when their measures were attacked, and on the mystery in which they involved every thing belonging to the country. He reminded their lordships, that about two years ago he had stated the necessity of refore mation in the navy, but without success. He declared upon the best authority of the most enlightened men in Ireland, that country was then placed in a situation of imminent danger, He could not express in a manner too forcible the evils likely to arise from the system pursued by his majesty's present ministers. They were laying the foundation of animosity between both kingdoms, by sending over troops thither. He concluded his speeah with the advice given by M. Necker to kings en the subject of coercion: "Wise statesmen strongly advised them never to provoke the people; to avoid with the utmost caution coercive, and adopt conciliatory, measures, even in cases of the most pressing nature, as the most effectual to make their subjects comply with their just views, and reconcile them to a state of tranquillity.".

Lord Grenville affirmed, that the tone of distress imputed to the country began and ended with the lords who supported the motion. Were the question to be carried in the affirmative, he said, it would impart to him the most serious concern; not on account of his own personal ease or safety, but that he should be prevented from giving his efficient support to the executive government for the happiness of the whole community. If, in fact, the ministers had ever opposed those noxious political principles which aimed at the subversion of all regular governments, they were called upon at the present moment to continge with additional firmness

that opposition. With respect to the subsidies made to Prussia, on which the marquis of Lansdowne had been so pointedly severe, he should merely observe, that it was the best mode of hiring troops for public service. As to our alliance with Austria, could any one assert with justice, that we had not gained by that proceeding great and successive advantage to the real interests of the nation? It seemed to be considered by those who supported the motion, that the removal of ministers would be grateful to the public mind; but would it be equally so, that these lords should occupy their places? The present ministers had prevented that anarchy towhich the language of the opposition immediately tended, but which he had not heard before now expressed, nor expected to have heard in that house. A reform of parliament was a chief measure proposed. For himself, he objected to that inncvation, as a complete alteration of our constitution. He had even opposed a temperate reform; but this now offered for discussion was peculiarly objectionable: it went to pluck up by the roots every right planted by the constitution; it would exchange every election over the kingdom into the nature of a Westminster election, with which every one of their lordships was ne cessarily acquainted. Parliament did not possess so unlimited, so extraordinary a power as to authorise such a reform; and if the floodgates were once opened to innovation, the torrent of anarchy would spread so forcibly and so wide, that it would not be in the power of their lordships by oppos ing their feeble hand, as a barrier to destruction, to prevent the constitution from being overwhelmed in ruin.

The duke of Leeds entreated both sides in the most earnest manner, to proceed calmly in a discussion which involved in itself consequences of the utmost importance. He thought the noble secretary had nade the constitution depend, as it were, upon the continuance of the present ministers in office, rather than on its own intrinsic merit. He did not assert that these ministers were intentionally wicked, but he could not help considering them as peculiarly unfortunate. His grace disapproved of parliamentary reform.

Lord Grenville protested, that if the motion merely concerned the removal of ministers, he should not have risen to oppose it; but he believed the object was to promote not a change of men, but a revoluLion in the country.

The earl of Moira denied that the motion was of a personal nature; and vindicated the noble duke who made it on constitutional grounds. He for one, was not disposed to ascribe to ministers that prosperity which arose from the energy of our merchants. Their genius and enterprising spirit would ever carry the country to the height of glory, if administration did not put bars in their way. The motion, indeed, was meant to inflict a penalty on ministry for the ill success of the war. It had been opposed, lest the constitution should be overturned-but this was a fallacious and pernicious mode of argument, because then all our present evils and disasters would be attributed to government, not ministers; and the subversion of it might insidiously be pointed out as the only remedy. Of Ireland he wished to speak with caution: when the catholics had shown their loyalty at the time that the French

were off Bantry bay, the Irish go vernment, under the influence of the British cabinet, hesitated in rcfusing them a community of privileges. He hoped, however, that it was not too late to conciliate; but this could not be done by half measures: ministers must speak out fairly and explicitly, and not leave a loop-hole for suspicion. He de nied the affairs of Ireland being fo reign to the British cabinet; and therefore, should a convulsion happen in that country, it would be but justice to inflict punishment upon those on this side of the water who had not laboured to avert consequences so ruinous. He cot cluded with lamenting the slumber into which the house had fallen in this season of danger.

Earl Spencer objected to the mo tion on the same ground with lord Grenville. It was connected with a change of measures which would prove ruinous to the country; and if our situation was really danger. ous, every one should support the constitution.

The duke of Bedford was sur prised to hear the secretary assert, that there were fundamental rights of the people which the parliament could not take away: What, said his grace, not after repealing, in fact, the bill of rights, and striking at some of the most valuable and,in disputable privileges of the people?

The question being called for, the lord chancellor rose. He said, the drift of the motion was not only to criminate ministers, but to troduce a new system of govern ment, under the pretence of a par liamentary reform: that it tended to disfranchise all corporations, to empower the house of commons to uncreate their creators, and destroy the rights of the very men who

made

made them members of parliament. The term freeholder had hitherto been the pride of the best part of the nation; but by the plan proposed, this was to give way to the more favourable appellation of potboilers; it would cut up by the roots whatever entered into the nature of franchise-property or privilege, and introduce, instead, the principle of an agrarian law. He asked the duke how he would like the application of this doctrine to his own estates? He reminded him of all which had happened in France in the years 1789 and 1790. There it was observable, that those who were foremost in the revolutionizing the country, fell amongst the first victims of the pernicicus principles they had laboured to infuse. He intreated their lordships to pause, and consider the tendency of the motion, and then did not doubt their strenuous disapprobation of it.

The duke of Bedford, after an observation on the uncandid proceeding of speaking after his reply, denied the interpretation put upon the plan of reform; and pointed out the fallacy of comparing the elective franchise, a right possessed by individuals for the good of the whole, to private property. Were votes to be considered as private property, because they were bought and sold? It was a right, which so far from being injured by being extended, would be improved, because extension would give efficacy. But whatever objections there might be to the bill, they were no arguments against its introduction, since it was meant to be printed, and left open for discussion

till next year. The house divided-contents 12;

non-contents 65.

May 26. Mr. Grey moved a 1797.

reform in the representation of the people. He said, he was sensible he thus exposed himself to many uncharitable imputations; and if in resisting the destructive system of ministers, he with his friends had been accused of a wish to gratify personal interest and private ambition, of a wanton desire to thwart the executive government, they could not in the present instance expect to escape similar, or still more odious, imputations.

His speech was of considerable length; and he stated with much strength of argument and brilliancy of language our former prosperity and our present distresses. He solemnly affirmed, that he sought not to alter any part of the constitution; his sole object was, to obtain for the people a full, fair, and free representation in the house of commons. He wished our establish ment should remain as it was, com. posed of king, lords, and commons. He proposed that the county representation should continue nearly upon the same footing; there were, however, a few alterations which he thought might take place: instead of ninety-two county members which there were at present, there should be one hundred and thirteen; for instance, instead of two for the county of York, there should be two for each riding, and so in other counties where the present representation was not proportionate to the extent of the population.

In order to put an end to compromises, &c. each county or riding should be divided into grand divisions, each of which should return one representative. The next proposition he had to make was in the qualifications of electors. Instead of confining the right of election to freeholders, as it now

was, it should be extended to copyholders and leaseholders, who were bound to pay a certain annual rent a certain number of years. But the reform which he had to propose in the other branch of representation was of a much more extensive nature. It was, that the remaining four hundred members should be returned by one description of persons, which were householders. If it were possible, one person should not be permitted to vote for more than one member of parliament. In order to prevent expense, the poll ought to be taken through the whole kingdom at one time this was the outline of his plan-to state that it could be obtained at first with exactness, or was not able to difficulties, would be presumptuous and absurd; but he flattered himself there would be found no insuperable or fundamental objections to it. The landowner would find his property suitably represented, the merchant support in the householders, and men of respectability and talents in the different professions would find a fair door open for admission into parliament. The only persons whom he wished to exclude from that house, were men who were neither possessed of landed property, nor engaged in commercial enterprise, nor professors of any particular science; and who without property, without industry, and without talents, obtained seats in the house of commons by the in fluence of great men, for the purpose, not of consulting the good of the people, but of promoting their own interests. The members would then hold their seats, not on the basis of universal suffrage, but of universal representation. The qualification would be so fixed, that no man, however

mean, might not hope by honest industry and fair exertions to raise himself to distinction. And he begged to observe, that a man ar rived at the respectable situation of being a father, and consequently master of a family, having given hostages as it were to society, as an assurance of his interest in its welfare, was not unworthy of a share in the legislation of his country. If the reform in the representation was adopted, but not otherwise, the duration of parliament should be limited to three years. One objection had always been made to similar motions, viz. that it was an improper time to agitate the question: so far from this appearing of any weight to him, the time was one of the great inducements to bring it forward. In prosperity we were told that there was no need of reform; and though Mr. Pitt at one time had contended for its necessity, if we would shun the recurrence of the evils of the American war, he quite forgot his promise on coming into power, We were now in a state very far from prosperity: calamity had succeeded calamity, and every effort of the friends of their country had been ineffectual in stemming the tide of its misfortune; for himself he should despair of any endeavours which he could make after this night being successful; and though he always would be present to vote for or against measures which might be prejudicial to his constituents, he would not again trouble the house with his observations.

Mr. Erskine seconded the motion; and with all the powers of eloquence, with all the knowledge and perspicuity which the subject required, he pointed out the advan tages it was calculated to produce,

and

and its consistency with the principles of the constitution.

In entering into an examination whether the present constitution of the house fulfilled its office in the government, it was necessary, he said, to reflect what the office and character of the house of commons really was in genuine theory and original practice: its office was to balance the other branches of the government, to watch with jealousy over the executive power, which for the ends of good and active superintendence ought to be strong and powerful, to protect the popular privileges against the incroachments of aristocratic influence: and unless the house of commons was sufficient to maintain this character, it was a branch of the constitution cut off the principle of government was lost, and the people had no more political existence than slaves who groaned under the Scourges of despotic power. That the house once fulfilled this office, was certain; that our liberties were established by its constant exercise was acknowledged: we could recollect with pride and triumph the glorious exertions of our fathers within those walls, when tyranny, century after century, was combated and defeated, and the freedom of England, and of the world, was established. It may be asked, wherefore was it, that when the house of commons in its present frame had so balanced the crown, and so reared up the British gevernment from infancy to maturity, we were called upon to restore it to its original purity and vigour? Why, in such a moment of danger and disgrace, was it requisite to al ter what had for ages past accomplished the purposes of its institution? Because the circumstances of our situation were no longer the same.

Whilst the English were engaged in a struggle for their liberties against an arbitrary executive, acting by prerogative, and not by corrup tion, it was enough that there was a house of commons. Whoever sent the members, they had, when assembled, a common interest with the whole body of the na tion. Common danger united them against the crown, and they had nothing wherewith to buy off individuals from the performance of their duty to the whole. When the crown could not buy this house, it was driven to curb its privileges. This made the house as one man: and the representatives of ten or of ten thousand had the same spirit and the same interest on all political objects. Mr. Erskine said, if illustration was necessary, we had only to look back to the struggles of the commons during the reigns of the Stuarts; there we might behold it in its genuine office and character, reflecting the image of the constituent body, partaking its feelings, and contending with firmness and wisdom against every incroachment of the crown. But human institutions were not made for immortality; they must change with the insensible changes in human af. fairs, or perish by violence. The revolution of 1688 was a glorious era in the constitution of England: it established the true principle of all political constitutions, in maintaining the immutable right of the people to correct its government-but unfortunately, too little care was taken to guard against abuses so corrected. The formidable prerogatives of the sove reign were, indeed, reduced within the bounds of a just executive authority, and limited by the strict letter of the laws. But the terror and jealousy of the people were quieted