vanced under more favourable auspicesnever could a conviction of their truth and justness be expressed with better assurance of a favourable reception than on the present occasion; when we have just been informed by the noble marquis of Tavistock in presenting a petition for parliamentary reform, that the whole body of the nobility, of the gentry, of the clergy, of the magistracy, of the leading and opulent commercial classes-in short that the great mass of the property and intelligence of the country, is arrayed against that question. To this singular and valuable admission of the noble marquis (singular as to the opportunity chosen for declaring it, and the more valuable for that singularity) have been added others not less striking, on the part of the noble proposer of the motion. That noble lord, while contending for a change which he declares to be necessary for the salvation of the state, but which he admits to be a change serious and extensive in its nature, has acknowledged, that under the existing system the country has grown in power, in wealth, in knowledge, and in general prosperity. He has detailed accurately and laboriously the particulars of this gradual and sensible improvement; and he has further acknowledged, that in proportion to the progress of that improvement a silent moral change has been operated upon the conduct of this House-which is now, he allows, greatly more susceptible of the influence of popular feeling and of the impressions of public opinion, than it was a century ago. Nay, he has gone farther still. He has, in anticipation of an argument which I perhaps might have used, if the noble lord had not suggested it, but which I am glad to take at his hands, expressed a doubt, or at least has shewn it to be very doubtful, whether a more implicit obsequiousness to popular opinion on the part of the House of Commons, would produce unqualified good;-avowing his own belief that if the composition of the House had been altered at the Revolution, the purposes of the Revolution would not have been accomplished, the House of Hanover would never have been seated upon the Throne. The composition of the House of Commons is now precisely what it was at the time of the Revolution. Whatevever change there may be in its temper, is, by the noble lords acknowledgment, towards a more ready obedience to the publie opinion. But if the House of Commons had at the time of the Revolution, been implicitly obedient to the people-in other words, if the House had been then entirely composed of members popularly elected-that great event, to which I am as willing as the noble lord to attribute the establishment of our liberties, would, according to the noble lord's declared belief, have been in all probability defeated. Surely these admissions of the noble lord are in no small degree at variance with his motion. Surely such admissions if not ample enough of themselves to overbalance the direct arguments which the noble lord has, in the subsequent part of his speech, brought forward in the support of that motion, do at least relieve me from much of the difficulty and odium which might otherwise have belonged to an opposition to Parliamentary Reform. If I contend in behalf of the constitution of the House of Commons such as it is, I contend at least for no untried, no discredited, no confessedly pernicious establishment. I contend for a House of Commons, the spirit of which, whatever be its frame, has, without any forcible alteration, gradually, but faithfully, ac. commodated itself to the progressive spirit of the country; and in the frame of which, if an alteration, such as the noble lord now proposes, had been made a hundred and thirty years ago, the House of Commons of that day would, by his own confession, have been disabled from accomplishing the glorious Revolution and securing the fruits of it to their posterity. Thus fortified, I have the less difficulty in meeting the noble lord's motion in front; in giving, at once, a plain and direct negative to the general resolution, which is the basis of his whole plan. I do not acknowledge the existence of the necessity, which by that resolution is declared to exist, for taking into consideration, with a view to alteration and amendment, the present state of the representation of the people in the House of Commons-knowing as I do, that what is in the contemplation of many persons who are calling for Reform, could not be adopted; and not knowing what may be the ideas and designs of others; feeling an equal repugnance, both from what I know and what I do not know upon this subject, to a doubtful and equivocal proposition, which would have the effect of binding this House to enter into the consideration of an endless suc cession of schemes for purposes altogether | if it were to be brought forward at the indefinite; I object in the very outset to present time. But placing it in fair comthe noble lord's general resolution, inde-parison with the noble lord's, I must pendently of any objection which I may feel to his particular plan. Not, however, that the plan itself is not abundantly fertile of objections. So far as I understand it, that plan is little more than to make an addition of 100 members to this House, to be returned by the counties and larger towns; and to open the way for this augmentation, by depriving each of the smaller boroughs of one half of the elective franchise which they now enjoy. This plan the noble lord has introduced and recommended with an enumeration of names whose authority he assumes to be in favour of it. Amongst those names is that of Mr. Pitt. But the House must surely be aware that the plan brought forward by Mr. Pitt differed widely, not only in detail, but in principle, from that propounded on this occasion by the noble lord. True it is, that the object of Mr. Pitt's plan was, like that of the noble lords, to add 100 members to this House: but this object was to be attained without the forcible abolition of any existing right of election. Mr. Pitt proposed to establish a fund of 1,000,000l. to be applied to the purchase of franchises from such decayed boroughs as should be willing to sell them. This fund was to accumulate at compound interest, till an adequate inducement was provided for the voluntary surrender, by the proprietors, of such elective franchises as it might be thought expedient to abolish. There was throughout the whole of Mr. Pitt's plan a studious avoidance of coercion; a careful preservation of vested interests; and a fixed determination not to violate existing rights in accomplishing its object. It was hoped, that by these means every sense of injury or danger would be excluded, and that the change in view would be brought about by a gradual process, resembling the silent and insensible operation of time. Here then, I repeat it, is a difference of the most essential kind between the two propositions of Mr. Pitt and of the noble lord; a difference, not superficial, but fundamental; as complete, indeed, as the difference between concession and force, or between respect for property and spoliation. I am not, however, bound, nor at all prepared to contend for the intrinsic or absolute excellence of Mr. Pitt's plan; and still less to engage my own support to such a plan, entreat the House to bear in mind that Mr. Pitt never lost sight of the obligation to preserve as well as to amend; that he proposed not to enforce any reluctant surrender; nor to sacrifice any other than voluntary victims on the altar of practical improvement. The noble lord has cited other grave authorities in favour of his projected reform. Now, I hold in my hand an extract from a work which probably will be recognised, as I read it, but the title of which I will not disclose in the first instance. Hear the opinion of an eminent writer on the right of parliament to interfere with the elective franchise." As to cutting away the rotten boroughs, I am as much offended as any man, at seeing so many of them under the direct influence of the Crown, or at the disposal of private persons. Yet I own I have both doubts and apprehensions in regard to the remedy you propose. I shall be charged, perhaps, with an unusual want of political intrepi dity, when I honestly confess to you, that I am startled at the idea of so extensive an amputation. In the first place, I question the power de jure of the legislature, to disfranchise a number of boroughs, upon the general ground of improving the constitution."-"I consider it as equivalent to robbing the parties concerned of their freehold, of their birth-right. I say, that although this birth-right may be forfeited, or the exercise of it suspended in particular cases, it cannot be taken away by a general law, for any real or pretended purpose of improving the constitution."-Is it from sir Robert Filmer-is it from the works of some blind, servile, bigotted, Tory writer, that I quote the passage which I have now read? No; it is from an author whose name, indeed, I am not enabled to declare, but the shadow of whose name is inseparably connected, in our minds, with an ardent if not intemperate zeal in the cause of poli tical freedom. It is Junius, who thus expresses his fears on the subject of interfering with the existing franchises of election, even for the purpose of effecting what he deems, with the noble lord, a beneficial change in the construction of the House of Commons. The plan devised by Mr. Pitt, and the sentiments of this celebrated writer, equally furnish a contrast to the proposi tion of the noble lord; which is in effect forcibly to take away the elective franchise from one body of the people for the purpose of giving it to another and to inflict forfeiture without guilt and without compensation. feasibility of other plans of reform, this of the noble lord is one which cannot possibly be useful to any purpose, because it cannot be palatable to any party? It being plain then to demonstration that the noble lord's plan cannot succeed, the House must prepare itself, if his first, resolution should be carried, to enter immediately upon the discussion of a variety of schemes; upon a concurrence of opinions in favour of any one of which, it would be vain to speculate. Plan will follow plan; all unlike each other in every respect, except in their tendency to destroy the present frame of the constitution. It is affirmed, indeed, that a great change has lately taken place in the public mind; that the sentiment in favour of reform is diffused more widely, while the violence and exaggeration of that sentiment in particular minds is much abated; that more people wish for a reform; but that there is a greater disposition to be satisfied with a moderate one :-that in But, even if I, and others who think like me, could be won over to this plan, by its vaunted moderation-by the circumstance of its going only half the length of the more sweeping reform deprecated by Junius-it does much surprise me that the noble lord should imagine that such half-measures would appear satisfactory to reformers. Surely, surely, that class of persons upon whom the noble lord reckons for support, and whom he considers as having of late so greatly increased in numbers look for a very different measure of alteration, from that which seems to bound the noble lord's present intentions. How happens it, for instance, that the noble lord, notwithstanding the accuracy of research with which he has apparently studied the sub-proportion as a practical alteration has ject in all its parts, has omitted any mention of Burgage tenures? He cannot but know that it is against that species of election that the popular clamour has been most loudly directed. Yet, amidst all the noble lord's enumeration of rights and modes of election, of freehold and copyhold, of large towns, and small towns, and counties, and villages, the words "Burgage Tenure," have never once escaped his lips! Does the noble lord mean to take away Burgage tenure, or does he not? If he does not, I will so far most cordially join with him; but let not the noble lord, in that case, expect the support of those reformers with whom he has recently allied himself. If he intends to pursue a double or a doubtful course; if he proposes to mitigate his violation of franchise in the hands of the present holders by taking only half away, and hopes by giving only half, to propitiate the new acquirers-it may be very presumptuous in me to pronounce an opinion upon a scheme which the noble lord must no doubt have turned and viewed in every light before he made up his mind to adopt it but I do venture to opine, that in thus endeavouring to keep terms with both parties, he will in the end satisfy neither. The one will be as little contented with what is granted to them, as the other will be reconciled to what they lose. Needs there any further argument to show that whatever may be the become more generally desired, the wild and visionary theories heretofore prevailing, have been relinquished and discountenanced. This may possibly be so; but on what ground am I to rest my belief of it? I have seen nothing in the course of the last two years, during which the noble lord on the floor (Folkstone) has been meditating on my speech at Liverpool, to lead me to think that those who two years ago entertained wild and visionary notions of reform have since relinquished them. If my speech was, as the noble lord declares, calculated only to make proselytes to the persuasion that the present House of Commons is inadequate to the discharge of its functions, and if such be in consequence the views which that noble lord has adopted, how can he entertain the notion that the small alterations proposed by the noble mover will satisfy genuine reformers? Let him be assured that he must go far deeper into democracy before he can hope to satisfy the cravings of reform; nay, without the hope of satisfying them-though the constitution may be sacrificed in the experiment. Sir, if the House looks only to the various plans of reform which have at different times been laid upon its table, not by visionary speculatists, but by able and enlightened men, some of the ornaments of this and the other House of Parliament, how faint and flat is the noble ap mover's present plan in comparison with It must be admitted that this alleged them? Let us take for example that one defect of variety in rights of voting, was of the plans which had the greatest con- much more directly dealt with by the hon. currence of opinions, and the greatest member for Durham (Mr. Lambton), in weight of authority in its favour. A pe- the last session; when he brought fortition was presented to this House in 1793, ward, with great ability, and with the utwhich may perhaps be considered as the most temper and moderation, his specific most advised and authentic exposition of plan of reform.* That hon. gentleman the principles of parliamentary reform, proposed to treat the constitution of the that ever has been submitted to the con- House of Commons as a rasa tabula, and sideration of this House or of the public. to reconstruct the system of representaThose principles are developed by the tion altogether upon an uniform planpetitioners, with singular clearness and abating without scruple every right and force, and expressed in admirable lan- interest that stood in his way. His plan guage. It was presented in 1793, by a differed as materially from that of the noble person, now one of the chief lights noble lord, as the noble lord's differs from of the other House of Parliament, as the that of Mr. Pitt, and from the project of petition of the "Friends of the People, 1793. I do not mean to say-(I shall associated for the purpose of obtaining not be so misunderstood, I trust) that I a Reform in Parliament." In that peti- proved therefore, of the hon. member for tion, certain distinct propositions are laid Durham's plan; or thought it either pracdown as the basis of a reform, which, to ticable or tolerable. Certainly, no conmy recollection, have never yet been dis- queror of an invaded country ever parclaimed, either on the part of the peti-celled out with a more unsparing hand, tioners, or of those who have succeeded the franchises and properties of indivithem in the same pursuit. The petitioners duals and communities. But that plan complain, in the first place, that there is had at least one merit which the noble not an uniform right of voting;-secondly, lord's has not; it cured the alleged evil that the right of voting is in too small bo- of diversified rights, and tended to prodies;-thirdly, that many great bodies are duce the desired uniformity of represenexcluded from voting;-and, fourthly, they tation. complain of the protracted duration of par liaments. Does the noble lord believe that all these notions are forgotten? that no persons still cherish them as the only means of effecting the salvation of the country?—or, does he subscribe to them all, although he may not think this the time for pressing them upon the House? For my part, Sir, I value the system of parliamentary representation, for that very want of uniformity which is complained of in this petition; for the variety of rights of election. I conceive, that to establish one uniform right would inevitably be, to exclude some important interests from the advantage of being represented in this House. At all events the noble lord's plan does not cure this objection. The rights of voting would remain as various after the adoption of his plan, as before; and a new variety would be added to them. Even of burgage tenures, the most obnoxious right of all, and the most indignantly reprobated by the petition of 1793, the noble lord would carefully preserve the principle-only curtailing, by one-half, its operation. See Parl. Hist. v. 30, p. 789. VOL. VII. Then, Sir, as to the duration of parliament. Triennial parliaments, it is averred by the petitioners of 1793, would be greatly preferable to septennial. The House would become a more express image of its constituents, by being more frequently sent back to them for election; deriving like the giant of old, fresh vigour from every fresh contact with its parent earth. But the noble lord, if I understand him rightly, admits that this particular reform would be rather an aggravation of inconveniences-other defects in the constitution remaining unchanged. Nothing indeed can be more clear than this proposition. One of the main objections to close representation, at present, is, the advantage which the member for a close borough has over one chosen by a popular election. The dissolution of parliament sends the popular representative back to a real and formidable trial at the bar of his constituents. For the representative of a close borough there is no trial at all; he sits still, and is returned without any struggle or inquiry. It is obvi *For a copy of Mr. Lambton's proposed Bill, see Vol. 5, App. p. ciii. I siderations be sufficient to unsettle an ancient and established form of political constitution, how could any constitution any free constitution-exist for six months? While human nature continues the same-the like divisions will arise in every free state; the like conflict of interests and opinions; the like rivalry for office; the like contention for power. A po ous that the proportion of this compara-spicuous an ornament. But if such contive disadvantage must be aggravated by every repetition of a general election. But further. What is the original sin of septennial parliaments? Why, that the Septennial bill was a violent measure. Granted: it was so. But this allegation, however just, applies only to one enactment of the act, not to its general policy. The violence of the Septennial act did not consist in the prolongation of the dura-pular assembly always has been and always tion of parliaments in time to come: for to will be exposed to the operation of a partydo that, the supreme authority of the feeling, arraying its elements and influencstate was undoubtedly as competent, as it ing its decisions ;-in modern as in ancient was to shorten the duration of parlia- times; in Great Britain, in this our day, ments by the Triennial act, some twenty as heretofore in Athens or in Rome. No years before. The violence consisted in imaginable alteration in the mode of elecprolonging the duration of the then exist- tion can eradicate this vice-if it be a ing parliament-in extending to seven vice; or can extinguish that feeling, be years, a trust confided but for three. This, it good or bad, which mixes itself largely and this alone, is the questionable part of in every debate upon the public affairs of that act-questionable, I mean, as to a nation-the feeling of affection or disright. I will not now enquire how far the favour towards the person in whose hands political necessities of the time justified so is the conduct of those affairs. I am not strong an act of power. It is quite saying that this is a proper and laudable enough, for any practical purpose, that feeling: I am not contending that parthe evil, whatever it was, is irremediable; tiality ought to influence judgment; still that its effect is gone by; that the repeal less that when judgment and partiality are of the Septennial act now cannot undo it; at variance, the latter ought, in strict and that, therefore, how grave soever the duty, to preponderate. I am not affirmcharge against the framers of the acting that in the discussion of the question might, be for the arbitrary injustice of" What has been done?"-the question its immediate operation (a question, into "Who did it?"-ought silently to dicthe discussion of which I have said I will not enter), the repeal of it would have no tendency to cure the vice of that enactment which has given the Septennial act its ill name; but would only get rid of that part of it which is blameless at least, if not (as I confess I think it) beneficial in its operation. But however much the duration of parliaments may be entitled to a separate discussion, it is not to that point that the noble lord has called our attention to night. A change in the constitution of the House of Commons, is the object of the noble lord's motion. That such a change is necessary, the noble lord asserts and I deny. I deny altogether the existence of any such practical defect in the present constitution of this House, as requires the adoption of so fearful an experiment. The noble lord has attempted to show the necessity of such a change by enumerating certain questions on which this House has, on sundry occasions, decided against the noble mover's opinion, and against the politics and interests of that party in the state, of which the noble mover is so con But tate or even to modify, the answer;-that |