rose, to bring forward two motions, of which he had given notice, relating to the Standing Orders with regard to Private Bills. He was, in the first instance, about to move "that notice in writing, of the day proposed for the third reading of every Private Bill, be given by the agent soliciting the bill, to the clerks of the Private-bill office, one clear day before such third reading." A Standing Order to that effect already existed with respect to the second reading of Private Bills, and, by means of it, all members who might either wish to oppose or support the second reading of any such bill, were notified of the day upon which it would be read a second time, and could attend in their places to take part in the discussion upon it. He wished to apply a similar principle to the third reading of all Private Bills, in order to afford an opportunity to all members who might be interested in them to be present, either to support or oppose the passing of such bills. He had intended to propose that a similar Standing Order should be made with respect to the first reading of Private Bills, but on consulting those who were better acquainted with the forms of the House, he found that his object would be better accomplished by the second motion which he had to propose; namely, "that the Standing Order of the 5th of July, 1825, which directs that the House will not receive any petitions on Private Bills, referring solely to the compliance or non-compliance with the orders of the House, subsequently to the first reading of the bills to which they respectively relate, be amended by substituting the second reading instead of the first." The hon. member concluded by proposing these motions, which were severally put and agreed to, and ordered to be entered as Standing Orders of the House.

moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the Claims of Mr. O'Reilly, and others, sufferers on account of the insolvency of the late Registrar of Madras; and also that the returns made to the India-house, on this subject, be referred to the said committee. After a few words from lord Ashley, who intimated that the Board of Control had no objection to the inquiry, the motion was agreed to, and the committee appointed.

rose to present a petition from the bailiffs, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of East Redford, of which he had given notice yesterday. So far as his vote went, he had, on former occasions, expressed his opinion of the delinquency of this borough; but still, though such was his opinion, he felt that he should not be doing his duty to the petitioners, if he did not state to the House the strong and energetic language in which the petitioners declared their perfect innocence of the guilt of corruption. They stated most solemnly, and they were ready to confirm their declaration by oath in a court of law, or by any other test which the House might prescribe, that they never did, at any time, directly or indirectly, receive money or any gratuity whatever, for any vote to be given by them at the election for members to serve in parliament, nor had they received any promise of remuneration on account of their votes. Such was the strong assertion made by the larger part of the present voters. On this statement they most confidently, and, he thought, not without good grounds, anticipated their acquittal by this branch of the legislature. It was in another place stated, by the highest law authority in the realm, that it was necessary to give evidence of the positive corruption of the larger part of the voters in any place, to justify the measure of disfranchisement; and he believed, were the measure now contemplated to go before the other branch of the legislature, it would not succeed. He did not appear, let it be understood, as an advocate for the delinquency of this borough; but he called the attention of the House to what was started in the petition. The petitioners wished for a renewal of the inquiry into their conduct, as composing a majority of the electors, and as men who declare themselves free from bribery or any other offence. They stated, that they were as deeply interested as any other body of men in preserving the purity of election, and they complained, that they had been deprived of their representatives, who were their natural protectors. They therefore prayed the hon. House forthwith to direct a new writ to issue for members to serve in parliament for this borough. The hon. member for Lyme Regis had given notice that he would make such a motion; and he hoped that that hon. member would take the sense of the House on that question before they entered on the motion of the hon. member for Blechingly. He was well aware that there were many precedents for delaying the writ in cases of this kind; but having maturely considered them, he thought they were all wrong. It was a most serious thing, when a borough was threatened with disfranchisement, to remove from the electors their representatives, who would use their vigilant and attentive exertions to guard the interests of their constituents. He knew it would be said, that they had been heard by counsel; but no person could say that one legal speech delivered at the bar was equal to the efforts of two members who would narrowly watch every stage of the proceedings. If the writ were not allowed to issue, it was not at all likely that the measure of disfranchisement could be carried this session; and if not, he would ask the hon. member for Blechingly, whether he would not next session call for another suspension of the writ? Now that he thought was a course which the most zealous reformer in that House would scarcely support. The proper mode of proceeding would be to issue the writ, and ample justice might be done to this borough at any time during the next session. The bill for the disfranchisement of Penryn, which was thrown out in another place on the second reading, was four months under consideration; what chance was there, then, that this bill would be brought to a final conclusion in the present session?

said, he did not conceive that such a petition as this could be presented to the House with any propriety. It had been decided by an immense majority, that the borough of East Retford was not worthy of enjoying the elective franchise; and, having come to that decision last session, if they now agreed to allow a new writ to be issued, they would be guilty of a very great inconsistency in the eyes of the public. He was sorry to hear his hon. friend avail himself on this occasion of arguments used elsewhere. Those argument might be suited to the dignity and the privileges of the other House of parliament, but he protested against their being received here. The only doctrine he could listen to, was that laid down by the right hon. Secretary of State, who had done himself the greatest credit when he said, that "the elective franchise was a trust to be held for the benefit of the public; and that those who proved themselves unworthy of it, ought to be deprived of it." In one part of the speech of his hon. friend he agreed; and that was as to the propriety of postponing this question. He joined his entreaty with that of his hon. friend, for the purpose of inducing the hon. member for Blechingly to postpone further proceedings at present. He could not ask of the ministers of the Crown to state what would be the probable duration of the present session; but any gentleman who looked at the order-book must conclude, that it would not be very much enlarged. This being the case, and as it would be, perhaps, impossible to get the measure through this session, he could see no use in wasting their time in discussions which were likely to terminate without producing any practical result. If they could not get an assurance that government would prolong the session, so that the bill might go through the other House, then he conceived the best course would be to pass a resolution declaratory of their intention to take up the subject early in the next session, and thus to avoid long and useless discussions at present.

said, he had given way to his hon. friend, the member for Staffordshire, being anxious to ascertain the wish of other gentlemen on the point pressed upon him by his hon. friend, the member for Dungarvon; with regard to the postponement of the question to the next session; he had, however, no difficulty in saying at once, that he would not consent to such postponement on the terms proposed by that hon. member; namely, that the writ should issue, and that new members for East Retford should forthwith be returned to parliament. The House would act in the most absurd and inconsistent manner, if, after the proceedings last year, it should consent to that step. It would be a complete stultification of those proceedings. His hon. friend (Mr. Lamb) had said, that gentlemen had not refreshed their memories by re-perusing the evidence, so as to enable them to come to a present discussion of the main question. It was quite clear, at least, that his hon. friend had not done so, otherwise he could not have brought himself to believe and to enforce the statement of the petitioners, that a majority of the electors was not corrupt. He must, however, be allowed to say, that before he (Mr. Lamb) brought forward such a statement, it was his duty to have recurred to that evidence. One of the mischiefs of the delay which has occurred was, that several members seemed to have forgotten the overwhelming strength of the case, which, to the universal satisfaction of the House, was, last year, established against this borough. Nothing would be more easy for him, than to prove that almost all these petitioners, to whom the opportunity had offered, had themselves received the wages of corruption;—yet, he would not again go into the details, but relying upon the general impression which the House at large could not fail to retain of their decisive character, he would content himself with simply referring to the result of the inquiry at the bar, which, on the 21st of March last year, in a speech reported through the usual channels,^* he had summed up in a very few words. The passage to which he referred was:—"In order to give the House the clearest idea of the result of the whole of the evidence, I have prepared a complete list of the present voters for East Retford. Opposite to the name of each of them in any manner affected by the evidence, the bearing of that evidence upon the individual is stated." This list I will place upon the table, in order that any member may examine it for his own satisfaction. It seems the fairest way of presenting the case to the scrutiny of the House. The whole result is, that excluding the burgesses admitted since 1820 (who have had no opportunity of receiving head-money), the evidence affects a large majority of the whole number, resident and non-resident; the whole of the present resident voters who were voters in 1818, except six; and all the others, except five, who were admitted freemen between 1818 and 1820. If this were so (and he had made the statement at a period when all the details were as familiar to others as to himself), he would ask,—with what face such parties could presume to petition, as they now did, for the issue of a new writ? Yet, while it seemed to him quite absurd to entertain such a proposition, his hon. friend (Mr. Lamb), who knew, that under the circumstances, the precedents would justify the retention of the writ, says he would break through all former precedent for the purpose of issuing it in this instance. Now, Sir, (continued the hon. member), if the House ever think fit to infringe the long-established rule in this respect, surely East Retford is not the case which will offer the first inducement! With regard to the expediency of postponing the consideration of the whole question until the next session, I am quite ready to bow to what may appear to be the wish of the House, but I repeat that I will not desist upon the terms proposed by my hon. friend the member for Dungarvon. He has spoken, now and heretofore, of the dilatory character of these proceedings. I cannot, however, take blame to myself for not intruding this question at a period of the present session, when it would, not only have been unacceptable, but have failed to meet with the attention to which it is entitled. I, above all others, was anxious for an early discussion, satisfied that the question suffered by every delay which took place. It has been said, that I have by these postponements, foregone the most favourable opportunity for a successful issue, and that I had thus compromised the interests of the question itself. I know not, Sir, how this may be, but if to have refused to take advantage of that excitement against his majesty's ministers, which a conduct on their parts, in my judgment, most patriotic and magnanimous, had nevertheless produced in a certain portion of this House formerly active in their support; if not to have availed myself of such a moment of temporary alienation, for accomplishing a pitiful triumph on a minor question, was to compromise its interests; all I can say is, that it is infinitely less painful for me to plead guilty to such a charge, than to have stood redeemed by a course which would have debased me in my own estimation, and justly degraded me in the opinion of those whose esteem I value. On these grounds, therefore, I trust the House will acquit me of unnecessary delay, and I am far from wishing for any further postponement now; on the contrary, my own desire is to proceed; yet, if it shall appear to be the general feeling of the House that this matter should be suspended until the next session, I will cheerfully yield my own wishes, but I must repeat, that in doing so, I cannot assent to the issue of the writ, as proposed by my hon. friend.

^* See vol. xviii. p. 1255,

said, that if the borough of East Retford should be deprived of its franchise, he should certainly move the extension of it to the adjoining hundreds.

thought it would be extremely inconvenient to issue a writ for East Retford during the investigation. With regard to putting off the subject until another session, he did not see on what grounds the House could proceed to that step. With respect to the House of Lords, if they did think proper to throw out the bill, let them bear the responsibility. They were not now in the month of July, but in the commencement of May, and if they were to pass a bill, they would leave it to the Lords to consider whether they would take upon themselves the responsibility of refusing justice, and of being wanting in proper respect to that House of Parliament. Then it was said, that the Crown might not prolong the session. If the advisers of the Crown chose to recommend that the session should not be prolonged, let them take the responsibility, and not us. They had now time enough before them; let them not, therefore, shift to their own shoulders the responsibility which ought to attach to the responsible advisers of the Crown.

concurred with the noble lord in thinking that the question ought not to be deferred to another session. The House had been in the habit of sitting until July, and now they were only in the beginning of May. They could hardly doubt the possibility of getting the bill through both Houses, after the rapidity with which they had lately seen bills passed.

said, that the time which the Penryn bill had occupied, proved that there could be no chance of getting a bill of this nature through the House of Lords this session. He hoped to God that the House would not follow the dangerous precedent of rapidity to which the hon. member for Yorkshire had alluded.

thought it would be better to wait until the next session, rather than enter into a series of discussions at so late a period of the year as the present, from whence nothing but mischief could possibly arise. He, for one, thought that, under all the circumstances of the case, the best course might probably be, to issue the writ at once, and thereby get rid of the question; since the unfortunate majority obtained last year by the hon. member for Hertfordshire left little chance of the franchise being ultimately transferred to Birmingham. If, however, in any case which might occur, it should be deemed advisable, as he certainly considered it to be, to transfer any forfeited right of returning representatives to Manchester, Birmingham, or to any other of the large unrepresented towns, so many difficulties would arise in forming a constituency by bill—all rights of representation having been founded on separate jurisdictions—that he conceived by far the safest and most constitutional course would be, to proceed by address to the Crown, to issue its writ to the place indicated, and leaving to the ministers of the Crown the decision of what should be the description of the electors to whom the writ should be issued.

said, that no possible blame could attach to the hon. member for Blechingly for not having brought forward this subject before, as the hon. member had not been master of the circumstances which had caused the delay. The circumstances of this session had been peculiar, and would form no rule for the proceedings of another session. He should confine himself to the question which was practically, though not formally, before the House; namely, whether a new writ should be issued for East Retford, with the view of proceeding with the investigation. He thought, that if the House intended now, or at any other time, to renew the investigation, with the view of extending the franchise to the hundred, or of conferring it upon a large town, there was a great objection to issuing a writ, and allowing the voters of the borough to exercise exclusively the privilege which that writ would confer. The House would recollect, that the petition against the election charged bribery, corruption, and treating. The treating was proved, and on that ground the election was set aside. The report of the committee, however, declared, that the borough was notoriously corrupt, and that it required the serious attention of the House. He thought, therefore, that great difficulty would arise if they allowed these constituents to return members during the remainder of the session. It had been said, that in the cases of Grampound and Penryn, the members were allowed to sit to the end of the session; but there was no similarity between those cases and the present; in the former, they found the members sitting, but in the latter the members were unseated, on the proof of treating. He confessed he did not feel the injustice of postponing the investigation, though he could have wished that it had been brought on earlier. The hon. member for Blechingly must judge for himself what course was most proper for him to pursue. If the hon. member persevered in his motion, he supposed that the hon. member for Hertfordshire would persevere in his; and, in that case, he should take the same course that he had taken last session, and vote for the extension of the franchise to the hundred. If the subject were postponed till the next session, he should then also be prepared to take the same course.

said, that even if these voters had been guilty of all that had been charged against them, they had already been amply punished. He should support the motion for issuing a new writ. If every borough were to be treated as this had been, he suspected they would have a very thin House. He put it to the hearts and consciences of honourable members, whether this was not the fact, and hoped the hon. member would persist in his motion for the issue of a new writ.

recommended that the subject should be postponed, and time given for the House to come to a decision upon the whole question. If the decision were arrested midway, the responsibility would not fall on the other House of parliament, but upon this, with which a measure that it was impossible to pass had originated.

hoped, that the consideration of the subject would be postponed.

On the petition being brought up,

said, he could have no wish to introduce a measure, if it was impossible to get it through both Houses that session. Would the right hon. Secretary tell him whether he thought there was a probability of getting a pill through parliament that session?

said, he could not be certain what time the bill would take in passing through that House. The noble lord who had talked of the responsibility of government should recollect, that those parties who would not give their attendance must share the responsibility. As to the Lords, he saw by their Journals, that the case of Grampound had occupied nine weeks, and that of Penryn seven weeks. These were the only means he had of forming any opinion; and he could give no assurance that the Crown would be advised to continue the sitting of parliament for any period.

was surprised at the reference made by the hon. member for Blechingly to the right hon. Secretary. He certainly thought the convenience of the administration was to be attended to; but he thought, after two hundred and fifty thousand forty-shilling freeholders had been disfranchised at one swoop, it was rather too bad to say, let this affair of the paltry borough of East Retford stand over for another session. That borough had notoriously been proved guilty of bribery and corruption, and ought to be struck out of the representation. He therefore trusted that his hon. friend would bring forward his motion.

explained. He meant to impute no blame to the hon. member for Blechingly, for intentional delay in this matter; but the borough suffered from the delay, whatever it might be that caused it.

expressed himself in favour of the postponement of the question respecting the disfranchisement of East Retford.

thought the time of the House would have been very much misapplied, if in the short space of an hour the House was to get rid of this important question, now brought, for the third time, and in the third session of parliament, before its consideration. This was, to say the least, a very extraordinary proceeding, and he would also say, that it seemed to have been altogether well got up. The parts had been well played on both sides. He too had played a part in the affair: but he had played it conscientiously and fearlessly, without favour or affection towards any man, in doors or out of doors; and he had only to add, that the House seemed to have come to the under standing, that it was extremely wise, expedient, and convenient, considering all that had passed in the last session, and all that had taken place in this, that the further consideration of the subject should be deferred to another session.

assured the House, that he had been no party in the play in which the hon. baronet said he took part without any favour towards any side of the House. The hon. baronet took upon himself to say, that a general juggle had been carried on, which had ended in a compromise, whereby this great and important question would be postponed to another period. Now, he took upon himself to say, that he had no manner of doubt that about two minutes by the clock would prove the hon. member to be completely and entirely mistaken; and he could not let the hon. member suppose—though he was sorry to dispel the pleasing allusion which was now playing over the hon. member's mind—that his interference in the matter, or his observations on the conduct of all parties in that House, had had any, even the slightest effect, in producing the frustration of his own confident prediction; because he could inform the hon. baronet, that, to his certain knowledge, before the hon. baronet had uttered a word of his sweeping accusation, the hon. member for Blechingly was a competitor with him for the attention of the House intending at that instant to give notice that he would proceed with the question.

intimated his intention of persisting in bringing forward his motion.

The petition was ordered be printed. After which,

rose and said:—In now submitting, for the third time, the case of the Borough of East Retford to the consideration of the House, I venture to hope that the right hon. Secretary opposite will, on this occasion, allow it to be decided by the sense of the House fairly takes upon its merits. In the last session we all know that it was decided by another test;—that by extrinsic circumstances it was worked up into a party question, and that all the powers of the government were then wielded to oppose the views which I had presumed to advocate—not because the question itself was one which ought to be so dealt with, but merely on account of incidents occurring in its progress. Those incidents, as a primary cause of them, I have especially lamented, depriving the country, as they did, of the services of several gentlemen of eminent talent and great experience, particularly my right hon. friend the member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson), the great master of those new and enlightened principles of commercial policy, which it is the just pride and the signal advantage of the present government to have candidly adopted, and which have happily found so able and powerful an advocate in the right hon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade. But I trust, Sir, that the case of East Retford will now be dealt with, as the cases of Grampound and Penryn were dealt with in 1821 and 1827, by the governments of lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning; namely, as an open question. Yet, whatever may be the determination of the right hon. Secretary on that head, I beg leave, on my part at least, to disclaim this as a party question. It is one, which, under any circumstances, ought not to be so considered, and I beg to assure the right hon. gentleman that I do not introduce it now, with any feeling of hostility towards him or to the government of which he is the organ in this House.

Having, in the last and the preceding session, very fully developed my views upon this question, it would be most unreasonable — indeed inexcusable — if I were now to intrude upon the House at any length. Sir, I adhere steadily to the proposal which I had the honour of submitting to parliament in 1827 and 1828—which this House was inclined to adopt in the former year and to reject in the latter; namely, to transfer the franchise of East Retford to the town of Birmingham. That there is not, to such a transfer, any insurmountable objection, on the part of the government, as founded upon the supposed local claims either of East Retford or of the county of Nottingham, I infer, because the right hon. Secretary did last year profess his readiness to acquiesce in it, if the House of Lords should decide to open Penryn to the adjacent hundreds. I think, therefore, I may still address to him and to the House, an invitation to recur to the principle on which it was disposed to act on a former occasion. In 1821, when the case of Grampound was under its consideration, this House passed a bill transferring the representation then enjoyed by that borough to the town of Leeds. In the House of Lords the destination of this franchise was changed to the county of York, and thus the landed interest received an addition of two members at the expense of the monied interest before represented by the members for Grampound. Now if, in 1821, the House of Commons could so deal with the single case of Grampound in favour of Leeds, it may at present not only with still more propriety dispose of the single case of East Retford in favour of Birmingham, but it seems to me that it would be unjust to make any transfer of the same character on behalf of the land, without doing something in the first instance for the monied or trading interest, if only for the purpose of maintaining that equilibrium between land and trade, which it was the object of the government to preserve, when in the last session, imagining we had two boroughs to dispose of, it recommended that one of the franchises should be given to the landed interest and the other to a manufacturing town—an arrangement, I must observe, from which the land would have derived an advantage, to which the circumstances seemed to give it no claim.

No man can disguise from himself, whatever may be his own bias on the subject, that the time will shortly arrive when we must,—I say emphatically,—when we shall be compelled,—morally compelled at least,—to yield representation to the large unrepresented trading communities. Let us not wait till this act of justice be wrested from us! Whatever is so obtained, whether the force applied be a moral or a physical force, is always surrendered at some expense of the dignity—at some loss, and some danger to the power and authority of the state. I feel safe from contradiction when I pronounce the opinion of the nation at large to be, that the more prominent manufacturing communities, with the interests of which its general prosperity and preeminence are so essentially connected, ought by some means to be provided with special guardians in the legislature. Although every acre of land in the country be effectually represented in the House of Commons, and exclusively represented in the House of Lords, yet my hon. friend, the representative of all the land in Hertfordshire, would persuade us that the soil of Bassetlaw should become doubly represented at the present opportunity. But new interests as important—as mighty as the landed interest—and as vital to the well being of the country, have now risen up, and as yet remain unrepresented. To these the constitution would formerly have opened its arms,—a just exercise of the royal prerogative would have assigned them representatives. Since the Scottish Union, it is understood that this end cannot be properly effected unless parliament will agree to these transfers. They precisely harmonize with the antecedent practice of discontinuing decayed boroughs, and enfranchising new communities. The means, therefore, offer themselves, as cases like the present occur without involving us in the wider question of reform, or in the embarrassments respecting the proportionate representation of the three kingdoms established at the Unions, which would arise if an absolute addition to the members of this House were proposed. What then is the assignable danger—what the impropriety of acceding to my present proposal? What the pretext upon which it is to be rejected? Are these interests for ever to remain unrepresented—or by what mode, if not by this, is representation to be, at any time, provided for them? The means I point out, are the legitimate means left at our disposal for attaining what the right hon. Secretary will not and cannot deny is a desirable end. If not by this, then, let me ask him, by what other mode does he propose to accomplish it? He does not mean to pronounce against these vast communities, a sentence of eternal exclusion? If not, does he propose hereafter to engage with a more general reform—or will he agree to an addition of members in favour of these particular towns—or what other plan does he, and do the government,—for both he individually, and the government collectively, must in some manner have had the subject under consideration—what other plan, I ask, do they contemplate as that by which the relief may ultimately be given?

Independently of the general and abstract fitness of giving representation, in a representative government to large masses of wealth and population,—does a single session pass without some great question occurring to force upon us a conviction that where such masses exist without representation, they should be provided with voices amongst us? But does a single week elapse in which we are not awakened to the fact, that we are discussing and deciding upon questions of manufacture and commerce in the absence of the very parties whose interests are mainly affected;—in which it does not come home to us, that we ought to be assisted by their representatives to explain for them—and to give the information needful to correct our views and guide our counsels? Need I refer to the change which is now operating in the commercial policy of the country? At a period when our commercial code is in a course of entire revision upon new principles—is it not peculiarly fitting, in point of justice, and peculiarly expedient for the public welfare, that the parties more immediately concerned in the effect of these changes, and the best able to judge of them, should be here to enlighten and to assist us—to suggest, to advise, to consent, or to oppose? I could enlarge much on these points, but I have done so on former occasions, and I am anxious to redeem the pledge that I would not now trespass long upon the time of the House. I will, therefore, pass at once to the motion, with which I shall conclude. I have felt it my duty again to recommend the town of Birmingham to the favourable consideration of parliament. Not only have its claims been linked throughout with the fate of East Retford, but I sincerely think it is in more urgent need of distinct representation than any other of the new and unrepresented communities. My grounds for this opinion I have before stated at length, and the only point of which I would now remind the House, is one which appears to give it a peculiar claim beyond any other town; namely, that there is no city or borough sending members to parliament which has the same interests as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Sheffield;—of these, therefore, I again select the chief, and earnestly recommend the town of Birmingham to the favour of the House on the present occasion. Accordingly, I move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to exclude the Borough of East Retford from electing Burgesses to serve in Parliament, and to enable the town of Birmingham to return two representatives in lieu thereof."

seconded the motion. He observed, that the delinquency of the borough of East Retford having been fully proved to the satisfaction of the House, the elective franchise should be removed from that borough; and, in his opinion, it ought to be transferred to a portion of the commercial interest of the country existing in one of the large towns. To transfer it to the adjoining hundred would only be to give it to the landed interest, which was already fully represented; and all the members of that House must be aware that the commercial interests, the woollen, the cotton, and the hardware manufacturers, the last especially, were very inadequately represented in that House. The great towns in the north of England had no representatives; although, if they had, they would furnish men who could supply the House with facts which at present they were not in possession of, respecting the great commercial interests of the country.

said, be had been much misrepresented as to his views respecting these boroughs. The only objection he had to the transfer now proposed was, that it went to take representatives from a county which had no greater number of representatives than its population and opulence required, and to transfer the franchise to a great town. They must all recollect, that the little boroughs in the west, which were all but petty villages, with their pauper corporations, often sold themselves to the highest bidder, and made that bidder a member of parliament. He had alluded to these things; but so far from being opposed to the great towns being represented, he had actually seconded his noble friend's proposition to transfer the franchise from Penryn to Manchester; but, in the present instance, the injury to the county would be so great, that he could not consent to the transfer. They had been referred to the northern part of the county. He would only observe, that the country north of the Trent formed in extent one third of the whole of England, and in wealth, population, and importance, bore a still higher proportion to the rest, but it had only one sixth part of the representation; and yet it was from that very district that they were now asked to take two members, and to give them to a district already better represented. As he thought that such a transfer would be unjust and improper, he was anxious that the franchise should be transferred to the hundred of Bassetlaw.

said, that having on former occasions professed himself a warm friend to the extension of the elective franchise, and having always advocated the now almost-forgotten and ill-omened cause of reform, he was unwilling, under any circumstances, however adverse, to shrink from the defence of the same principles, or to avoid any opportunity of expressing strongly, though not pertinaciously, his adherence to the same sentiments. Looking back at the various attempts made in that House to introduce a reform of the constitution, he confessed that the best as well as the most reasonable argument in opposition to reform had been used by those who, admitting the theoretical imperfection complained of, had still been unwilling to open the door to what they termed a general, unlimited and sweeping system of innovation. Some persons, indeed, had urged, that the present checkered state of the representation more accurately represented the diversified interests of the community, than if it rested on a more regular and uniform basis; others had contended, that advantages even arose from the acknowledged discordance of some of the component parts; but because architects differ as to the degree of repairs, was it therefore to be allowed, that the building should be suffered to moulder under the hand of time, and fall into irretrievable decay? The hon. member contended, that the government of this country had not seized with sufficient avidity those opportunities which presented themselves of transferring writs of election from places where acknowledged corruption prevailed, to large towns and populous districts, at present without representation. Ministers had been supported by those who naturally felt reluctant to communicate any portion of the power which a man exclusively possessed; and a spirit prevailed among many against the least extension of the elective franchise. In proportion as some of the great manufacturing towns have increased in wealth, education, and population, in the same degree had a body of gentlemen, calling themselves particularly the representatives of the landed interest, been anxious to shut the door in the face of those who claimed to be admitted: thus was sanctioned the evil principle of uniting the great aristocracy with the lower class of the community, to the utter extinction of the middling orders, and, he might now say, the more enlightened part of the population. He should be very sorry to say anything which might be considered obnoxious to the landed interest, connected as he was with it by every tie; but when he first took his seat in that House, he had come to the conclusion, that he ought to abandon all partial feelings, and to divest himself as much as possible of prejudices and preconceptions. He was compelled to declare, that he thought the sentiments of the hon. member for Hertfordshire seemed too strongly tinged with the agricultural feeling, and founded upon a narrow view of the constitution and of the interests of the people. It would be observed, that the question before the House stood at present on a very different footing to that which it occupied last session. Last year, at least in the commencement, it was thought by many, that two boroughs had by corruption lost their right to send members to parliament. Although he had not at that period concurred with the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, that the one writ ought to be transferred to a large manufacturing town, and the other resigned to the landed interest; yet he confessed that the proposition was specious, and considering the situation in which the right hon. gentleman stood with relation to the House, he had thought that no fairer proposition could be expected from him, as a minister of the Crown. Now, however, the question stood on very different grounds; now, no treaty of the kind was to be made, and no double interests were to be consulted. The question was simply this:—first, whether the borough of East Retford should lose its right; and, if so, whether the writ for the election of two members should be transferred to the town of Birmingham, or only opened to the hundred of Bassetlaw? Another proposition had, indeed, been mentioned, for again sending the writ to East Retford; but such a motion could only originate in despair. What were the pretensions on which the arguments of the different parties were advanced? It was well-known, that all these writs for the election of members were rights given by society. They were the result of an artificial state—matters of compact with which the state might deal, and regarding which it might legislate. Then, he would ask, whether it was fair, whether it was just, whether it was politic, to withhold the right of representation from large towns, if for no other reason than because cause at this moment they did not possess it? That the landed property of the country was fully represented no man could doubt; but it was equally clear, that the great manufacturing towns and districts were not fully represented: in fact, those who stood most in need of representatives had their interests entirely neglected. It had been said, that these towns and districts were virtually represented by the members for the counties in which they are contained. He was sorry to hear this argument used in a British House of Commons. Virtual re-presentation was a dangerous word; it had put in peril the brightest jewel in the British Crown. He warned honourable members, lest by pushing the principle too far, they should risk what was infinitely more valuable than our commerce or our colonies—the regard and confidence of the people. The power of directing writs was formerly exercised by the Crown: it had since been relinquished to parliament, under the presumption that it would be exercised fairly and discreetly. He would not direct the attention of the House to the continent, where, it seemed, the principles of representation were better understood than in this country: he would not refer to the United State of America, where representation went hand in hand with population, but he would simply appeal to the practice in some of our colonies. If he were not misinformed, in Canada, when the population in a particular district amounted to a given number, it had a right to send members to the legislature. He saw no reason for abandoning this wholesome principle, or those maxims; which were formerly esteemed, and which warranted an eminent orator in asserting, that the constitution possessed something divine in its nature—a principle of perpetual renovation. But, did hon. members consider the question in this point of view—that, by adopting the suggestion of opening the franchise to the hundred of Bassetlaw, the whole constituent body of England would be diminished? If one hundred electors of East Retford were disfranchised, and their privileges were given, not to a new place, but to a district already in possession of the right of voting, so far the whole constituent body would be diminished. After what had recently occurred—after having at one blow disfranchised about two hundred thousand freeholders—the House ought to be aware how it still further reduced the number. Whether that measure was to be looked upon as a sacrifice for the greatest blessing a government could bestow—religious peace and civil liberty; or whether it was to be regarded upon any other grounds, he called upon the House to remember, that it ought never to have recourse to such a measure but under circumstances of the greatest emergency; nothing else could justify an act of injustice so flagrant. He admitted, that the precedents upon this subject made against the view he had taken; but if precedent ought on all occasions to govern, the House might be called upon at that moment to alter even the dispensing power of the Crown. The precedents of the last century on this subject were undoubtedly in favour of the landed interest; but, what were the elements out of which the House would create the principle of representation? Were they not numbers, respectability, wealth, education, and independence? The numbers at Birmingham were certainly sufficient, and in intelligence and education there were many thousands, in that town at least, equal to any of the electors of the hundred of Bassetlaw. Three or four hundred voters to a county election might be procured by opening the hundred; but it was not to that quarter that he, at least, would look for freedom of sentiment and independence of conduct. The transference of the writ to Birmingham was opposed by some, on the ground that it would be a measure of parliamentary reform. Such was the magic of words, that on one day the rights of two hundred thousand freeholders were destroyed; on another, many mil- lions were wisely and justly admitted to the benefits of the constitution; and yet, on a third, it was objected to give the right of representation to a place of the highest manufacturing importance! Parliament changed the whole commercial system of the country; it introduced the greatest improvements into the criminal code: every day it abrogated laws of the highest antiquity; yet when only a slight effort was made to improve the constitution, a cry was raised against Jacobinism and innovation, and the departure from ancient and established forms; as if there were some angel purity watching over the right of election, and guarding it from corruption and contamination. The more he considered, the more he was satisfied, that Birmingham ought to be admitted to the right of returning members. Every nation of Europe had proceeded upon the principle of extending privileges and not of abridging them; and it was indisputable as a point of history, that the Romans were anxious to communicate the rights of citizenship. Why, then, were loyal and intelligent subjects of manufacturing districts to be excluded from the enjoyment of those rights which they had so essentially protected? He deplored the opposition offered by the hon. member for Hertfordshire, because it was a weighty and destructive blow at the extension of the elective franchise; and it was given in a spirit which was likely to receive support from a body of gentlemen for whom otherwise he was inclined to feel the highest respect.

spoke as follows:—In rising, Sir, to make a few observations upon the course which I mean to pursue on the present occasion, I must express the hope that, upon the consideration of a measure which has been so truly designated as one involving the whole question of parliamentary reform, the House will permit me, first of all, briefly to advert to a declaration which I thought it my duty to make, upon a late occasion, in favour of an early consideration of that great question. Unless, therefore, Sir, admonished by you that such a proceeding would be disorderly or irregular, I shall, with the leave of the House, proceed as concisely as I may be able to explain the motives which, whether founded in reason or not, then actuated me. Sir, whatever honourable members may have thought who then heard me, that declaration was made in perfect sincerity, and was extorted from me by my sense of the danger which I conceived would threaten Protestant interests, if the bill at that time before the House should pass into a law. The danger to which I allude is not supposed to arise solely from the election of Catholic members of parliament, but also from the zeal with which the accessible boroughs will be secured by the Catholics, in order to strengthen and increase their power, I distinctly said, that I spoke with reference to dangers apprehended from this quarter; and I then thought, and continue to think, that it behoves us specially to guard against the possibility of future mischiefs of this nature. Sir, this is an opinion which has grown out of the altered state of our representation—out of the fences and landmarks which heretofore circumscribed the national representation; and, so far am I from wishing to restrict or to qualify my late declaration, that I repeat it; and I again declare that, by some method of parliamentary reform, care must be taken to prevent the increase of popish influence within these walls through the means of corrupt boroughs, which my own feelings tell me we had far better at once erase from the political map of the country, than leave for the grasp of papal ambition. Sir, it was to prevent the growth of the parliamentary strength of the Roman Catholic that I declared myself an advocate for parliamentary reform—a reform which should place marketable boroughs (for it would be a morbid squeamishness to gloss over the existence of these excrescences upon the body politic, or, as no mean authority once characterised them, their deformities disfiguring the whole fabric of the constitution) beyond the reach of Roman Catholic wealth. How this is to be effected, upon a general plan and principle, is not now the question before the House; when it is, I shall be prepared with a clear and strong opinion of its expediency, and shall be found the zealous supporter, the consistent advocate, of so salutary and so patriotic a purpose. As regards, Sir, the present question, although wholly unfettered by the record of any previous decision upon it, and perfectly at liberty to pursue that course best suited to my views, I fear I must disappoint those expectations which I have reason to believe the hon. and learned mover of it has con- ceived, with respect to the acquisition of my vote in favour of his measure. I do not approve, and cannot support, his plan of transferring the elective franchise of East Retford to the inhabitants of Birmingham. On the other hand, so thoroughly satisfied am I with the strong and incontrovertible evidence by which it has been shown that this borough has been guilty of notorious and long-continued bribery, that I am free to admit that, according to all parliamentary practice and precedent, it is deserving of punishment for its delinquencies; and I will even go the length of saying, that I think the extent of that punishment should be a total deprivation of those privileges which it has evinced itself so unworthy to retain. It is impossible for me, therefore, to support the views of the hon. member for Lyme Regis; neither is the plan of the hon. member for Hertfordshire without many objections; to my mind not the least among the number being, that it comes before us—though, were the measure good in itself, this consideration would not be suffered to weigh with me sufficiently to excite my opposition to it—that it comes before us recommended by the support of a government, from whom recent events have compelled me wholly to withdraw every degree of confidence. In the absence, therefore, Sir, of any proposal in the spirit of that made last year by the noble lord, the member for Winchelsea, which I should have preferred before all the others, and without more explicitly alluding to the cause why I disapprove of the transfer of this forfeited franchise to Birmingham, sufficiently, I think, intelligible by the disposition expressed by me to form a different interest, I find myself so circumstanced as to be unable to support any one of the three measures before the House; and I shall withdraw, contenting myself with expressing a hope, that the most zealous reformer will be disposed to consider me as acting sufficiently in the spirit of the most liberal construction he may have given to the words of my late declaration if, upon the present occasion, I abstain from voting either in favour of the proposition for retaining the franchise in this delinquent borough, or of that for extending the franchise to the hundred of Bassetlaw.

said, that the hon. member for Hertfordshire had drawn a singular conclusion from his statement, that the district north of the Trent, though in wealth and importance equal to one-third of the whole kingdom, was represented only in the proportion of a sixth part. Now, what had raised the country north of the Trent to the degree of importance which belonged to it, but the extraordinary increase of manufactures in that district? The fact unquestionably was, that, in the county of York, not a single represented town was situated in the manufacturing districts, and, unless one of the members for the county could be considered to sit for a manufacturing town, the manufacturing interest did not possess a single representative out of the thirty-two or thirty-three which Yorkshire returned to parliament. If the hon. member considered it an evil that so important an interest as the manufacturing class should remain unrepresented, did he think it was a remedy for the evil to bestow the right of returning two representatives on a petty agricultural district? It might, indeed, be considered some remedy for the evil, if the right in question were given to Leeds, or to some other great town in the manufacturing district. He thought the House now possessed a fair opportunity for exercising the power which was formerly vested in the Crown, of calling on great towns to send representatives to parliament. When that power was formerly exercised by the Crown, it had a most beneficial effect in improving the representation. He should give the motion his decided support.

complained, that hon. members were arguing this question on mere general principles, without reference to the evidence applicable to the particular case. It ought to be remembered that this was strictly a judicial question, which the House was called upon to decide upon certain testimony, and that the punishment ought of course to be proportioned to the degree of guilt established. Upon that principle he was much more inclined to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, than for that motion of the hon. member for Blechingly; for he retained the opinion which he had formed on hearing the witnesses, and after paying the most diligent attention to their statements, that the writ ought not to be transferred to Birmingham. He could not pretend to say that his recollection of the evidence was as fresh now as it was last year. He could not at present, perhaps, enter into any minute detail of its purport, but his impression had never been altered, namely, that the House would not be warranted in the complete disfranchisement of East Retford, and that ample justice would be done by acceding to the proposal to open the hundred. He confessed, that so little satisfied was he with the evidence, that, in deference to the House, he had rather resigned his own opinion, in the accordance he had given to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire. At least he had dealt fairly with the hon. member for Blechingly, for as often as that hon. gentleman had proposed to stop the inquiry by producing no further evidence, he had contended that it was insufficient: it was insufficient, because the evidence produced made it obvious that more evidence was behind which might have been brought forward, but which was withheld. Hence, he had resisted the infliction of the extreme punishment. He did not desire to exculpate himself from any blame which he ought to bear in common with others; and he admitted that he was a party to the decision of the House, which waved the production of one witness on account of the state of his health, and other circumstances: if it had been proposed to call that witness, he, for one, should certainly have resisted it. All he contended for was, that in the absence of testimony that might have been produced, the hon. member for Blechingly had no right to proceed as if he had established his case; that he had no right to assume guilt which was not proved; and that the hon. member would not be warranted in calling upon the House to proceed to an extreme degree of punishment. It was remarkable, that in the borough of East Retford, three agents had been employed for three different parties, who must have been cognizant of all the transactions, and yet not one of them had been called upon to give evidence. Knowing that there were such witnesses in the back ground, and that their disclosures must be important, he could not consent to vote parties guilty in the absence of existing, but not produced, evidence. It ought not to be forgotten that the testimony, such as it was—at least as applied to any considerable number of voters—was not more recent than the year 1812; and it seemed rather a hard measure of justice, after such a lapse of time, to punish individuals for an offence, which ought to have received indemnity from oblivion. The legislature had considered; that unless such offences were brought to light within two years, the parties ought not to be responsible. Far be it from him, at the same time, from denying the power of the House to extend its inquiry, and to punish, as far as was warranted by the evidence. It should be remembered, that this borough was deprived of the defence which it would receive from persons identified with its interests, and rendered its natural defenders by being its representatives. There was no case of bribery established at the last election, so as to form any part of the accusation against this borough; and he must say, that the long suspension of its elective rights was a great singularity, to speak of it in the mildest terms; and he thought it might not improperly be characterised as a dangerous precedent. The members, it should be borne in mind, had not been unseated on the ground of corruption, but for a reason wholly disconnected with the state of the borough. It had been argued, that there were many innocent voters, who, as the hon. member for Blechingly had said, were hardly created when the corruption prevailed in this borough. No doubt, a considerable number had been created since that time, and they were entitled to be protected; but he would carry his indulgence further. Many voters might be guilty, but many also had remained innocent; and the House could not with justice proceed, under such circumstances, to disfranchise them all. He should therefore support the proposition of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, as the milder of the two; as, on the evidence, he did not feel himself justified in agreeing to the proposition of the hon. member for Blechingly.

concurred in the proposition of the hon. member for Blechingly. That the House had a right to regulate the franchise of boroughs according to circumstances, could not be denied. They had seen an exercise of that right on a recent occasion, when parliament had taken away the franchise of a whole body of electors in the sister kingdom, against whom nothing had been proved but an independent exercise of that franchise. It was probable, that, had he been in the House on that occasion, he should, for the sake of the great and most salutary measure with which it had been connected, have given it his support; but as he was at present advised, and on more mature consideration, if it were now to be discussed, he believed he should be found among the very small minority by whom it was opposed. Without going into the question as to whether the House represented the sense of the people, which had been brought forward by a noble marquis, he must say, that the argument of the noble lord did not apply to the case of East Retford. In that case bribery had been most clearly made out against the majority of the electors: it was proved that in that borough a candidate was judged of, not by the weight of his principles, but by the weight of his purse. It was therefore a case in which parliament was called upon to interfere. As a parliamentary reformer he was always anxious to get what he could, for he knew that the majority of that House was against reform; but that was no reason why they should not encourage such motions as this, where a clear case of gross corruption had been established. He was anxious that such a measure as this should pass in the present session, which he thought the most glorious that had occurred in the present century; and though a measure had been carried to deprive some parties of their rights, he trusted the principle would be admitted of giving the franchise to those who were entitled to it by property. It would be better to do this now, when there was no excitement out of doors, than to have it forced upon the attention of parliament in periods of less tranquility.

opposed the motion, on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence of corruption to warrant it. One of the strongest evidences in support of it was that of a man who admitted that he had, when a boy, received a bribe, and when his poverty, and not his will, consented. He should support the proposition of the hon. member for Hertfordshire.

remarked, that the hon. gentleman who had last addressed the House, and the hon. member for Corfe Castle, had both spoken as if they had spoken to evidence. Having attended, in the course of his professional experience, a little to the rules of evidence, he hoped the House would listen to him while he offered a few observations, to shew how extremely incorrect their statement of that evidence was. The hon. member for Corfe Castle had come to an extraordinary conclusion, in saying that he should vote for the proposition of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, while his whole argument went to prove that no guilt had been committed by the electers of East Retford. If the hon. gentleman did not think the evidence sufficient, why did he not ask for further evidence? The hon. gentleman insisted, that there was no evidence of corruption since 1812. What was the evidence as to 1818? Was it not proved, that there was a list of persons, each of whom had a certain sum of money? It was denied that the admission of an agent should be regarded as conclusive evidence against his principle. Now, he thought quite otherwise. As to the absence of the members, they had petitioned to be heard by counsel, and to be allowed to produce evidence in their defence; but though they employed counsel, they did not bring forward any evidence. The best evidence that could have been adduced to prove the purity of the borough, would have been those persons who were included in the list of 1818, as having received the money set against their names; and those who were impeached for their guilt, in 1812, might also have been called, to disprove the charge. But it was not till the petition was presented by the hon. member for Dungarvon, that they came forward on the day of discussion and offered to verify by oath, that they never had been bribed in the course of their lives. The House had evidence as complete as it could have; the witnesses were open to the cross-examination of the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, and their testimony was as satisfactory as it could be in a court of justice. In 1812, in 1818, and in 1820, it was shewn that there was an universal system of corruption; yet the House had been told, that nothing like evidence had been given, that the borough of East Retford had been guilty of such delinquency as deserved disfranchisement. He had already delivered his opinion on the transfer of this right. He thought it should be transferred to a large town. If it were transferred to the hundred, it would throw the representation too much into the hands of the landed interest; and though that was the class to which he belonged, he thought it had quite sufficient influence in that House: he would not say it had too much, but it had so much that it was not necessary to add to it. There was another consideration which would make him object to the transfer to the hundred. If that course would increase the influence of the peers he would oppose it; because he thought the influence of the peers in that House was quite great enough. He did not quarrel with it: the influence of property should and would prevail under all circumstances; but it appeared to him, that Birmingham, or some other great town, was the place to which the franchise should be transferred. He felt it his duty to speak in praise of the right hon. Secretary, in reference to this question. He could bear testimony to his straight-forward and honourable, conduct during the whole transaction. The right hon. gentleman had never pledged himself to transfer this franchise to any other place than the hundred. The right hon. gentleman was perfectly free to take the course he had pursued, in support of the motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire. He was sorry that this had been made so greatly a party question. He regretted it sincerely; because, nothing could be more repugnant to his feelings than to seem to concur in embarrassing a government to which the country was so deeply indebted. This was a question on which his vote should be given without the least regard to party.

said, that now that the question was brought fairly before the House, he hoped it would bear with him while he stated his opinions upon it. A great deal had been said in the course of the evening, as to the quantum, of evidence which should convict the borough of East Retford. He did think, on all former occasions, when this subject was before the House, there was a general understanding, that a more notorious and scandalous case of corruption had never come before it. This question was so nearly connected with the general question of parliamentary reform, that he felt it impossible not to say one word in expression of his opinion on that great question. To that question he was a decided opponent; and if it ever was brought forward, he trusted he should form one of the majority which was anticipated by his noble relative. He was opposed to any generals question of parliamentary reform. He would not run the risk of making so ma- terial a change in the composition and relation of the three great establishments of the realm; because he would not be responsible for the consequences. As parliamentary reform had always been a popular subject of discussion in times of popular distress, and as it appeared from the unfortunate reports from the populous districts, that discontent was generally spread among the manufacturing classes, it was impossible to say how soon the attempt might be made to raise the cry of reform. He thought it his duty to declare, whatever the general sentiment might be, what his opinion was; and that opinion he should always be ready to maintain, whether he was in or out of that House. Having said thus much on that part of the question, it only remained for him to observe, that he was not favourable to any material change in the representation. With respect to the present case, the House must feel, when they looked at the circumstances that had occurred in the borough of East Retford, that it had sunk to such a state as, in the language of the right hon. the member for Knaresborough, required "the best substitute the House could possibly provide for that corrupt body." When the comparison was drawn of the general benefits that would be derived from simply transferring the franchise to the hundred of Bassetlaw, and to a large and increasing town like Birmingham, he felt no hesitation in saying, that he must give his support to the proposition of the hon. member for Blechingly. He was sorry to be obliged to vote against the government to whom so much was due, for their recent wise and generous conduct; but he was sure the time would arrive when he should dwell with great satisfaction upon this present vote.

thought the evidence of Mr. Hannan, the principal witness against the borough, ought to be received cum grano salis, as he had come forward somewhat in the character of an informer. He was, besides, acquainted with some particulars of that person's life, which it would, perhaps, be well for the House to be made acquainted with. The hon. member, having here been called to order, proceeded to object to the motion on other grounds, but in so low a tone of voice that what he said did not reach the gallery.

said, that, although it was only very lately he could consider himself a reformer, yet, looking at the evi- dence before the House, he must say he had come to the conclusion that East Retford ought to be disfranchised. As to the place to which the franchise should be transferred, he would not enter upon the narrow ground of the propriety of conferring it upon a particular hundred, but would say, according to the doctrines laid down by the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his Penryn and East Retford speech, that the franchise should be transferred to some large and populous town. That town, he would say, should be Birmingham. He owned he was led by the new light, which was illuminating them all. The new light and the new doctrines were striking into almost every member, putting out the old light, and rendering the old doctrines obsolete, just as the old oil lamps were put out by the new gas light. At any rate, it was a judicious reform in parliament to take away the franchise from a venal and corrupt borough, and bestow it upon a new and populous place. That was a moderate, true, and proper principle, on which reform in that House might advantageously be acted upon.

addressed the House amidst incessant coughing, which rendered him nearly inaudible. He said, he was sorry that the hon. member for Hertfordshire had moved his amendment; because he would much rather that the representation should be given to Birmingham, or to some other large unrepresented place. All that the amendment proposed was to extend the right of voting to a somewhat larger district, but still to leave the right of voting with voters who had, on the strongest evidence, been proved to be open to corruption. It had been said, that this was in one respect a judicial question: he admitted that it was so, but on that part of the subject the House had already decided. The next question that had arisen was, as to the punishment of those who had been proved to be corrupt. That also he would put out of the question; for they were not there to punish those individuals, however culpable they might be, but to act on the broad constitutional principle of equalizing the representation of the country. It was quite new to him to have to consider this subject as one merely affecting a body of individuals; it was not a right belonging to any set of persons, but a right which that House had to superintend for the general benefit of the community. For the reasons he had stated, he should give his support to the original proposition.

said, he agreed with the hon. member who had stated that this was a judicial question, and he wished it had always been so considered by the House, without having been mixed up with other considerations. It certainly was a question in which political feeling should not be attended to; but at the same time he felt, that it had arisen from circumstances over which they could have no control. He had already taken an opportunity of stating his opinion, that the corruption of the borough had been satisfactorily established; and it was on that consideration that the House was called upon to decide. He had never conceived, that, in cases of this kind, the House was bound to have specific evidence against a majority of the electors, before they decided to take away the elective franchise. If, indeed, they had met there for the punishment of any individuals, they ought to observe those strict rules of evidence which were acted upon in courts of justice; but here the question that they had before them was not that of an individual, but of the borough itself. By favour of his hon. friend behind him, he had seen the petition which had been presented from the burgesses of East Retford. It was a very curious document; and he had noticed, that there was an erasure in it affecting a point of such deep interest as the number of voters in the borough of East Retford. The petition stated that there were in that borough two hundred and thirteen voters; and the figures two hundred and thirteen were written upon an erasure. He could not help connecting in his own mind that erasure with the object which the petitioners wished to accomplish by their petition. They called themselves a majority of the burgesses of the place: and of how many persons did the House think that this virtuous majority consisted? Of one hundred and seven exactly. So nicely were the scales balanced, that there were one hundred and six corrupt, and one hundred and seven uncorrupt electors in the borough of East Retford. The evidence, however, was strong as to the general feeling of corruption in that borough; and the question for the House to decide was, whether it was satisfied, that the borough was so generally corrupt, that there was no probability that it would ever discharge its functions fairly in future. He had no difficulty in proceeding to deal with the borough of East Retford, on account of its corruption being so great and undeniable. Indeed, upon that point the House had long since decided. The question, therefore, for their presents consideration was whether it would be most beneficial to the country to throw into the hundred of Bassetlaw the franchise which the House had decided should not be left with the burgesses of East Retford, or to transfer it to the large and unrepresented town of Birmingham? The mere fact, that in four instances the House had transferred the elective franchise from corrupt boroughs to small districts or counties, supplied a reason why it should pursue a different course now, and why it should transfer the franchise to a large town, and not to an agricultural district. By giving it to the hundred, the House would in all probability vest the representation of it in some large proprietor locally connected with it; by giving it to a large manufacturing town, it would leave it open to the whole talent of the country. It was not likely that these small districts or counties would choose for their representatives persons unconnected with them. A manufacturing and commercial town might, and most probably would, select as its representative some person who, though unconnected with it locally, had recommended himself to the electors by the exercise of his talents. They had a splendid instance of this in the case of Bristol, which had elected Mr. Burke, and in the case of Liverpool, which had elected his late right hon. friend Mr. Canning, and subsequently its present right hon. representative, who had no local connexion with them, but who had gained the honour of their suffrages by the influence of his splendid talent and abilities. A number of such open, seats was, in his opinion, calculated to be highly beneficial to the country. By giving this franchise to Birmingham, the House would give an additional opportunity to a commercial town to exercise this beneficial privilege. He should have no objection to pass an act, giving to the Crown the power of granting to the town of Birmingham a charter, enabling it to elect two burgesses to serve in parliament. If the House would not accede to that proposition, the question which it ought now to decide was, whether it would avail itself of an opportunity such as it had never had before, except in the solitary instance of Grampound, to amend the system of its representation. If it let slip this opportunity, he knew not when it might have another: and even when such an opportunity should recur, a strong argument would be raised on their present apathy against turning that opportunity to any advantage. It would be said, "the House would not proceed to disfranchisement even in the strong case which was made out against the borough of East Retford; will you proceed to disfranchisement in so weak a case as that now before it?" He should certainly vote in favour of the proposition of the hon. member for Blechingly.

said, that having always been an opponent of parliamentary reform, he approached with little satisfaction any subject which was calculated to bring that question into a prominent point of view. Protesting, therefore, in the first place, against any revision of the representative system of this country, he admitted that when a place like East Retford had been guilty of gross, habitual, and long-continued corruption, when that corruption was brought to light, and when the proof of it was placed clearly before the House of Commons, it had no other alternative but to apply a remedy to the specific evil which had been brought under its consideration. Further than the declaration which he had just made, he was not prepared to go. He made his stand against parliamentary reform, upon the aggregate excellencies of our system of representation, leaving to others to find delight in hunting out its anomalies and defects, and contenting himself with such of its merits as were distinct and palpable to every well-thinking mind.

Without intending the slightest disrespect to hon. members who had preceded him, he must say it did appear to him that a great part of the debate of that evening would have been better applied to a stage of this measure which he understood to be now gone by. The hon. member for Corfe Castle had addressed his arguments to the House, as if it was now considering the effect of the evidence which it had formerly taken, and not as if it was considering what were to be the consequences that were to follow upon that evidence. The hon. gentleman had said, that in the courts of law you could not take any proceedings to punish bribery and corruption except within two years of the time when the parties were guilty of bribery and corruption. The House, however, was not placed in that situation—it was not so restricted in its jurisdiction. Moreover, it had decided on a former occasion, that in the borough of East Retford there had been a gross, habitual, and long-continued state of corruption and bribery. Having ascertained that fact, the House was, not sitting on the evidence in order to decide whether it was sufficient to convict the accused, but was engaged in considering how it should deal with them, they being now clearly convicted. He should be wasting the time of the House most unpardonably, if he should go through the evidence to establish the general corruption which prevailed in East Retford. It was sufficient to state, that the candidates for that borough were never called upon to make any declaration of their political principles. The only declaration of principle which the burgesses of that place expected from a candidate was his declaration, that he would do "what was just and right," according to the custom of the borough. That declaration he fulfilled, if he gave the electors their forty guineas each: and it was in evidence, that the returning officer of the borough, the aldermen, and even the town clerk himself, had participated in the guilt of these corrupt transactions.

The question, then, before the House was, how they, should deal with the franchise which the electors of East Retford had forfeited; and they were now called upon to determine, whether they would transfer it to some large unrepresented town like Birmingham—whether they would pursue the course which they had pursued in the case of Grampound, when they had transferred it to a county—or whether they would enlarge the franchise, by admitting into it those persons who were already entitled to vote for the county of Nottingham, and who were situate in the adjacent hundred of Bassetlaw. He had heard with regret the declaration made by his right hon. friend that evening, that he should give his decided support to this last proposition, which came before the House as the amendment of the hon. member for the county of Hertford. He conceived that this support was to be given with all the just support and authority of his majesty's government; and he had therefore no doubt but that his right hon. friend would be successful. He should regret that success, because it would not be in unison with the sentiments of the community at large: he should regret that success, because he was convinced, that it would increase, in the public mind, the feeling which already prevailed in favour of parliamentary reform: he should regret that success, because he felt that it would ensure the adoption of a course, which must pave the way for so fatal a measure as a general parliamentary reform. He would take the liberty of informing his majesty's ministers, that he had thought it possible that, looking back to the arguments which they had formerly adduced upon this question, they might have changed their policy upon it, from a consideration of the state of public feeling, and of the march of events within the last year. When he talked of the march of events, he might, perhaps, be allowed to recall them shortly to the recollection of the House. About this time two years the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea crossed the floor of the House, to the great surprise of the country, and took up his seat at the back of the Treasury-bench. That hon. and learned gentleman,—the leader, he might call him, of a great party in that House, for on that occasion many hon. members followed him,—had no sooner made good his situation in that outwork, generally so well and so cautiously guarded, than most of those who had occupied the same situation, found themselves scattered in every direction. As soon as they had recovered from their breathless alarm, the House was told, that they saw in this movement of the hon. and learned member the earnest of a great change which was shortly to be accomplished among political parties. They considered that it involved consequences the most alarming—they saw in it the repeal of the Test and Corporation act—they saw in it the settlement of the Catholic claims—they saw in it nothing less than the accomplishment of Parliamentary reform. To their surprise, however, the session ended without any of those positions being either carried or assailed. At the opening of the next session the hon. and learned member returned to his old place on the opposite benches. New leaders of the government had been appointed. It, however, turned out that under those new leaders, two of those very measures were accomplished which had been expected at the hands of the hon. and learned gentleman. From what peculiar train of circumstances those events took their origin, he could not undertake to say—whether it was from the circumstance of the new leaders, on their return to office, feeling themselves somewhat insecure in their places, or from the hon. and learned gentleman's having left behind him in the place which he had occupied during the previous session, that famous "Schoolmaster," of whom he had so often sounded the praises. Let this, however, be as it might, the fact was, that early in the ensuing session—all things being thus restored to their former footing—the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, after a feeble resistance, was triumphantly carried; and the present session opened with the concession, on the part of the ministry, of the far more important measure of the Catholic claims. Now these two points being settled, what remained behind but the question of parliamentary reform? He trusted that it would long remain behind. He hoped that the House would always resist it firmly and strenuously. He was sure that if it adopted the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Blechingly, the chance of its making a successful resistance to parliamentary reform would be increased; but that if it adopted, the proposition of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, it would see parliamentary reform, backed by a powerful auxiliary out of that House,—he meant public opinion—and the influence of the press,—made an annual question of discussion.

It was on grounds like these that he was anxious to give his support to the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Blechingly. He should not condescend to argue this question as a question between the landed and the commercial interests of the country. It was to him matter of wonder, that any man could suppose, that the character of the House would be changed by giving this franchise either to the hundred of Bassetlaw or to the town of Birmingham. He objected to the distinction which some hon. members were drawing between the landed and the commercial interests. He contended, that the history of this country, and more emphatically the history of Ireland, proved that it was on the co-operating industry and success of the commercial interest, that the prosperity of the landed interest mainly rested. Destroy the energies of commerce, and your land will soon fall into that unproductive state in which it was before those great stimuli to improvement were created. It had been stated as a justification of the course which government had resolved to follow upon this subject, that the two Houses of parliament were divided in opinion as to the best mode of dealing with forfeited franchises, and that this had been adopted, as forming a middle course, on which both could agree. He admitted it to be true, that in the present question the two Houses of parliament were divided in opinion. The House of Commons had shown by its votes, on more than one occasion, that it was of opinion that the great manufacturing towns of the country, which were unrepresented, ought to be represented. It had sent up bills in which that opinion was formally avowed, to the other House of parliament. The other House of parliament differed from them; and, up to this time, both Houses seemed firmly attached to their respective opinions. Indeed, his right hon. friend, the Home Secretary, was not unfriendly to the principle which he (Mr. Huskisson) supported on this measure; and, therefore, he was the more surprised to find him supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire.—Here again Mr. Huskisson was inaudible for some time. When we next heard him, he was reminding the House, that in the late discussions on the Catholic claims, now happily adjusted, it had been told, that it was important to win over all Protestants to their side, in order that they might with greater effect oppose any dangerous pretensions—if such there should be—of the Roman Catholics. Was it nothing, he would ask, of importance in the course of domestic questions which might hereafter arise on the subject of parliamentary reform, to win over to their side not only public opinion, over which the press now exercised such powerful influence, but also those congregated masses of population, and of intellect and of wealth, which always existed in large commercial towns? Would it be nothing of importance, he would ask, that the population of Birmingham should be made content, by being gifted with the power to return members to represent them in parliament? He would call upon the House to remember the force of the maxim, that "early arrangements with a friendly power often prevent capitulations with a conquered people." There were, of course, some risks in the settlement of all great public questions. That which immortalized, according to his view, the present session, was not without its drawbacks as a work of wisdom and an act of grace; because, exactly in the same proportion as any thing was substracted from the complete value of a boon, exactly in that ratio was the difficulty to be created by what was withheld. As to the great question which had just been settled, in a free state, and where popular assemblies prevailed, those who supposed that the adjustment of a measure which had so fiercely agitated the public mind for five end twenty years would settle all conflicting differences, would find themselves mistaken,—at least if they thought that, the great measure being disposed of, no other was likely to arise for embodying public agitation and excitement. There were those topics still unsettled, which must be heard, and must in due course be determined. It was very difficult, indeed impossible, to look at the condition of the manufacturing districts without reflecting upon the evils which must be contingent upon the associations arising out of them; and how easy it might be to convert associations, innocent in themselves, to the promotion of ulterior objects of a very different complexion, and capable of being made the source of the greatest danger to the best interests of the country.

These reflections naturally, nay necessarily, suggested thoughts which ought to call their attention to the difficulties arising out of the change of their circumstances, both in this kingdom and in foreign countries. Let these considerations be promptly viewed, and decided on with sagacity. Because they had most wisely and most fortunately stopped the crater of that immense volcano which threatened Ireland with universal danger and wide-spreading conflagration, were they to cease from looking into the recesses of those subterraneous caverns, where the elements of fire must still be enkindling, and the latent springs of danger preserved with all their elastic force? In the present state of society—in that of the population of Ireland—in the absence of poor-laws for that country (upon the policy or applicability of which he now pronounced no opinion)—in the want of adequate capital to afford employment to an impoverished race—in the comparative relation of landlord and tenant—in all the various ramifications arising out of such a disorganized state of things, much remained unsettled. There was much, very much to be done by the parliament and the government, and many duties to be performed, in the reconciliation of supposed adverse interests. Now, was it possible to glance at the proximity of these difficult questions without seeing how much they must be aggravated by the disfranchising this borough of East Retford, for the mere purpose of transferring the franchise to the adjoining hundred Of Bassetlaw? The hon. member for Hertfordshire was indeed so well convinced of this himself—(and to his view of that fact, he begged to point the particular attention of the House)—and so entirely persuaded of the universal corruption which reigned through the borough, that, in his first bill, he had proposed to disfranchise the whole of these corrupt voters en masse, and throw open the franchise to the county. He had since, however, forgetful of his first and juster intention, merely changed the form of election in the borough, and extended it to the hundred of Bassetlaw. [A cry of "No."] Was he to understand that his hon. friend did not bring in such a bill as he had described, and then abandon it.

.—You mistake, I did not bring in a bill of that specific description. I brought in two bills; one for the disfranchisement of those who were guilty of gross bribery and corruption; the other for transferring the franchise.

.—Then the tenderness displayed in the alteration is not justice, in the general principle which ought to govern such a case. It was creating, or rather superinducing, embarrassment where none previously existed; for the case originally, and indeed at present, when rightly considered, was simply this: They were, as the committee had left the subject upon the facts, at perfect liberty, more than parliament had been on any previous occasion, to disfranchise East Retford, and to carry the franchise so forfeited to any part of the country they thought proper. The moment upon just grounds such a decision was come to, he knew nothing in the history of the constitution, in the precedent of their former proceedings upon the like grounds, in the analogy of the decisions upon any cases appertaining to such principles, which attached a preference in the transference to mere vicinity or proximity than to any other part of the kingdom. This being the fact, whence the policy of overlooking the claims of such a town as Birmingham, with a population of one hundred and forty thousand souls, to bring in some local hundred—with the palpable knowledge of Birmingham, the great quarter of a staple of the country, iron, being unrepresented in parliament; at the same time knowing, likewise, Leeds, the great mart of the woollen trade, being in the same state, and Sheffield, the depository of the hardware trade? Was this a time, when such a question was raised, to decide, that Birmingham should not be represented at all, and that a forfeited franchise should be assigned to one of the hundreds which was directly represented by the county members, as well as indirectly by the borough members, in the management of whose representative sources so much could possibly be said? So that in the hundred they were to have the exercise of the representative functions twice, and to have a twofold capacity of returning members, while the large towns, with the great interests which he had named, were to be deprived of the chance of a single nomination. Ought any man in his right senses to hesitate as to the course which it was proper to adopt under such circumstances? If Birmingham ought to be represented at all, which he thought there were cogent reasons for admitting—indeed, he should by and by state them more strongly—ought a question to arise upon the alternative, whether such would be the case, or whether a hundred in the county, like Bassetlaw—one emphatically named in the local topography as the Dukery [hear, hear] should have the chance of being directly represented? It was a matter of indifference to him in whom the nomination should lie, in such a case: enough was it for him, upon the general principle, to know that the county of Nottingham had now eight representatives, and that Warwickshire, the depository of great trading interests, had now only six, with a population so much denser and more conflicting, and under every circumstance so very differently constituted.

Why, there had not been for a century so good an opportunity of remedying a state of things, arising out of the altered condition of society. It was unnecessary to go into the condition of these boroughs in Nottinghamshire, and the interests involved in them; nor did he mean to trench upon the principle of virtual representation. He was not arguing against that principle, when he sought for the settlement of the proper question. But he contended, that if great and influential interests had silently grown up in the country, mixing private speculations with large public results, the principal of virtual representation became inapplicable to their immediate condition; and, that when a safe opportunity arose, their direct claims ought to be attended to. When the selection was pressed upon parliament by any particular occurrence, what answer could be given to the claims of such a town as Birmingham, with trading interests largely mixed up in the general commercial bearings of the manufactures of the country? Indeed, he might urge this principle of necessity very forcibly, by a retrospective reference to all the grounds which had been so justly and successfully pressed, in furtherance of the great measure that had just received the sanction of parliament, and by a prospective glance at those measures which must receive their deliberation in the next session, or the next after that at farthest, touching the renewal of the Charter of the East-India Company, and that of the Bank of England. When these were in progress, was it to be said, that the people of a town like Birmingham had no greater interest in the result than those residing in the hundred of Bassetlaw? Were they to be reduced to the condition of a place requiring mere borough representation? Were they, at a time of such general and momentous considerations, when their particular interests, more or less, affected those of almost all other classes of the community—when delegates, in their name, were pouring forth from every quarter of the country—to be consigned o a mere virtual representation, and refused the benefit of a just and seasonable opportunity to have a direct presence in the legislature? No class, in fact, more directly requited this aid than the people of Birmingham; who were now to be refused it, notwithstanding the eminent advantages which the country could not fail to derive from the pursuit of a different course. Indeed, when he surveyed those weighty interests, and the obvious result of the concession now called for, he could not help appealing to his right hon. friends of the government, and being struck with the apposite and beautiful quotation lately made by a noble friend in the other House, at the head of the law, and who repeated it after it had been used by a great luminary of that House (Mr. Burke) on a former occasion, descriptive of the benign harmony which had followed the adjustment of the ill-proportioned representation of Wales, when from that moment all tumults subsided, and obedience was restored, and when the venerable feeling for the constitution was created by an act of justice and foresight. By pursuing the policy of the act of Henry 8th in the present case, the same happy results would follow, the same guarantee would be obtained for the loyalty of a patient and enduring people. These great advantages were now within their reach. Never before had they had an equal opportunity of affecting so desirable an object, so readily, and so quietly.

His hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire, had alluded to the boroughs in the west of England, and had said how well they worked. Upon this point, he would offer nothing more than that he knew enough of these matters to wish to avoid discussing them in detail. After all, the question was—had, in the particular instance before them, that degree of forfeiture been incurred by bribery, which justified the total disfranchisement of the borough? It was not necessary, in the fulfilment of the principle that governed these transactions, that each individual should, in the pursuit of what he conceived to be his private interest, have violated his public trust; it was enough to show, that the general corruption was so notorious in the body exercising the franchise, that they did not deserve to be invested with public rights; their franchise became, in such a case, vitiated. In fact, there was no other way of dealing with the principle. They must act upon the general condition of the place. He knew that, in enforcing these opinions, he was exposing himself to the repetition of the imputation of being of late governed solely by revolutionary theories. To all these attacks he would merely reply, that he took what appeared to him, under all the circumstances of the country, the best course for the permanent stability of its interests. He disregarded the accusation of being carried away by the impulse of rash and visionary theories, and would not stop to inquire how prone those were who cast them, to "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." All such charges he met with the fullest denial, and dared the authors of them to meet him upon the proof. When gentlemen talked of the dangers of innovation, they ought to remember, with lord Bacon, "that Time was the great Innovator." Time had raised these great interests, and it was the business of a statesman to move onwards with the new combinations which had grown about him. If he did not put himself in adyance, at least he ought to follow them with a cautious, a prudent, and a steady step. It had been said by one of the greatest masters of elocution in the language that it might take a thousand years to bring up that which one hour might lay in the dust. It was by a proper application of such a principle, that he wished to proceed—to consolidate the first part of the reflection, and to avoid the illustration of the latter. When statesmen came to weigh these matters carefully, they might rely upon it, that justice pointed to the alternative to which they ought to submit. He knew not a greater folly than the stand made by extreme sets of people—those who were on one side averse to all innovation, and on the other prone to embark in any. There were at present those who thought they could stand still, while all around them was, in motion. Now, the surest way to prevent rash and dangerous innovation was, to stop that course of vacillation which temporizing and incomplete measures were sure to create. In every thing which he had said, he begged the House to bear in mind, that he was not pressing for the adoption of any theory unknown to the constitution; but, on the contrary, enforcing the practical application of a very old principle, and showing how completely it was in unison with it, that means should be taken safely, and without forcing the occasion, to provide for the wants of those great towns which had grown up under peculiar circumstances, and which called for a course of treatment more consonant with their exigencies than that now provided for them.

said, that this case was so exactly the same as that which they had discussed last session, at such length and in such repeated details, that he could relieve the House from the fatigue of listening to him at any length upon this occasion. He must however say, that notwithstanding the surprise and regret of his right hon. friend who had last spoken, at the course which he was about to take, he could not see any cause for it, since he was merely supporting the resolution of the House of Commons of last year, under what appeared to him very similar circumstances. In return for this expression of astonishment, his right hon. friend must allow him to give way to some surprise at a few of the observations which had just fallen from him. He must be allowed to divest himself of all credit for that general horror, for reform which his right hon. friend had imputed to him, as well as of some of the arguments in support of reform, with which he seemed disposed to invest him. Indeed, from certain expressions of his right hon. friend, it was obvious that the noble marquis opposite ought to depend upon his right hon. friend's vote, when he should bring forward his general motion on the state of the representation. His right hon. friend appeared to have been particularly struck with the quotation so often repeated—

"—Simul alba nautis

Stella refulsit,

Defluit saxis agitatus humor;

Concidunt venti, fugiuntque nubes;

Et minax (quod sic voluere) ponto

Unda recumbit."

and he had applied that splendid passage, with which Mr. Burke had illustrated the passing of the Welch acts, where a new kind of representation was conferred upon general principles, to one where the change was to be expressly founded upon specific delinquency. So that, he repeated, his right hon. friend stood committed for the wider range of reform, at the moment when he thought he was merely enforcing, the limited one. He had likewise called to his aid arguments deduced from what he termed the smothered volcano of Ireland; and had asked, do you believe that the settlement of the Catholic question will, without the aid of poor-laws, tranquillize that country? "I am not," (continued Mr. Peel) "called upon now to say whether it will not. I see no direct connexion between the one and the other, and I cannot help thinking, that he seeks an unfair advantage, in endeavouring to gain arguments against us, from the settlement of a question in which we cordially acted with him. My right hon. friend admits that we settled it upon more satisfactory terms for all parties, than could have been done under any other circumstances."—His right hon. friend had next referred to the conduct of the present government, in relation to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts; but his right hon. friend seemed to have forgotten, that he had sailed in the same boat with him, and the rest of his right hon. friends then colleagues. They had both equally opposed that repeal,—it might be on different grounds,—had both, in the first stages of that measure, given it their unequivocal opposition, and had both concurred, in the sequel, in effecting a satisfactory adjustment of it. The remarks, therefore, of his right hon. friend equally applied to his own conduct on that occasion. With respect to what his right hon. friend had said on the subject of parliamentary reform, he could only reply, that he had always, as much and as readily as his right hon. friend, acted upon the principle of disfranchisement, when a clear case of delinquency had been proved against any borough. He had dealt with Penryn, for example, on that principle, and had voted for the transfer of its franchise. To be sure, there were particular circumstances in the case of Penryn to warrant the vote that had been given respecting it by his right hon. friend and the other members of the government. [hear, hear]. He did not understand the nature of the cheer; but he contended, that a large majority of that House had voted for the transfer of the franchise to Manchester, his right hon. friend nevertheless agreeing with his colleagues in the principle, that the transfer should be made to the adjoining hundred. He saw no ground of exception to that principle in favour of East Retford, and therefore could not adopt the course which his right hon. friend was at present pursuing. He begged leave to remind the House, that in every case, except Grampound, the principle of transfer to the adjoining hundred was recognised by the highest authorities in that or the other House of parliament—by lord Chatham, for instance, in the case of Shoreham, which "he rejoiced," he said, "was transferred from India to England." Mr. Pitt also had contended, that it was an improvement in the elective franchise in those cases to transfer it to the adjacent hundred, without arguing the question—which stood on distinct and different grounds—whether it would be expedient or not to transfer it to a large unfranchised town.—Upon the whole, then, he saw no reason for departing from the course he had hitherto pursued respecting East Retford. It was true the House might go farther; but that was not the question before it. That question was founded upon the report of its committee; which declared, that corrupt practices had been pursued in that borough at elections, calling for its interference as in similar preceding cases. It could not be urged against that interference that it was unfair, because it was made in the absence of the members of the borough, inasmuch as that absence was at once a consequence and a proof of its corrupt practices. The case of delinquency had been proved against it, therefore it must pay the penalty. With respect to the principle of voting for the transfer of the franchise of delinquent boroughs to the large unrepresented towns, he need not say he was not opposed to it, having, as he had stated, voted with his right hon. friend for the noble lord's (John Russell's) motion to transfer the Penryn franchise to Manchester. An hon. gentleman had mistaken what he had said on a former occasion respecting the alteration of the present numbers represented by counties. What he said was, that he did not think it expedient to make any reduction in the present numbers, but not that no alteration should be made in them. Nottingham, for example, the county in which East Retford stood, returned eight members; while Warwickshire, in which Birmingham stood, returned but six; but it did not therefore follow, that two should be taken from the former to be added to the latter, however desirable it might be to make such an addition. In conclusion, he repeated, that he saw no new ground for voting differently from what he had done last session with respect to the transfer of the East Retford franchise. He therefore should support the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Hertfordshire, for transferring it to the adjoining hundred of Bassetlaw.

said, he would not now trespass upon the House, but would content himself with stating, that he should feel it his duty, either during the present or the next session of parliament, to propose that the elective franchise should be granted to the large and populous manufacturing towns, such as Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham.

said, that as he had I been prevented by illness or accident from expressing his sentiments on the question before the House on former occasions, he would do so briefly. He thought the case of delinquency against East Retford had been clearly proved, and therefore he could not hesitate to vote for the transfer of its franchise to one of the large populous towns which were at present without representatives. It could not be said in doing so, that the agricultural interest would be thereby lessened; for East Retford had been equally open to commercial as to agricultural purchasers; the former being equally ready to advance forty good and solid reasons to each elector for his vote with the landed gentlemen, and the electors equally willing to adopt them. The change of hands—he used the term "hands" literally, without any figurative meaning, when speaking of the corrupt electors of East Retford—was a matter of indifference to the good electors of that borough, who were equally impartial, whether their representatives belonged to the agricultural or to the manufacturing classes of the community, provided they were equally liberal with their forty golden arguments. Indeed, he believed it so happened, that the representatives were chiefly commercial gentlemen—perhaps on account of the manufacturing importance of the county of Notts in train oil, for he never heard of any other manufacture in it. [It was here intimated to the hon. and learned gentleman, that there were five or six species of manufacture in the county of Nottingham.] The very fewness, and the earnest endeavour to prove the existence of those five or six manufactures, bore him out when he assented, that though Norwich might have its crape representative, and other manufacturing towns theirs, the large manufacturing towns of Yorkshire, Warwickshire, and Lancashire, were actually unrepresented in that House. Before he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he and another hon. and learned gentleman had been at its bar professionally, to all intents and purposes, the representatives of Birmingham; but this representation was but temporary. With respect to the divisions that had taken place on former occasions on the present question, he saw not how they could affect the votes of hon. members on that evening; for though it was true, that the pro- position of transferring the franchise to Manchester had been in one instance negatived by a majority of thirty-six, and in another by a majority of eighteen, and the motion for transferring it to the adjoining hundred of Bassetlaw carried by a majority of ninety, still it was well-known, that those divisions were—owing to causes which he would not then take upon himself to specify—upon any thing rather than the simple question of its own merits, and free from the influence of divisions in the government on certain great questions, as to whether East Retford should or should not be disfranchised, and whether the right of representation in that House should or should not be transferred to the town of Birmingham, or to the hundred of Bassetlaw. The present vote, then, he contended, would be given on very different grounds, and he trusted would be in favour of his hon. friend (Mr. Tennyson's) motion. Indeed, he was confident it would, and that in the event of the hon. member for Hertfordshire pressing his motion to a division, he would be found in a large minority. He was the more confident in his hope, that the franchise would be transferred to a large town, because the principle had been acted upon in four similar cases, twice in the case of Penryn by that House, once before in the case of East Retford, also by both Houses. With respect to the question of parliamentary reform, it was quite unnecessary for him to observe, that he had always supported the necessity of reform to the well-being of the House, and to the prosperity of the country. But as to the kind and extent of that reform, there were various shades of opinion, event among the most enthusiastic reformers themselves. This, however, he would say, that if there were any one proposition for reform, of a more moderate And practicable nature than another, and which might be adopted with equal safety on the one hand and efficacy on the other, it was the very kind of measure which his hon. friend had that evening proposed. He must also add, that although the right hon. member for Liverpool had declared, that throughout his life he had been hostile to parliamentary reform, yet that the proposition of the right hon. gentleman to confer the elective franchise on Sheffield, Leeds Manchester, and Birmingham, to which he would add Edinburgh and Glasgow, would effect almost all that could be required.

The House divided on the question; "That leave be given to bring in a bill to exclude the Borough of East Retford from electing Burgesses to serve in parliament, and to enabler the Town of Birmingham to return two representatives in lieu thereof;" when the numbers were, ayes 111; noes 197.—Majority against Mr. Tennyson's motion 86.

Mr. N. Calvert then moved, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Borough of East Retford." Upon which, lord John Russell moved as an amendment, "that this House do now adjourn." The House divided: ayes 86; noes 180. Majority against the adjournment, 94. Mr. N. Calvert then moved, "that leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Borough of East Retford."

said, he had intended to bring on his promised motion, for a new writ for the borough of East Retford; but if the House were disposed to entertain the motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire in preference to his own, he would defer it till Thursday.

said, he had hoped the House would have permitted him to introduce his hill, and let it be read a first time; and, had that been the case, he was prepared to fix the second reading for Friday se'nnight. If the House wished the motion should be postponed, he would make no opposition to its wish.

thought the motion of the hon. gentleman would supersede the necessity of the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Fane) for a new writ.

was not disposed to see the time of the House, wasted fruitlessly, after the strong majority which had been already arrayed against the adjournment. If, therefore, the noble lord was resolved to divide the House by pressing his opposition to this fresh proposition respecting the borough of East Retford, it would be far better to submit to that postponement of the motion which he thought might very consistently with the usages of the House, have been dispensed with.

said, he felt, that the case of this borough would with mores propriety, be comprehended in and decided by the result of the more extended motion on the subject of reform generally in the representation which would so soon be discussed. Under this impression, he confessed he felt no part of this original objections to the motion removed.

finally consented to postpone his motion, and the discussion of it was accordingly until Monday.