Star.
London, England, 1826-04-28 00:00:00

as Manchester and Birmingham we-e left unrepre;eme t,
such places as Orford, which had the honour of re
turning the Hon. Member. should have such an *citron.
tage over the former. Those in general who had the
right to vote were the most ragged portion of society,
who would most properly be consigned to * poor-
house. They were inevitably led to commit rerjttry,
AS giving their vote under the illnence of others, and
not with regard to the interests of their country. Of
the electors themselves he spoke—not of those who
sold them. It was notorious that they had but two
courses to pursue—either to introduce Reform, or to do
away with the hypocrisy of pretending to the people that
there was a legitimate representation. In his views of
the people's right to a fair representation, he was borne
out by the presumption of the Act of Parliament,
which made it n-ce.sary !or a placeman to go back to
his constituents to know whether they appoved of hitn
is their reprerentatiee under the change of his cir-
cumstances. The Right Hon. Gentleman, who had
on:e represented Liverpool, did rot go back there to
seek the consent of his consiituents, hut to one ot those
convenient places that would send in King Log if they
were ordered. Was it not a p werful fact in support if
his case, that the Right lion. Gentlemair deemed it it,.
consisteot with his duty to reptesent Liverp of ? po-
ther pri•of of the nocetsity of reform would he found its
the multi•tde o' Statutes against bt ihery at elections.
D:d not those Statutes imply the necessity of represen-
tation, and were they not roloriously broken ? This was
no near complaint. In the yeat 1754, Sir J hn Barnard,
a statesman of vett integrity, moved for a repeal of
the Statutes against bribery, inasmuch as they were a
prolific cause of pe•jory, and a clo tk for the delusive
system. It was high time then to do away with the
farce. Mr. Burke, who said everything ahrmt everything,
declared, that for all proper purposes the House of Cam-
moos was not a House of Commons. S i said he (Mr.
Hobhouse). Let them say if Ory woold, that the system
was a Rood one, and worked o e I, but let them not hold
out that it was a fair representa.i .n. Tt:e Hon. Member
for Montrose said the other uight, that if the Opposition
would but do their duty, GOD knows what wonders
might be achieved. Now this was delasive laognage,
for if the Opposition tried their strength, and mustered
every night, sit would Ministers. The only result would
be, that while one party had a great minority, the other
party would have a great major ti. Such was the case
in ttre time of Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt; such was the case
when the Hon. Member for Montrose brought on his
motions ill 1821 and 1822. Influence was invariably
decisive; many Gentlemen came down on purpose to
vote with Ministers, and must do so from motives of
honour and the esprit de corps, until the King would
please to turn his layouts into another ch 4nnel. It was
the hest way for the Opposition to own the power of
Ministers, and bow before it. He supported them from
a grateful sense of their frequently doing right when it
was in their power to do wrong if they pleased.
When a Bill was introduced to exclude Mr. Tooke
from Parliament, he expressed himse.f obliged to Mi-
nisters for not ordering him to be hanged on the lobby
of the House, being fully assured that they had it
quite within their power to do so. It was, therefore,
that he (Mr. Hobhouse) was grateful for the smallest
donations they were pleased to bestow—(A forrigh)—
The present was a good time for the discussion of the
question. For iii 1824, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer attributed the prosperity of the country to the
much calumniated Parliament, and if distress now
prevailed, he thought that some blame might to attach
Parliament. Now was the time to enqoire whether
the system worked quite so well. To the financial part
of it he chiefly objected. Till the year 1819, when
Mr. Vansittart said, " Now let us have a real sinking
fund," Parliament was never aware that the old sink.
ing fund was a sham. He next objected to the dead
weight, for which a Bill was introduced, and on the
29th of April, 1822, the second reading had passed
without a division. A little while afterwards, indeed,
some persona had begun to see that there was some.
thing in the scheme that was wrong ; and accordingly
the Hon. Member for Winchelsea, the Member for
Taunton, the Member for Wareham, and the Member
for Montrose, had come down and divided against it.
But what bad their success been ? They had di-
vided twice; once in a minority of thirty-fives and
again with a minority of fifty-four. Only fifty four
persons in the whale House had been able to .see
the absurdity of that scheme.—and it had been carried
by triumphant majorities—which was so wild, that even
the Right Hon. Secretary lot Foreign Affairs was re-
duced to confess " that he did not understand it."—
(Hear, hear.) And this was the financial wisdom of
Parliament 1 the truth was the " wisdom of Parliament,"
was ever the folly of the minister of the day—(Hear.)
It signified nothing who was the minister—not a point;
except, indeed, that out of the peculiar, impartial, and
generous f• cling of the House, it did appear that they
rather preferred a minister who was pre-eminently
stupid and absurd—(Laughler.) Of the majorities of
that House, he might say as the poet said of tr,e inhabit•
ants of Jerusalem—
" Of vehatotteer descent their god-bead he,
Stock, stone, or other homely pedigree,
" In his defence his servants are as bold
" As if be had `:en born of beaten gold."—(Laughter.)

Ministers are of beaten gold, as an Honourable Friend whispers to
me ; but the gold is so attenuated and beaten out to such superfices,
that nobody was sensible of its benefit. He knew well that naval
and military officers often felt it a most inconvenient thing to give a
vete against Ministers. The Duke of York might, as Commander-
in-Chief, be impartial to a certain extent ; but officers, knowing
the fact that commissions were at the disposal of Government, did
not like to vote against Ministers on certain occasions. He bad
taken the trouble to analyse the votes that had been given in
that House, upon the principal divisions which bed taken place
in the years 1621 and 1822. 'Phis analysis 'hewed, that, in
14 greet question% the majorities for Government were either
whelly, or in a great part, made up of these S 9 persons who bad
returned themselves to Parliament without any connection with
Constituents, but who had a very intimate and a very profitabk
connection with the Government. 1a 31 questions, the result of
the analysis was as follows :—Of the Members who voted for
Ministers en these occasion, only 2$ County Members were
for Government, and 37 were against it. Ten County Mem-
bers voted sometimes one way{ and sometimes another. 'rho
accounted for 7S out of the SO Members for English Cow'-
ties. Of the it counties of Wales, 13 Members, whose Ow
dons were net popular, were for Ministers, and nine agair.t
them. One was sometimes one way and sometimes the other—
Of 89 cities and boroughs, 37 Representatives were for Mini,teci.
and 107 against them. Now came the places were the elections
resolved themselves Inte individed elections—where the Bert'
sentativo was self-elected, and bad no connection whatever with
the sentiments of the country Of these, 150 itrere for Minster,
and only 17 against them.—(Hear, hear! and loud ebeers.)-194
of this description voted sometimes one way end sometimes. the
other, and 26 never voted at all.—(Hear, hear !)—Of the Unmet.
:sties, the four Members uniformly voted
counties and 66 Royal burghs of Scotland, t
tot Government, and only 11 against them.
land, 24 Members were invariably for
against them. Of the cities & boroughs hi
were the adherents of the Al inlet ry , and only
in vain did the Bight lion. Gentleman
g ha• be would atom a venal majority.

-~.

• *

id for Govertunent. the
IS Members always voted
em. Of the counties of Ire•
Government, and only II
n Ireland,24 Rept esenta two
Ply setters for the Oppositier
an on the opp,•site side Pf
lie would be stript of