PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Mr. Brand rose, pursuant to his notice, to submit to the House a motion upon the present defective state of the representation of the country. He could not, however, but express his extreme regret at beholding the thinness of the House, when a measure so important was to be discussed.He would not suppose that it had arisen from any indifference to the subject, generally speaking, and he could therefore only conclude that it was to be attributed to the weakness and inability of the humble person who then had the honour of addressing them. When he looked around him, however, he saw some whose presence would amply console him for the absence of others; and thus supported he should proceed in the task he had enjoined himself. The measure he intended to propose was one, he trusted, which would not be resisted in limine, from any apprehensions as to its effects upon the constitution. The day of alarm had gone by, and the question might now be dispassionately discussed, without their fears being excited by representations that it involved the safety of the constitution, or that it was imitative of that never-failing watch-word of terror, the French revolution. For himself, he wished to declare that it was not as the friend of innovation or of speculation that he of fered himself then to the attention of the House, but as the zealous and strenuous assertor of the rights and privileges of his countrymen, and therefore he relied confidently on its support. All questions that pointed at Reform were, he knew, viewed by many with a certain degree of apprehension; and when such questions were agitated, the people were commonly alarmed, by being told to look at the countries on the continent, now prostrate at the feet of a military despot. But, in his opinion, we might profit by the example of other nations, in the same manner as we profited by their sufferings. Perhaps he should be asked also, why press a measure like that upon the House, when it was notorious that the people at large were indifferent about it? He denied, however, that the people were indifferent. Were there not petitions upon their table from the city of London, from the city of Westminster, from the county of Essex, and from other places, praying for a Reform in the representation of the country? The necessity of some reformation had been also, in various ways, uniformly and strongly

pressed upon their attention. But if such were not the case if there existed no such expressions of public opinion upon the subject, yet certain statements had been made to that House, which loudly called upon it to enter upon the discussion, which, in his opinion, should make the desire of that Reform a natural impulse of patriotism in the bosom of every Member; and which rendered it a duty imperative upon the present House of Commons, beyond what it had been in any former period. He alluded to what had been stated by a Member of that House in his place, that Ministers openly and avowedly adopted the most corrupt practices, in order to obtain seats in Parliament, for those who would vote in support of their measures. At that time statements were made, so notoriously disgraceful, that their Speaker himself, with all his great constitutional knowledge, pronounced them to be such, that our ancestors would have startled with indignation" at them. And yet, notwithstanding these statements, that House had gone on, without effecting any salutary regulation, and leaving the people to form the dangerous opinion, that their representatives were attentive to their own interests, but utterly disregardful of the rights of their constituents. Admitting, as he was disposed to do, the universality of the practice alluded to, that, in his opinion, was only an additional ground why the question should be entered into by Parliament; instead of which it seemed to be, unfortunately for the country, neglected with a sort of sullen indifference, or left to the zeal and industry of individuals to propose remedics when they ought rather to originate in the combined wisdom of the Legislature. Notwithstanding, however, such seemed to be the negligence of Parliament in that great question, he should venture again succinctly to recommend the consideration of it; he said succinctly, because he had, two years ago, stated a general outline of what he conceived to be the remedy. On that occasion he maintained, and he still maintained, that the great danger which threatened the constitution, arose from the number of Members returned by places which are now uninhabited and desolated, or which possessed so few inhabitants, that it was mockery to continue to them the elective franchise. He bad, as a matter of curiosity, made an extract, which he believed to be correct, of the present state of the representation; but if any gentleman doubted its correctness, let him move for committees, and he would prove at their bar, that what he was

now going to mention, was the actual state of the representation of the people, or rather their absence of representa tion. On this subject, however, he wished to observe, that he never had contended against the fair right of property in influencing the representation of the country, and what he should first state, therefore, was more a matter of curiosity than any thing else. It appeared, according to the facts which he had collected, that 182 individuals returned by nomination, and otherwise, 326 Members to that House. In specifying that number, he was to be understood as speaking of the United Empire of Great Britain. There were also above seventy placemen in the House of Commons, and above forty persons who were returned on either side, by that which was denominated compromises. Having stated those facts, he owned he was at a loss how to express himself upon them, in what might be deemed becoming language. He knew not where to find expressions which would adequately convey the feelings he had upon this occasion, for it was to be remembered, that notwithstanding such was the present representation of the country, they had, by their decision in a case to which he had already alluded, voted themselves a full, fair, and free representation! But how could it be held a full, fair, and free representation, when, upon the most moderate computation (and he wished to avoid all extreme calculations) there were 292 persons among them so brought in, that they could not exercise a full and fair discretion upon any subject brought under their consideration? Would any person pretend to call such a representation a proper one? And yet a House of Commons, so composed, was returned for seven years. With regard, indeed, to septennial Parliaments, much as he objected to them in principle, he should not wish the Act which authorised them repealed, unless some mode of limiting and decreasing the expence of elections was previously adopted. Fortunately, however, such a mode was now in contemplation. A noble lord, whose name is enrolled in the annals of his country as a name dear to the cause of freedom, had moved for leave to bring in a Bill, the specific object of which was to contract the enormous expences which now attended an election to serve in Parliament. That measure, if carried, would ultimately lead, he hoped, to a plan which would prevent the too long suspension of communication between the constituents and their representatives. The Septennial Act, indeed, had always appeared VOL. III.-1812.

D

to him a manifest violation of the principles of the Constitution; for if the Parliament had the power to vote itself a duration of seven years, he saw no reason why they might not have equally voted themselves for twenty years, or even for life. Such a proceeding, therefore, he could not but consider as unconstitutional; and indeed he knew but two points of the Constitution which had been untouched by that House, namely, the Acts of Union. If, however, the House of Commons possessed, in 1734, the power of voting itself septennial, why had not they an equal power now to vote themselves perennial, if they were so disposed? He was at a loss to imagine what plea could be urged in defence of such a step, except that perhaps of expediency: but he thought it most inexpedient that there should be such a suspension of intercourse between the representative and the electors. It removed that wholesome check upon the proceedings of a Member which a quick return to his constituents would create; and it tended to excite in him a consideration merely of his own individuality, so to speak of his own personal advantage. If any proof were needed of this, it would not be difficult to produce it; and he would refer, as one sort of proof, that the expectation of soon meeting their constituents was a necessary check upon Members; to the lists of names to be found on some recent occasions, and among which were certainly some which would not have appeared had this been the first year of their return to Parliament. Having now stated the evil, he came to the remedy. Here it was natural to expect that there must be doubt and difficulty; however, he had only to state what, in his humble judgment, appeared to be the measures best calculated to remedy the mischiefs of which he had been complaining. He would say, that generally the leading steps to such measures would be, first, granting to copyholders a right to vote-and, secondly, abolishing the right of nomination so as to generalize the right of voting, and thereby more fairly proportionate the number of representatives to the extent of the population of each place represented. He need not remind the House of the preposterous disproportion which at present existed, where many depopulated, desolate boroughs, returned as many Members to that House as the whole county of York, while Manchester, Birmingham, and other opulent towns, returned not one Member to Parliament. Great as was his sense of the evils resulting from the present inadequate system of representa

tion, he should yet rather submit to their continuance than propose for them a remedy not to be found in the ancient Constitution of this country. The remedy he had suggested was, he contended, to be found in that Constitution, and would be rather a restoration than a change. It was idle to say that the extension of the right of suffrage would weaken the influence of property; whether that right was or was not spread out upon the surface of the population, still property would, must have its natural influence. (Hear, hear!)— He would propose then to get rid of nomination, and to throw the representation of the close boroughs into a more enlarged representation of the more populous counties.These boroughs, which Mr. Pitt, in the early and purer part of his political life, made such efforts to abolish, were said to amount at that time to thirty-six in number. These, it was well known, were made mere articles of commerce, common conveyances for the transfer of the rights of Englishmen from one borough-monger to another. It had been suggested, that these boroughs might be thrown into the hundreds; and as to the objection that the poor voter would be more accessible to corruption than the rich boroughholder, he would wish to know the difference between the poor man taking a bribe of five guineas for his single vote, and the rich man accepting as many thousands for nominating to a seat in that House, unless it was, that in the former case the corruption went no farther than the abuse of a single vote, and that in the latter the nominator had for his money a power to dictate to the Crown, to the Minister, and to the people. One part, therefore, of the plan he had in view was, to bring in a bill for the abolition of those boroughs which were now known to be as common articles of trade as the woollen of which the coats they wore were made. From the abolition of these boroughs, and the consequent appropriation of a more extensive suffrage to the more populous counties, would arise an equalization of Members to the different parts of the empire. As to the other part of his proposed remedy, that of admitting copyholders to the elective franchise, this question had been strongly mooted in the middle of the last century. It was in the course of this controversy that Sir William Blackstone wrote his able Treatise on Copyhold Tenures, and that eminent authority was clear as to the constitutional right of copyholders to vote. He (Mr. B.) therefore, in proposing that they should be admitted to the elective franchise, was pro