—What is your name?—Robert Thomas Weaver. Are you the R. T. Weaver whose name is placed at the end of that paper [a copy of the "John Bull" is of Sunday last was here put into his hand by the clerk] as its printer and publisher?—I am. Look at the paragraph which is marked, and inform the House whence, and from whom you received that paragraph?—I beg to state to this honourable House, that I am occupied on Saturdays as the printer and publisher of the paper; but that the literary part of it is not entirely under my superintendance. Many articles I do not see before the paper goes to the press. That was the case with the one in question. I never saw it until it was pointed out to me as having given offence to this honourable House. I am extremely sorry that I have given offence to this honourable House, or to any of its members. Such was never my intention, nor that of any person connected with the paper [a laugh], I am extremely sorry that any thing has appeared in the paper offensive to the Houses and I am anxious to make every reparation in my power.

—Who was the person who gave you that paragraph?—that paragraph was not given to me. Do you know to whom it was given?—I am not aware. I did not see it until it was in print. Who is charged in your absence with the management of the press?—The editor. What is the name of the editor?—Mr. Henry Cooper. Is he the sole editor?—I cannot answer J that; all newspapers are in the habit of receiving communications from other parties; it is so with this. I cannot say, therefore, that Mr. Cooper is the sole editor. Where does Mr. Cooper live?—Somewhere in the neighbourhood of Blackfriars' road. Is the House to understand that you do not know exactly where Mr. Cooper lives?—I do not exactly know, but I believe it is somewhere in Blackfriars'-road. When does Mr. Cooper come to the office of the paper?—He is generally there every day. How long has he been editor?—For some time past; I cannot exactly say how long. If you wish to communicate with the editor when he is absent from the office, where do you send?—I never have any occasion to communicate with him/ Heat-tends regularly every day. At what hour? Generally from ten till half-past seven or eight. When did you see him last?—About three o'clock. Did you communicate to him, that you were ordered to attend this House?—I did not, because he was engaged with a gentleman; but of course he cannot be ignorant of it. Are you the printer, publisher, arid sole proprietor of this newspaper?—I am. How long have you been the printer, publisher, and sole proprietor?—I cannot actly state the time; How long have you been the printer, publisher, and sole proprietor?—I do not exactly recollect; a considerable time; since Christmas. Were you the printer; publisher, and, sole proprietor from the beginning?—I was printer and publisher from the beginning Who was the proprietor at the beginning?—I think Messrs. Shackle and Arrowsmith. I think their names were at the Stamp-office. Did you purchase the paper; and if you did, of whom?—I purchased it of Messrs. Shackle and Arrowsmith. Is not the house in which the paper is printed, that in which Mr. Arrowsmith lives?—Yes, for the purpose of carrying on his business. In fact, are you not a journeyman of Mr. Arrowsmith, receiving a salary of three guineas a week?—I have an engagement with Mr. Arrowsmith; but as to the three guineas a week, I am concerned in other parts of his business. Is the House to understand that you are not the sole proprietor, but that you share the paper with Mr. Arrowsmith?—I have other arrangements with him, but not as to the paper. Then you persist that you are the sole proprietor of the paper, and that Mr. Arrowsmith has no connexion with it?—As to that, some arrangements have been making for my purchase of the paper, but as they are not entirely concluded yet, I cannot be said to be wholly the proprietor. Did you not swear at the Stamp office, on the 10th and 24th of Feb. that you were the printer, publisher, and sole proprietor of the paper?—Yes. What price did you pay Mr. Arrow-smith for his giving up into your hands his share of the profits of the paper?—As to that, there have been a number of transactions between us, and it has not been finally determined. How, under those circumstances could you swear that you were the sole proprietor of the paper?—Because I conceived that I became the sole proprietor by his agreeing to give up the profits to me, although the price was not finally settled. Was that agreement in writing; and if so, where is it?—It was not in writing. Was there no memorandum of it? Of what nature was it? Was it merely verbal?—It was verbal. What was the nature of it?—The nature of it was, that I was to become the sole proprietor on my giving a certain sum of money, which sum has not yet been fixed on. Had any prosecution been commenced against the paper when the arrangement between you and Mr. Arrowsmith was made?—Yes, one. Who receives the profits of the paper now?—I do. Do you keep them to yourself, or do you account to any one for them?—I account various ways for the proceeds of the paper. Is the House to understand that you account to Mr. Arrowsmith for the proceeds of the paper?—No. With whom do you account?—Since I became proprietor I have not accounted at all. The purchase money has not been exactly settled. Do you receive the whole profits and keep them?—The proceeds go to discharge the various accounts of the paper, and some of them have not yet been received. But such surplus proceeds as have been received, you keep?—Yes. Was there any witness present at the verbal agreement between you and Mr. Arrowsmith?—No. What do you pay the editor?—Three guineas a week. Do you keep the manuscripts of the articles which are sent you for insertion?—I do not. I suppose the editor does. Do you know if they are in the possession of the editor, from your knowledge of his practice to keep them?—It is impossible for me to say so to a certainty.

—In whose name is the house hired which serves as the office of the paper?—The principal office is that of Messrs. Shackle and Arrowsmith, but since the commencement of the paper an adjoining house has been taken. To whom was the lease given of the House where the paper was first published? Who rents it?—Messrs. Shackle and Arrowsmith. Who is the landlord?—I cannot exactly say. I believe a widow lady. Then the House is to understand that the original house where the paper was set up is the house of Messrs. Shackle and Arrowsmith?—It was their's originally as a printing office. Who took the house? In whose name does the house stand? Who pays the rent?—Mr. Shackle himself. Have you any banker?—I am sorry to say I am not so rich as to require one.

—You have stated that you receive the profits to account hereafter to Mr. Arrowsmith, what is the na- ture of the agreement into which you entered on that subject?—There was an" agreement; but the precise terms, and the time of accounting were not mentioned. Was any sum mentioned which you were to give for the purchase of the paper?—No precise sum; time was to be allowed to see what the profits would be. Did you not swear on the 10th of Feb. that the printing of the paper was carried on at your residence, at No. 9, Dyer's buildings, Holborn?—J believe I did. Was the paper ever printed there? Was it not always printed at Mr. Arrow-smith's, in Johnson's-court?—It is no unusual thing for a printer to put down his address, although he carries on the printing elsewhere. The paper was composed by me, but the forms were carried elsewhere to be printed by steam. It was composed but not printed at the office. The residence of the printer is the principal thing to put down. Were you at the office on the day on which the paper was printed in which the paragraph in question appeared?—I was. Did you see the paragraph in question?—I did not see it. It is not unusual for copy to be given into the hands of the compositors after I leave the office. Is the compositor in the habit of printing any thing without consulting his superiors?—Occasionally. Do you mean to say, that you do not know who brought the manuscript in question, or who received it?—I do mean to state so. What is the name of the compositor?—There are five or six. Do they all print what they like without consulting their superiors?—Certainly Mot. But some small paragraphs are occasionally brought to be composed after the editor and I have left the office.

—Did you ever inquire of any of the compositors from whom he received the paragraph in question?—I did not. Do you know from any compositor by whom he was directed to insert the paragraph in did not. Do you know from any compositor by whom he was directed to insert the paragraph?—I do not. Do you mean to say that you never made inquiry how this paragraph came into the paper, or on whose authority? I do. I beg leave to say, that the printer of a newspaper relies with implicit confidence on the editor. I am not capable myself of superintending the whole of a paper; and I depend on the editors. I can have no doubt that the-paragraph is, a falsehood; but I beg to add, that if I knew; the man capable of writing and sending me a direct falsehood, no power on earth should induce me to conceal his name. Did you never inquire how this paragraph came into the paper, and on what authority?;—I did not.

—Was any money received for the printing of that paragraph?—As far as I am concerned, I can say not. Do you mean to say that you believe no money was paid?—I believe none was paid. Do you mean to say that you do not know the name of the compositor who introduced the paragraph in question?—It is impossible for me to say which compositor it was. The question is not what is possible or impossible, but whether you mean to; say that you do not know the compositor?—I cannot say who it was. What are the names of the compostors?—The witness repeated four names. You have repeated but four names. Who is the fifth compositor?—I believe there is some mistake. I meant that there were five or six compositors, including extra hands. Who pays the extra hands?—I do. Were any extra hands employed in, the publication of the last paper? I believe there were. The employment of extra; hands depends on the press of matter. The time at which that paper went to press is not so far distant, as to; prevent you from recollecting the names of the extra hands you paid? Sometimes we employ one, sometimes another. I do not recollect. Was the editor in the office when the last paper went to press?—I think he was.

—You have spoken, of an agreement between Mr. Arrowsmith and yourself. Do you recollect at what time and where that agreement was concluded?—About seven weeks, ago a£ the office. I cannot exactly say. Was it as long ago as seven, weeks?—I am not quite sure. Was it not nearer one month ago than two months?—It, was nearer two months ago than one month. Where was the agreement made?—At the office. At Mr. Arrowsmith's office?—Yes. Who appointed Mr. Cooper the editor of the paper?—He was appointed previously to ray going to the paper. That is not an answer. Who appointed Mr. Cooper the editor of the paper?—I do not know; I believe Mr. Shackle. Who pays Mr. Cooper as the editor?—There being other money transactions, sometimes I pay him, sometimes Mr. Arrowsmith. Is the editor paid more frequently by Mr. Arrowsmith, or by yourself?—More frequently by Mr. Arrowsmith. Did you ever pay him?—Yes. How often has Mr. Cooper received his payment as editor from you?—I cannot exactly say; once or twice. By whom are the current expenses and outgoings of the paper paid?—The Stamp office accounts are paid by me. Who pays the other expenses?—Mostly Mr. Arrowsmith, some by me. Who pays the wages of the workmen?—The establishment are mostly paid by Mr. Arrowsmith.

—Do you keep any clerk?—I do not.

—Who examines the proof sheets?—Sometimes I do: sometimes the reader. What is the name of the reader?—Duckworth. Do you keep any regular books, in which are entered the money paid for the insertion of advertisements, and the weekly sale of the paper?—Yes, there are some books. Who receives the money for the insertion of advertisements and for the weekly sale of the paper?—Principally into the hands of Mr. Arrowsmith. Is the House then to understand that Mr. Arrowsmith receives the weekly proceeds of the paper?—Yes, principally. Do you not know that Mr. Arrowsmith receives the weekly profits, and if he does not, who does?—I never said that Mr. Arrowsmith received all the proceeds of the paper. Who makes those entries in the book of receipts, and to whom is the money paid?—Sometimes I do, and sometimes Mr. Arrowsmith.

—Is there any person in the office authorised to give insertion to such paragraphs as may arrive after you and the editor have left it?—There is no person so authorized, but it is done sometimes when we are out of the way. Is that suffered to be done at the discre- tion of any of the compositors?—Occasionally. Are there any private marks by which the compositors are instructed to give insertion to any paragraphs which may arrive after you and the editor have left the office?—Not to my knowledge. Did you ever before belong to the Office of a daily or weekly journal?—To "The Traveller," and some other papers occasionally. For what paper were you employed immediately before you went to the office of "John Bull?"—I was engaged on "The Traveller."

—Did the extra hands whom you have mentioned ever insert a paragraph without your permission or that of the editor?—It is possible they may have done so. Do you mean to say that it ever came to your knowledge that they had done so?—I cannot exactly say. Would you not have dismissed any of those compositors whom you had found so acting?—It is probable I should. Have you reason to believe that it has ever been done?—-So far that in reading the paper afterwards, I have sometimes found paragraphs which I had never seen before. Did you make any inquiry into such circumstances?—I left it to the editor. Do you mean to say that such paragraphs were ever inserted without the knowledge of the editor?—I cannot say.

—You have said that Mr. Cooper is the editor—doyou mean to say that he is the exclusive editor, or that he divides the duty with you?—I take no part as editor. Is Mr. Cooper then the sole editor?— As far as I know, unless he employs assistants. Do you pay Mr. Cooper his salary?—Once or twice I have paid him. Mr. Arrowsmith pays him generally. And you do not know where Mr. Cooper lives?—He never told me, positively. That is an ambiguous reply. Do you not know where he lives?—I asked him one night how far he had to go home.; he said, to the neighbourhood of Black-friars-road. Do you mean to say that you do not know where Mr. Cooper lives?—Yes.

—Is the gentleman who was with Mr. Cooper to-day, and who prevented your communicating to Mr. Cooper that you were ordered to attend this House, connected with the paper?—No. A number of persons call on the editor who are not connected with the paper. Do you know the name of that gentleman?—No.

—Is it part of the reader's duty to examine the proof sheet; and if so did he not read the paragraph in question?—The reading boy reads the manuscript, and the reader examines the proof.

—By whom is the manuscript put into the hands of the reading boy?—By the compositor. And by whom is it given to the compositor?—Generally by the editor. If not given by the editor, by whom is it given?—Generally by myself. If not given either by the editor or by you, by whom is it given?—As I before observed, I cannot say, after I leave the office from whom any communications are received. I ask whether, to the best of your knowledge, any one of the four compositors whose names you have mentioned, or any of the other occasional compositors, would dare to print any paragraph except of the commonest nature, unless he received it either from the editor or from yourself?—I do not think he would. Do you believe that the paragraph complained of was printed by any one of those compositors on his own authority?—I should think not.

—Do you mean to say that you never communicated with the editor by letter or note?—All my communications with the editor have been verbal.

said, that as no evidence bad been obtained from this man as to the author of the paragraph, and as that was the object of his inquiry, he must move that other evidence be brought to the bar. He did not think the witness entitled to much lenience from the evidence he had given, but he wished to do no more than detain him until those persons had been called from whom more satisfactory information might be derived. He would therefore move, "That Thomas Arrow-smith, William Shackle, and Henry Cooper do attend this House forthwith."

rose to bring forward his motion upon this subject. He proceeded to explain the circumstances which induced him to bring this question before the House, and pointed out in strong terms the great delay which had taken place since the appointment of the commissioners in 1815. Those commissioners, five in number (two of whom were masters in chancery) had since their appointment received a salary of 1,200l. a year each, making in all a sum of 30,000l. exclusive of allowances to secretaries and other incidental charges. There was also an additional sum due this year of 6,000l. making in all about 40,000l. The commissioners had during that time made but four reports, two on the court of Chancery, and two on the court of King's-bench and Common-pleas. With respect to the reports on the court of Chancery, the lord chancellor, after approving some of the recommendations, was of opinion (after a lapse pf five years from the period of the report being made), that it ought to undergo the most grave and serious inquiry. As to the reports of the courts of King's-bench and Common-pleas, the chief justices of those courts had written to the secretary of state for the home department, informing him that those reports had never been submitted to their consideration, or officially made known to them. The excuse made by the commissioners was, that they had experienced great delay and obstruction in the different offices to which their inquiries led them. This, he contended, was no excuse, for the commissioners had, and ought to have exercised the power of obliging the parties to produce the necessary documents. Under all the circumstances, as the original proposer of the inquiry, he felt a natural wish to place his sentiments upon the Journals of the House; and with that view he should move the following resolutions, founded upon what he conceived to be the facts of the case:

rose to defend the conduct of the commissioners, who, he said, had been unremitting in their exertions, and deserved the applause and gratitude of their country. One reason which the right hon. baronet had for finding fault with them was that they had only laid four reports upon the table. It was true, that a greater number of reports had been made by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the courts of justice in Ireland; but though eight reports had been made by them, and only four by the English commissioners, the English commissioners had, independently of the greater research which they had displayed, done more in point of fact than the Irish, their four reports containing 586 pages, and the reports of the Irish containing only 400 pages of printed matter. The commissioners had not had power to enforce the making of certain returns from the offices of the Exchequer; but surely no reasonable man would impute that circumstance as a matter of blame to them. He defended the lord chancellor from the charges which had been made against him, and asked, whether it was to be expected that that learned and illustrious person was to postpone all his other engagements to examine into the matters referred to him by this commission? With regard to certain of the reports not having been sent to the judges of the King's-bench and the Common-pleas, he begged leave to inform the House, that according to the words of the commission itself, the reports were to be returned to the petty bag office, and that it was not therefore the duty of the commissioners to transmit them to the judges. The secretary of state was the person who ought to have forwarded the reports to those learned persons; but? he had failed to do so, from an idea that they had been sent to them from some other quarter. He could assure the right hon. baronet, that there was no reluctance any of the courts to correct abuse, where abuse was proved to exist. It was unfair to assume that the labours of the commissioners had not been extensive from the fact that they had not reported many abuses as existing in the English courts of justice. He took that fact to be highly creditable to the English courts, because it proved that no such abuses existed. He felt it his duty to move the previous question to the hon. baronet's proposition, because no case had been made out to support it; because he conceived the commissioners to have been unremitting in their attention to the subject, and because he thought the lord chancellor, and the other parties connected with the charge, had been most harshly and unfairly dealt with.

said, the gravamen of the charge made by the right hon. baronet was, that the reports had not been communicated to the learned judges until two years after they had been made. He did not know that it was the duty of the secretary of state to forward such reports; but it was a heavy charge against the government, that reports which had cost the country large sums of money, should not be distributed in those quarters where they were likely to prove most beneficial. It appeared to him that the lord chancellor had not done himself justice in this case, for lie appeared to have acted in a great manner upon the suggestion of the commissioners. By the return he had made, it appeared that many things had been done of the description required, but that many remained still to be done. A return so framed was surely incomplete and unsatisfactory.

defended the lord chancellor from any imputation of neglect. That distinguished personage was not responsible for the delay which had occurred. The right hon. baronet complained of the expense of the commission; but was there any novelty in that? There was good ground, perhaps, for the commission into the Irish courts; but certainly nothing had resulted from the extension of the inquiry to the English courts which justified the expense of the undertaking.

expressed his surprise at the right hon. gentleman's view of the duties of government; for, according to that notion, there was nobody to take cognizance of a report framed by a commission under the orders of that House. As to the manner in which the inquiries had been conducted, he should only say, that nothing very sanguine could be hoped from an investigation carried on through the means of the officers in the courts themselves. He denied that any of the fees were to be considered as freehold rights; and, as to the duration of the inquiry, it might have been accomplished in seven months as well as in seven years, if ordinary diligence had marked the proceedings.

saw no reason for the strictures which had been passed upon the commissioners, nor could he understand how the inquiry could have been conducted, except by the examination of the officers in the respective courts.

denied that it was necessary to have masters in chancery on the commission. Four gentlemen inquired into the abuses of the court of Chancery of Ireland, none of whom were masters, yet the result of their labours had been most satisfactory and advantageous.

, in reply, said, that when he had moved the address he had done all that was necessary on his part. It then became the duty of government to carry the object of the address into effect. The right hon. gentleman had argued that government had no right to interfere. But what said the commissioners? They stated that they had performed the duty allotted to them, and they recommended certain measures to his majesty for adoption. Now, who was to carry those recommendations into effect except his majesty's government? The address which he had moved was a general one, referring to all the courts of justice in the united kingdom. And why was it general? Because he was unwilling to appear invidious by selecting any particular court. He was determined to place his resolutions on the journals, because, in other cases, when resolutions proposed by him had been negatived, he had found that their principle was recognized several years afterwards, in consequence of their being placed on the journals.

presented a Petition from the bankers, merchants, and other inhabitants of Carlisle, praying for Retrenchment and Reform. He expressed his, regret that that House had pertinaciously resisted every attempt to introduce a system of economy arid retrenchment. Instead pf being the friends arid supporters of the people, they seemed to be of no other use but to assist the executive government in imposing restraints and burthens on the country. Whether gentlemen would look to the preservation of their own property, and, while assisting themselves, save the public money, he could not tell; but he felt that until the people obtained a reform in parliament—and that they would eventually obtain it he had no doubt—the country could not hope for permanent prosperity. While he had a seat in that House, he would endeavour to procure a restoration of those rights which had been bartered away for power and emolument. If retrenchment and reform were not conceded, the government, he was convinced, would, be changed by violence. How much wiser would it be to do something for the people, to prove up them that their complaints had hot been made in vain. Those who sat on his side of the House, were told that they agreed on no precise plan of reform. That perhaps was true; but it was likewise true that they all agreed that some reform was necessary. Every man who did not live on the takes was assured of that. Any plan that would make that House a real representative House, and fill it with individuals who expressed the sense and feelings of the people, would be satisfactory to the petitioners.

said, that the inhabitants of the county which he represented, if ho excepted those who held places or received pensions, were unanimously of opinion that reform was necessary.

rose to make his promised motion. He said that although some circumstances had occurred in that House a short time ago, which were discouraging to any person who meant to bring forward propositions respecting reform, yet he was bold enough to say that he felt a considerable degree of confidence in proposing the measure which he would that night submit to the House. At the same time, he was by no means blind to the difficulties and the importance of the task he had undertaken. If it was true, as it undoubtedly was, that all governments depended ultimately upon opinion, it was no less true, that the government of England depended upon an opinion vigilant and enlightened, to a degree of which history, gave no example. Above all, the eyes of the country were directed, in a peculiar manner, to that House. The people looked, as it were, with a microscope at all their acts, and seemed to consider a vote of even a thousand pounds in the course of the public expenditure as a test by which the honesty of their intentions might be tried and appreciated. Instead of viewing them with any of that superstitious reverence which authority formerly created—that sort of reverence which veiled in mystery all the acts of government—a disposition existed which went rather to deny them even those advantages which must inevitably be acquired by habits of business, and to refuse them credit for that superiority, which experience and the custom of deciding on great questions of state tend so manifestly to produce. But of all the subjects which could be brought forward in parliament, the most, serious were those which related to the constitution of that House, because they operated in a particular manner, and were considered, in a peculiar degree, as tests of the disposition of the House to conduct the affairs of the country with integrity, and with a proper affection towards the people, whom it professed to represent. In stating the question of reform that night the noble lord said, he would avoid the usual mode of proposing it to the House. The natural and customary practice was, to say that that House did not represent the people, and to refer to its various acts to show that its proceedings were not conformable with the opinion of the people at large. This way of stating the question, although the best calculated for exciting the passions of an audience, was clearly very invidious, as it brought into immediate contrast the votes of the majority and minority of that House. It became necessary to argue, that those who formed the majority of that House were in a minority in the country, and to claim for the minority of that House the honour of being followed by a majority in the country. Hence a contest necessarily arose upon the merits of party which, on a great question of this kind, it was most desirable to avoid. But although he meant to lay out of sight this view of the question he was bringing forward, he neither wished to deny or to conceal that he was in principle a reformer. When he said, that he was in principle a reformer, he thereby meant, that his deliberate opinion was, that this House ought to represent the people, but that it did not, in fact, do so. He could neither agree with the opinion' of those who thought that all the proceedings of the House were in perfect conformity with the wishes of the people; nor with those who held that the House ought not to represent the people at large; but that it ought to display a sort of mixed representation—a representation of the crown; of the aristocracy, of all the upper classes, but not of the great body of the people. Having stated this, he would go no further in this beaten road of argument, but confine himself to an endeavour to prove that there had prevailed such practices, that there had arisen such innovations—whether the effects were or were not at present seen within those walls—as could not but lead, at one time or other, to a dangerous discordance between the opinions of the country at large, and the decisions of the House of Commons. He called on the House to check those practices, and to stop those innovations. He called on them to go no further, but to interpose and prevent the system from being extended, whether those innovations had or had not any influence on the government. The first object to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the practice of bribery and corruption. With respect to that practice, he thought there could not be two opinions in the House. All must agree that it was at once highly criminal and exceedingly pernicious; and no doubt could be entertained that such practices did prevail to a very great extent. When he had the honour, a year ago, to move an address on this subject, he had stated the fact, that it was a matter of common conversation in the House that bribery and corruption prevailed in different parts of the kingdom. The noble marquis opposite, who was considered the leader of that side of the House, did not venture to deny that bribery and corruption were known to exist to a great extent. He did not controvert the proposition; and he would have surprised the House, and even his own friends, if he had ventured so to do. As one proof of the effect which this corrupt system had produced, he would relate an anecdote told by the late Mr. Sheridan. That gentleman, during art election, fell into conversation with one of the voters. "I am," said he, "a friend to reform." "I am glad you are for reform," observed the voter; so am I—but some gentlemen behave so ill, they will not give their poor voters a single guinea; and I think that should be reformed." It was well known that in Cornwall this pernicious practice was carried on to the utmost extent. The general system adopted in the boroughs was for the electors to engage with some person in the neighbourhood as patron. He took care of the interest of the town, assisted the poor, and subscribed to some public work; and, for all this, he claimed a seat for himself in the House of Commons, or for any person he might think proper to nominate,; while the other seat was generally sold for a sum of money, which was divided, according to the bargain made, between the patron and the electors. That this was a practice quite common, he believed no one would deny; nor did he suppose it would be denied that such a practice was in every way injurious. The very first evil it introduced amongst the people was drunkenness, idleness, and profligacy—-a disregard of the sacred obligations and duties the constitution imposed on them—a love of feasting and dissipation—and a degree of ignorance and brutality which every thinking man must deplore. The second was, that the interests and affairs of towns thus situated were very much mismanaged. In one town a sum of 200l. or 300l. a year, which was intended for the support of the poor, and for other important purposes, was, owing to this parliamentary influence, totally misapplied. It was laid out in feasts, drinking, and other improper sources of expense. Another evil consequence was, that the executive government was itself inveigled and corrupted, by the necessity which existed, under this system, of conciliating the favour of corrupt voters. It was a well known fact, that persons who had votes in those small boroughs, where the electors were not perhaps more than twenty or thirty, had very often, through the influence of their patron, an opportunity of procuring situations to which they otherwise could prefer no claim—to which they were not fairly and justly entitled. He had received many letters on this subject from the inhabitants of those boroughs; and some of them informed him, that certain offices under government were regularly sold by the voters. What he meant was this—a voter having a promise from his patron of a certain office, and not desiring it for himself or for any of his relatives, would sell it to any individual who wished to purchase it. He did not say this on vague authority; for an instance of this kind had occurred in the course of the Grampound investigation. In that case 800l. was given for an office, be believed, in the navy, the promise of which office was the reward of a vote for that borough. The fact was, that this system must corrupt the government; because they were naturally obliged to court the influence of those people, for the support of the measures of government in that House. He did not say that this remark applied more to the present than to other governments. He did not assert that it was their wish more particularly to make use of this borough influence; but it was in the nature of things that they should make use of it, and it could not be otherwise. As 300 members of that House were returned by places with less than 5,000 inhabitants, and only 80 by the counties of England, the minister was of course obliged to look more to the support of the smaller boroughs than to the support of the counties. If, therefore, these boroughs become venal and corrupt, what must be the consequence? Every one must see that what was called an appeal to the people, would then be an appeal only to a small and degraded part of the people.—Every one must see, that if the government rested on so rotten a foundation, corruption must pervade every part of the state? from the lowest departments in which those voters would have influence enough to obtain office, up to the highest situations in the government, where those persons were placed who depended on such discreditable support. He came now to the consideration of those remedies which had been at different times provided by the legislature. In the year 1689, the year following the Revolution, a bill was brought in to prevent the enormous expenses which had been incurred at various elections; so that the struggle for our liberties bad been no sooner brought to a successful close, than attempts were made to undermine them, and to seduce the garrison to betray the post which they had won by so splendid a victory. In the 7th year of king William, was passed the act well known by the name of the Treating act: the preamble of that act he should take the liberty of reading to the House, because, with some variations, he had taken the words of it for the first Resolution which he should propose. The preamble of the Treating act was this: "Whereas grievous complaints are made, and manifestly appear to be true, in the kingdom, of undue elections of members to parliament, by excessive and exorbitant expenses, contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom due to the election of representatives for the Commons of England in parliament, to the great scandal of the kingdom, dishonourable, and may be destructive to the constitution of parliament; wherefore for remedy therein, and that all elections of members may be hereafter freely and indifferently made without charge or expense." It was hardly necessary for him to add, that the enacting clauses of this measure had not been effectual for their purpose. The prohibition against giving money at the time of the election was evaded by a tacit understanding, that it should be paid at some future period; and, accordingly, nothing was more common than for voters to receive ten or five gui- neas, at the end of six months subsequent to the election. There was also another well known act, having a similar object in view—he meant the act of George 2nd, which inflicted a penalty of 500l. both on the party giving and on the party receiving a bribe; disabling them, likewise, from voting or sitting thereafter. He was sorry to say that the ingenuity of persons engaged in transactions of this nature, had discovered a loophole from this restraint; and this loophole consisted of the exemption in the act from the penalties to which the party was otherwise liable upon giving information of his accomplices. The consequence of this provision was, that a custom had sprung up of indicting certain persons engaged to meet the prosecution, so as to secure a candidate and the major part of his supporters. There remained only one statute more, of which it would hardly be necessary for him to take notice, as the author of it (Mr. Curwen) a few days ago had declared, that it was totally inefficacious, and had not been acted upon in any one case. He now, therefore, asked the House, the practice of- corruption being so injurious and so prevalent, what further remedy they were disposed to adopt? Would they wish to render the law yet more severe? In his opinion, this was not desirable; and, on the best consideration which he had been able to afford the subject, it appeared to him, that no remedy, would be efficacious which went merely to enact new punishments for bribery. To illustrate this, he might mention what they all knew with respect to the game laws, that whatever the penalty might be, it was impossible to prevent gentlemen of large funded property from having game upon their tables. In the same way, how was it to be supposed that old and decayed boroughs, inhabited by persons who were in the lowest state of poverty next to deriving their subsistence from the Poor-rates, and who must be indifferent to the proceedings of parliament and the course of public affairs, visited occasionally by men of great wealth, and ambitious views, should not present the humiliating spectacle, which they now did? How was it to be imagined that these two classes should not meet together—should not make their bargain—and that that bargain should not be corrupt? How could it be expected that, let their laws be ever so solemn, their penalties ever so high, or their hypocrisy ever so well maintained, that the existing, practices should not prevail?. If men of property scrupled not to expand seven or eight thousand pounds upon a place of this description, in order to procure, support, he knew only of one means to prevent corrupt elections, and; that was, by some mode of dealing with; the franchise itself. But precedents were to; be found on their Journals which directly sanctioned the adoption of this course. In the year 1689, the-period to which lie had already referred, certain corruptions were (detected in the borough of Stockbridge, and it was then, proposed to punish that town by transferring its privilege to the county of Southampton, fl This measure was not carried into effect; and he desired the House to look to the consequence. In 1693 an election in the same, borough was declared void and corrupt, and a resolution was passed to prepare and bring in a bill for disfranchising it in future. This bill was read a third time but was, notwithstanding, subsequently lost. It was singular, however, that all these lessons had not secured the purity of elections in that borough; for so late as the year 1793, an entry was made upon their Journals, declaring that notorious bribery and corruption had prevailed at Stock-bridge. The next case to which he should draw their attention was that of Aldborough, with respect to which it was ordered, December 21st, 1696 that no writ should be issued but in a full House after twelve o'clock. Oh December 30th, 1697, more than fail year afterwards, in consequence of the malpractices which were proved to have taken place there is petition was presented from the voters, confessing their guilt, and praying the favour of the House; upon which the writ was re-issued. In the year 1698, and in 1701, a similar proceeding was adopted with respect to Bishop's Castle; and in 1701, with respect to Great Grimsby, in each of which boroughs they of the present day were not quite ignorant that transactions of the same nature had often occurred. In the year 1701 a formal complaint was made to the House, in consequence of the mal-practices which were proved to have taken place there, against a person of the name of Shepherd, for having carried on a system of corruption upon a very extensive scale—with having, in fact, been engaged at the same time in overturning the freedom of election at Bamber, Wootton Basset, Andover, and Ilchester. Sir Edward Seymour was chairman of the committee of privileges. After long inquiry, the House came to this resolution; "That sir Edward Seymour hath made good his general charge against Samuel Shepherd, sen. esq. of bribery and corruption in several boroughs that send members to parliament." Shepherd was sent to the Tower. The House voted their thanks to sir Edward Seymour, upon which occasion the Speaker delivered the following speech;— "The House has had a long examination of several corrupt practices, tending to the destruction of the constitution. They are sensible the discovery thereof is owing to your resolution, to your love of the public, and is brought about at your charge, and by your conduct. It is an honour, Sir, to you, that you are descended from ancestors who have been successful in commanding armies and fleets of this kingdom, and from a protector of this realm; but it is your personal honour that you have protected even the constitution of this place. As the House have expressed their zeal and indignation against those who have endeavoured to undermine and ruin the foundation of their liberties: so they are desirous, at the same time, that your name may stand upon record, as being the means by which it is brought about." In the year 1702, they went into an examination with regard to certain transactions which were alleged to have taken place at Hindon. And leave was given to bring in a bill, "for disfranchising the borough of Hindon from electing members to serve in parliament." The cases of Shoreham, Cricklade, and Aylesbury were so well known, that it was unnecessary for him to do more than mention them. But the result to which lie wished to bring the House was, that neither the remedies to which he had before adverted, nor the inquiries which had occasionally taken place, had yet established any powerful, much less any complete and total check to the evil of which he complained. Something more decisive and more vigorous was yet wanting; or, instead of being diminished, we should find the arts and influence of corruption spreading more than ever. It was undeniable that at each successive general election there were not less than fifty or sixty cases in which this gross and infamous system of bribery prevailed. The establishment of that tribunal, so great an improvement in every other respect, had, in some respects, retarded and prevented inquiries into the practice of corruption. They saw, in the case he had alluded to of sir E. Seymour, that the very irregularity and strange nature of the tribunal gave assistance to any member of the House desirous of exposing corrupt elections; but these advantages were entirely withheld in the case of the small body of members appointed and sworn to try the validity of one single election, and conducting itself by rules of law. The peculiar jurisdiction with which a committee appointed for this purpose found itself invested, and the limitations prescribed by the Grenville act, prevented them from extending their inquiries to any practice, unless it could be shown to affect the return. It was likewise usual to allow the parties to make up their differences; and, in that case, not a whisper was heard of any improper or corrupt proceeding. However unprincipled the conduct of either party, it was then buried in silence, and no one talked of punishment or of exposure.—An instance of this was afforded in the case of Gram-pound. The Grenville Committee appointed to try the election reported the next day, that the sitting members were duly elected, and the petition was not frivolous or vexatious, it might have been supposed that Grampound was purity itself; but when in consequence of some convictions against sir Masseh Lopez and the voters whom he bribed and did not secure, the House went into an inquiry on the subject; it appeared, that the sitting members had given from two to 150 guineas to each voter. So much for an investigation by an election committee! Sir Manasseh Lopez, who had given 35l. each to the voters was convicted in a court of law; but the sitting members, who, as it appears by the evidence given before this House, paid 7,000l. to suppress the petition, in addition to all their former bribery, escaped scot free, and represented the borough during the whole of the last parliament. Sir Manasseh Lopez lost his election, and was sent to prison for two years, and persons much more guilty remained in this House to vote a prayer to the Crown, that this unfortunate man should be brought up for judgment. He could not help being struck with the excessive hardship of this case. The noble lord said, it was from this feeling that he had conceived it to be his duty to interfere; for his persuasion was, that sir Masseh Lopez was one of those individuals who were led into criminal or erroneous pursuits by their notoriety, and by the sanction which they received from prevailing practice. What he had now to propose upon this part of the subject was, that a committee be appointed to devise some better method of inquiring into complaints that might be made of future corrupt practices in boroughs than they at present possessed. Without laying down any positive plan on the subject, he was ready to state, that he should like to see a committee appointed, that should be enabled to take evidence upon oath, whenever a complaint should be made of the state of a borough, on sufficient authority to induce the House to institute inquiry Already the House had made a precedent of an inquiry without the report of a select committee, in the case of Grampound. The noble lord opposite had stated at the time, that it was a novelty, and had nevertheless agreed to establish the precedent. There was another obstacle, however, to the prosecution of these inquiries which was, that all their exertions might be defeated by subsequent proceedings in the other House. Upon this part of the subject he would confess that he should wish to see a new tribunal constituted, capable of determining disputed questions of franchise, that should be equally independent of both Houses. The details, however, of the measure would evidently be left most judiciously to the settlement of a committee. He now came to the second part of his subject—the propriety of giving representatives to places not at present returning members to parliament. In making such a proposition, what he wished to impress upon the House was, that he was introducing nothing new, which was not clearly required by the new situation of the country—that he was proposing no innovation, where innovation had not already taken place. Let the House look to the mighty increase of our manufacturing and unrepresented towns. When his majesty's ministers were proposing the peace establishment in 1816, he, and many of his friends, had objected to it as unnecessarily large. What was the answer? His majesty's ministers referred them to the prodigious extension of these towns, and the increase of their population. In 1792, the whole of our military force of all descriptions, in Great Britain and Ireland, was 57,000 men: we had this year, in Great Britain and Ireland; including militia and yeomanry, an armed force of 210,000 men. And why? It was but two or three days ago, that the prime minister of this country had assigned, as the only reason for maintaining this overwhelming force, the enlargement of those towns, and the increased numbers of their inhabitants. He founded his proposition, therefore, upon an argument which had been before urged by the government itself they both recognized the innovation; and they both maintained, that it was an innovation which required to be met by new remedies and new methods. The difference, and the only difference between them, was, that the new methods proposed by his majesty's ministers consisted in force and coercion; and the new method proposed by himself was, to conciliate popular feeling, and strengthen themselves with popular affection. There was one argument of which he wished to take notice before he proceeded further, as it used always to take the front rank in the objections to any motion for reform. It used to be contended, that all the great towns of the kingdom, though not nominally, were virtually represented by persons of those towns, who came into parliament for small boroughs. It was continually repeated, that the merchants and commercial men who sat in that House were the virtual representatives of all these large manufacturing towns. This fiction was something like that which represented a judge as being always counsel for a prisoner; but, upon one occasion, a prisoner had observed, that if "the judge had been his counsel, he would not have nut that question," alluding to what had been just addressed to a witness from the bench. So, he believed, these towns might often say to the gentlemen who were called their virtual representatives, that if they were really so, they would not have given such a vote. It was impossible, indeed, that they could be heard in that House, or meet with the same degree of deference, as if they came directly from the place whose interests they were promoting, and spoke the sense of its inhabitants. No member, let his talents or authority be ever so high, would meet with the same attention upon a question relative to the iron manufacture, as if he sat in parliament for the town of Birmingham. But, in point of fact, the bill transferring the elective franchise from Grampound had entirely abolished this argument of virtual representation. It was now acknowledged, that reform was wanting, that an evil did exist which ought to be corrected, whenever the opportunity for so doing should occur. So much was now conceded; and in dwelling upon it, he did not wish to take the concession for more than it was worth: it amounted to this, that the evil ought to be corrected only when a fit opportunity should present itself; and it still remained for him to prove, that the evil was of such a magnitude as to require, not only that every opportunity should be embraced, but that means should be expressly taken for immediately bringing representatives of the larger towns within those walls. It gave him pain to be under the necessity of showing in what manner the towns iii question had been governed, since they rose into importance, or from about the middle of the revolutionary war with France. It was pretty well known that they had no municipal constitutions of their own: Manchester was under the direction of an officer called boroughreeve, who was, in fact, the steward of the lord of the soil: the town had no sessions of its own, but was included under the same superintendence as the adjoining hundred of Salford. Birmingham was governed by a head borough and constables; and was in the eye of the law nothing more than a village. In neither of these rich and populous communities were there individuals to whom, from their rank or official station, the people were accustomed to look for the tone and colour of their political opinions. In towns that were represented, however violent the politics of those towns might be, there were certain persons candidates for seats in that House, who acted under the control of public opinion, and who gave a consistent colour to the opinions of the body whom they wished to represent. A popular election, besides giving vent to discontent, embodied the vague wishes of hostile parties, and forced all to seek some object which had at least a plausible and legal appearance. It was to the want of any such political centre in these towns, that he was inclined to attribute some of those unfortunate occurrences which had taken place amongst them since the war. There was no authority to which they could conform, or from which they could derive instruction; and when such men as Hunt and Knight came amongst them, the people knew not what to make of them or their doctrines. In this state of things, what was the policy adopted by his majesty's ministers? What was the mode which they selected for allaying the discontent which then prevailed? So far from endeavouring to confirm or establish the authority of persons whose fortune and whose station were pledges of their attachment to the state, a lord lieutenant was himself suspected of harbouring designs hostile to that constitution. Instead of communicating with him, he was removed from his office. And, who was the individual substituted for the purpose of calming these agitations? He was no other than Oliver the spy. Who was the virtual representative of Manchester at that period? The answer must be, "Oliver the spy." At a time when all the elements of combustion were ready to break out into desperate activity, who was the arbiter of peace or civil war in England? The answer must still be, "Oliver the spy." [Hear, hear!] The men to whom he had alluded, and who had been described as ripe for subverting the government and laws, had, indeed, acted in a manner which went to endanger the institutions which were most dear to us. The people were at that time in a state afterwards described by the magistrates, as one of extreme distress, in which they were ready to listen to any plan that professed to relieve it. Now, he knew but of two reasons why men obeyed a government. The first was, because they thought it a crime to rebel; the second was, the fear of punishment. The first of these motives was taken away by the demagogues who taught these poor people, that the government was so utterly corrupt and vicious, that rebellion had become a duty. Then came the government spy, and took away the second motive for obedience, by telling these unfortunate, starving artisans, that 70,000 men were ready to rise in London and second their efforts to overthrow the state. It was a singular proof of the loyalty of the people of England, that, with all this incitement, no rising had taken place in the year 1817, that could not be quelled by twenty or thirty dragoons. He feared, indeed, that there were some persons who thought that a system of coercion and violence was the only plan upon which the government of so populous a country would be advantageously administered. He feared that there were some who had even applauded the bloody tragedy which was acted at Manchester, and who openly avowed their opinion, that severe prosecutions, that multiplied punishments, and a large standing army, were indispensably necessary. This was their budget of resources: such were the ways and means of oppression by which they proposed to govern a free state. But he would ask even those who defended this mode of government, what further means of security remained? What further tax upon the liberties of the people they could propose, in case of fresh discontents? To increase their standing army? They must, at the same time, increase their burthens; and that increase would occasion disaffection by the very means they proposed to subdue it. To add to their restrictive laws? Those laws had been already pushed as far as it was possible to go, without entirely relinquishing their freedom. He knew but of one resource, of what the noble lord opposite called a system of severe coercion, that had been left untried; and that was, what he would not trust himself with contemplating—he meant a censorship of the press. Surely the example of Glasgow, in April last, proved that we were not safe at present. The question was, therefore, how to secure our safety? Would they continue to restrain, to coerce, and to punish; or, by giving at once, those rights to which their claimants were fairly entitled, try whether they could not, in that manner, conciliate their affections? The proposition which he had to submit was in strict consonance with the practice of parliament, and with the fundamental principles of the constitution, as declared at the best periods of our history. It had, indeed, been questioned, whether it was of any advantage to a body of freemen to have representatives sitting in the legislature; but he could assure the House, that he did not stand there to defend the constitution of England; nor as the advocate of general liberty. It was already provided by that constitution, as a security for our liberties, that the people should come to that House, that they should state their grievances; and whilst the king redressed them, as matter of grace, they, through their representatives, still reserved to themselves the power of granting supplies. To the examples of Wales, of Chester, and of Durham, he might triumphantly appeal for the conclusive refutation of this argument. He wished to see the principle adhered to in those several cases again brought into effectual operation; so that all the various streams of British liberty might mingle together, and in their majestic course, beautify and fertilize every region through which they passed. His hon. friend (Mr. Lambton) had said, on a late occasion, that he could not assent to any plan for granting compensation to boroughs for the loss of their elective franchise, and had called it a measure for acknowledging and sanctioning a white slave trade. On his hon. friend's principle it would be clearly impossible to admit any such arrangement, for that principle went to alter the whole frame of our representative system, to transfer the right of election to counties, and to treat Old Sarum and the city of London with equal respect. Whereas, the proposition which he had now to submit was formed upon a scheme already in existence; and were he to assume that the smaller boroughs were alone corrupt, he might be justly told that the larger were, perhaps, still more so. It had been said, that the elective franchise was a service, and that therefore no compensation ought to be given for it. But he contended, that it was also a privilege, and he held in his hand a copy of the charter of Wenlock, the first charter, he believed, in which the right of sending members to parliament was conferred, where that, with other privileges, was expressly granted by Edward 4th, in consideration of—these were the words of the charter—"the commendable and gratuitous services which our beloved and faithful liegemen and residents in the town of Wenlock have performed to us, in establishing our right to the crown of England, which from us and our ancestors hath been a great while withheld, being disposed to show our grace and favour to the same men and residents." The charter then went on to enumerate the privileges granted. One of these was, "Also we have granted to the same burgesses, their heirs, and successors, that they and their successors for ever shall and may chuse from themselves and others, one burgess for the borough aforesaid, to attend the parliaments of us and our heirs." And the charter goes on to say, that this burgess shall be admitted and sit in parliament in the same manner as the burgesses of any other borough. But, at the time of the Irish Union, a direct precedent was established for granting compensation to bo- roughs, upon their disfranchisement. The 40th Geo. 3rd, c. 34, is intituled, "An Act for granting Allowances to Bodies Corporate, and Individuals in respect of those cities, towns, and boroughs, which shall cease to send any member to parliament after the Union, and to make compensation to those persons whose offices may thereby be discontinued or diminished in value." Here, then, we had a direct precedent for depriving boroughs of their franchises, and granting them a pecuniary compensation in lieu of them. A sum of 1,400,000l. was granted by the Irish parliament for this purpose. He now wished to submit a few considerations on the general principle of his resolutions, which was that of extending the right of representation to certain places not now possessing it. Persuaded he was, that nothing could be more essential than the prosecution of such a course, if they either wished to preserve the affections of the people, or to hand down unimpaired to posterity those blessings of freedom which they had themselves inherited. The course which he should recommend was, to widen the basis of their representative system, in proportion to the vast increase of our wealth and population. In support of this principle he had the authority of all history and experience; and might refer them, in the first instance, to the constitution of Spain. There was a period when Spain had 300 represented towns; but in the reign of Charles 5th, this number was reduced to seventeen, and was no longer able to cope with the power of the Crown. Italy was an example equally in point. Daring the 13th century, there were, in the different independent states of Italy, no less than 1,800,000 freemen. In the 14th century they were reduced to 180,000, and in the 15th century, there were not above 18,000 individuals who possessed the rights and privileges of citizens. What was the consequence? The downfall of the Italian states as soon as they were invaded—the utter decay of towns, once so flourishing—once so abundant in all the productions of genius and freedom. It was a remark of an eminent historian of the present day, that "this gradual diminution of the number of those who had rights, and who were ready to defend them by immense sacrifices, was, perhaps, the chief cause of the fall of the Italian governments. Liberty," he says, "which had at first been placed on the broadest basis, was made at last to rest on the point of a pyramid." This, then, was what he now called on the House to beware of. He called upon them to enlarge the foundation of our common liberty; and he asked them, whether, if the suffrages of the people should become more and more contracted, they could look forward to any other result than that their posterity should be, one day, as base and degenerate as the population of Italy had lately shown itself to be As the basis of representation was contracted in Italy, so their republics had, one after another, been overthrown; the inhabitants, without intellectual vigour, and perverted in their moral habits, had lost all the dignity of their ancient character. They were found, at the commencement of the nineteenth century, so negligent of their former fame—so degraded in their political feelings—that they had acted in a manner which he was sure must kindle indignation in the breast of every one who heard him. Why were the people of this country more attentive than ever to the conduct and measures of government, but because they felt the hand of government interfering with them every day and in every place? He would only add one reason more, why he pressed this subject on the serious attention of the House. The people of this country, above all other nations, required that its government should go hand-in-hand with them. He had seen despotisms firmly established and likely to endure. But why? Because, if the people had little to do with the government, the government had little to do with them—a few taxes and a mild administration of laws left the nation at its ease, perfectly careless who was raised to be minister, or how soon the same minister was excluded by some court intrigue. But in this country we could have no such foundation for obedience—we could not be satisfied with lukewarm loyalty and tranquil indifference—we must have not only the heart but the whole heart—not only the affections but the entire affections of the English nation. For we obliged them, by the sacrifices we asked, to be thinking continually of the state. It could not go on unless supported by the zeal and devoted attachment of the subject. The people were called upon, after all the triumphs which had been achieved, to bear, in silent and patient endurance, all the accumulating burthens which had been heaped upon them. We had not now the song of victory to cheer, or the hazards of war to incite them; we could offer no stimulating motive to enable them to forget their difficulties and distresses. He therefore asked—he implored of the House, to lose no time in adding another link of connexion between themselves and the country. He conjured them to manifest such a disposition as would convince the people that they were sincere in their endeavours to accomplish a reform; and would render the throne, the aristocracy, and every institution of the state, once more objects of veneration with the English nation. He had now said all that he believed it was necessary for him to offer to the House upon this occasion. He was fully aware of the difficulty of the task which he had undertaken. To some, he was aware, that he was an object of alarm, as carrying his speculations much too far. Others had treated his proposal with ridicule, as narrow and insufficient, maintaining, that much greater charges were both practicable and necessary. There were persons who were apprehensive that the slightest change must go to endanger the whole system. This last description of persons seemed to overlook the real changes which had taken place in our constitution, and the extent to which the spirit of our laws had been in various ways departed from. He should fearlessly submit for approval or rejection, a proposition which, after the best thinking he could apply to the subject, appeared to him calculated for the benefit of the community at large—a proposition which he doubted not would stand in need of correction, but which was, at least, in its spirit, just and reasonable. Having laid it before the House, he should have the satisfaction of saying to his own heart, that he had done his duty. The noble lord concluded by moving the following resolutions:

, in rising to second the motion of the noble lord, assured the House that he was an enemy to radical reform, whether in the shape of annual parliaments and universal suffrage, or in that milder form of it which proposed to give the right of voting to inhabitant, householders; because it appeared to; him to aim at the total overthrow of that constitution, which had raised this country to a pitch of glory, unexampled in ancient and modern history. The elements of insecurity were so mixed up with the fabric of radical reform, that instead of amending any part of the superstructure of the constitution, it was calculated to throw the whole superstructure down. But, while he objected to radical reform, because it would tend to make that House purely and entirely democratical, he was a friend to a mode? rate and rational reform, and he supported the resolutions of the noble lord, because he thought they were calculated to attain that object; and that the noble lard's plan would be found capable of a safe and easy execution. Great changes had taken place among the people since the House had been constituted as it then was; and a change was therefore necessary in order to make the House suited to the age and to the state of the people. Instead of the members of it being the tools, they ought to be a check upon the aristocracy; arid instead of being subservient to the views of government, the; House ought to have its constitutional control over the: acts of ministers. He had no doubt but an effectual stop might be put to the pernicious consequences arising from bribery and corruption; and that the admission of the large towns to a participation of the elective franchise would tend to tranquillize the people.

having read the first resolution, there was a loud cry of "Strangers, withdraw;" and the gallery was nearly cleared for a division.

rose; but the noise was be excessive, that for several minutes it was impossible to hear him. He said, he thought the remedy should be considered distinctly from the grievance. He had no objection to the principle of disfranchisement, in cases similar to that of Grampound. He understood the noble lord to propose, in some cases, the disfranchisement of boroughs, although no corruption might be proved. In order to justify this measure, it was necessary for the noble lord to show that the House, in its present state, was inadequate to its purposes. Now, there was no ground for supposing, that by an alteration of the constitution, we should see any increase in the number of popular members. The House, with all its alleged abuses, was perfectly competent to discharge all its functions. The noble lord had stated, that parliament, as it was constituted, could not go on for any length of time. It was however obvious, that parliament in the state it then was, had carried the country through difficulties and dangers never exceeded in the annals of any country in the world. Supposing the elective franchise extended to persons holding property of the value of 10l. he much doubted whether, out of the persons assembled at Manchester, one hundred could be found possessed of even 10l. per annum to supply the places of members deprived of their seats by reform. Could it be supposed that such a reform would remove the complaints? Men would be returned, who, instead of being a valuable addition to the House, would prove pernicious, inasmuch as they would prevent those from acting who had more practical information. The noble lord, upon the whole, had had no foun- dation for overturning the constitution of the House. The noble lord's plan went to take away the votes from small boroughs, where he supposed corruption was prevalent. It was however utterly impossible for the House to adopt that principle. If once they acted upon such a system, they could never tell where to-stop. He should therefore move the previous question.

hoped, as the borough of Stockbridge, Which he represented, had been alluded to by the noble lord as an instance of gross corruption, he might be permitted to say a few words. He knew that 130 years since, complaints of that; nature bad been made; but, from, some cause or other, it had not been disfranchised. That borough was now pure, and there was not a greater share of independence in any city or county than at present existed in the borough of Stock-bridge. He came down to the House to support the resolution, and the noble lord would not find any one more zealous in doing it than himself. Should the plan of the noble lord be agreed to, the state of all the boroughs would be brought under the notice of the committee; and, in that case, he had no objection that Stockbridge should be placed first on the list.