41; the majority on Saturday, the 14th reformers gained 3, who voted on the lat of April, 1832, was 9-50. The anti

ter and not on the former occasion,-viz. Marquis of Abercorn, Earl of Ashburnham and Lord Oriel (Viscount Ferrard) : the reformers lost 3, who voted on the former but not on the latter occasion,viz. Marquis of Donegal, Marquis of Westmeath, and Lord Dawnay (Viscount Downe :---56.

A comparison between Ridgway's Lists will account for the 56.

A. 17 peers who voted against the bill in 1831, voted for it in 1832, each counting as two; B. 10 peers who voted against it in 1831, did not vote at all in 1832; C. 812 peers who had not voted at all in 131, voted for it in 1832 :-56. A. (17.) Earls of Harrowby, Tankerville, Bradford, and Coventry. Lords De Roos, Calthorpe, Wharncliffe, Gambier, Gage, Ravensworth, Northwick, and Melros (Earl of Haddington). Bishops of Lincoln, Llandaff, Lichfield and Coventry, Bath and Wells, and one Irish Bishop, viz. Killaloe;

All the four Irish Prelates having voted against the measure in 1831. B. (10.) Marquis of Bath, Earls of St. Germains, Stamford, and Dudley. Lords Carberry, Skelmersdale, Ribblesdale, Dufferin, and Ross (Earl of Glasgow. Bishop of Peterborough. C. (12.) Earls Stanhope, Somers, O'Neill, Stradbroke. Lords Middleton, Crewe, and Stuart (Earl of Moray). Archbishop of York. Bishops of London, St. David's, Worcester, and Chester.

THE

HE majority, by which the second reading of the reform bill had been carried in the House of Lords, was greatly- too insignificant to give the Ministers any confifidence of being masters of it in the committee. They had nevertheless gained much. A creation of an hundred new peers, fatal in any circumstances to the independent existence of the House of Lords, would have appeared, if possible, still more unjustifiable, if it had preceded the second reading, when it was yet unknown what effect might have been produced on the temper of the House by the continued excitement of the public, the determination of the government, and the changes which had been made in the bill itself. On the other hand, if the second reading were again lost, the bill was thrown out for the session, unless all parliamentary law were set at defiance; and, if the ministers did not become the victims of the violence which had hitherto been exerted in their behalf, they

would at least have forfeited the countenance of furious unions and more furious journals, which had hitherto been useful partisans. A great danger was thus avoided by getting the bill into committee, by however small a majority. As no proxies count in committees in the House of Lords, they might, perhaps, reckon on the more constant attendance of the friends of government, and the relaxed hostility of those who thought that the only position, from which the substantial mischiefs of the bill could have been effectually reseated, had already been abandoned. At the worst, they had still the same power of creating peers. They might expect to strip such a measure of part of its odium by representing the votes of the committee as contradictory to the decision of the House adopting the principles of the bill, and by insisting that the conduct of the majority was a disingenuous and insulting contrivance to destroy in detail what they had

been afraid openly to oppose. That they must have laid their account with having recourse at last to this extreme measure seems to follow from this, that, knowing as they did the sentiments of the peers who had now given them a majority, they could not reasonably expect to carry the bill unscathed through the committee by means of that majority, unless they were prepared to make greater concessions than they had yet shown any symptoms of granting.

Parliament met, after the Easter recess, on the 7th of May. The House of Lords went into committee on the reform bill, no attempt having been made by the opposition to move any instructions to it. In the committee, Earl Grey stated that the House would probably be inclined to follow the course which had been adopted by the House of Commons, viz. to dispose of the enacting parts of the disfranchising clauses, leaving the schedules for future consideration. Thus, in regard to the first clause, they had begun by determining that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised, and had delayed the schedule of the particular boroughs till the other clauses should be disposed of. As there were some, however, who objected to say, in the first instance, that the number of fifty-six should be disfranchised, it was his intention, when they came to that clause, to propose that the words "fifty-six" should be omitted, and to propose that each of the boroughs in schedule A., that is, the different boroughs in the schedule, as they were afterwards to be separately proposed to the House, should cease to send members to parliament. He thought this the best mode of obviating the objection to the clause as it now stood.

On this, Lord Lyndhurst suggested that it would be still more convenient to postpone altogether the consideration of the first clause. If this were done, he should likewise propose the postponement of the second clause; and he would take this course, for the purpose of entering on the consideration of the boroughs and places to be enfranchised, a matter which he thought ought to be discussed, before the House entered on the question of disfranchisement. This would involve nothing like a prejudgment of these clauses. To borrow the language of his profession, he desired that the clauses should be postponed "without prejudice,"-in fact, that the House should reserve itself for the consideration of them unprejudiced and unfettered, precisely as if they had not been postponed at all. He recommended this mode of proceeding, because a bill of this kind ought to be essentially a bill of enfranchisement, of which principle disfranchisement ought only to be the consequence. The proper mode of proceeding in disfranchising a number of places was, to begin by establishing the necessity of the occasion, and by ascertaining previously what places were to be enfranchised. Earl Grey's proposal met the objection in part, but not altogether; for by coming to the consideration of the first clause they would still make disfranchisement precede enfranchisement; but if his lordship would not only omit the number "fiftysix," but abstain from incorporating the schedule with the clause,the objection would be entirely obviated. It was more gracious to begin with an act of favour, or if they would, of justice. Now to begin with disfranchisement was to

begin with depriving persons of a right. The preamble of the bill admitted that it was a right; and before touching it, they ought to establish enfranchisement as the foundation and justification of the proceeding. If they pursued this course, they would disfranchise as a matter of necessity; but if not, on what principle would they disfranchise? In almost every plan of reform hitherto brought forward, enfranchisement had been the end, and disfranchisement had been regarded only as a means. Seventy years ago, the plan of Lord Chatham was, to add a hundred members, to be returned partly by the counties, partly by large towns; but disfranchisement formed no part of it. The next was Mr. Pitt's first plan in 1783, which likewise proposed the addition of an hundred members, and provided for disfranchisement only in this way, that if any borough should forfeit its right to return members, then the franchise should be thrown into the general mass. Mr. Pitt's second plan, that of 1785, was, to add seventy-two members, and raise a sum of money for the purchase of thirty-six boroughs; but this latter step was to be a subsequent measure, and was not to be resorted to, till it had been seen how the addition of the seventy-two members would operate. Mr. Flood's plan was, likewise, one of addition, without any mention of disfranchisement. Of Lord Grey's own earlier plan, the main feature was, the great increase of the county members. Some years ago, another plan had been introduced by Lord John Russell, comprehended in four resolutions, the second of which declared, that it was expedient to give members to the large towns then unrepre

sented; but the third resolution recommended the appointment of a committee to consider how the enfranchisement might be best effected without any inconvenient addition to the members of the House of Commons; and the very words of Lord John Russell on that occasion were, "Let us first agree as to what towns shall be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of disfranchisement, what alterations it may be necessary to propose." On the same principle he would now proceed. It was no prejudging the question of disfranchisement; for their lordships would afterwards measure the extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should have carried the principle of enfranchisement. He admitted, at once, that he considered the second reading of the bill to have fixed the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and extension of suffrage; but yet the House was not fettered, in the slightest degree, as to the point to which these principles were to be carried, although he had no hesitation in saying that, after all that had passed in both houses of parliament, and looking at the state of the country, and the expectations which were abroad, neither he, nor those with whom he acted, were disposed to suggest any alterations which would render the measure unsatisfactory to intelligent reformers. He moved that the first and second clauses of the bill should be postponed.

The Lord Chancellor reminded the House that, although Earl Grey had proposed to omit the number, that had no connection whatever with any intention not to propose the disfranchisement of all the fifty-six.