The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

THE GOVERNMENT REFORM BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would not be able to appoint any day for that purpose. He
would take that opportunity of referring to the debate of
last night, and stating that in his opinion it was desir-
able that the discussion should be put an end to. (Hear.)
He had no desire but to meet the views of the hon. mem
bers of that house. He was placed in a situation
of very great responsibility, and he had received
a number of communications from members on both sides
of the house, and though he did not wish to interfere with
the rights of hon. members to address the house, yet ho
trusted that the house would come to a vote on Thursday
evening. (Hear, hear.)
POSTAL SUBSIDIES, &c. (CANADA, &c.)
Mr. WYLD moved for an address for copies of the ad-
dress from both branches of the Legislature of Canada to
her Majesty, relative to Postal Subsidies and the Intercolo-
nial Railway, and of the correspondence between the dele-
gates from Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, and
her Majesty's Government, relative to the Intercolonial
Railway from Halifax to Quebec.—Agreed to.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS ACT AMENDMENT.
Viscount RAYNHAM moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the act 16 and 17 ova c. 21, for the punishment
of men convicted of aggrted assaults on women and
children.—Agreed to.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT.
Viscount RAYNHAM moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the Act 13 and 14 Victoria, for the more effectual
prevention of cruelty to animals.—Agreed to.
Mr. G. HARDY obtained leave to bring in a bill to in-
demnify such persons in the United Kingdom as had
omitted to qualify themselves for offices and employments,
and to extend the time limited for those purposes respec-
tively.

EAST INDIA DESPATCHES.
Sir E. PERRY moved an address for copy of financial
despatches between the Government of India and the Secre-
tary of State for India, respecting new loans required for
India (in continuation of Parliamentary papers, Nos. 55
and 69, of the present session). And of all notifications of
the Government of India concerning the public debt (in
continuation of Parliamentary papers).—Agreed to.
THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The adjourned debate was resumed by
•

Mr. GLADSTONE, who said—lt appears to me, sir,
that there are other remarkable features in this debate be-
sides the great ability with which it has been conducted,
and among them all I know none so remarkable as the sin-
gular accordance of opinion on both sides of the house--I
may say, with the exception of official speakers, among all
Woe who have spoken—with respect to the great question
of Parliamentary Reform. (Hear, hear.) I do' not say
that there are no shades of difference upon it, but when we
compare the opinions of those who are disposed to give the
least with the opinions—at any rate, so far as they have
been avowed—of those who are disposed to give the most,
we find they lie within such moderate and reasonable limits
as to afford, one would hope, the very best prospects for an
early and satisfactory settlement of the question. (Cheers.)
In point of fact, sir, .1 may venture to say that there is
no difference perceptible--I do not refer now to the
particular features of the present bill, but to the
general question of Reform—between the speakers on
and were a member of this
the two sides of the hour
ouse blindfolded during the debate, I would almost
defy him to say from what quarter their addresses respec-
tively had come. (Hear.) It is recorded of the oldest tra-
veller whose voyages have come down to us that be arrived
at a place so remote that he lost all power of judging
of the
points of the compass, and the same observation is appli-
cable to the present debate on the subject of reform, with
the single difference that, instead of its being at a place
immeasurably remote, the point where our differences are
lost sight of is in the centre of the British House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.) Again, I could not help being struck
with what fell from my hon. friend the member for Bir-
mingham upon this subject. He selected, in the course of
his speech, one address from those which had preceded his
own for commendation, and three—shall I say for anathema
or for censure ? The speech which he commended was the
speech of a county member on this side of the house—l
mean the hon. member for Dorset—a gentleman, I believe,
of unsuspected orthodoxy in his political creed. (A laugh.)
The speeches which were censured by my hon. friend—the
speeches which he said filled him with alarm—were the
declarations of three right hon. Mends sitting on the other
side of the house. (Hear, hear.) He was alarmed at the
speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud;
he did not say for what particular reason, but I concluded
because he regarded my right hon. friend a disorderly per-
son upon the present occasion. (A laugh.) He was alarmed
at the speech of my right hon. friend the member for
South Wilts, because. I suppose my right hon. friend gently
suggested in one portion of his excellent address that that
chamber in the mind of my hon. friend the member for Bir-
mingham which ought to be supplied with a certain raver-
,ence for ancient traditions is less well furnished than all the
rest of that remarkable structure. (Cheers and laughter.)
'Then, sir, the hon, member, still adhering to his own side
of the house, censured' likewise the sagacious letter of my
right hon. friend the member for Coventry. There the rea-
son, I think, was plain enough—bechuse my right hon. friend,
whose hospitalities are proverbial, in that letter promised
to his constituents a magnificent banquet of reform, where
Ithe viand was dressed in every possible shape, but con-
, *Wed by expressing his regret that on account of the

state of public opinion they could not just yet sit down.
(Cheers and laughter.) The truth is, sir, there is no sub-
stantial difference of opinion traceable to differen es in this
house between political parties upon this great and tran-
scendant subject ; and therefore it is to me am ti ter of deep
regret that, when there is suchunion of sentiment upon the
questions at issue, we should be ranged in i ostile debate
—(cheers)—with a division before us whi t roust tend to
estrange from one anotner those who are not separated by
clear, broad, conscientious differences of opinion, and by
whose united efforts alone this great subject can be brought
to a satisfactory settlement. (Continued cheering.) I can-
not help also venturing a remark upon the form of the reso-
lution proposed by my noble friend the member for the city.
It is a remark which will be, I trust, in entire harmony both
with the letter and with the spirit of your own decision, be-
cause I am certain that my noble friend would have been
the last man to propose an irregular resolution. But if the
resolution is regular and Parliamentary, I venture to sug-
gest that it is one to which exception may be taken on the
grounds of general prudence and convenience. (Hear, hear.)
The rules of this house, it is true, do much towards keeping
the course of public business within its legitimate bounds,
but also much, of necessity, must depend on the judgment
of the members of the house. (Hear, hear.) I take it that
there is a meaning in the rules of the house when they pro-
vide that on the presentation of any scheme of legislation in
the form of a bill the duty of the house should be to address
itself to the scheme as a whole, that the house should then,
and then only, proceed to deal with the details. (Cheers.)
I do not enter into the question whether resolutions ought
ever to be made on the second reading of bills. I confess
it appears to me utterly impossible to exclude them, be-
cause if they were altogether excluded this house would be
shorn of much of its legislative power, and be reduced to
the necessity of saying nothing but simply " aye" or
" no" on a motion. (Hear) Nor do I deny that there
are precedents of some kind which to a certain extent may
be pleaded in support of the present resolution, but I ex-
as far as my own opportunities o
press my own opinion,
knowledge go, that this is the first occasion on which a reso-
lution has been moved on the second reading of a bill, the
purport and matter of which resolution consists simply in
dealing with certain portions of the bill, which portions
might be dealt with in committee. (Cheers.) To that extent
it appears to me that this resolution may be termed a
novelty, and I must add that it is an inconvenient novelty.
(Hear, hear.) How are measures, of necessity, very fre-
quently framed ? It is often the duty of the G overnment
to combine in one and the same measure a great variety of
propositions, the whole of which—l am not now speaking
of the present bill, but of what is the general duty of the
Government—the whole of which, I repeat, may be neces-
sary to the complete attainment of the public ends in view.
Yet one portion of these propositions may be highly popular
and the other portion may be the subject of popular preju-
dice. There may be a great temptation from time to time,
particularly in the disorganised state of political parties, to
select out of the measure so presented those portions which
are unpopular, and to insist on procuring the judgment of
the house on those unpopular parts of the bill antecedently

to the second reading. I frankly own, however, that I cannot
conceive any practice which, if it grew up, would be more
inconvenient or dangerous. (Cheers.) I confess that these
•
are reasons which weigh' with me to no inconsiderable
extent in bringing me to the conclusion that I cannot sup-
port the bill—l mean the resolution, but I might say the
bill likewise. (Hear, and a laugh.) The course taken by
my noble friend the member for London has been sub-
jected to great severity of attack, which I frankly own it
does not appear to me that he deserves. (Hear, hear.) It
is said that my noble friend has made a factious motion.
If it be a factious motion, it is certainly a very ill-
chosen one, because, taking the two great exponents of
the resolution who bring the greatest power to its sup-
port, they have fairly avowed that, while they concur in the
resolution, they differ as to the course it may immediately
involve. The noble lord the member for Tiverton has ex-
plicitly stated to the house that he supports the resolu-
tion, not for the sake of getting rid of the bill, but as a
foundation on which alone he can conscientiously consent to

support the second reading ; while the noble lord the mem-
ber for London, so far from interposing this resolution as a
condition which once being laid down may enable him to
accept the second reading of the bill, has, in language very
distinct, stated that he trusted that not only will this reso-
lution be carried—as appears likely to be the case—but
that there will be successive attacks on the bill until—l
think these were his words—it should be, if not immedi-
ately, at last totally rejected. These different declarations
proceeding from the two noble lords do not certainly imply
any deeply laid plot for a joint attack on the present occu-
pants of office with a view to a joint occupation of place
afterwards. (Laughter.) I cannot part from this part of
the subject without expressing, particularly after what has
fallen from the First Lord of the Admiralty, the deep re-
gret with which I heard an hon. gentleman—and a gentle-
man of the distinguished character, eminence, and abilities
of her Majesey's Solicitor-General—spoil an effective speech
by dropping, at the close of it, words which were not worthy
of this house or of his position. (Cheers.) I am convinced
that those words must have proceeded from a rhetorical in-
advertence—from the necessity, if 1 may presume to say so
of always finishing a sentence, which occasionally presses in
an inconvenient manner even on the most experienced and
practised speakers. I cannot believe that those words were
intended to be used, and I am confident that before the de-
bate is over the hon. and learned gentleman will, in a man-
ner worthy of himself and in a way due to the character of
the noble lord the member for London, express his regret for
the observations to which I now allude. (Cheers.) What
I now wish to say to the house is that the paramount and
overbearing motive in my mind which governs my vote, and
I hope every word that I speak, is that it becomes our duty
to take that course which will most contribute to the early
and satisfactory settlement of this question, and if I had
seen through the resolution of my noble friend the prospect
of a powerful Government, and a combination of men ready
to carry through a measure of reform not immoderate in its
form,—and no immoderate measure should I expect from
my noble friend,—that would have been a reason with me
for supporting the resolution. If we could have had a strong
Government for the purpose of working this question by all
means let us have that Government. But far from feeling
an inducement to vote for the resolution, a circumstance
that operates in a contrary direction is that I find the lead-
ing men prominent in support of the resolution have an
agreement of opinion limited to the terms of the motion
itself, and that the day subsequent to the success of the
resolution would see them pursuing their distinct and oppo-
site courses. (Cheers.) I have ventured to state the motive
on which I think our conclusion on this subject should be
grounded, and I now ask what is the position of the Govern.
ment with respect to the bill and with respect to the house.
I cannot deny that the first cause of these embarrassments,
so far as I am able to perceive, is the most unfortunate
error committed by the Government in the construction of
their bill in opposition to the wise advice of two most dis-
tinguished members of the Cabinet. (Cheers.) I believe
that the Government is now as well aware as any gentleman
who sits on either side of the house that in all probability,
if they had taken the wise advice of their two late colleagues,
while their counsels were still unknown to the public, and
had presented a plan framed on the basis of the suggestions
of those right hon. gentlemen, the bill would then have met
with very general acceptance. (Hear, hear.) This is,
however, referring to the past, and the Government now
are responsible for the bill as it stands before us. We also
are responsible for what we do with respect to the bill ; and
therefore the question I have to ask myself is not whether
the Government have presented a plan in every point such
as I, for one, could have desired ; but in what manner I
can meet the embarrassments created, and find, if
possible, an escape from them. The Government
in the first place, are the existing Government, and,
as such, have a claim on the House of Commons
in a state of things wherein it is not very clear, if the
Ministers are removed from office, who are to succeed them.
(Hear, hear.) It is further quite evident that the Govern-
ment have some facilities for the settlement of this question
which no other Government could possess, in the fact that
probably unless the present Government had been in office
we should not have had that remarkable accordance of
opinion on the subject of reform. (Laughter.) I do not
say that hon. gentlemen have spoken otherwise than ac-
cording to their conscientious cpinions ; but the fact of
having their political friends in office tended undoubtedly
to induce a conciliatory disposition. (Hear, hear.) But I
must also freely admit that I think the claim of the Govern-
ment may be carried a point further. I think that a Re-
form Bill having been submitted to the house, and the
second reading of that bill having been proposed, they have
a claim on those members of the house—and I am one of
them—who have been parties to former miscarriages and
disappointments, that they shall do nothing beyond what is
absolutely necessary to intercept the progress of this bill.
(Cheers.) I confess it appears to me that, although the
feeling of the people of this country with respect to the
proceedings of the House of Commons is eminently satis-
factory,—although, as the hon. member for Birmingham
has so well said, they have begun, especially of late years
to entertain a warm sentiment both of gratitude and confi-
dence in the authority and institutions of the country, and
particularly in their representative assembly,—yet I doubt
whether aM' part of that gratitude or confidence is due to
the manner in which we have recently treated the subject
of Parliamentary reform. (Cheers.) There is not, so far
as I know a word of blame to be said of any ; and certainly
comem ynoble
a f
ae friend
sdhuan. g aßp ou
tr ieot
ao fltohaeks e
at
if there is 'blame to any cne, I myself, as the colleague of
or
ons,
tranwhasact tihas
it
must necessarily present to a criticis-
ing passed,mu st
and the aspect which
ing public. In 1851 my noble friend, then the first Minister
of the Crown, approached the question of reform, and com-
menced with a promise of what was to be done
12 months af-
terwards. In 1852 he brought in a bill, and it disappeared.
together with the Ministry. (A laugh.) In 1853 we had
the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen, which commenced with a
promise of reform in 12 months' time. Well 185 • d , 4 arrive •
with it arrived the bill, but with it also arrived the war,'
and in the war was a reason, and I believe a good reason,
for abandoning the bill. Then came the Government of
my noble d frien
• the member for Tiverton, which was not
less unfortunate in the circumstances which prevented the
redemption of those pledges that had been- given to the
people from the mouth of the Sovereign on the Throne.
In 1855 my noble friend escaped all responsibility for a
Reform Bill on account of the war; in 1856 he escaped all
responsibility for reform on account of the peace—(loud
laughter and cheering)—in 1857 he escaped that inconve-
nient responsibility by the dissolution of Parliament ; and
in 1858 he escaped again by the dissolution of his Govern-
ment. (Renewed laughter and cheers.) Well, each of these
may be good reasons why Parliament has not dealt with the
question of reform; but I put it to the impartial considera-
tion of hon. gentlemen whether upon the whole, if there be
a portion of the people out of doors who think the house is
reluctant or sincere with respect to reform, a series of events
like these don't strengthen such misgivings—(cheers)—
and don't render it additionally hazardous on our part to
interpose any obstacles except those which necessity im-
peratively requires to the progress of a bill which, at all
events, corresponds with the promise of the Sovereign on
the Throne in the general terms in which it was conveyed,
and which is now presented to us in such a form as to afford
us, I think, great hope of carrying to completion a measure
which may take its place in our Statute-book. (Cheers.)
1. confess I think that the appeal to members of former
Governments, as men and as statesmen, to assist in so far

as it is in their power the progress of the Reform Bill in-
troduced by the present Ministry is a topic and a plea
which ought to have some considerable weight. It must
be remembered, however, that the resolution of the noble
member for the City has been supported by many hon.
gentlemen, including my right hon. friend the member for
Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), as being not an unusually
severe and stringent method of interference with the course
of the bill ; but, on the contrary, a singularly mild one, and
as a milder measure than a negative upon the second reading.
But when we are administering our measures of mildness,
and especially when they are almost entirely novel in their
form, it is of some importance to consider in what manner
they will be received by the patient—(laughter and cheers)
—and on this occasion the patient is so reluctant and refrac-
tory that, instead of accepting the recommendations of the
noble lord the member for Tiverton—instead of acquiescing
in the view that this is merely a gentle caveat put in on the
part of the house lest it should be overborne and suppressed
by the strength of the Government in committee—the Go-
vernment who are
ito receive and acquiesce in this resolu-
tion have treated t as a resolution which not only is not
milder than a negative upon the second reading, but which
stigmatises both their bill and themselves in such a manner
as to make it impossible for them to accept it. (Cheers.)
It is utterly useless to inquire whether the Government are
right or wrong in that view of the matter, but the impor-
tant fact for us to consider is that they have announced that
if the resolution be passed their bill cannot proceed. The
question, therefore, comes to be whether, upon the whole,
we think it is for the interest of the country in connection
with the great subject of reform that the bill should go into
committee, or that it should not go into committee. If the
resolution passes, the second reading of the bill cannot be
proposed by the Government. If the resolution fails, the
second reading will be proposed, and, while I anticipate
that the resolution of my noble friend will be carried, it
appears equally clear from what has occurred, and from
what has been said by my noble friend the member for
Tiverton, that if we proceed to the question of the
second reading that proposition will be carried, and
that there will be an opportunity of dealing with the
bill in committee. I want to know therefore, what are
the clauses of the bill itself ; and I begin by frankiy
admitting that I concur, I am sorry to say, in very
nearly everything that has been said against the bill.
(Cheers, and a laugh.) I have something to say pre-
sently upon a point which has been very little touched
upon, but I must admit that I concur in the objections to
the bill which have been raised as prominently on this (the
Ministerial) as on the other side of the house. I concur in
the objections which have been taken by the noble member
for Tiverton and by the noble member for the city. I can-
not be a party to the disfranchisement of the county free-
holders residing in boroughs. I cannot be a party to the
uniformity of the franchise. I cannot be a party to a Re-
form Bill which does not lower the suffrage in boroughs.
(Cheers.) I may go a step further, and say it appears to.
me that the lowering of the suffrage in boroughs is the
main purpose of having a Reform Bill—(Opposition cheers)
—and that unless we are to have that lowering of the suf-
frage it would be better that we should not waste our time
on this subject. (Cheers.) But, while I concur entirely
in these objections, I must make a concession on the part
of the bill, in which I shall follow, though rather fully,
what was stated by my noble friend the member for Tiver-
ton. I think I understood him correctly to say in his able
speech that he approved generally of that portion of the bill
relating to the redistribution of seats. I think I did not
misunderstand him, but that he approved generally of that
portion of :the plan. (Lord Palmerston intimated his as-
sent.) I did not understand the noble member for the city
of London to object to that portion of the bill, nor did I un-
derstand that my right hon. friend near me (Sir J. Graham)
objected to it, but that feature of the measure has been very
generally passed over in silence, and I own that I think less
than justise has been done to the bill in that respect. I feel
bound in honour to say that upon the whole I cannot help
approving that portion of the bill. (Cheers.) I think that
it is an improvement upon the measure to which I was my-
self a party in 1854. This is no small or trifling matter.
(Cheers.) In point of fact, the question of the redistri-
bution of seats is full half of your whole Reform Bill.
(Cheers.) The redistribution of seats and the ar-
rangement of the franchise make up the measure. I
will endeavour to explain frankly and fearlessly the rea-
sons why I think that upon the whole this bill has been
framed wisely with respect to the re-distribution of seats.
I believe the bill we introduced in 1854 would infallibly—
to use a homely phrase—have " gone to the dogs," on ac-
count of the extent of disfranchisement it proposed. (Hear,
hear.) We may throw out this bill, and we may have
another bill brought in which proposes to disfranchise 60,
70, or 80 boroughs, but won't such a proposal be strongly
opposed by the 60, 70, or 80 members who hold seats for
those boroughs? I listened with great attention the other
night to the speech of the hon. member for Sandwich, who
has given us fair notice what course he intends to pursue.
He has told the noble lord below him that he is perfectly
willing to join with him for the purpose of destroying the
bill of the Government, but whon his noble friend has suc-
ceeded to power and introduced his bill the hon. member
for Sandwich anticipates that his noble friend will again
bind him and lay him on the altar. (Laughter.)
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said the disfran-
chisement of Sandwich had never been proposed, except by
the hon. member for Birmingham.
Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The hon. gentleman
would, no doubt, be prepared to show strong reasons, not
why other boroughs should not be disfranchised, but why
Sandwich should be retained. (Laughter.) If an extensive
measure of disfranchisement was insroduced, 60, or 70, or
80 votes of the representatives of the boroughs proposed to
be disfranchised would be combined in the division; and
what would become of the Reform Bill introduced with a
magnificent scheme for the redistribution of seats ? I must
frankly own it appears to me that to proceed far in the
disfranchisement of small boroughs is a course injurious
to the efficiency of the House of Commons. You must
not consider in this matter the question only of the electors.
You must consider quite as much who are likely to be the
elected. (Hear.) And permit me to say that the time has
come when, in the examination of any scheme of reform,
it is of vital and capital importance that this matter should
be brought fully under the view of the house. Let me
point out that the Reform Bill of 1832 has not, in this
respect, been fairly and fully tried. For 27 years, it is
true, it has been in operation, and it has communicated
great vigour to the working of the legislative machine. For
the first 10 or 15 years of that period the working of the re-
formed Parliament exhibited a union of power, circum-
spection, and sagacity such as it would be difficult to find an
equal to in the history of legislative assemblies. But look
at the advantages which attended the first working of this
change in our representation. It is true we had a new elec..
toral system, but we had the old statesmen to work it.
(Hear, hear.) Read the admirable argument of Lord Macau-
lay in his " History of William III." upon the state of the
House of Commons at that time, before you had organised
the system under which Ministries are constituted and
maintained in this country. The House of Commons was
then an assembly of units incapable of forming into one
body and of working together. Why is it that, from that
time to the present, they have become, instead of a mere
aggregate of units, an organized whole, capable of conduct-
ing the affairs of this great empire ? It has been because
of the a ace of statesmen who have adorned this house, who
have been reared from generation to generation under the
operation of your improved Parliamentary system, and of
that race, I rejoice to say, notwithstanding the 27 years
that have elapsed since the Reform Bill, a very consider-
able number still remain to us. (Hear, hear.) Now, how
were these men introduced into the House of Commons ?
lam sure I may entreat the patience of the house. (Hear,
hear.) I need not trouble them with wearisome citations ;
but it is really worth our while to consider how this great
provision for the exigencies of the country has been made.
We have heard in the course of this debate some apology
for small constituencies, and it never was my lot to sit for
one. At the same time small constituencies undoubtedly
tend to answer the great purpose of a representative system
in securing its diversity and completeness. (Hear, hear.)
If you have nothing but large and populous bodies to return
your members of Parliament, there, as recent experience
seems, I am sorry to say, in a great degree to prove, local
interests and local influences will upon the whole prevail—
(hear)—and you will not find it possible to introduce ade-
quately into this house the race of men by whom the Go-
vernment of the country is to be carried on. (Hear.) By
means of small boroughs, generally considered—l have no
doubt there are objections to them, but I believe those ob-
jections are gradually disappearing under the action of im-
proved laws and an improved state of public feeling(hear)—
by means of small boroughs you introduce into this house
the representatives of separate interests, who stand apart,
from the great and paramount interests of the country.
(Hear, hear.) You introduce here the masters of civil wis-
dom, such as Mr. Burke above all, Sir James Mackintosh,
and many others who might be named—a class of men with
respect to whom nothing is less probable than that they
should command to any great extent the suffrages of large
and populous constituencies. (Hear, hear.) You introduce
those calm, sagacious, retired observers who are averse
from the rough contact necessary in canvassing large bodies
of electors, but who form no small part of the best sub st rata
of this house, and contribute greatly to the efficiency of your
representative system. (Hear, hear.) Many, however, have
spoken on behalf of small boroughs. I want to speak on be-
half of a certain description of small boroughs—of those
where, from kindly interest, from ancient and affectionate
recollections, from local and traditional respect, from the
memory of services received, from the admiration of great
men and great qualities, the constituencies are willing to
take upon trust the recommendation of candidates for Par-
liament from noblemen or gentlemen who may stand in im-
mediate connection with them. (Cries of a Oh.") I danot
complain at all of that interruption. I admit that there is
something of paradox in such an argument upon such a
question, if it is to be considered as an argument upon paper
only; but practice has proved that the real paradox lies
with those who will allow of no ingress into the house but
one. (Hear.) If that one ingress is to be the suffrages of a
large mass of voters, the consequence is a dead level
of mediocrity—(cheers)—which destroys not only the or-
liament but the force Gf this house, and which, as I think
the history of other countries will show, is ultimately fatal
to the liberties of the people. (Cheers.) Allow me in expla-
nation of my meaning to state the case of six men in one
line each,—Mr. Pelham, Lord Chatham Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt,
Mr. Canning, and Sir R. Peel. Mr. Pelham entered this
house for the borough of Seaford in 1719, at the age of 22 ;
Lord Chatham entered it in 1735, for Old Sarum, at the age
of 26 ; Mr. Fox in 1764, for Midhurst, at the age, I think,
of 20 ; Mr. Pitt in 1781, for Appleby, at the age of 21; Mr.
Canning in 1793, for Newport, at the age of 22 ; and Sir R.
Peel in 1809, for the city of Cashel, at the age of 21. Now,
here are six men, every one of whom was a leader in this
house. I take them because the youngest is older than the
eldest of those who now sit here, and because the mention
of their names can give rise to no personal feeling. Here
are six men whom you cannot match out of the history of
the British House of Commons for the hundred years which
precede our own day. (Hear.) Every one of them was a
leader in this house, almost every one was a Prime Minister,
all of them entered Parliament for one of those boroughs
where influence of different kinds prevailed. Every one of
them might, if he had chosen, after giving proof of his
powers in this house, have sat for any of the open consti-
tuencies of the country, and many of them did so. Mr.
Pelham, after sitting for Seaford in one Parliament, repre-
sented Sussex for all the rest of his life. Lord Chatham
never, I think, represented an open constituency. Mr.
Fox, after sitting for Midhurst, became the chosen for West-
minster. Mr. Pitt went from Appleby at a very early ago
to the University of Cambridge. Mr. Canning went from
Newport to Liverpool, and Sir R. Peel from Cashel to the
University of Oxford. Now, what was the case of Sir
Peel?R. The University, on account of a conscientious
difference of opinion, refused the continuance of his services.
They would have been lost to the British Parliament—
(Oh I)---at that moment at all events. (Hear.) But at West •
bury he found an immediate refuge—far so it must be called
—and he continued to sit for a small borough for the re-
mainder of his life. Mr. Canning, in the same way, net
losing but resigning the representation of Liverpool, found
it more conducive to the public business that he should be-
come the representative of a small borough for the rest of
his days. What does this show ? It shows that small
boroughs were the nursery ground in which these men were
educated—(hear, hear)—men who not only were destined
to lead this house, to govern the country, to be the strength
of England at home and its ornament abroad, but who like-
wise, when once they had an opportunity of proving their
powers in this house, became the chosen of large consti-