daugh-
ters of the freemen and tradesmen of the same place, praying
that their rights might be preserved under the present
Reform Bill.

Lord RADNOR prE,!ented pa;Kons from Kilhourbie,

' Ayrshire,' Rochdale, Morpeth, and Perth, praying their
Lordships to pass the present Reform Bill unmutilated.
The Earl of RODEN presented several petitions from
Ireland, and one from Rochfort, Essex, against the Irish
system of Education.
Lord HAREWOOD presented a petition from Ding-
wall, praying their Lordships to take into consideration
the state of the West India colonies ; also a petition from
another place, to the same effect.
Earl GREY, who, we are glad to perceive, looked in
the enjoyment of excellent health, presented petitions from
eleven different places, many of them in Scotland, in favour
of the present Reform Bill.
Lord DURHAM presented a petition from the Asso-
ciates and friends of the Northern Political Union,
declaring their satisfaction at the second reading of the
Reform Bill, and praying their Lordships to pass it un.
mutilated. The same Noble Lord presented petitions from
the Corporations of Perth and the Royal Burgh of Dysart,
to the same effect.
The Duke of SUSSEX held in his hand a petition—
Lord ELDON, interrupting the Royal Duke, wished
the House to understand that one of the petitions which
had been presented by the Noble Lord who had last occu-
pied their attention was irregular—that it could only be
received as the petition of the individual who had signed
it, and net as the petition of the corporation of Perth.
Lord HOLLAND said, of course the petition could only
be received as that of the individual who had signed
it, and if there had been any thing singular in
the presentation of that petition, he could tell
the Noble Lord of something that was much more
irregular, namely, that of a Noble Lord, after another Noble
Member of that House had made a motion, and obtained
leave to lay his petition on the table, had laid his petition
on the table, and another Noble Lord had risen to address
the House—that of a Noble Lord rising to interrupt the
Noble Member then speaking.—(Loud cheers from the
Ministerial, and cries of " No, no," from the Opposi-
tion, sides of the House.)
Lord ELDON explained.
Lord DURHAM said that the petition had been
sent to him by Mr. Bruce as the petition of the
corporation. It certainly had not the corporation
seal attached to it ; but if the Noble and Learned
Lord would examine the petitions which had come from
different corporations in the North, he would find that
the majority of them had no seal attached to them.
THE CITY OF LONDON PETITION.

The Duke of SUSSEX. lam not sorry this conver-
sation has taken place, as I am about to present a petition
of a somewhat similar character : it was delivered to me by
the Lord Mayor, and a deputation of the Common Council,
as the petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
the Common Council of the city of London ; but
is only signed by Henry Woodthorpe, clerk to the
Corporation. I believe, however•, I am correct
in presenting it as the petition of the Corpora-
tion of London. It humbly prays that the Bill
of Reform now before your Lordships may be speedily
passed into a law. I conceive it to be my duty
to accompany the presentation of this petition with
some remarks upon the subject to which it re-
lates. On the second reading of the Reform Bill I
remained silent, conceiving there were many Noble
Lords who would more strongly advocate it
than it was in my power to do. In the
course of the debate which then took place, some
doctrines were promulgated by several Noble Peers
against which I wish to take this opportunity
of entering my protest.—(Hear, hear, hear.) One
of the topics which it was endeavoured to press
upon your Lordships' attention was, that the passing
of this Bill would militate against the coronation
oath. I have now been many years in this House,
and have often heard with regret the same argument
applied to the passing of another question, now happily
settled, although a Peer then at the head of his Ma-
jesty's Councils,—(Hear, hear,)—and since dead,
admitted that the coronation oath had nothing to
do with the matter. I do not wish to be under-
stood as making any personal remarks, but on the con-
trary, as using the most general and cautious terms;
but still I must say that I do not think that argument can
be urged with any delicacy on questhins of this kind.
As I have, all my life, been the advocate of Re-
form, it cannot be matter of any surprise to
any Noble Peer who hears me, for me to declare that I
cordially subscribe to the proposed plan of his Majesty's
Ministers. I am satisfied, my Lords, that in doing
so, I take that course which is best calculated
to promote the tranquillity and welfare of the country.
I do not go the length of granting the principle of Re-
form solely ou the ground of expediency; but it cannot
be denied that this is a measure which will be
of great advantage to. the country at large.
Objections have been made to the Bill before
us on the score of its being too extensive in its
nature, and, perhaps, had it been brought forward
at an earlier period it would have been so ; but it is the
continual procrastination which this question has suffered
that now renders it necessary for us to grant more
than heretofore might have been sufficient.—(Hear.)
The step we now take is to be attributed to the delay
of carrying improvements, the object of which was
admitted to be required, more than to any other cause
whatever. In looking at the Constitution, and the prin-
ciples upon which it rests, it does strike me that
the objections which have been made by certain
Peers to this measure are founded in some degree in error.

I conceive, my Lords, that the Crown has the
power of creating Peers, but I do not conceive
that the Crown has the power of nominating any
individual to represent his Majesty in the Commons.
if the Crown, the first branch of the Legislature,
have not this power, 1' cannot conceive that the second
part of the Legislature, or any individual portion of it,
can have any title to it.—(Hear, hear.) I con-
sider that the very principles of the Constitution,
nay that specific Acts of Parliament, distinctly
prove, that it never was intended that a No-
ble Peer, or any individual whatever, should
have the power of nominating a Member of any
branch of the legislature. If such were the case, why
have Acts been passed requiring Members of the House of
Commons taking office under the Crown, to return to their
'constituents to see whether they approve of the line of
politics they are likely to adopt? Surely it was never
intended that a Member of the House of Commons taking
office under the Crown should vacate his seat in order to
ascertain whether a Peer or any other individual ap-
proved of what he had done, and would return
him again. Ido not think that the dangers, which some
think ►ikely to arise from the increase of the democratic
influence in elections, will be found to exist. In countries
where no political power has been exercised by the people,
no doubt great dangers might arise from suddenly invest.
ing them with the influence which this Bill will
give to the people of England. But in this coati-

try, such a power as is here bestowed, has been already,
to a certain degree, in the hands of the people. Our object
is to extend that power ; and as the people are deeply in-

terested in the measures which their representatives
propose, I cannot imagine that the power which it is

- - - -
proposed to vest in their hands will be misused, as some

apprehend. I shall therefore feel it my duty to support the

Reform Bill as it now stands. I consider schedules A

and B as of vital importance, and as far as say
own individual exertions go, shall give them my
complete support. I think it likewise but fair to
state to your Lordships, that the ten-pounds
clause is one which I do not think myself
justified in giving up. When we settled the lash consti-

jtuency we fixed upon a 10/. freeholder as the lowest
qualification for a country voter, and I do not think it more
than fair that we should take an English 10/. house-
holder to vote for the Members of our towns. With re-
spect to the great question of the metropolitan Members, I
for one shall give it entire support, and I shall do so upon
the principle, that if population and property jointly
give a right to have representation, London has that
right in a most pre-eminent degree. I do not, how-
ever, pretend to speak to a figure ; but if
your Lordships will look to the returns of
the assessed taxes, I think you will find that London and
its subu►bs pay one-third of the assessed taxes in England
and Wales. With respect to knowledge and intelligence,
I think there can be no doubt that the inhabitants
of the metropolis are as much entitled to increased
representation, as on account of their great wealth and popu-
lation. I have spoken calmly, and without making personal
observations, because I wished to imitate the example set
by my Noble Friend at the head of Government, who has
taken every conciliatory step it was in his power to do.
beg to move that the petition be laid upon the table.
The Marquess of SALISBURY rose to inquire by whom
the petition was signed ?
The Clerk replied that it was signed by Henry
Woodtborpe.
The Marquess of SALISBURY submitted that it could
only be received as the petition of that individual.—(Cries
of "No, no.")

Earl GREY said it was solely a question of usage.
He bad always understood that petitions from the Cori-
rnon Council had been signed in a similar manner•
to the present, and he therefore hoped that their Lord-
ships would not upon this occasion depart from the usual

practice.
Lot d ELLENBOROUGH observed, that petitions
which came from corporate bodies bad usually the peal of

- ,

1!

the corporation affixed to awl/ which was sot the Ca,c'
in this instance.
The Duke of SUSSEX said the petition purported to
come from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common
Council.
Lord TENTERDEN said that if the corporate seal was
not attached, it could not be the petition of the corporation.
The Earl of ELDON concurred in the view taken by
the Noble and Learned Lord.
The subject then dropped, and the petition was under-
stood to be received as from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen,
and Common Council.
EDINBURGH REFORM PETITION.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—My Lords, I hold
in my hand a petition, front the inhabi-
tants of Edinburgh and its vicinity, agreed to
at a public meeting assembled for that purpose. lam
bound to state, my Lords, that in order to suit the
convenience of so large a meeting the petition is
signed, as it was directed to he signed, by the Chairman,
the Secretary, and 12 gentlemen, who were chosen from
among the rest, and, therefore, it can only, I suppose, be
received as the petition of those persons; but I will ven-
ture to say, that no petition ever more deserved the
title affixed to it, as the petition of the inhabitants
of Edinburgh and its vicinity, than this does. The meet-
ing was attended by a vast concourse of the inhabitants of
that populous district, and I believe I shall underrate the
number who attended if I state them at less than 40,000,
and indeed I am informed that the number was consider-
ably greater. Men more zealous for the question which called
them together, your Lordships would be unable to find ; men
more temperate and snore peaceful in their demeanour, both
at and subsequent to the meeting, it would be impossible
to discover. There was not the slightest indication
of tumult, or even of any thing like the smallest
approach to a breach of decorum, to be observed during
the whole of the day on which the meeting took place.
I will now, my Lords, state the representation and the
prayer of the petition in which the inhabitants of the metro-
polis of Scotland are joined by almost the whole body of
their fellow-countrymen.—(Hear, bear.) They state
that they received with great satisfaction the confirmation
of the second reading of the Reform Bill by your Lord-
ships. They state their unaltered desire for the speedy
enactment of the measure into a law, and they
state that that is the only effectual mode of establishing
the Constitution on a firm and lasting basis. They
therefore pray that your Lordships will be pleased
to pass the measure without any alteration, and particu-
larly without raising the qualification for voting.—(Hear.)
The Earl of ELDON said there could be no possible
objection to receiving the petition as that of the persons
whose signatures it bore, but he thought that the best time
to speak of the system of Scotch representation would be
when the Bill for Scotland came before the House.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said be had taken some
pains to inquire respecting the meeting at which the peti-
tion was agreed to, and also those who composed it;
and from the information which he had received, he
had no doubt that there was a large assembly,
but he believed that as many persons went there from
motives of curiosity as those who went with a desire
to petition in favour of the Bill. That the meeting was
conducted with great temper and moderation, was
certainly to the credit of those who were assembled,
and he had no doubt that it was got up with
great care—(Hear, bear, from the Ministerial side)—
but as to the petition expressing the opinions of the
majority of the most respectable and intelligent classes of
Edinburgh, he begged to differ with the Noble and
Learned Lord in opinion. He referred their Lordships,
in support of his assertion, to the address which he had
the honour to present to his Majesty from Edinburgh,
signed by 16,000 or 17,000 Fersons, who represented
six or seven millions of property—(Hear, hear)—and in
the Gazette he begged to observe that he found that
petition was in a most extraordinary manner stated to be
in favour of Reform, and only about two sentences of
it were printed, and the most important parts omitted.
The Earl of CAMFERDOWN admitted the respecta-
bility of the persons who attended the meeting, at which
the address referred to by the Noble Duke was
agreed to, but he begged to call to their Lordships'
recollection that it was an exclusive meeting, and none
were.admitted but those who were of a certain opinion._
(Hear, hear, hear.) In the town of Edinburgh there
were from 140,000 to 150,000 inhabitants, and if only
about 17,000 couldise found to petition against Reform,
it was a strong and conclusive argument that the
general opinion of Edinburgh was in favour of Reform.
—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the meeting, from
which the petition presented by the Noble and Learned
Lord (Brougham) emanated, his information was very diffe-
rent from that which had been stated by the Noble Duke.
He had been informed that that meeting was attended
by 'persons of great respectability, and by persons of
high character, and speeches had been made which would
not disgrace any assembly whatever. The preses of that
meeting was known to him, and most of the inhabitants
of Edinburgh, to be a person of the highest talent
and of the highest character. The general fea-
ture of the meeting was the middle class,
and they conducted themselves in such a manner
tended'hy
able,oti
shs eNEtrooße
bsdElpeoeß,Fa
ftßrraioybeminedtweph(e)eitbcrrnhersaflaolioainmuthneefevoseponeteure•
that he was sure would put down that infamous
falsehood which had been disseminated so industriously,
that the people could not assemble together
for political purposes without confusion and disorder.
He was inclined to attach importance to anything which
fell from the Noble Duke, from the high station he oc-
cupied in that part of the country. But be was astonished
to hear it insinuated that that meeting had not been at-
aMs made by rwbaya,Rl
leadrmr
influence
corroborated
werEitit
arising
hhncni
a)eniol hn:unugedsl erdtnagaihaolthsedaet hmvdamoati
nreemnteni
cyscitewsadfi ssrvji
from
fly:: Isly-1:
which was not likely to be inaccurate, from the local situ-
oath
that
at° t sis itu-
ation
fearwhichob
feeling,e o fahsFriend
h e held.contradiction,
wasdstrictly
thel
the rank of the Noble Duke (Buccleuch,) but also from his
great respectability of character and liberality of conduct
in the country where his great possessions were situated,
he felt much gratified in his acknowledgments, not only
that this was one of the largest assemblages that had
taken place for the purpose named in the petition, but that
it was conducted throughout with a regularity, decorum,
propriety, and peacefulness, that could not be excelled
by any meeting, however small or select.—(Hear,
hear.) He would only add, with reference to the
meeting to which the Noble Duke alluded, on the other
side of the question, which led to the address which the
Noble Duke presented to his Majesty, that it was not only
one of an exclusive character, and called purposely to as-
semble those persons together who were adverse to the
Ministerial measure of Reform, but that in order to catch
votes and obtain signatures, they were obliged in their
resolutions to state, not that they were hostile to Reform
in general, but that they only opposed certain par-
ticular provisions of that Bill brought in by
Government, and even that they were ready to unite in a
pretty extensive measure, though they would not advance
so far as to accede to the Ministerial measure.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH believed there had been a
great many respectable persons present; but at the same
time he adhered to his former statements, that many had been
induced to attend it more from curiosity, than from their
approval of the principles which they were assembled' to
promulgate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from
various isodies of his Majesty's subjects. The first was
from Dalkeith, signed by 2000 persons. In allusion
to what had fallen from the Noble Duke (Burcleugh),
he admitted that many had attended the Edinburgh meet-
ing from curiosity ; but they would form a very improper
estimate of the number of those who had attended
these meetings, if they imagined that even an linen.

siderable portion had attended merely front curio-
sity, and did not feel the deepest and warmest interest
in the proceedings. The next petition the Noble Lord
_ .

presented was from Leith and Portobello; another from Fife,
and other three from different corporate bodies in that part
of the country. These petitions were couched in language
respectful to that House, and the sentiments they expresseed
were strongly in favour of the Ministerial measure of Re.
form.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition
from seventeen electors of St. Mawes, comphining of
cruel and tyrannical conduct on the part of his Grace's
(Buckingham) agent, and praying the House seriously to
pass that part of the Reform Bill which referred to St,
Mawes, and confer on that benighted village the inesti,
tnable boon of total disfranchisement.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM acknowledged' tke
courtesy shown him, in his Grace having forwarded a col:t4,
of the petition to him that evening; but said that the as-
sertions contained in the petition were wholly groundless.
REFORM BILL.
On the motion of Earl GREY the whole House re-
solved itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill.
After the LORD CHANCELLOR. had put the question,
which was carried, and left the Woolsack,
Eirl GREY rose and said—My Lords, I congratulate
your Lordships—on' this questioh, this important queS-
don, having now arrived at that stage of the
business in which the House having sanctioned the princi-
ple of the Bill, we are now to be occupied upon the details
of it. My Lords, the first motion to be made in the
Committee is, that the title of the Bill be postponed ;
the next motion to be made will be, that the

preamble of the Bill be postponed--to both of which,
as matters of course, I trust there will be no objection.
—(Hear.) We shall then come to the consideration of
the clauses ; and perhaps it may be necessary;
for me to state, in now moving that the title be pond
poned, an alteration which it is my intentie
to propose in the first clause. The first clause,
according to the natural course of the proceeding
which appears to me to be intimately connected
with the general principle of the measure, is
that of disfranchising a certain number of boroughs.
—( Hear.) In that clause it is stated, that each of
the 56 boroughs in schedule A shall cease hereafter to send
Members to Parliament: this was introduced into the
House of Commons, a Bill having before :passed in
that House, in which, after examination, fifty-six bo-
roughs had been disfranchised, when a new Bill was intro-
duced for the convenience of the proceedings which had
already been sanctioned by the House of Commons, and
received again the sanction of that House. I mean
to propose that the introduction of this number be deferred
till after the other clauses of the 'Bill have been
gone through. To this mode of proceeding,
perhaps, there may be some objection in this
House ; but I understand there are persons here who,
admitting the principle and necessity of disfranchisement,
feel that they would be embarrassed by being called
upon, in the first instance, to say that the
exact number of fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised.
In order to obviate that, it is my intention, when we
come to the first clause of the Bill, to which I trust
we shall proceed immediately, to propose that the words
fifty-six should be left out, and that the clause should
then proceed to state that each of the boroughs mentioned
in schedule A, shall cease to send Members to Parliament;
that is to say, the boroughs mentioned in it, nominating
the different boroughs to be disfranchised as we pro-
ceed. My Lords, I think this will be the more regular and
convenient mode of proceeding, and calculated to obviate ob-
jections which seem to me to be reasonably entertained to
the construction of the clause as it at present stands.
I shall be prepared to propose, as soon as we come to that
clause, the boroughs intended to be included in schedule A.
My Lords, I have now to propose, that the title of the
Bill be postponed.
Earl SHAFTESBURY having put the question, de-
clared that the contents bad it.
Earl GREY next moved that the preamble of the Bill
be postponed.
On the Chairman putting the question,
Lord L YNDHURST presented himself on the
floor of the House, and said—" My Lords, I rise for the
purpose of proposing to your Lordships that the motion
hr eecsodt no
fmde
he
Majesty's
and
j esty suggested
Government by the
should No
bbe Ice Er o
ne
ea
del.d at the
fa r t
her
than he has stated. My Lords, I rise for the purpose of
proposing that the consideration of the question should
be altogether postponed,—(Hear, hear,)—and I beg leave
to state to your Lordships, that if I should
succeed in prevailing upon your Lordships to post-
pone the consideration of this clause, my propo-
sition is to be followed up with another, which will
be that the clause that immediately follows it should
be postponed also.—(Laughter.) My Lords, my inten-
tion in doing this is simply for the purpose of submitting
to the House the propriety of considering those
clauses by which certain places are to be allowed
the privilege of sending Members to Parliament;
that that part of the Bill should be considered and de-
termined, and resolved upon before we proceed to
consider the clause of disfranchisement.—(Hear, hear.)
Now before I proceed to state to your Lordships the
ground on which I submit this proposition to you, I than
for a moment call your attention to the position, in
which we now stand. Your Lordships have decided,
and to that decision I am bound to defer, that the Bill
should be read a second time, and that it should
be referred to the consideration of this Committee.
The question is, what is the point that you have de-
cided by this decision ?—(Hear.) You have decided
upon the principle of the Bill with reference to an
inquiry in the Committee. My Lords, a question might
arise as to what can properly and fairly be considered as
the principle of this Bill. It might have been a subject of
much consideration, of much discussion, of much argument;
but I frankly state to your Lordships, that
having, upon the motion for the second read-
ing of this Bill, attended minutely to the pro-
gress of the debate, I am bound in candour to
state that I consider that those Noble Lords who voted
for the second reading of the Bill, intended thereby to
establish the principle of enfranchisement,—( Hear,
and .fairly;
samndbotohanta
to
hteaeatree x)t—theanttshitin
your.principle
dr isoghfhi
pti os ffriavnocthi
admitge .mi
te nflut.
s
lly
and in the consideration of this question in the Committee,
I shall act uniformly and, constantly upon that assumption.
My Lords, although you have, by deciding upon the second
reading of this Bill, acknowledged the principles
I have stated, it is equally clear you have
not in the slightest degree fettered us as to the
extent to which those principles are to be carried. We
come, therefore to the consideration of enfranchisement,
of disfranchisement, and of the important question with
respect
t otheextensi
extension of
f elective franchise,
danceheiision._
se,entir(elffe
entirely free,
ree,
unfettered, and unlimited
But your Lordships will allow me to state, _that
after all that has passed on this important subject
iti
nnh
ga t dpiaffse,eredotoodteboaftesdonorsf
oPnartlhiaemesnuthTeeaLterlooahl-1
expectations with respect to the result of 'this tto the present state of the country and at its
the
enis
pro-
ceeding, I am bound to state, that after the best
consideration I have been able to give to this 'most im-
portant question, and after consulting much with others
indisposed,oeeasio
n w i norhe do
indisposed,l bel thoseto present.
with
to your consideration, some alterations which, if they
shphunomld it,
a l I
ice t am
on
adoptedhos
ulti-
mately be of such a character as to satisfy, I will not
whom
by your Lordships, will ti
say the Radical Relimmers of the country, but all the
intelligent Reformers ; and without going into details at pre-
sent, I think when they are stated, they will satisfy the
Noble Lords themselves from whom this Bill originated..
With respect to the manner and tone in which this ini3
pas those Noble Lords with whom he acted on the occa-
sion was concerned,
as m eu e w
and
a he
eo bwe s
s suconsidered,reth as fa
at he might
r as
dh issm sfealri
were concerned, it would be a manner and tone of
temper, candour, and conciliation. He was persuaded
that this tone and manner would be met by a corre-
spondent tone and manner on the other side of the House.
He relied on this on the part of the Noble Earl, from hie
knowledge of that Noble Earl's general character. It
might be said in that House, as it had been said out of
that House, that those who opposed the Bill were actua-
ted by a spirit of personality and party. For himself he
disclaimed being actuated by any such spirit. Indepen-
dently of this question, the Noble Lords on his side of
the House had, from time to time, felt it their duty to com-
ment on other measures of his Majesty's Government du-
ring the period at which the Noble Earl opposite bad
been at the head of that Government But he would con-
fidently say, from his knowledge of those Noblelords,
that at no period of the history of the country during the
last hundred years, had an opposition to Government
been carried on less in the spirit of party and personal
feeling.—(A loud laugh, and cries of Hear, hear.) He
would confidently say, from his own knowledge, that
there never had been an opposition to Government pos-
sessing less of the concert and co-operation which
usually characterized a party.--(A laugh.) With respect to
the particular measure under their Lordships4considera-
tion, the opposition to it had been occasioned by no party
or personal feeling. He—and the observation was equally
applicable to many other of their Lordships had opposed
the principle of the Bill, because, having endeavoured to
inform his mind upon the subject, he had arrived at the
conviction, that if the Bill were passed in the shape in
which it had been sent up by the House of Commons, the
effect would be the destruction of the just rights and au-
thority of the House of Lords and of the Crown. That
was his conscientious opinion; and be'would dare any man 1.
to say that it was not so. Such being the case, what could ''''
he do but oppose the Bill ? How could he act otherwise ?
It was on his thorough conviction of, the mischievous ef-
fects which would result from the adoption of the measure.
What he now desired was the postponement of the first
and second, or disfranchising clauses, until after their Lord-
ships had considered the enfranchising clauses, conferripg
the right of representation on places by which it had not
hitherto been enjoyed. He begged that he might not be
misapprehended. What be proposed was simply the
postponement of the clauses... His proposition .did not
involve any prejudgment of the question. If he might
use the language of his profession, he simply desired
to postpone the clauses " without prejudice" to their
being subsequently and fully considered. He would
now briefly state to their Lordships the grounds on
which he proposed this postponement. He considered
that a Bill of this description ought to be essentially a Bill ,
of enfranchisment. That doctrine he had always held.
When he first addressed their Lordships on the subject he
had said ao, and had objected to the Bill because it bore •
the appearance of a. Bill of disfranchisement instead of
enfranchisement. The Bill ought to lie a Bill of enfran-
chisement ; and disfranchisement ought to be only the
consequence of that enfranchisement. He knew no other
principle on which such aBM ought to proceed. If it
were considered necessary for the benefit of the State to
enfranchise a great many large towns, it might be consi.

derc-d necessary to disfranchise a number of other places.
On that point he would give no opinion. But he confi
dently maintained that the enfranchisement must be the
measure of disfranchisement. The particular cases of
disfranchisement must be decided on their merits, and
after inquiry ; but with reference to the general question,
the question of disfranchisement must depend on the
necessity created by enfranchisement. They must know
the extent of the enfranchisement before they could
proceed with propriety to consider the extent of the
disfranchisement. The amendment, therefore, which
the Noble Earl had signified his intention of moving
in the first clause, although a very important amend-
ment, did not meet the object which he (Lord
Lyndhurst) had in view. The amendment was to
leave out the words " fifty-six." thereby substituting sim-
ply the boroughs specified in the schedule. But that was
to' disfranchise before they enfranchised. (Earl Grey said
something across the table, which was not audible below
the Bar.) If the Noble Earl did not mean to propose the
immediate adoption of the clause, he (Lord Lyndhurst)
would not 'mess his proposition. If the Noble Earl, after
the omission of the words " fifty-six" in the clause, did
not mean to move that the clause be embodied in the Bill,
he (Lord Lyndhurst) would not persevere in his proposi-
tion. But as that did not appear to be the Noble Earl's
intention; he (Lord Lyndhurst) must proceed. The
course which he recommended was far more gracious than
the course recommended by the Noble Earl. The course
which he recommended was to begin by enfranchising, to
begin by conferring rights and privileges, to begin by
granting boons and favours; whereas the course reco,m-
mended by the Noble Earl was to begin by disfranchising to
begin by depriving a portion of the community of the rights
and privileges which they at present enjoyed.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) The power of returning Membe rs to
the Commons House of Parliament was admitted in
the preamble of the Bill to be a right and a privilege.
But it was not in the preamble of the Bill alone that it
was described. One of the most eminent lawyers that
had ever lived—a Whig too in politica--he meant Lord
Chief Justice Holt, had termed the power of returning
Members to the Commons House of Parliament " a tran-
scendent privilege ;" and all the other eminent men who
had adorned that and the other House of Parliament down
to the present time, had been of the same opinion. There
was another consideration which pressed upon his mind,
and which he begged leave to state to their Lordships. If
the/ adopted the course which he recommended, they
would disfranchise as a matter of necessity. If they
adopted the course recommended by the Noble Lords op-
posite; they would disfranchise certain boroughs because
they were spore in the Constitution—they would abate
them as nuisances.—(Loud cries of Hear.) Now would
any Noble Lard having the character of a Statesman say
that the course which be (Lord Lyndhurst) recom-
mended was not the more conciliatory and healing?
His Lordship proceeded to observe, in allusion to the lan-
guage held out of doors, that it was said, by what obli-
gation are we bound to pay that debt which has accu-
mulated by the corruption of the House of Com-
mons? He was not dealing in that which was visionary.
He would take, as an example, the language of the person
who moved the first resolution at the meeting from which
the petition presented to-night came. The language
of that person was as follows :—" Let us get
our Reformed Parliament, our House of Delegates—
I thank the Noble Duke for teaching me that word—
and we_shall soon manage our delegation as we think
proper. As to the puny affair, speaking of the
eight hundred millions of pounds of debt, it must be
blotted out. Further be says, Who borrowed the money,
and for what ? Why, to put down Reform at home,
and support tyranny abroad. He was not for ruining the
fundholders, but, in his opinion, a composition of that
debt would be irresistible in a Reformed Parliament." He
(Lord Lyndhurst) stated this as an example, and by no mens
an exaggerated one, but one that might now be seen
in every Paper that issued from the press. The plan that he
recommended to their Lordships was, that enfranchisement
should go first, and let the disfranchisement follow. He
would take upon himself to say, that without a sin-
gle exception, -in the plans of Reform proposed by all Re-
formers, from the time of Chatham down to the present,
disfranchisement formed no part. The first who pro-
posed n plan of Reform was Lord Chatham, full
seventy years since ; he proposed a plan of Reform,
but disfranchisement formed no part of it. In his
plan he proposed to add 100 Members to the Commons;
disfranchisement formed no part of that plan. The next in
order was the measure proposed by Pitt in 1783. Pursuing
the plan followed by his father, he also proposed to
add 160 Members to the Commons. There was to be no
disfranchisement, except that if it was proved that any
borough' by corruption should be declared by the Com-
mons no longer worthy to keep its franchise, the repre-
sentation of such franchise should be thrown_ into the
adjoining hundred.—(Hear.) Then folioseid his plan
of 1785. He then proposed to add '72 Members to the
House of Commons; enfranchisement was still the basis of
the measure ; disfranchisement was to follow, but it was to
be from time to time, and was secondary to the other lam-
' sure, not, as in this Bill, coming first, but to follow enfran-
chisement. The next in order was the plan proposed by Mr.
Flood; he, also following the footsteps of his pre-
decessors, proposed to add one hundred members
to the Commons, but on a different qualification.
Then followed the plan of 1797, the plan proposed
hy.the Noble Earl himself. That measure proposed to
increase the county Members by 100 ; the remain-
ing Members to be chosen by districts. This brought
gran to -the plan proposed by the Noble Lord who
conducted this Bill in the other House of Parliament. That
Noble Lord proposed his plan in four resolutions, the
second of which was as to the expediency of giving
representatives to large towns. And the third was
for a Committee to inquire whether the proposed
increase would be found inconvenient; but here there was
no disfranchisement. That Noble Lord, of whom
respect, he spoke with the greatest
had not early
abandoned those opinions, for little less than two years ago
be had again proposed the same plan. Hemerely
spt is of this to make out a case to show that the most
eminent Reformers had all thought that if there should be
disfranchisement at all, it was to follow, and be dependent
upon enfranchisement. But he had yet another
autho-
rity to bear him out in his proposition, and he appealed to
the Noble Lord on the woolsack, whether in any plan
which he had entertained from time to time, disfran-
chisement formed a part. During the discussions that had
taken place on this Bill, it bad been put forth,
that the Crown bad both the power of enfranchising
and disfranchising. But he would contend that the Crown
never had the power or right of disfranchisement. It
might have the power to enfranchise, but it was a settled
maxim of the Constitution that it had no power to
disfranchise. It, therefore, appeared to him that they now
should follow the spirit of the old Constitution, and
disfranchise only when necessity was apparent.
In the reign of Elward VI. Government withheld the
writs from four boroughs, who complained to the
Commons that their writs had been refused to them.
—(Hear.) Their petitions were referred 'to a Committee
of the House, of which it was only necessary for him to
• say that- Selden and Sir Edward Coke were Members.
That-Committee reported that the boroughs had a right to
writs, and that the Crown could not withhold them.
The question was referred to the Chief-Justice, and the
Attorney-General was directed to oppose it. There
the question was decided as by the, Committee,
and it was ultimately sustained by the House.
His proposition, then, was, to postpone this clause till they
had agreed upon the amount of enfrachisement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the Noble
Baron opposite had heard distinctly what had fallen from
his Noble Friend, he would not have the slightest doubt
that it was his Noble Friend's intention, after omitting
that part of the clause by which they would pledge them-
selves to the disfranchisement of 56 boroughs, to add some
words, which would call upon them to consider, one after
the other, 'the various boroughs of which schedule A was
to be composed. He might well state that he bad not
beard his Noble Friend ; for if he had done so, be must
have heard him give most explicit notice that his view was,
at the end of that clause, to move the addition of every one
of the 56 boroughs which then composed schedule A.
That proposition was only submitted to their Lordships as
a convenience in point of form, and not with the.slightest
intention of deviating from the principles of that clause, or
drawing back from it either in form, time, or substance.—
(Cheers.) That the proposition of his Noble Friend
Would be convenient, must be evident to every Noble
Lord, because it would enable them, without committing
• . _ themselves to that or any particular number, to exercise
their judgment after due discretion on every one of the
boroughs in schedule A, as they should successively be
brought under their notice. But that the alteration
pro-
posed by Lis Noble Friend, in leaving out the words
"that 'would be followed by another alteration
to effect, was most distinctly and explicitly stated.
His Noble and Learned Friend opposite had disclaimed
all party spirit and factious opposition, and had
. declared his intention of viewingthe details of the
fill in accordance with its principles. Now he was quite
ready to give his Noble and Learned Friend credit for all
the impartia
ality,id cla candour, and absence of party feeling,
which he had laim te ;"though, if he judged from the
conduct of those with whom he had acted during the whole
of the present session as a proof of a total absence of all
Party or factious feeling, he (the Lord Chancellor) should
not be disposed to give him that implicit credit which h

claimed. Tie would not dilate on these discussions carrie.i
on with so much spirit at the latter part of the session.
those unfactious, those most candid debates which touls
place on the measure introduced by his Majesty's Govern-
ment, for establishing an effective system of national edu-
cation in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Nor would he dilate
upon the various castes and shades of political opinion,
professed by those who, though never united before,
united for the purpose of showing their good will towards
bis Majesty's Government.—(Loud cheers.) He would
not dwell upon these instances of their candour and im-
partiality, nor would he make the conduct of those Noble
Lords at the close of the session the measure of their can-
dour and impartiality on the present occasion. He would
not treat the proposition of his Noble and Learned Friend
as a mere question of order, or consider any vote which
might be come to upon it otherwise than as an expression of
the feeling of the House on that most important part of the
Bill—the principle of disfranchisement itself.—(Cheer..,
and cries of " No, no," from the Opposition benches.)
If his Noble and Learned Friend, instead of wrapping
himself up in generals, had stated that he agreed to a large
measure of Reform—had stated that he agreed to schedule
A, or something to a similar extent, but that he had ra
ther schedules C or D should be first gone into, then in-
deed he might be disposed to entertain his proposition.
But, so far from speaking of disfranchisement in any defi-
nite terms, so as to enable his Majesty's Government to
judge of the extent to which he and those who supported
him were ready to go, or the time when they would be
prepared to come to a decision upon that point—the object
of his Noble and Learned Friend (or, at least, if that were
not his object, his proposition had that tendency) was, to
keep that main part of the Bill in its present unsettled
state, or else to substitute something entirely new, leaving
them in the dark as to what was to be done. His Noble
and Learned Friend had laid considerable stress on the
observation made by certain individuals, under circum-
stances of particular excitement. He had even conde-
scended to read to the House a speech made by an indi-
vidual at the meeting of one of the Northern Political
Unions. Now, be did not think it well to dwell on what
individuals might say under such circumstances. If they
were to ransack up any meeting, on any occasion, they
could almost invariably pick out something to which men
in the exercise of calm discretion might object. He did
not think it fair to apply such a rule to the proceedings
of, these meetings. No meeting could claim exemption ;
no, not even the highest and most constitutional assembly
in the land. He had heard, he would not say in that
House, but he had heard in the Commons' House
of Parliament, observations just as reprehensible as those
to which his Noble and Learned Friend had referred. He
had heard observations made, nay resolutions voted, to
which, in point of absurdity, not only no resolution passed
at that meeting could come up, but even exceeding any-
thing which bad been said by the wildest speakers. Had
not Members of the House of Commons actually proceeded
to the extremity of voting, in spite of the evidence of
their senses, that a one-pound note and one shilling was
equal in value to one guinea in gold, far the express pur-
pose of making it a misdemeanour to give more than
twenty-one shillings for a guinea, at a time when a guinea
was worth and invariably sold for twenty-eight shillings?—
(Loud cheers.) He mentioned this circumstance only to
show how unsafe it was for his Noble and Learned Friend
to-come to any conclusion upon such grounds. The objects
of the various motions made at different times by various
friends of Parliamentary Reform had been brought under
their Lordships' notice, and in those instances certainly en-
franchisement was the main object. Yet there was one
great measure of Parliamentary Reform which had not
been alluded to, and in which the main, the sole principle,
was disfranchisement, and not enfranchisement. He re-
ferred to the union with Ireland, in which out of three
hundred Members, two hundred were disfranchised. Still
he would admit, generally speaking, that those measures
began with enfranchisement. His own authority had been
quoted; but, he would ask, did two-and-twenty years
make no difference ? Did two-and-twenty years produce
no important changes in the circumstances of the nation,
and in the character and condition of the people ? He
had known the lapse of two-and-twenty weeks effect
a most important change in the opinions, not of a
few, but of a majority of the Members of that
House, on a question of constitutional policy of the most
vital character. The circumstances which had occurred
in the course of two-and-twenty weeks were of such a
nature as to withdraw from the ranks of the opponents of
that measure a large proportion of those who formerly
voted against it, and to enrol them under the banners of
its friends and supporters.—(Hear, hear.) Did be men-
tion this in desparagement of those individuals, his Noble
and Learned Friend among the rest? On the
.contrary,
he invoked their high authority—as his Noble and Learned
Friend opposite had said of himself—to prove that states-
men ought to act according to the circumstances of the
times in which they were placed.--(Cheers.) The
principle of this Bill was, in the first Instance, the ex•
pediency of taking away the power of voting for the repre-
sentation in Parliament from inconsiderable places. This
was the foundation and basis of the Bill—then the grant
of representation to towns which had risen to importance
—the addition to the knights of the shire—and the dimi-
nution of the expence of elections; but a more proud.
netet feature was, the taking away those parts of our
Parliamentary system, the abuse of which had been found
to be intolerable. It had been said by his Noble and
Learned Friend, that the House ought to begin at what he
considered to be the right end ; and as soon as they had
settled how many boroughs they would enfranchise, they
could then settle how many they would disfranchise, to
make up the number. This left them in uncer-
tainty as to the main and fundamental part of
the measure; for which reason he could not
agree to it. By whom was this props, ition supported ?
Did that indicate that it was a mere question of form?
Who would vote with the Noble Baron on his motion ?
He did not doubt that all persons who were against the
Bill for any reason, that all who had any fundamental ob-
jection to the measure would vote with his Noble and
Learned Friend. It was impossible for any person who
did not shut his eyes to what was going on around him,
not to see that this motion was—he would not say devised
by his Noble and Learned Friend for the purpose of catch-
ing the votes of all who were against the Bill, for any
essential reason, or whOliad objections to particular parts—
but if not devised for that purpose, such at least was its
tendency. From whom, too, did this motion come ? From
his Noble and Learned Friend, who had avowed his open
hostility to the measure—who had declared it to be in vio-
lation of the Constitution—(Cheers from the Opposition)—
who had maintained that it would destroy the balance
of power between the three estates—(renetted cheers from
the Opposition Benches)—and who had opposed its se-
cond reading. When he found that this proposition caine
from him—if they were to admit of the postponement of the
question of disfranchisement to that of enfranchisement, he
must confess that his hopes of carrying schedule A would
be but very feeble. If those who oppose schedule A alto-
gether succeeded in postponing it till another of those
schedules had been discussed, he well knew how it would
fare with schedule A. If his Noble Friend intended to
raise no objection either to the principle of schedule A or
to its amount, but only to some of its details, why should
he seek to postpone the clause, if it were ultimately to be
carried substantially ?—(Cheers.) His Noble and Learned
Friend was not entitled to draw any argument from the
various motions on the subject of Parliamentary Reform
to which be had referred. On those occasions the pro-
position had been made for the first time; on the present
occasion this measure had :undergone full discussion for

three several sessions. His Noble and Learned Friend
and his supporters were bound to show why this alteration
should be made ; he had heard no such reason to satisfy
his mind, and he should therefore give it his strongest and
most decided opposition.—(Loud cheers. )
Lord HARROWBY did not think it would be at all
difficult to answer the no doubt very able speech
which their Lordships had just bend from the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, because
he had not stated any argument against the proposition
which had been made by the Noble and Learned
Lord near him (Lord Lyndhurst). The principal
reason of his rising then to address the House
was, to state that those who would now postpone
this clause, did not object is the slightest degree, either to
the object of the clause itself, or even to the extent to
which it went, if after full consideration the House should
agree to it. He would not now detain their Lordships by
explaining his sentiments upon this subject. He had ex-
pressly stated, on the very first occasion, when it had come
before their Lordships, and he had repeated it almost
ad nauseam, that he for one was not abandoning the
opinion that the decried boroughs bad been and might be
of great advantage; but yet, under present circumstances,
it had become expedient, for the purpose of se-
curing that satisfaction in the Government of the
country, without which it was impossible to exercise its
functions for the benefit of the people, that these o,lso-
roughs to a certain extent should be disfran-
chised.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He was prepared, too,
to follow the principle of enfranchisement to a liberal
extent. He was happy that the Noble Earl had agreed to
postpone the consideration of the number 56; but he would
ask where the difference was between voting 56 at once, and
56 one by one? If they were to go on one by one, where
were they to stop ? How did they know what the num-
ber was, which, on a consideration of the whole measure,
it might be desirable, expedient, or necessary to disfran-
chise? lie was perfectly ready to go to say coneiderable

tent of disfranchisement, provided a Viettll of the re-
uhainder of the Bill showed it to be necessary. Then
even an addition to the number of 56 would not, if it
was sanctioned by the consideration of the other parts
of the Bill, deprive the clause of his support. The Noble
and Learned Lord seemed to consider that there was
a great objection attached to this proposition arising
from the quarter in which it had originated.
w unswayed
He trusted that the debates on this important question
Would be free from all party feeling whatsoever, and
that the consideration of their Lordships,ou
by any party bias, would be directed to the adjustment of
this question, which, till it was settled, would continue
to paralyse in all departments every effort of the country.
Lord BEXLEY supported the amendment, because it
might be a question hereafter whether any positive dis
franchisement would be at all necessary, and whether,
by an adjustment and blending of boroughs, they
might not be able sufficiently to retrench the Members of
the House of Commons to make room for the Member.
they might think it necessary to give to new Boroughs.
The Earl of RADNOR said, that one suspicious cir-
cumstance about this amendment was, that it was
advocated by all those who were the opponents of
the Bill altogether. It was the extent of the dis-
franchisement of nomination boroughs, which had at
once obtained the approbation of the people in favolir of the
Bill, and he should be loath to postpone proceeding at
once to cut off those boroughs. The people particu-
larly of some of our large towns had become more
in favour of the disfranchising clause than even
those of Manchester had become, particularly so since
the establishment of the rail-road there had made
them better acquainted with the borough of Newton,
which lay in the line of that road. When they saw so
poor a place returning two Members to Parliament,
whilst their own opulent and populous towns returned
none, was it not natural that they should desire its dis-
franchisement ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON—NobIe Lords opposite
proceeded upon the notion that this amendment was advo-
cated by Noble Lords on his side of the House solely be-
cause they were enemies of the Bill, and the Noble and
Learned Lord opposite seemed to say that they acted
also from party motives.—( Hear.) He must say, that if ever
any set of men acted against the Government without
party motives, it was himself and the Noble Lords with
whom he had had the honour of acting, and this had been so
far acknowledged, that' he bad himself received credit
for supporting the Government. -He was an enemy of the
Bill, and his opinion was, that, do what they might
with it, it would never be anything but an evil to the
country. After they had amended it as far as they could
hope to amend it, it would still hang a threatening
danger over the country without conferring upon the Go-
vernment any means of averting it.—(Hear, hear.)
But when once the Bill had been read a second time,
when once the majority of the House had agreed to its
principle, he considered it his duty as an honest Member
of Parliament, to do Lis best to consider its details,
and make it such a measure as it would be fit for the House
to.pass and the Government to agree to. Neither the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite, nor the Noble Earl at
the head of the Government, had said one word in answer
to the arguments of his Noble and Learned Friend, who
showed that according to precedent, according to analogy of
law, and according to all the principles of the Constitution,
the first point be considered in the Bill was en-
franchisement, and that after that they would consider
whether disfranchisement was or was not to follow.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord,
great lawyer as be was, and able as he was to give
an answer when he had ground to stand upon, had
not been able to answer this argument, because it
was unanswerable. That was the ground upon which
he and others concurred in this proposal, and not with
any dirty view, for so he must call it, to destroy
the Bill by a side-wind. Would they disfranchise
first fifty-six, and then thirty boroughs, without knowing
what was to be the extent of enfranchisement, or any of
tl.e details of the Bill ? And why were they to do so ?
Because certain persons in this country chose to call them
rotten and nomination boroughs. But when they talked of
rotten and nomination boroughs, be begged to ask whe-
ther none would remain after passing this Bill ? No doubt
there would—nay, more, a nomination borough would ac-
tually be create.] by the Bill.
Lord HOLLAND said that he was anxious to assign
a few of the many reasons which induced him to
give his vote against the measure of the Noble and
Learned Lord opposite. If the motion were unfortu-
nately adopted, it would entirely and completely do
away with that great good which they hod lately
effected by passing the second reading of the Bill. This
motion, too, was utterly inconsi,tent with the decisions
to which they had already come. He considered
it irreconcilable with all reasonable and constitutional
principle, and fraught with the greatest evils, in disap-
pointing the expectation of the Commons of this country—
of the people of this country. He imputed no
motives to any man, nor did he mean to say
that it was the intention of the Noble and
Learned Lord who made the motion, or of the
Noble Duke who supported it, to act contrary
to the principle of the Bill ; but he would say that
the postponement of the disfranchising clause was
tantamount to voting against the principle of the Bill.
setting aside all prudential motives, he would ask their
Lordships to look at what the framers of the Bill con-
sidered to he its principle. The Noble and Learned Lord
had asserted that his motion was in concurrence with the
principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was, how-
ever, that against which the Learned Lord had directed the
whole of his argument. Let disfranchisement (said the
Noble and Learned Lord) be the consequence of enfran-
chisement, and then you will be acting purely according to
analogy and precedent. What precedents ? Why, the
precedents which the Noble and Learned Lord and his
party rejected.—(Cheers.) He (Lord Holland) coa-
-1 tended, however, that the postponement of the disfran-
-chisement was contrary to principle, anti at the same time
calculated to defeat altogether the just expectations of the
people, to destroy twat which rendered it palatable, and
which so completely answered one of the two magnificent
objects effected by the introduction of the Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) One of these magnificent objects—for so he would
call them—was to reconcile the people to their ancient
and truly noble Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) The other
object was, to improve and revive the ancient principle
and practices of that Constitution—(Hear, bear)—to place
it in that situation which had been considered the true
conservative by men as wise (and he did not mean to deny
the wisdom or the ability of the Noble Lords opposite),
but by men as able, and as wise, and as patriotic, as any of
those who professed themselves anxious to preserve its
purity.—(Hear hear.) He was not to look at the mo

tion, but at the effect of the motion ; and although the
Noble Lord denied that he intended to defeat the principle
of the Bill—and he admitted that the Noble Lord was in-
capable of asserting that which he did not believe—still the
Noble and Learned Lord had his prtjudices, and the Noble
and Learned Lord must know how difficult it was to over-
come them, and how differently he might, under these pre-
judices, look at his words and actions compared with
those opposed to him. The Noble and Learned Lord said
that his object was to give effect to the principles of the
Bill ; but then the Noble and Learned Lord detested the
Bill. Now, he would ask the Noble Lord whether, when he
wished to carry any object, he would consult a person who
detested that object, and ask him what was to be done ?
The principles of the Bill were three, enfranchisement,
disfranchisement, and extension of the elective suffrage.
He believed the first to be, the disfranchisement,
the most important of the three. He be-
lieved it the most important of all. He did not
mean to disparage the importance of the others, and Noble
Lords would find by his vote, and the humble assistance
he could give to the Bill, that he was as stanch a friend
to it as any man in the country; but if the disfranchising
clause was taken away, their Lordships would embitter the
boon given to the country—(Hear, hear, hear)—and do
vast injury to the Bill. What he had heard to-
night had produced the greatest surprise in his mind.
Two points had been urged as of great importance; that
of disfranchising being calculated to produce dreadful evil,
and next that certain nomination boroughs were calcu-
lated to afford great advantage. Then there bad been an
ingenious argument to prove how they operated, all founded
on the most visionary theory and speculation, that ever
entered into men's minds, and directly contrary to
fact and the judgment of every great man who had
considered the subject. With respect to the alleged
evil which was to be apprehended from the dis-
franchising clause, the Noble and Learned Lord opposite
ought to recollect that he himself bad assisted in bringing
forward a measure disfranchising many thousands more
than this Bill would disfranchise, and without giving ene-
franchisment at all—he meant as regarded the forty-
shilling freeholders of Ireland. The Noble Duke
himself on that occasion had said—After all, you
may speak of those persons, or the right of taking
away their franchises ; but they are so situated, from the
lowness of their circumstances, that they cannot exercise
that function, but in dependence on others, which is not
consistent with the Constitution. Noble Lords ought to
apply that maxim to certain rotten boroughs, and then'
they might ask, were the forty-shilling freeholders
to be deprived of the right of voting, because
of their dependence on certain landlords ? And the fran-
chise of the inhabitants of St. Mawes was not to be re-
moved, because, forsooth, the borough belonged to some

great Lord ! While on this part of the subject, he mud
say, that he thought the House of Peers had, in the course
of their discussions, been very hardly treated, both by the
friends and the opponents of the Bill, when they alluded to
the effect which the Bill was likely to have on the influ-
ence of the Peerage. How ?he would ask. In private
lie sometimes heard an answer to that question ; in public,
never; and of this he was quite certain, that if on any
former occasion the language he heard lately had been
used in that House, those who uttered it would have been
called to order, or run a good chance of being sent to the
Tower. He knew of no connexion between the House of
Lords and the representation of the House of Commons.
He acknowledged none. The possession of borough influ-
ence might undoubtedly have had its effect on the eleva-
tions to that House, and it was, perhaps, one of the great-
est evils of the system, that as his Noble Friend (Earl
Grey) had eloquently expressed it, " the corruption of the
borough was frequently the generation of the Peer." But
did those who talked of the necessity of upholding the
House of Peers through its influence in the Commons
mean to contend that Aristocracy_ was to be engendered by
the dirt and filth of rotten boroughs ? The principles of this
Bill were established by the House of Commons, and con-
sisted of those that he had named; but one of its
great principles was, the order in which those principles
stood—disfranchisement being the first. Allusion had
been made to Mr. Pitt, and those opposed to the Bill had
endeavoured to make out that this was a measure opposed
to his opinions, although in that they had completely
failed. Could their Lordships take on themselves to say,
that this was a motion even decorous to the House of Com-
mons? Their Lordships ought to recollect that this parti-
cular part of the Bill went to purify the representation of
the people—to get rid of the filth and odour under
which they had suffered a very considerable time.—
(Hear, hear.) This was language that had been
used on former occasions. And yet was it to be said
this measure was now to be thrown out—a measure
which bad twice passed the House of Commons,
and the principle of which bad once received their
Lordships' sanction ?--a measure necessary to be carried
in a Paliamentary way—a pretty strong proof against the
statement of a Noble Lord who bad called this a revo-
lutionary Ball. A Revolutionary Bill ! Did their Lord-
ships ever hear of a revolution after two years' considera-
tion ?—(Hear, bear.) A Revolutionary Bill, under con.
sideration in a Committee !—(Hear.) Why, when he
heard such language as this, he thought he had been
transported to Mr. Irving's, and was bearing some
incoherent harangue there.—(Loud Laughing.) This
Bill, as he had stated, had been brought up after
the deliberate consideration of two Parliaments—two
Houses of Commons, and affected their own privileges,
their own existence, their own purity. And, surely, it
could not even be seemly to the Commons to break in
on such a measure i❑ this way by attacking in Com-
mittee its first and one of its main principles.--(Hear.)
He could easily conceive men of high honour declaring
that they would not do that which they thought essen-
tially wrong, even although it might be coincided in by
the House of Commons. That might be a reason
for their voting against the principle of the second
reading ; but after they had sanctioned the principle—
after they had sanctioned the view taken of it by
the House of Commons, he asked whether they would re-
fuse to give it that due consideration in Committee which
the people and the House of Commons expected? The whole
argument of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst)
was against the principle of disfranchisement. Would
they think that the postponement of the clause, and
taking disfranchisement after enfranchisement would
satisfy the people ? He thought it would have
a contrary effect. The effect of the Noble Lord's
argument was to prevent any disfranchisement, and he
had no doubt that the greater number of those who
were for: ,postponing the clause, did so because
they either thought they would thereby get rid
of disfranchisement, or they would maim and mutilate
the Bill. They had not certainly avowed that to be their
intention, but that such was tile secret of their heart, and
that they were going a right way about it, there
could be no doubt.—(Hear, hear, hear.) That was
clearly the effect and tendency of the present motion, and
although he would acquit Noble Lords of endeavouring to
defeat the Bill by any under-handed or dirty way, still he
declared that, dirty or clean, that was the effect of the
motion, and therefore he would give it his most decided
opposition.—(Hear, hear.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE rose, but from the low
tone in which he spoke we could only catch a few sen-
tences of his speech. We understood him to say
that he had voted against the Bill, and would
still continue to vote against it, because he believed
it to be a revolutionary measure. In no part of it
'Jo* lie endeavour to effect any alteration whatever ; on
the contrary, he would endeavour to crush every clause of it.
He was of opinion from the first that the Bill would not
only be defeated, but that his Majesty's Ministers would
considerit useless again to press it. He was aware what
would be said of him, in thus declaring his opinions, but he
could not help it, for he, gave his vote honestly and
consistently.—(Hear.) He would have no objection
to extending the right of representation to large and popu-
lous towns; but it was to the extensive disfranchisement
that he most strongly objected
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that whatever feel-
ing there, might be in that House respecting the cor-
rectness of the opinion of the Noble Duke
who bad just sat down, he was sure there
was no Member of the House who would not do full
justice to the candour, spirit and manliness in which
he came forward on all occasions.—(Loud cheering.)
In regard to the opinion, which he (Lord F.llenborough)
entertained in respect to this measure, however it
might be altered, consistently with its principles,
he felt as much apprehension as the Noble
Duke himself felt. Nothing that he had heard
or recd had produced any change in his opinion
in respect of the danger that would arise on passing
the Bill.—(Hear, bear.) But it was impossible for
him not to see that the position in which the question
now stood was materially altered since the last Parliament,
and be stated, upon the question of the second reading,
that their Lordships would be perfectly justified in allow-
ing the Bill to go into Committee.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) The House was now placed in circumstances such
as never before had occurred. In the exercise of its
independence, and without having added to it a num

ber of persons for the sole purpose of passing
this particular measure---(Hear, hear)—but by the inde-
pendent suffrage of their Lordships, they had allowed
the Bill to be read a second time. He, therefore,
felt that he was now controlled by that vote of the
House. He had resisted to the last, but he now thought
himself, by that vote, bound to consider the Bill
in Committee, and,in accordance with the three great prin-
ciples of the Bill, namely enfranchisement, disfranchisement,
and an extension of the suffrage,to make such a Bill in the
Committee as they should be justified in passing, and
as it would be safe to give to the country. Upon
the bringing up of the report, it would then be a matter of
consideration, whether the alterations made in the Com-
mittee would make the Bill such as he had described.
He, for one, feeling himself bound to consider the principles
of the Bill, would not support any thing that might be in-
consistent with those principles, and would consider the best
plan of extending them, reserving to himself, upon the s-
port, to consider if it was safe to pass the Bill or not.
The question under their consideration was most
important as it regarded the past and the future; as
it regarded the past because his Majesty's Govern-
ment had cast a slur upon the Constitution, in
accordance with which all the laws for the security of pro-
perty bad been passed. He regretted that he felt that
it was not his duty to indulge the people in
what he was of opinion was unreasonable and in-
jurious
to their welfare. There was no man more
desirous than he was to see re-established that
good humour and good feeling in the country which the
measures of his Majesty's Government had for a time de-
stroyed.—(Hear.) He therefore agreed with his Noble and
Learned Friend that it was right, and in accordance with
principle, that they should not disfranchise till they had
most abundant reasons shown them for so doing. He there-
fore gave notice that immediately on the carrying of his
Learned Friend's motion, he would move as an amendment
to the next clause, the names of those large towns, which,
in his opinion, ought to be enfranchised. There was
nothing insidious in his Noble and Learned Friend's
amendment, for it would protect what we now had, and
what we were still to get.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA would give his support to
the amendment. He was not aware, when he entered the
House, that such an amendment was to be made. He
would support it, however, because it was consonant to
the views which he had always entertained, and because it
was more consonant to the principles of the Constitution,
and the prerogatives of the Crown, than the measure of
disfranchisement. It was more agreeable also to the ex-
isting rights of the people, none of whom he would ever
disfranchise but from some strong case of necessity. On
this ground he had opposed the disfranchisement of the
forty-shilling freeholders. He wished to say, that in giv-
ing his support to the amendment, he was not opposed to
the Bill ; for, in acknowledging the principle of enfran-,
chisement, as be would never consent to augment the
number of the House of Commons, he did, in fact, con-
sent to the principle of enfranchisement. He was ready
to give Members to the great interests which had grown
up in our large towns, and lie was ready to take rway the

fanciaise to make room for them ; but he never contactor
sent to disfranchise any one, except from a clear case
necessity; and he could not consent to disfranchise an
one borough, until he knew what number he should hi
Compelled to disfranchise.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said his Noble Friend and
the Noble Earl seemed to think the postponement of the
clause equal to the postponement of it to the end of the
Bill. But that was not what was intended. He entirely
agreed with the Noble Lords on his side of the House that
they should not begin the Bill with disfranchisement.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) He was prepared to go
the whole length of schedule A, but he wished that such
a disfranchisement should take place as would consist-
ently meet with the approbation of his conscience.
He would like to know how it was possible to
say what number of boroughs ought to be disfranchised.
In place of .56 boroughs to be placed in that schedule, he
might think there ought to be 70.—(Hear.) There
might be some in schedule B which, in his opinion,
should he in schedule A.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
there were some of the Noble Lords as anxious (now that
the Bill had got to this stage) for the disfranchisement
part of the Bill, as any of their Lordships opposite.
He would say to those Noble Lords that they
had it in their power to pass a Bill of Reform
which would satisfy the people, and if they allowed
themselves to think that the postponement of the
clause, only until the third clause was read, was a
defeat of the Bill, they would commit a very great and
almost irremediable mistake. He certainly thought that
if they meant to Reform Parliament on a safe principle,
they should begin with enfranchisement. If the question
had been whether they would pass all schedule A he would
have voted for it, but be thought the postponement
of the clause a wise measure. In his opinion, the prin-
ciple
of his Learned Friend's amendment was right, and
therefore he would support it.
The Earl of HAREWOOD supported the amendment.
There was a great deal of acrimony shown on the other
side, as if they suspected there was something sinister in
the amendment proposed. But he considered it was not so.
He regretted that notice of the amendment had not been
given, for if the other side had had an opportunity of con-
sidering that amendment, he fully believed they would have
agreed to it. He, therefore called on the Noble Earl to
trust him, that there was nothing sinister in it.
Earl GREY
,trusted that his conduct in the whole
course of these discussions on this most important
measure bad not led any one to believe that he imputed
sinister motives or views to the persons who intended to
support the present amendment. It had been said, that
this amendment was of an innocent nature, but in his
opinion, if ever there was an amendment calculated to
defeat a measure it was the one now under consi-
deration. If it was carried, it must be fatal to the
whole Bill. He should have been happy to lend
himself to any fair proposition, which should have been
offered to him in order to insure the character of the Bill
in its great leadins principles, but there had been none
such offered. He was pledged by his conscientious con-
viction, no less than by his word in that House, to
the principles of the Bill. The principles to which
he was pledged were disfranchisement, enfran-
chisement, and the extension of the qualification.
In the two first he might allow alterations, but
he could not consent to the diminution of the
number of boroughs in the Bill. To the last, on the qua-
lification clause, he was most deeply pledged, not only by
words but in his conscience, and in that he could not allow
any alteration whatever. It would be found, by taking the
101. franchise, Government had not taken too low
a scale, and if it was raised at all any higher,
it would be found that it would disfranchise
many of his Majesty's subjects. He thought it due
no less to the House than to the country to say so
much upon this vital part of the Bill. Again, he
repeated that to that clause he was pledged, and could
not allow the least alteration to be made in it. He
thought the Noble Duke at least would give him
credit for not forming any factious opposition to his
Government. As to the sneers that had fallen from
some Noble Lords opposite, he repelled them. Nor
did he believe that any sinister motives actuated
the mind of the Noble and Learned Baron who
had brought forward the amendment. It was not
to be believed that a man in the situation which
he held as Judge of the land, would lend
himself to any party from party motives. It appeared
to him (Earl Grey) that the amendment was of the
very first consequence if it did not touch a vital part
of the Bill. He was not aware of any cause why
enfranchisement should precede the disfranchisement.
The Noble Lord, however, had said how was
it to be ascertained what was the amount of
disfranchisement till we knew what was to be the amount
of enfranchisement ; but they might as well ask how
they were to know what the • amount of enfranchisement
ought to he till they knew how much the disfranchisement
was to be. The Noble Duke (Newcastle) who bad stated
his intention of opposing the Bill acted openly and fairly.
Another Noble Lord had said that he hoped they might
get out of their difficulties, and that there was another
plan of Reform. That plan admitted that enfranchise-
ment was necessary ; and the Noble Baron supposed that
the enfranchisement would be so great as to make it ne-
cessary to disfranchise the whole of schedule A, or that
he should be prepared to vote for that when he had satis-
fied himself that it was necessary.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought that disfranchisement should go first, and that the
Ministers had proceeded on the most natural course. The
Noble Lord said, that to begin with disfranchisement jos.
tilled the cry which had been got up against nomination
boroughs—undoubtedly it did—(Hear, hear)—and upon
what other ground could they be disfranchised after the
other places should be enfranchised, but on the ground
that they were places unfit to return Members to Parlia
ment ? Unless they were not held to be so sacred as not
to be touched, how were any places to be enfranchised?
The nomination boroughs must be disfranchised on the
Noble Lord's plan as well as by the Bill. Let their Lord-
ships not suppose that the slur on these boroughs was now
cast for the first time. Had they not heard of these bo-
roughs for the last century? Had not several great men,
who were the steady friends and stanch supporters of
the Crown—he would not say the Monarchy—(A laugh)
—and the Constitution—but had not men who were
stanch supporters of the Crown stigmatized these
rotten boroughs, and described them as sores and
ulcers which must be extirpated, before the Con-
stitution could be restored to health and vigour. It
was childish to say otherwise, and he could never ad-
mit that the Bill was the first occasion for casting im-
putations on these rotten boroughs. In his opinion these
boroughs ought not to have representatives in Parliament,
and they ought to be taken away to make room for large
and important towns. On that principle it was right to
begin with them. Looking to notorious facts, and find-
ing it was impossible to give these boroughs such consti-
tuencies as would entitle them to a share in the representa-
tion, he must say that it was wise to disfranchise them.
He had proposed to omit the words " fifty-six," that
they might not be tied down to that number • and to con-
sider all the boroughs seriatim, and decide on difran-
chising them according to their respective merits. The
Noble Baron (Wharncliffe) took a different view, and
invited the Ministers to throw themselves into his arms,
and had referred to the disposition which the Noble
Lords opposite entertained to support the Bill. The Noble
Earl too (Harewood) had regretted that the proposi-
tion was not such as to satisfy the feelings of the sup-
porters of the Bill. If he saw any disposition to make
such propositions as he could accede to, nobody will be
more ready than he should to meet the Noble Lord, if
he could do so without sacrificing the great principles to
which he was irrevocably pledged. But what reason had
he to expect any approximation from the arguments and
expressions of the Noble Lords? The Noble Lurd who
introduced the amendment stated that he remained of the
same opinion he had before expressed, that the Bill was
incompatible with the existence of the Government, and
would destroy the Constitution. Was this, then, the Bill
to which the Noble and Learned Lord could give his con-
sent? The Noble Baron, too (Ellenborough), had fairly
professed his opposition to the Bill. He said he would
make it as good as he could ; but the Noble Baron re-
served to himself the right of voting against the Bill after
it was made as perfect as possible. The Noble Duke
spoke of taking all the mischief out of it he could, but
said he knew that ultimately it would be a most de-
fective measure. How, then, with these sentiments—with
these opinions—those who had voted against the Bill de-
claring that they would vote against it hereafter, could he act
as he had been invited to act ? It was not possible that he
could trust the measure in their hands with any hope that
it could be brought to such a conclusion as would satisfy
his conscience and the just expectations of the public.
When opinions were so divergent, union was impossible.
When the Noble Baron (Wharneliffe) said that he might
confide in the support of Noble Lords opposite if the al-
terations were made, be must say that the hopes which
the Noble Baron held out to him were so small, that it
was not possible for him to act as the Noble Baron wished,
consistently with his duty. Certainly to the proposition
made he gave his most decided opposition, and he hoped
that Noble Lords would not deceive themselves by sup-i
posing that, if they accede to the motion, it will be pos
bible to carry the Bill successfully through. " Should flat
amendment be carried (said the. Noble Earl) it will b
necessary for me to consider what course I shall take.—
(Cheers from the Ministerial side, repeated loudly from

the Opposition.) More I will not say, than what on a
former occasion was k. ,! by t'ie Noble Earl on the
other side, and it was not (1, nie.l by any other person,
that this Bill had found support in public opinon. Noble
Lords deceive themselves, if they suppose that opinion in
favour of this Bill is relaxed ; and certainly I dread the
effect of the House of Lords opposing itself as an instil--
mountable barrier to what the people think necessary for
the good government of the country and a sufficient repre-
sentation." More he would not say, than that to the
motion of the Noble and Learned Lord he meant to gave
his most determined opposition.—(Cheers, calls of Ques-
tion ! Lords Wynford and Carnarvon rose to speak, and
both were called for.)
The Earl of CARNARVON went on to say, that IP
wished that the debate on the first night should be con-
ducted without any angry feelings. It was impossible for
him, however, to bear the speech of the Noble Earl con-
cluded by a menace—(Cheers)—and not regret his disap-
pointment. The Noble and Learned Lord who had replied
to his Noble and Learned Friend had begun by deprecating
all personal discussions, and declaring his intention to
stick to the right line of the question, and the very first
step be bad taken had led him to the labyrinth of Irish
education.—(A laugh.) The Noble and Learned Lord
had referred to an absurd vote of the House' of Commons,
declaring a one-pound note when it was worth only Iss.
to be worth 205., and he was afraid, if he did not vote for
the motion of his Noble and Learned Friend, that
lie should vote that 18s. were 20s. ; for how should
lie know the extent of disfranchisement necessary,
sinless lie first settled the extent of the enfranchise •
silent ?He meant, as-he before said, to make the Bill as
good as he could, as safe to the Government, and as useful
to the country. That pledge he had given, and that
pledge he meant to redeem. The Noble Earl sail the
success of the motion would be fatal to the Bill ; he did not
think so. They were called upon to disfranchise fifty-sit
boroughs.—(No, no.) The Noble Earl said he had moved
to omit the words fifty-six, but to call on their Lordships
to consider the boroughs seriatim—that was to disfranchise
fifty-five boroughs one after the other, and then to throw
in one more to make up the fifty-six. And the Noble
Earl called it childish not to go along with him in disfran-
chising these boroughs. The Noble Earl had said- that •
their Lordships were at liberty to do what they liked with
the details of the Bill. But then, to that he added, that
their Lordships must take care that they did not touch the
three great principles of the Bill ; because, if Abase were
touched at all, the results would be fatal to the Bill. But
if this was to be their guide, what was the good of thin
debate?—What was the good of further inquiry into the
merits of the Bill ? It was just as if an attorney should
express his willingness that his bill should be examined
and taxed in every possible way, and added thereto, " But
observe, you are by no means to meddle with either the
pounds, the shillings, or the pence."—(A laugh.) He
would, however, go the length of saying (even opposed ass
he was to the Bill)—that if he believed that the vote on
this amendment would be fatal to the measure, he would
not give his vote in its favour; for, however much he:might
dislike the Bill, he never would consent to its being dis-
posed of in so dishonest and unmanly a manner. The Noble
Lord had said that the amendment was making a difference
between the cause and the effect. He (Lord Carnavon) act-
mitted that such was the case ; but who ever heard of going
into the effect first? Besides, he did not understand on what
principle it was that the present Ministry were contending
for so large a measure of Reform : for he remembered that
when the case of Penryn was before the House, in which
he took an active part, he succeeded in proving that
bribery and corruption had taken place up to a very late
period in that borough, and yet, by the very persons whs
were now stickling for this ample measure or Reform, he
was told that he bad not made out a case, and he was
advised to let it drop altogether, although he was only •
asking for the extension of the franchise, and not for a
total disfranchisement of the borough. —(Hear, hear.)
At the same time he would again say that he would be
one of the last to desire to get rid of this Bill by a trick,
The second reading of the Bill had passed that House, and
their Lordships were therefore bound to look it full in the
face. But he was also bound to say, that in his belief
there was nothing of trick existing,' unless, indeed, it was
in the imagination of the Noble Lord himself. In his
opinion, if there was any trick going on, it was with the
other, party, in endeavouring to find some mode of slip-
ping out, and of throwing on the opponents of the Bill
the result of the conduct of the introducers of the measure,
which, whether it was most chraacterised by obstinacy or
timidity he would not take upon himself to say.—(Hear.)
The great question now before their Lordships was, the
degree of Reform that ought to be granted. If the plan prc-
posed on that (the Opposition) side of the House were
adopted, it would be a plan of Reform, and not a plan of
revolution ; but if the plan of the Ministers were adopted,
it would be a plan characterized by revolution, owiog to it,
excess. To be sure, the Noble Baron had asked the
House whether such a thing had ever been heard of as a
Revolution two years under consideration, or a Re-
volution in Committee? He (Lord Carnarvon) thought
that such examples might be found by reverting
to history. What was the Revolution in the time of
Charles the First ? Did it not exist during the whole 'of
the duration of the Long Parliament? Might it not be
said to have begun when the standard was first raised by
the King ? And if so, did it not, in fact, last during 3
period of four years ? So also in the case of Louis the
Sixteenth—was not that French Revolution slow in its
growth, and gradual in its progress ?—(Hear, hear.) He
could not at all admit the justice of the remarks which had
fallen from the Noble Earl with respect to the conse-
quences of the vote on the Amendment now before their
Lordships; and he thought that if the Ministry would
only have the temper and the patience to hear the propo-
sitions that were to be _made with calmness instead ot;
making some other desperate plunge, the result would be
that they would find themselves in a much better situation
than they at present seemed to anticipate. Pot himself,
he would undertake to say, that if the Bill were allowed
to go through the Committee and reach the third reading.
he for one would not cavil at it in that stage, but would
me a sul re e
Lords who had spoken in favour of the
be prepared to give it his support, if it proved to be a tole
Earl MANVERS had listened with the deepest atten-
triaobnlYt ofatihre Nob
Amendment, in the hopes of finding some excuse foe
voting in support of it. He had, however, looked in vain,
and though he regretted that circumstances had for a titris, separated him from those friends with whom he had been,
in the habit of actin, he nevertheless felt bound tee say,
that in his belief the essence of the Bill lay in schedule A.
That schedule A ought to stand unimpaired was his honest
belief, and therefore, whatever obloquy might be cast upon
him, he could not consent to vote for a thing which (what-
ever might be its object.) would, beyond all doubt, have,
the effect of baffling the intention of that schedule.
Lord CLIFFORD trusted that their Lordships would
be careful how they came to their vote on this question,
for he never would believe, till he was forced, that the
eense of that House was so diametrically opposed to the
sense of the nation as to destroy an important principle o.r
the measure on what the Opposition itself only characte.-
rized as a matter of form. The Noble Lords who bad ei,re,
ceded him seemed to have forgotten that, by consero,ing to
the second reading of the Bill, they had given an 'incipient
concurrence to the measure ; for, in the pteaent debate,
they had chiefly dwelt on the principles of, the Bill, with-
nut attending to the details. He hut alwa been in the
habit of thinking that without tho. existenceys of party men it was impossible for the Govemment. of any country, and
more especially of this, tq be carried on ; a politician could
not afford to indulp iu any theory of perfection; and it
was for this reason that ho thought that those who were
in favour of the Bill ought to support its arrangements as
well as its principle. [The conclusion of the Noble Lord's
observations were rendered inaudible by loud and frequent
cries of " Question," and "Divide."]
The Committee divided, and the numbers were
For the Amendment 151
For the Original Motion ... 116

Majority against Ministers...THlßTY-EllT..
On our re-admission we found
Lord LYNDHURST stating, that in conformity with
the notice he had given in the early part of the evening,
he should then move that the next clause be postponed.
On the question that the next clause be postponed,
Earl GREY said that, after the vote to which the
House had just come, he felt it to be his dty to propose
that the further consideration
of the Bill inn Committee be
postponed until Thursday next.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that on his part and
on that of the Noble Lords with whom he acted, there
was no disposition towards delay ; on the contrary, it
must now be admitted that the delay was with Noble
Lords on the other side of tha House--with them there
was no delay whatever.—(Cheers from both sides of the
House.) If a charge of delay could be preferred with any
justice, that charge could now fairly be brought against
no one but the Noble Earl opposite. He much regretted
that the Noble Earl had thought proper to make that pro-
position of an adjournment of the Committee till
Thursday, for tbat motion drove him (Lord
Ellenbourogh) to the necessity of explaining that
night those views and intentiops which he should
much rather have laid in detail before before the Hou'se
to-morrow. He felt very reluctant to enter into those sub-
jects that night at all, and especially so at that lute boar,
for be was conscious that he could only do so most in.-
perfectly; but he was now placed in such a situation
that be felt be owed to the liuu,e, to. the Noble Fri oda