tions of the people. And thirdly, the great movement of society, which was always going on, had brought the country to a state in which abuses so flagrant as those which prevailed at elections could no longer be suffered to stand. (Cheers.) He thought the notion of 150 members being sent there by individu als was no longer to be tolerated-that places in which there were 160,000 inhabitants should be represented by a constituency of 14 or 15 persons was not to be endured. Not that other great and populous places should be repres sented by the very dregs of an opulent com❤ munity, who were drugged and bribed into accepting some stranger by a small party. These things they considered so contradictory to the constitution, so repugnant to reason, so absolutely adverse to the state of knowledge in the country, that it was impossible they could long continue. (Cheers.) The hon. Baronet on the opposite side, however, opposed all change, as well in respect of this as of other questions. And he remembered well a right hon. Gentleman, who was a leader and organ of his party, declared, upon an occasion when it was anticipated that three great questions would be introduced-the repeal of the Test Act, the Catholic question, and Reform in Par liament-that to all these questions he meant to give his decided opposition. (The gentleman he alluded to was the right hon. Member for Tamworth.) Now, on all these questions he and his friends considered that concession, and not opposition, was the line of true statesmen. (Cheers.) Acting upon this principle, they had supported the late Government in the propositions for the repeal of the disabilities of the Dissenters and Roman Catholics; and if they had originated a motion for parliamentary reform of an extent far more limited than he approved of, they should in like manner have had their support. (Cheers.) The late Government, however, declined this course, His Majesty called his present advisers into power, and having entered office, they could not take any other course except that of endeavouring to carry their own principles into

citement, no portion of the blame could attach to him-(hear, hear):—it was decidedly the fault of those who, when in tranquil times a most temperate and moderate measure of reform was proposed a measure reduced and diluted to the very minimum of reform thought even such a measure too strong, and considered that the concession of it would be a violation of principle, which was not to be brooked by men who denominated themselves the conservative party of the State. (Cheers.) A right hon. Gentleman had last night quoted some words used by him, and drawn from them a conclusion very different from what had been intended. He had said, that if the principle of change were once admitted, there would be no possibility of stopping it. But did this imply that they were not, in consequence, to attempt some small change at first to see how it would act in times of quiet, when the experiment could have been deliberately tried, as it might have been, before it came to be supported by great popular petitions, and by large portions of the inhabitants in every part of the country. (Cheers.) They who said that the wise course to pursue was to remain as we were, were the persons who were to blame for the circumstances under which the present discussion was going forward. It was better, said they, to leave things as they stood. Well, it was in consequence that they now came to discuss a question which, he confessed, as it began a great change, could not be unattended with peril(cheers), but which was so infinitely safer than standing still where they were, that he thought there was no man who really knew the state of the country, and who, comparing the two dangers, must not make up his mind that the danger of a great change is better than the risk of refusing all change, and declaring, as no long time since it had been declared, that the constitution of the House of Commons was perfect, and that any the least alteration was not advisable. (Cheers.) He was sorry to detain the House so long upon this subject, but the fact of the charge having come from a quarter whence he did not, per-effect-(cheers),-and bring forward measures haps, much expect it, induced him to refer now more particularly to the means by which the question of reform was brought to its present state. They who considered reform in Parliament necessary, thought, in the first place, that, conformably with the constitution, that House ought to consist of the representatives of the people-a proposition which, in the time of Mr. Speaker Onslow, would have been considered a truism, but which now-adays was presumed only to be held by the advocates of bold and decisive innovation. (Cheers.) Next, he held that the representation of an individual could by no ingenuity of argument be proved to be the representation of the people. And at length the people had found that these members were not united to their interests in the same way as others would be, chosen by themselves; and this had excited distrust and suspicion among large por

which should give satisfaction to the country without injuring its interests. The members of the existing Government, far from making reform a matter to excite the people, on the contrary were ready upon this, as upon all other questions, to meet their adversaries fairly; and when they were called upon by the Sovereign to propose such measures as they considered for the good of the country, they had proposed a measure, the attempt at less than which they looked upon as dangerous-the attempt at more as attended with the risk of failure, and of injury to the great inte rests of the empire. An hon. Gentleman who had spoken that night had alluded to a saying of Lord Plunkett's, and entirely misrepre sented it. When Lord Plunkett observed, that in some men's hands history was no better than an old almanack, he meant in the hands of those who looked only to the letter, and

no

were incapable of conceiving the spirit. The interests. It should be remembered, too, that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had spoken the manufacturers in many towns where they a great deal about the recent history of France, but he had entirely mistaken its spirit. He had dilated upon the late revolution-but what caused it? Who were the guilty persons? It was the Ministry of Polignac-the Proclamation rescinding certain portions of the charter, and destroying the liberty of the Press. The distinguished men who had resisted that proclamation were liable to no blame-they simply performed their duty to their country and themselves; and he trusted there was not a member in this House who would not think himself bound to disobey such a proclamation. The obstinacy of Charles X.-the folly of his Ministers-had brought down upon France the misfortunes of revolution. And now look to the spirit of the story. Had the violent popular party-the men of this movement-ob. tained the supreme power? No. M. Perier, who placed himself between the encroachment of despotism on the one hand, and democratic anarchy on the other, had maintained his place, and established in Paris, and most of the departments, order, in concurrence with the liberty of the subject. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker), who had compared him to M. Guizot, he begged to remark that this same M. Guizot was yet in the full confidence of the Chamber. For his part he considered that the spirit of the lessons which we had to learn from recent French history was, that we should not increase the danger by running counter to the spirit of the times. (Cheers.) He would now come to the bill before the House. As to the question of the small boroughs, whether 56 were taken, or more or less, it mattered not; the time was gone by when government could be conducted by means of those boroughs, with the support and respect of the country. (Cheers.) That the system of nomination boroughs was gross could not be denied. It was ground on which it was no longer possible to stand. He thought that the advantages described as peculiar to the nomination boroughs were much exaggerated. All that was useful in them might be had by popular representation. And as for the right of the Parliament to change its own constitution, none, he presumed, would doubt it: it had been admitted, even by Mr. Pitt, at the period of the Union. He now came to the consideration of what would be the nature of the House of Commons under the bill if it passed into a law. There would be 166 members for counties of England and Wales, the only difference in the constituency being that copyholders and tenants-at-will to the amount of 507. a year would have the right of voting, and that 27 counties would be divided, each division to return two members. It was said that in Lancashire and Warwickshire there would be a preponderance of the manufacturing interest in the return of members for the county. This might be true, but it would be very unwise to excite any feeling of irritation between the agricultural and manufacturing

were most powerful returned landed gentlemen. There were, next, some thirty towns in Schedule B, places which, they were told by gentlemen opposite, were likely, as country towns, to return landed gentlemen in their neighbourhood. Next, there were 120 members returned by places with less than 10,000 inhabitants, and, as appeared from the returns, the average number of constituents was from 4,000 to 5,000; not more than twenty of them, indeed, had more than a constituency of 5,000. In fact, he had ascertained that the number of 107. householders was about in a proportion of one-third to the inhabitants. It was curious to remark also, that out of 130 mechanics who were householders in Leeds, only two were 107. householders. In Manchester the proportion was greater it was 30 to 130. Therefore would it have been very unjust to raise the qualification to 157., since the constituency never could be so extensive as to make universal suffrage. He admitted, indeed, that in some of the metropolitan districts there would be a constituency of 18,000 or 20,000. (Laughter.) But though he thought 107. not too low, he also thought it low enough. He wished, with Mr. Fox, to have an iudependent constituency, not to have voters brought up to the poll in regiments. By hav ing voters independent, there would no longer be a risk of their being misled by statements such as that Parliament had voted the King a million for his personal expenses, and statements such as this, which were made by men who spoke of evils which did not exist, and promised benefits from reform which never could accrue. As to what had been said respecting the diminution of the kingly power, he denied that any of the just prerogatives of the Crown would be affected by the measure. It was in vain that the opposers of the measure then before the House attempted to describe it as one imparting exclusive privileges to a few. No! the most cursory observer could not fail to see that it conferred the full rights and franchises of the constitution upon all who could command a house, and who could pay rates for it. That formed now the basis of the constituency of the country, and it was a basis upon which the constitution might, he thought, be allowed safely to rest. It was a basis which, as it did not depend upon ingenious views of the political doctrines and institutions of other countries, so it could not be better justified than by a reference to the history and present state of our own country. The bill upon which the House had that night to decide was framed upon principles derived from those sources; and he could not but hail its introduction as the harbinger of a brighter era. Amongst the many authorities by whom those principles were recognised and sanctioned, was to be found the name of Mr. Speaker Onslow, who, in the times of Sir Robert Walpole, in those days of jobbing and joviality, had the candour and the courage to say, that

the system of corruption which then prevailed could not go on, and that the Prince who first set the example of putting an end to it would secure to himself an immortal reputation. The present Government had the good fortune, and they prided themselves on the circumstance, to serve a Prince by whom that glory would be achieved. If, however, it was resolved to insist upon the maintenance of acknowledged abuses if the determination continued to maintain undenied corruption-if the opinion of a great pre-united and enlightened people were to be set at defiance, he felt far from sanguine as to the result. (Cheers.)

of the public feelings, which members on both sides of the House had so frequently deprecated. The terrorism of the press had been>> used to carry the present question, against the wishes of those who had ever shown their attachment to the constitution-against the wishes and opinions of the Radical Reformers. They had, in this state of things, a specimen of that ungoverned license by which the press was enabled to effect, in conjunction with the Government, an object to which such a large and influential portion of the nation was op posed-it was a case without a parallel in the history of this country, of France, of the Roman empire, or of any nation, ancient or modern. (Cheers.) It was impossible for him to proceed further without noticing the fact that the noble Lord opposite had left untouched the arguments which had on former occasions been urged against the measure-not one of those arguments had he made even the slightest attempt to touch. He would now call the attention of the House to some of the calculations made by the noble Lord. He ad mitted that in many of the large towns to which representatives would be given, not more than one-third of the male adult population would have votes; thus, as had been well said, there would be an aristocracy of shopkeepers. Did any one believe that that aristocracy of 107. householders would give satisfaction to the great body of the people? Yet the noble Lord assumed that it would be not only satisfactory, but final. Could any rational' man believe that the people would be satisfied with a system which established the Indian, system of castes, and broke up the people into classes and divisions heretofore unknown to the British constitution, and create a new

Sir C. WETHERELL said, that the noble Lord opposite had then, as upon all occasions, freely and distinctly stated his views on the subject of the bill before the House, and upon the question of Parliamentary Reform generally; and if he (Sir C. W.) complained of any class of reformers as not being clear and explicit in the statement of their sentiments, he did not wish to he understood as including the noble Lord in that number. On that occasion, as on all preceding occasions, the noble Lord had told them that he desired to introduce a measure which would maintain and not subvert the aristocracy, the church, or the landed interest of England. He gave the noble Lord full credit for believing that his bill would not have the effect of injuring the institutions of the country. He gave the noble Lord full credit for wishing to save them. He, it was well known, entertained different sentiments, and in giving utterance to them, he claimed for himself equal credit for sincerity and good intention. The present measure was introduced at a moment of unexampled public excitement, but that was no fault of his; the fault of that excitement was chiefly to be at-local aristocracy, which the people would tributed to the Administration themselves never be satisfied with? The bill went to do excitement created in favour of a measure away the ancient scot-and-lot right of voting, which was so far from that which the noble and to establish, not a plebeian, but an arisLord himself proposed in 1819. It might be tocratical principle-one which excluded twoperfectly right and proper to give members to thirds of the inhabitants. While professing to Leeds and Manchester, and other great towns; support and preserve the balance of the conbut that was not the bill. He would ask the stitution, it would not be easy to imagine a noble Lord why he did not adhere to his own measure better calculated to subvert and deoriginal proposition, the utmost limit of which stroy that balance; for not only would it divide was to give a few new members to the large the people into castes, but also have the effect towns? In his humble apprehension, the of dividing that House into castes and divisions, Ministers assumed a grievous responsibility instead of that House being an indiscriminate when they took upon themselves to propose a and combined body of representation, it would measure of so wide and sweeping a nature, then be so formed as that the landed interest> when, as he would contend, it was not called must be overpowered. It was as disagreeablefor by the people. As a proof that a reform in to himself as it must be to the House, that he Parliament would not have the effect of sub- should thus so frequently advert to topics so verting the aristocratical and ecclesiastical trite; but a sense of duty compelled him toinstitutions, they were told that M. Casimir repeat, that it had ever been considered a vital > Perrier was still Minister of France, and that principle of the constitution that no particular he was a reforming Minister; but who could class should have any ascendancy in that say how long he would remain Minister? House; but that, like all the received docReference was then made to a censorship of triues of the constitution, was now to be overthe press. He deprecated as much as any man turned. Who were to be satisfied by the bill? an attempt to affix a censorship on the press; the aristocracy? Certainly not the Radical man could conceal from himself reformers: let the House remember what the the fact, that the Polignac press of this coun- hon. Member for Prestou told them respecting try had contributed largely to the excitement the opinions of his constituency. Did they

but no

1

h

houses in order; and within a month after-hostes humani generis, who pretended that it wards, the palace of one of the Bishops was in would relieve every species of distress. It was, flames. (Loud cheers.) He did not see the hon. equally with the last, a measure of revolution Member for Calne-the Ariel of Calue-in his and robbery (cheers) as Jacobinism was the place. He was happy to observe him behind | principle of the last, so was it of the present the Chair; and he put it to that Ariel behind bill. (Cheers.) He would again insist, that it the Chair (laughter), who had talked so much was a change without necessity or use; for of the reign of Charles I., whether he could the constitution, as it stood at present, was point out a precedent at all parallel to what he equally preservative of the liberties of the had just advanced? He (Sir C. Wetherell) people and the prerogatives of the crown. agreed that it was difficult to stop excitement; (Hear.) Before he sat down (oh, oh!) from difficult, indeed, when it rushed in such a the Ministerial benches; answered by cheers torrent from a source whence a single drop from the Opposition)-before he sat down he ought not to flow; difficult, indeed, when it would say, that both the noble Lords opposite burst in such a blaze from a quarter whence had failed to answer the speech of his hon. a single spark ought not to escape. (Much and learned Friend the Member for St. Mawes. cheering, long continued.) Who could blame Up to the present moment the principles and the people for being excited, when their pas- probable operation of the bill remained unexsions were roused even by the leader of this plained. (Loud cheers.) blessed conservative Ministry? (Hear, hear, Sir R. PEEL rose, and after some delay the hear.) After this, could the colleagues of this House became sufficiently silent for him to political prophet assert that it was not their proceed. The right hon. Baronet said :fault-that they, forsooth, were not to blame-At this late hour of the night, and in this and that they could not resist a tide, the flood-stage of the debate, when so short a time is gates of which they had themselves opened? left-when, according to the prevailing wish They had raised the excitement for the sake of carrying their bill, and now they were anxious to skulk behind the supposed necessity they alone had created. Thus a law was to be extorted by intimidation that could not be justified by reason. (Cheers.) Something had been said about episcopacy, and he did not blame those who were opposed to it, but he thought that the protection of episcopacy was necessary for the preservation of the national religion. He thought with Pope:

of the House, we shall proceed to a division, I should desire at once to address myself to those arguments in favour of this measure which are supposed to be still left standing, without referring to any arguments of a private nature. But the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Calne, who, for the third time, has thought it desirous to introduce some topics unconnected with the merits of the debate, and who has addressed himself to me in a manner purely personal, compel me to adopt "Ev'n in a Bishop I can spy desert;" a different course; for I should be unworthy of the situation which I hope I hold in this and take away the props of religion, religion House, if I permitted the debate to close withitself must fall. Reference had been made to out reference to these arguments. I think the late French Revolution. He begged to ask that the hon. Gentleman, in the three speeches whether it was yet finished? and the question he has made in favour of reform, has taunted had been at least raised whether the ancient me three times on the subject of the Catholic formula of public worship on the Sabbath question. I confess I thought that after three should not be abolished. He would tell the speeches he might have left this alone; and conservative Ministry of England that an in- that after two months, he would not have come sult offered to the dignitaries of the Pro- down with all the sweltering venom (trementestant Church was a personal insult to dous cheering) collected in the interval which every member of that church. After all, he has elapsed since the last attack was made could not blame the ignorant and vulgar, who upon me. He has charged me with having were hurried away by the impetuosity of been guilty of unworthy things towards the their passions to acts of contumely and ven- present Ministry in the course they have been geance, when the example was set in a quarter pursuing, as if I were under some necessity of where dignity and honour ought to reside, returning the compliment I received from and from whence protection ought to be af- them upon the Catholic question. What is forded. (Repeated cheers.) The right hon. the obligation I have contracted? The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to remark upon the Gentleman says, "When you proposed the recent events at Lyons, and deduced from Catholic question, they who had before brought them the argument that the three glorious it forward agreed with you cordially, and handdays, and what they had accomplished, had somely gave you their support; and, when not done enough for the lower orders of the they brought forward the Reform Bill, why people of France, who were still dissatisfied. did you not do the same?" Simply, Sir, for He contended that the effect would be the this reason-that they agreed with me on the same in this country-that the projected Re-Catholic question, while I differ from them on form would not be final-that the people would be disappointed when they found that it did not remedy their existing evils, and that the advocates for the measure were only the

the subject of Parliamentary Reform. He has charged me with what amounts in substance though not in phrase to little less than gross corrupt apostacy. (Hear.) He has insinuated