the evils which, it was asserted, might have been avoided, had parliamentary reform been adopted. But he would contend, that the war originated not with us; that what had been called inroads were bulwarks for the defence of the constitution, and that the feelings of the people went uniformly along with the proceedings of the parliament: never did it enjoy the confidence of the country more than at this crisis. (Here Mr. Fox showed some signs of dissent.) Mr. Pitt said he could maintain this assertion; for was the house of commons so far from being the image of a representative assembly, that a general election afforded no opportunity to the people to express their sentiments? He desired gentlemen to recollect how far the opposition, and the support of administration, were grounds of pretension in different popular elections, and what had been the result of these contests? They might recollect also, that in the city of London, where they were most confident of their strength, where they were so assured that the voice of the livery was in unison with their efforts, they were confuted by the result of a poll. They could therefore produce no proof that parliament had acted in opposition to the voice of the Country-the reverse was the truth. He objected strongly in the next place to the introduction of numerical representation. On what ex perience, on what practice, was it to be introduced? Were we to renounce the benefits of a tried system for a monopolizing theory which had no example in its favour! It never had been contested, that the inequality of the representation had been attended with any practical disadvantage; that the infrest of Yorkshire had been neg lected, because it sent only two members to parliament; or that Birmingham or Manchester experienced any ill consequences from having no representatives. proposition was new, extensive, overturning all the ancient system without substituting any real benefit. In the mixed representation which now subsisted, the scot and lot elections were those which had been thought most objectionable; and the honourable gentleman had formerly agreed with him that burgage tenures and small corporations were even less exceptionable than open burghs with small qualifications: yet from this extension of them it had been a general complaint, that much confusion, debauchery, and abuse of elections had arisen, which, notwithstanding, formed the principal feature in the plan. Upon these grounds, seriously surveying the situation of the country, examining facts with attention, unless we would belie the testimony of our constituents, and seal our own dishonour, Mr. Pitt avowed his total disapprobation, and gave his negative to the motion. Sir Francis Burdett declared it was his most ardent wish to preserve the country from ruin. He wanted (he said) to protect the rights and liberties of the people, but not the undue influence of a junto of nobility and placemen. He deplored that humiliating confidence which had enabled the minister to bring us into so deplorable a condition: it had supported him in a war, which, like that of America, was a bold and daring, but unsuccessful attempt to stifle the flame of liberty. The minister had endeavoured to restore monarchy in France; he had procured its utter annihilation; he had endeavoured to destroy the principles principles of the French republic; he had established them on a basis not to be shaken. The motion laid before the house had his concurrence, as a measure highly necessary, and one that should be adopted without delay. Had the people been fairly represented before the war had been undertaken, it never would have been undertaken. It was in vain for the minister to talk of preserving the bulwarks of our constitution: he had himself destroyed them. It was in vain to deny the existence of abuses: they were to be seen in the barracks which had been erected all over the country; they were to be found in the laws by which the people were prohibited from saying what they thought; they were to be lamented in the practice of sending away the public money without the consent or even the knowledge of parliament. All these were abuses of the ancient constitution, and never could have crept into it but by the corruption of the executive government, and that corruption, unless we had a reform, would be come its euthanasia. Mr. Robert Thornton denied that the system of government had been as corrupt as the last speaker had represented, Some reform was requisite, but these were times un friendly to reformation; in a few years he hoped it would be other wise. He gave his negative to the present motion. Sir Richard Hill said, he was far from considering the present as a weak administration; there never had sat in that house one more able. As to their wickedness, he charged them not all; he would join neither side in abuse; he believed there was much virtue in both, and he wished to see them united to save the country. From the first moment he saw the propriety of so doing, he had voted against the war. He disapproved of sending money to the emperor; a loan he would not call it, for he did not believe any of it would ever be repaid. He wished well to reform, there was much of it wanted, and the best way to set it on foot was for every man to reform him. self. He wished we had paid more devotion to that Being without whose will we could do nothing. He concluded with voting for the motion. Lord Hawkesbury was decidedly against it. The time (he said) rendered it peculiarly improper, but that was not his principal objec tion. The advocates for the plan of reform differed so materially in their modes, that, in fact, it was impossible to unite them, The reason for so much dissension was obvious; the evil of which they complained had no existence; if it had, there would have been no difficulty in fixing the remedy. He observed, there had been many wars in which this country had been engaged that might not have been just or necessary; many that were actually so, had been protracted longer than was wise or prudent, but none in which the house had persisted against the will of the people. The American war was, at its commencement, a popular war; the house of commons and the people went hand in hand together; the opinions of the latter changed in the course of that war, so did those of the former; and the reason that administration was afterwards supported was, because some riots happened in the metropolis, which made the house, out of a sense of common danger, rally round the executive government to support the state from impending ruin. This was a striking instance of the parliament acting in unison with the people. And at this moment, so far was the house of commons from speaking any language but that of the people of this country, that they expressed the very sentiments of the majority; and so far from innovating upon their privileges, that he would pledge himself to prove the popular power was continually improving, and that the house was more popular than ever it had been before this time. In short, his lordship professed himself convinced, that the motion would lead to the overthrow of monarchy and the house of commons together. Mr. Sheridan ridiculed with a great deal of ingenuity the alleged proof," that because there was difficulty in fixing the remedy, the evil did not exist." It reminded him of the old adage, “When doctors differ," &c. If that was to be the answer, it would follow, that if they differed about the remedy, the patient, though apparently dying, was in perfect health. He knew not where the noble lord had studied his logic, but certainly it was not in the college of physicians. Much had been said of throwing the country into confusion; the minister and his advocates affected to dread the principle of the present measure, because it seemed to proceed upon the Rights of Man, and these principles were adopted by the French, and led to all the horrors which had been transacted in their revolution. But for his own part, he must deny that the horrors of it were produced by the Rights of Man: bloody calamities there had been; but that they originated in these principles, he disputed. There was not one individual who was concerned either in writing or publishing them, that was concerned in any of the massacres in that country; and here he repeated what he had said on former occasions, that excess was the natural effect of all revolutions, when men shook off their slavery. Under the necessity of recovering their liberty by force, they were naturally intemperate. If the question was asked him, who were the real authors and abettors of these massacres, he should not hesitate to place certain despots in the front of his accusation. Mr. Sheridan said nothing could be more unjust than the view which the minister had thought proper to take of the reform and the reformers. He had desired the public to look upon the one as so many masked traitors, and upon the other as a latent mode of overthrowing the constitution. He knew not why universal suffrage should have been brought into such contempt; he remembered having signed his name, with the duke of Richmond, at some meetings in favour of it and of annual parliaments. He considered it as the right of every man to propose that if he thought fit; its expediency was matter of discussion and deliberation; if any other plan was better, there was no reason for its not being preferred. But it seemed now to be treated as a species of treason; nor would he admit that every man who thought universal suffrage the best method, would necessarily wish for anarchy and confusion. It had been stated, that the number of those who desired a reform in parliament, was small: he did not believe it. The whole body of the dissenters wished it, without pulling down the fabric of the constitution. He had himself been accused of seeking to join the friends of anarchy-he begged to ask, what temptation he could have? what provocation to oppose the aristocracy of this land, or the monarchy? He had possessed, during the time he had filled an office of considerable trust, some confidence from the monarch. He had been honoured with the distinguished favour of an illustrious personage; he had been treated with civility by many of the first families in this country; he knew of no occasion to regret the want of attention from that house; he therefore expected credit for his sincerity, when he declared that he supported this motion, because he thought it tended to restore to the people the purity of their excellent constitution, and to save the state from ruin. Sir William Young avowed him self an enemy to every plan he had ever heard suggested for the altera tion of the form of our representation; and the present, in his opinion, was as objectionable as all the preceding. Every such plan would finally extend to universal suffrage, and the multitude would convert it into the most mischievous consequences. Mr. Barham thought, that in this season of so much difficulty and alarm, it would be unwise to call the attention of the house to a subject which must excite very strong emotions in the country, and create divisions injurious to the common interest. When the proper time arrived he would give his countenance to a well-digested scheme of reform, by which the house of commons should be the efficient representative of the country. Mr. W. Smith warmly espoused the motion. Parliamentary reform, he said, could no longer be treated with indifference by good subjects or real patriots; it little signified whether the landed representation had the superiority over the commercial, or the commercial was greater than the landed; the ques tion was, whether the crown had not a domineering influence over both; and if this was the case, they ought not, they could not long resist the imperious demand of the people for a reform. But it had been said, At what point will you stop? To this the answer was easy: If you concede in time, you may fix your own bounds: protract the measure until calamity shall have made men desperate, and it may be impossible to reform at all. It had been urged as a proof, that the present house of commons spoke the sense of the country, because, at the general election the people had it in their power to choose men who had opposed the war, and their having done the contrary was a proof of its popularity. Before this argument could be admitted, it must be assumed that the voice of the people was free, and the election spoke the genuine sense; if that were true, there would be no necessity for reform. But it was ob vious that where popular spirit did prevail, men gained or lost the elec tion as they had opposed or sup. ported the present war; he was an instance himself of this fact; and an honourable baronet had lost his election in the same place, because he had given his countenance to the minister. Sir Gregory Page Turner professed never to have had but one opinion; that it was madness to change a system which had been handed sound and entire down to the days of his father; and if every body would confide in administration as be did, this country would soon be enabled to contend with the combined force of France and Spain. Mr. Mr. Pollen voted for the mo tion. Mr. Fox rose, and in a long and able speech lamented the want of unanimity upon a subject which involved our dearest interests, and our future security. He expressed his regrets and his astonishment that there should be any difference in sentiment respecting the circumstances of the country, or the measures which its situation so obviously required. Arguments had been used, he said, to persuade us we were in a state of peace and tranquillity; that we enjoyed internal concord and outward prosperity. To persons who made such assertions, every proposition tending to meliorate our condition must be a subject of jealousy and alarm,and, if the difference of opinion was so wide, he saw no probability of an agreement in any measure which could be proposed. According to his own views, he could not but think every argument against reform, which pointed out the danger of innovation, was strangely misplaced; and it was only by a reform that we had a chance of rescue, not only from extreme danger, but from absolute perdition. Mr. Fox took notice of the frequent insinuations thrown out by the gentlemen on the othersi de of the house, of party feelings; and he particularly wished that his reflections, proceed ing from a principle of free inquiry, might not be attributed to the bitterness of party. He said it was necessary for him to remind the chancellor of the exchequer, that he himself had brought forward the subject of reform in the year 1782, which was a time of war and of public calamity; and that the motion had had his feeble support. The right honourable gentleman again brought it forward in 1783, when he (Mr. Fox) was in an office high in his majesty's service, and gave it his strenuous assent, Again, in 1785, when the right honourable gentleman was in place, and renewed his proposition, it received from him the same countenance, and invariably had he continued to declare himself a friend to parliamentary reform, by whomsoever proposed. Now, particularly, he could have no hesitation in saying, that it was beconie a desideratum to the people of Great Britain. Between the alternatives of base and degraded slavery on the one side, or of tumultuous though probably short-lived anarchy on the other, though no man would hesi tate to make a choice; yet if there was a course obvious and practicable, which, without violence or innovation, might lead us back to the vigour we had lost, to the energy that had been stifled, to the independence that had been undermined, and yet preserve every thing in its place, a moment ought not to be lost in embracing the chance which this fortunate provision of British system had made for British safety. Mr. Fox then touched upon Ireland: had reform been conceded to the eighty or ninety thousand moderate petitioners, we should not have had this day to deplore the union of one hundred thousand men, bent on objects so extensive, so alarming, so calamitous. Every argument which had been used that day in the house had been used at Dublin. Unwarned, untutored by example, would we still go on with the same contemptuous and stubborn pride? He said he did not mean to assert that Great Britain was at this moment in the situation, or presented the aspect of Ireland; but he deprecated the course pursued in that country. |