amounted to 41, and with two taken from the | the bill during its passage through the other borough of Weymouth, made the total num-House-it was not recommended by any one ber taken from the House of Commons 154. connected with his Majesty's Government, yet That having been done-the work of disfran-I nevertheless sincerely hope that its operation chisement having been to that extent com- will be beneficial, though am not without pleted-the next step to be taken was, to see fear that a contrary result may ensue, the what means were necessary and practicable privilege of which I speak is that of the right for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in of voting given to persons holding lands of a the numbers of the House of Commons which certain value without leases. It must be ob those proposed disfranchisements had created. vious to your Lordships, that in this case there The bill, with those disfranchising clauses, exists a considerable danger that the power was proposed to the House of Commons, and given to landed proprietors may be used in by that House adopted, and also clauses were a manner such as it has been in places that I adopted for the purpose of bringing back the will not name; and if so used, it will probably numbers of the representative portion of the lead to a general demand for that regulation legislature to pretty near the same amount, in formerly mentioned in reference to this subject, point of numbers, that it had previously been. but not one word respecting which has found Sixty-five new Members were given to coun- its way into the petitions recently presented ties, twenty-four additional Members were to this or the other House of Parliament-the given to the House as representatives for regulation I allude to is the right of voting by twelve large towns not before sending Members ballot. It is one which has not been taken to the House, and which, under the bill now up by petitioners from the moment the measure before the House, are each to have Members; of reform was taken by the responsible adand then there are twenty-eight towns with visers of the Crown as a Government one Member each additional, which, with the measure, and which will probably not: Member left to Weymouth, make 118, which, be resorted to again unless the power imtaken from 154, leave a remainder of 36, be- parted by the clause I have just men. ing the number which the House of Commons tioned should be abused in the manner was to lose. Having thus removed the rotten so recently and so justly censured. At all portion of the constitution, our next duty was events, this clause in the bill cannot but reto consider how we should best impart fresh commend it to the adoption of every man in health and vigour to the whole body of the the country who sincerely desires to increase constitution-having removed the rotten and the privileges and influence of the landed decayed branches, our object was to ascertain Aristocracy-with them this clause can but how we should best infuse new vigour and form an argument in favour of the measure. freshness to the parent stem and the remain- But before it was introduced into the bill there ing branches, so that fair fruit should be was not even a plausible ground for saying borne, and permanent health and energy that the landed interest was not sufficiently established. provided for, and protected. Will not the sixty-five additional county members increase their influence and power? In fact, there was no part of the bill which did not show a Your Lordships will see that these arrange- tendency rather to increase than to lessen or. ments constitute the plan upon which we now destroy that influence. Having thus laid propose to take the sense of this branch of the before your Lordships an outline of the princiLegislature; and I hesitate not to say that it ples of this most important measure, I shall will not only be unattended with danger, but not trouble you with those details which will that it will effect the best purposes of more properly form the subject of discussion permanent security. This plan, I hope, will in the committee. The object of those details obtain the consent of your Lordships. Your chiefly was to guard against expenses at Lordships will further see that in Counties, all elections-taking it as a first principle, that the present rights of voting are reserved-that the return of members to the Commons all freeholders in counties remain precisely as House of Parliament should be free and unthey were that every man in possession of a shackled. The division of Counties is the freehold retains his right of voting; but no next subject to which I shall call the attention franchise can be communicated with a free- of the House, and that,only very briefly, observ hold for life, unless it be of the value of ten ing,as I pass, that that division ought to form one pounds. Thus, then, will that manufacture of of the strongest recomendations of the Bill votes be prevented, which in practice worked that portion of the landed aristocracy who so mischievously. To those rights so already limit their views to the narrow objects of priexistent or created by the bill, we propose to vate and personal interest. I know that this add the right of voting from copyhold and portion of the bill is open to the charge of customary tenures of the value of ten pounds favouring those combinations and compro-to lessees for sixty years and to other lessees, mises by which particular persons have been as the printed bill will more particularly exhibit enabled to return members to the other House to noble Lords. In this part of the arrange-of Parliament; but my persuasion is, that rement I have now to call your Lordships at- flection and experience of its operation will tention to a clause which was introduced into convince its warmest opponents that such

"Inutilisque false ramos amputans Feliciores inserit."

to

2

t

will not be the ultimate results, and sure I am the present practice, it is any-thing but full, that it contains nothing which ought to render fair, or free: and no man can contend for its it unacceptable to your Lordships. Going continuance, unless he be also prepared to further into the details of the measure, you maintain, that a system is beneficial to the will find that it contains fresh provisions for country, in accordance with the principles of regulating the polling at elections, and for political expediency and unalterable justice, securing every freedom and facility for the which gives to loan contractors and speculating electors. It provides that the same property attorneys the rights and the influence which shall not yield two votes-that, in a borough, ought to belong to rank and landed possesno man shall vote for the town and the county; sions, and local connexion and personal cha if he he a resident, he votes for the town, if a racter. I can little imagine that, in times like non-resident for the county, and no intermediate the present, a system such as this can find tenant shall possess a right of voting, neither its advocates; that those strange and unjust shall qualifications be derived from the pay- anomalies should be defended in the 19th ment of land-tax; and to all at present pos- century-in an age like this, when, "the sessing the right of voting for towns as free-schoolmaster is abroad." (Hear, hear, hear.) I holders, it is still continued, provided they do not live at a greater distance from the place represented than seven miles. This, I need not point out to your Lordships, will prove a vast advantage in diminishing the expon-resident hereto fore attendant upon bringing voters to the poll; and further, it will have the beneficial effect of ridding the representation of the interference of strangers; and each place may in future be expected to send to Parliament persons connected and acquainted, and, as it were, identified with their local in terests. In the qualification of those who vote from houses, it will be required that they show a previous possession of them twelve months preceding—that they give direct proof of the house being of the value of 107., or rated in the parish books for Poors' Rates as for a house of that value, or paying an annual rent of that amount. If he qualifies on rent he must have paid up all arrears; if on taxes, all arrears to a specified period; and no householder shall be entitled to vote as such if his landlord pays his Poors' Rates. (Here the noble Lord went into a statement of the number of boroughs disfranchised and of those enfranchised, but in terms at variance with the printed bill. His Lordship almost immediately corrected himself, but in a tone of voice not heard below the Bar.) Upon this general outline, your Lordships are now called on to decide. I call upon any man to say if it be exposed to objection. Will it be considered that the right of nomination to boroughs forms a part of the British Constitution; but, on the contrary, will not all men say that such a right is wholly at variance, and inconsistent with the spirit and in-that peers ought to buy and sell seats in Pardependence of that Constitution? I say, my liament? Will any man, upon a point like Lords, that its acknowledged principles de- that, have the hardihood to set himself against mand the discontinuance of this modern-1 the recorded resolutions of the House of Comshould call it this incorrigible-abuse, as the mons? Another principle of our Constitution only means of recovering that popular confi- is, that no man shall be taxed unless through dence without which the representatives of the his representatives in the House of Commons; people in the Commons' House of Parliament and so jealous is that House of its privileges could not adequately discharge the high trusts in respect to bills for the imposition of taxes, reposed in them. I will go much farther. I that it will not allow this House to correct will contend that, neither in theory nor in the most trifling mistake, without instantly practice, is such a system consistent with the throwing out the bill. Will it then be conprinciples of the British Constitution. In tended that the practice of nomination is in theory, all men agree that the representation any respect consistent with principles such as of the people in the Commons House of Parlia-these? The arguments, then, which rest ment should be full, fair and free; while, in upon the theory of the Constitution, are ar--

should have imagined, that merely to state the existence of nomination boroughs in this country would be quite sufficient to ensure their being denounced. Let us see how far this Legislature. In the writings of all the men matter affects the aristocratic branch of the who have ever written on the Constitution of this country-in the recorded Resolutions of the House of Commons-in the proceedings of the House of Commons-I can find no trace or vestige of any-thing to warrant such a practice as that of nomination. On the contrary, the most careful steps have at various times been taken for the purpose of avoiding any practice of that nature, or even having a tendency thereto. Were there in the theory or the practice of the Constitution any-thing of the sort, is it reasonable to suppose that it would have escaped the acuteness of Locke and of Blackstone? It has not only not been acknowledged by them, but it has been denounced by Chatham and Saville, by Pitt, by Fox, and by Grattan. It has been denounced by them as that gross abuse, that rank gangrene, which was eating into the vitals of the Constitution, destructive alike of the liberties of the people, the security of this House, and the maintenance of the Throne. (Cheers.) I refer to the records of Parliament, in evidence of the impropriety of the interference of Peers in the election of the Members of the other House. At the commencement of every Session, is it not made a standing Order that Peers shall not interfere with the election of Members of the House of Commons? And will any man in the face of that maintain

guments which I hold cannot be refuted; let proceeding as it did with the borouglis cons us then come to the practice of the Constitu-tained in Schedule A. Much has been said of tion. I hold it to be equally inconsistent spoliation and robbery; but is there nothing with all that I have ever been able to discover iu modern times that equally well deserves to of that practice-where is the proof of its ever go by that name? Look to the Union with having been recognised? Can any man, by Scotland; on that occasion sixty-five boroughs any reference to the practice of our ancestors, were reduced to fifteen, and one hundred show that such a practice was ever legally in boroughs in Ireland, returning two hundred troduced? It it not the known prerogative of Members, were, under similar circumstances, the Crown to issue summonses to towns and disfranchised; was that an act of robbery and ather places to return members to Parliament spoliation? Oh, but there was, on that occa◄ And it is equally indisputable that for the sion, compensation. (Loud cries of Hear, most part those writs were issued with a view hear," from the Opposition benches, re to the competency, wealth, and population of echoed from the Ministerial.) No, it was not those places, and their general fitness to re- compensation, it was gross and scandalous turn members of Parliament when so sum- bribery-corrupt and notorious bribery-it moned. Is it not notorious that the issue of was a bribe for agreeing to the Union. I was those writs has been discontinued, either on in the House of Commons at the time. F application to be relieved from the burden of voted against the measure of the Union at the returning members-for in those days it was time, but now that it has been carried, that it a burden--or from the known decay of those has subsisted for so many years, I must say, places? These are facts notorious in the his- that any attempt to dissolve it would be in the tory of Parliament. I do not mean to say that last degree injurious to both countries. Once this prerogative has at all times been wisely again I repeat, that what was given to the exercised. I do not mean to say that it might Irish borough-owners was not compensation, not have been abused-that writs might have but a bribe. (Here Lord Plunkett addressed a been denied where they ought to have been few words to the noble Earl.) I am reminded issued, and continued where they ought to by my noble and learned Friend, that 23 of have been withdrawn; but that tells nothing the Irish boroughs lost one-half of their repreagainst the principle for which we are consentation without any compensation whatever. tending that principle is, that the repre- If to take the whole be a robbery, surely to sentation of the people ought to be a real re- take half is in principle the same; but the presentation; the only ground on which writs object is too notorious to be disputed, or to could be refused, was that the boroughs had need any discussion. No; if the Irish Parliafallen into decay. These considerations, then, ment had not completely forfeited all claim lead me to the other branch of the subject. to the confidence of the people it professed to It is said that the measure is one of spoliation represent, that Act would never have been and robbery. (A cheer from a noble lord on heard of which is now attempted to be re one of the Opposition benches.) I think I pealed, and which 1 think never can be rehear some noble lord assentiug to this posi-voked without ruin to both countries. At the tion. Let us look at the foundation upon period when that Union took place, I was, į which this rests. I deny that the right of re-have said, in the House of Commons, and turning members to Parliament is other than a trust; and surely no man will have the bar, dihood to affirm that the obligations of a trust are not perfectly distinct from the rights of property. Property may be enjoyed may be used-may be abused, provided the abuse injures no man but the owner; but a trust is confided for certain ends and purposes; and if a trust be violated, it may be resumed with perfect justice. In the private transactions of life, that principle has ever been acted on; and I see nothing that should deprive us of its benefits in transactions of a public and political character; and I say that time, however long, can consecrate no abuse so glaring and indisputable. Nothing can convert a trust into a right of property. This, then, is no act of robbery or spoliation. I will affirm that, over and over again, the old practice of the constitution was, that the King should refuse his writ; it is a matter of the most perfect notoriety that forty-four boroughs and one city were thus, in effect, disfranchised, in consequence of the discontinuance of the writs; thus, then, the bill only proceeded according to the usual practice of the constitution, in

shortly afterwards I heard Mr. Foster, who had been Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, say in his place in the United Parlia ment, that money had been directly given, and Peerages bartered in lieu of votes. (Cheers and counter cheers.) I have no hesitation in saying, on the subject of peerages, that on a recent occasion-I allude to the Coronation, a 7 time when the Royal grace and prerogative are usually exercised in reference to the peerage

that I should not have done my duty if I had advised the exercise of that prerogative in favour of those who were adverse to! the present bill; but I believe there do not exist men more independent than those who have been added to the peerage. But to return to what Mr. Foster said. He made the statement which I have described. The late Lord Londonderry got up, and objected to such insinuations being thrown out. Mr. Foster replied, "I make no insinuations-corruption and bribery have been practised→ money has been paid-seats have been bartered-is that an insinuation?—I am ready to prove the statement." So did that right hon. Gentleman speak, and no answer was given.

Upon no ground, then, I repeat, can nomina abuses should be perpetuated, because the tion be called the practice of the constitution. country has improved notwithstanding their A schedule, amounting to forty-four boroughs, existence. But, my Lords, I am at a loss to and one city-to say nothing of the disfran-understand the distinction which has been chisement of Scotch and Irish boroughs-is to drawn between those parts of the Scotch rebe found in our Parliamentary history; and as presentation which noble Lords opposite conto the resumption of a trust, when it ceases to demn, and Gatton and Sarum. (Hear.) In what be used for the benefit of the parties for whose way is the mound of Old Sarum or the wall of advantage it was created, I believe that is a Gatton Park better entitled to representation position against which no intelligent or im- than the Scotch Superiority, which reduced partial mau will for a moment contend. But the constituency of a county to one individual? in answer to all this, I am told that the con- I cannot see how it is possible to retain one, stitution, in its present form, works well; but if you abandon the other (hear); nor can Í that rule of working well proceeds too far, for believe but that the removal of those abuses, if a despotic Prince happened to be a man of instead of undermining the Constitution, will® mild and amiable disposition, his subjects render it more secure. Nor, my Lords, has should incur the hazard of submitting to his it been by this House that the power of nomityrannical successor, rather than depose him. nation to seats in the Commons House of Surely that is not doctrine that can ever be Parliament for these boroughs was enjoyed, adopted in a British Parliament. Freedom is but by a few individuals, who exercised that the first of blessings; when possessed it should power for their own advantage and to promote be most scrupulously cherished, and where their private ambition, whilst the odium is wanting it should be obtained at almost any thrown upon the whole body! (Hear.) That cost. Has the constitution, in its present form power is not exercised for the advantage of worked well? Has it conciliated or preserved the Peers as a branch of the Legislature, nor the confidence of the people? If it be neces- is it exclusively possessed by Peers, but shared sary that the representative portion of our with them by loan contractors and attorneys, legislature should aspire to the confidence of who speculate in the purchase and sale of the people, I will say of the present system, these boroughs for their own profit. The that instead of working well, nothing could effect was to diminish the respect of the people have worked worse. I did not happen to be for the Peers, and to place entirely at the disin this House a night or two ago, when a most posal of a few individuals those offices of valuable admission was made; but I read the honour and emolument which ought to be the statement in the newspapers. Of the present reward alone of merit. By removing such representation of Scotland I can say the doom abuses, you will relieve at the same time the iş sealed—it is really so absurd and ridiculous Peers from odium, and do justice to the peothat I only wonder how any one could for a ple. But, let me ask, do the Peers themselves moment imagine the possibility of its con- gain nothing by the bill? I am not one of tinued existence. Its thirty-three counties those who think that it could be for the adhad but 3,255 freeholders. If we remove from vantage of the nation that each brauch of the these the numbers who vote merely in right State, standing upon its own right, should of superiority, it reduces the whole number to cling to the letter of the Constitution for its 1,250-scarcely enough for a small borough. own advantage against the interests of the Argyll, with a population of 97,000, had only other two. It constitutes the happiness of the 130 electors; there were only 131 in Caithness, State in which we live that all the three of whom but 11 were real proprietors. Ren-orders are so blended together, that each, frew, with 15,000 souls, had only 142 electors. when acting as a separate body, is of necesInverness, with 95,000, possessed no more than sity led to view its own interests as wound up 90 electors, and of that number but 28 were with those of all the others. (Hear.) My real proprietors. Bute had but 21 electors, of Lords, I would by no means deprive the Peers whom one only was a proprietor. But, my of that natural and useful influence which Lords, we are not now going into the subject they ought to possess; at the same time that of the Scotch representation; and I only make I thank God they do not possess such immuthese statements in answer to the argument of nities and privileges as were possessed by the those who assert that the present system old French nobility. I greatly prefer that just works well, notwithstanding its abuses. If influence which they possess, as landed progood habits, industry, respect for property, prietors, and as magistrates-by good offices, and increased prosperity, are the criteria by benevolence and justice to the people, with of improvement, in what country are they whose interests theirs are identified as memmore remarkable than in Scotland? Surely bers of the same commonwealth. That inthat improvement is not to be attributed to fluence they will continue to possess, and that the system of Scotch representation, which, not diminished but increased, after the passas has been acknowledged by a noble Lording of this bill (hear!)-for the odium exopposite, is so bad, that it can no longer be maintained. I know not, then, by what reasoning it is attempted to attribute the prosperity which this country has enjoyed to the defective representation, or to prove that the

cited by the nomination boroughs will then be removed; whereas, should the unfortunate decision of this night be to reject the bill, I verily believe that the just, and natural, and useful influence of the Peers of this country

will be seriously reduced-by reforming those your Lordships to regard popular clamour, abuses which had become odious in the eyes but I would earnestly pray you to consider of the people, and which, amidst the improve-impartially and attentively the general expresments of time and the increasing knowledge sion of public opinion, and, if expedient, to of the people, cannot be retained for any con-yield to it. (Hear.) What was it that induced siderable length of time by any existing power the noble Duke opppsite to concede to the in this country. The bill, besides relieving claims of the Catholics? Did the noble Duke the Peers from the odium cast upon them by ever state that his opinions respecting those their supposed participation in those abuses, claims had been altered? Did he retract the will add considerably to their just influence, sentiments and principles by which his former by the addition of sixty-five Members to the conduct had been governed? (Hear, hear.)' County representation. (Hear.) The bill has Did the right hon. Member of the other. House been hailed by the country with a more of Parliament, who was second only to the unanimous expression of approbation than any noble Duke himself in influence and importother measure upon record; aud this remark, ance, say that his own opinions had undergone my Lords, has brought me to the last topic on any change? Did he not rather found the which it is my intention to occupy you at change in his policy upon the exigency of the present. I have said that the country was times and the altered state of public opinion? unanimous in approbation of the bill of which Was not the noble Duke himself charged in this I have risen to propose the second reading. For House with inconsistency, and with departing although it has been said that the eagerness from his principles?-and was not the defence of the people had passed away, so strong was of the noble Duke that he had not changed' this opinion in the minds of many persons at his opinious, but that he could no longer the time of the dissolution of the last Parlia-act on them consistently with the opinions of ment, that they confidently predicted that the country? (Hear.) With respect to the the result of the elections would be unfavour-present measure, I have not to excuse myself able to the Government which had resorted to to your Lordships for any change of former that measure. But I need not remind your Lordships of the result of those elections, nor need I remind you of the petitions which have lately been presented to this House, bearing signatures more numerous than ever before were attached to petitions upon any subject. I may be told that those petitions must not be referred to, for that the Peers of Eugland must calmly deliberate this great question on its own merits, and without regard to the desires of any portion of the people; and that the Peers will do their duty. Again, I may be told, that those petitions do not express the sentiments of the people of England; or, that if they do, the Peers are too noble, too highminded, too courageous a body to yield anything to intimidation. I believe, my Lords, I should be one of the last men in this House to recommend it to your Lordships to yield to intimidation. Far from addressing your Lordships in the language of intimidation, I would say, "Do not give way to popular clamour." But I do not use menace when I say, "Do not resist the just and liberal wishes of the people unequivocally expressed." (Hear.) I do not use the language of the people when I pray your Lordships to attend to the voice of nine-tenths of the people-too lond not to be heard, and too plain and reasonable to be mistaken or denied. But, my Lords, do not flatter yourselves into the belief that there is any abatement of the feeling of the people upon the subject of Reform. Do not believe that if this bill be rejected, a more limited measure can be substituted with safety or advantage. You must either take this bill, or you will be called on, not for this, but for something which you will think infinitely more dangerous than the present measure, although perhaps not more dangerous than a second refusal. I would not recommend it to

opinions, or for any departure from principles formerly professed. But, had it been otherwise, I should have felt myself borne out by the example of the noble Duke, in yielding to the unequivocally declared opinions of the people, and giving them that full, free, and fair representation to which they are entitled by those principles of that Constitution which have rendered it the admiration of the world, and the envy of surrounding nations. I do not, therefore, my Lords, address you in the language of intimidation, when I entreat you' to attend to the opinions of the people. But as noble Lords may dispute that those petitions express the opinions of the people, I will ask, cau they dispute that those opinions were expressed in the results of the dissolution of last Parliament? When Sir Robert Peel introduced into the other House of Parliament the Bill for the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, he stated that such changes had taken place in the opinions of the people, it would have been impossible for the Government to persevere in opposition to those opinions. Now, my Lords, how did the right hon. Gentleman make out his proofs that the people had so changed their opinions? He stated that the best criterion, the most practical and constitutional way to ascertain the opinions of the people, was to take a considerable number of the principal counties and towns, and to observe in what way the votes of their representatives had varied upon a: particular question. On that principle the right hon. Gentleman compared the votes of the representatives of eighteen counties, which he thought the most important, and finding that of those representatives nineteen voted for, and only seventeen against the emancipation of the Catholics, when the question had been last before the House, he considered