, in rising to move certain Resolutions on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, addressed the Speaker to the following effect:—

In pursuance, Sir, of the notice which I have given to move this day certain Resolutions upon the subject of Reform in the system of our Representation, I rise now to state and explain the specific grounds upon which I am prepared to argue its propriety; and in so doing, I feel it necessary to request the indulgence of honorable member, assuring them, that if in the course of my observations, I advert to a subject, further discussion on which I am sensible is unpalatable to a greater part of this House, I shall do so as tenderly as I may be able, and I shall urge it merely, as a reason to induce those who, like myself, may apprehend mischief from the introduction of a new party in this House, to embrace my views and to acquiesce in the Resolutions I intend to move. But honorable members, I am persuaded, will also feel my peculiar situation, and will admit, that having originally rested the expediency of this measure upon special grounds, I cannot with consistency now cast them wholly aside, and proceed at once to the consideration of it upon grounds new and general; and no sincere friend of Reform will, I trust, be disposed to quarrel with me, or to refuse his support to my Resolutions, if, now avowing and ready to apt upon an enlarged and more liberal view of the whole question, I still am consistent with myself, and press the consideration of a danger clearly not impossible. I do, however, assure the House that, upon either view of the question. I will circumscribe be my remarks to the utmost of my power, and will not trespass long upon the attention they may indulge me with.

And first, Sir, I would observe, that in courtesy to former advocates of the measure, I would willingly have left it in their hands, for it seems right and reasonable that those who have argued so powerfully against decayed boroughs and proprietary influence should go on with their own work; but as they seem to have declined the patriotic undertaking, the conviction I feel of its pressing necessity is too powerful for me to head the charge of te- merity in thus presuming to succeed to their office. We shall now see who are the declaimers, and who the doers, in the work of parliamentary regeneration: we shall now see who are true and steady to their purposes and who would wish to give those purposes a long adjournment; it will now be seen who are strenuous in their wishes to purify parliament, and protect the great interests of the country. The question has been now for some time laid upon the shelf; the bills and draughts of bills which have been prepared are now, from long neglect, covered with dust, and buried in oblivion. Honorable gentlemen, the former friends and advocates of the measure, may, if they please, bestow upon ministers the compliment of their silence, but I do not feel disposed to imitate their courtesy. Every day's experience proves the necessity of some measure of this sort. The country expects, I may say demands, some statutory provision for the safety of its interests—the interests of its agriculture, its trade, its manufactures, its finance, and especially the interests of the Protestant community, against the influx and increase of the Roman Catholic party. The whole internal constitution of this House has been revolutionized. This new state of things requires new enactments. An imperious necessity has been superadded to the already existing propriety of putting down the Boroughmonger and his trade; our rights and our liberties are in jeopardy, as long as majorities in this House are to be obtained by buying seats and selling services: and though I may fail on this occasion in establishing upon the minds of a majority of this House a conviction of this truth, I shall persevere in my efforts to expose the corruption, and proclaim the danger of these practices.

Sir, it may perhaps be thought, that the magnitude of this question, and the splendid eloquence of its former advocates, should have deterred me from rashly embarking upon the consideration of it. But though I may despair of doing it justice, I feel its importance, or rather its necessity, too strongly to leave the thing unattempted through a consciousness of inability; and in asserting and advocating my own peculiar views of it, I am fully prepared for the imputation that those views are erroneous—that my fears are groundless—and that the measures and means of reform which I would propose are neither called for by the exigency of the times, nor by the existence of any real danger from the projects of the Roman Catholic body, I speak of that body, Sir, as a large political party in the State. I speak not of individuals—of individuals of that body I would say, that there is no one in this House more ready than I am to admit their honor and integrity; but I am speaking of a large class and denomination of individuals—a large and powerful political party of six or seven millions of men—a party acknowledging a common head and centre of union, a spiritual sovereign, and that sovereign residing in a foreign country. In such a state of things, and under such an intermixture of foreign and domestic relations, I shall continue to think that it is the part of prudence to prevent the accumulation of Roman Catholic power in this House. Those who may be disposed to ridicule these opinions are liable to be told, that they are ignorant of human nature and the workings of party spirit, as they are of the energies of the Romish church. As soon as gentlemen of that persuasion enter this House, they will be found to form a party. That party will be considered by the Roman Catholics Great Britain and Ireland as their real representatives—as the special defenders of their rights, the vindicators of their wrongs, the promoters of their wishes their hopes. This Roman Catholic party, like all other parties, both in and out of this House, will be desirous of increasing its political strength; and looking to the energy of that body, its union purpose, and extensive co-operation. I am convinced that they will enter the borough-market with better chances and larger means of purchase than any of their competitors. Seats in this House will be bought up by the agents of this wealthy, powerful, and enterprising body, and thus to their county strength in Ireland will be added their burgage tenure strength in this country; and their whole number of representatives will present a well-ordered and compact phalanx, animated by one spirit, and impelled to the same measures by the same motives and purposes. Let it not be thought, Sir, that I am disposed to contend, that any immediate danger is to be apprehended from the magnitude of their numbers in this House—through if the reports which circulate be true, it would appear that the system which I am foretelling has already made a beginning. But I do contend, that we are not bound to wait till danger threatens. I do contend that it is the part of prudence to devise the means of prevention and defense; and I do insist, that those means are justifiable in the prospect of a possibility of danger.

But I will not dwell longer upon this topic. I feel I owe apologies to the House for having dilated at such length upon it, and I will now proceed to a far more important and interesting division of my subject, and I do so under feelings of less embarrassment and greater confidence than those I have experienced while endeavoring to enforce the view already presented. I cannot but entertain a reasonable hope, that a large portion of the members of this House will be disposed to agree with me upon the general principles, even though they should not be of opinion that I have made out any case for the necessity of reform by the special grounds I have taken. If, Sir, in the days of Locke, and still later in the days of Blackstone, this measure were deemed expedient (and I appeal to both these writers for support upon this point), subsequent events, and increased and increasing evils, make the measure now a measure of necessity and not of expediency. It is no longer to be tolerated that the best interests of the county, and the dearest rights of the subject, and, I will add, the most valuable privileges of this House, are to be compromised and endangered by borough contractors, and sellers of seats in parliament. But let hon. members listen to the words of Locke himself upon this question—"It being the interest as well as the intention of the people to have a fair and equal representation, whoever brings it nearest to that is at undoubted friend to, and established of, the government, and cannot miss the consent and approbation of the community:" and again he says—"It is not a change from the present state, which, perhaps, corruption of decay has introduced, that makes an inroad upon the government, but the tendency of it to injure or oppress the people, and to set up one part, or party, with a distinction from, and an unequal subjection of, the rest. Whatsoever cannot but be acknowledged to be of advantage to the society and people in general, upon just and measures, will always, when done, justify itself; and whenever the people shall choose their representatives upon just and undeniably equal measures, suitable to the original frame of the government, it cannot be doubted to be the will and act of the society, whoever permitted of caused them to do so."

But, Sir, I will not now enter upon any wide survey of this question. I will not now touch upon the nature of suffrage, nor will I seek to determine the principle by which the right of voting should be regulated; neither will I enter further upon what has been called the philosophy of representation, nor attempt by statistical calculations to settle how many members should be returned by the landed, how many by the mined, how many by the trading interest. Plans for the speedier returns of members upon new elections, and for the limitation of duration of the parliament, shall form no part of my present purpose. I will confine myself to matters much more simple in themselves, and consequently more easy for statement. My wish, Sir, is to witness the extinction of close and decayed boroughs, and to transfer their representations (as it may be settled hereafter) to other places: to what places, towns, or counties, and in what measure and proportion to each, must be left to be considered in committee. But the extinction of these proprietary seats, this burgage tenure influence, is called for by the injuries and mischiefs it inflicts on the country. Can there be any thing monstrous, Sir, than that seven electors, headed by the parish constable (I allude to Gattton) should send two honourable members to this House, and that two more should represent the interesting ruins and well-peopled sheep-folds of Sarum? What reason can we discover in the nature of things, or in the principles of representation, why some hon. members this House should have neither houses nor in-habitants to represent—why others should only represent individuals—why there should be so many whose constituents do not exceed ten? Can there, Sir, be anything in more open defiance of common a sense and political expediency, than that three hundred and fifty four voters should send fifty six members to parliament—a ninth part of the whole House of Commons? What cause can be found either in the mineral or the agricultural wealth of Cornwall, that it should be so prolific of honourable members in this House, although all the population of all the Cornish boroughs is not much greater than that of Nottingham alone? And Sir, it must remain a subject of alarm to many, of surprise to all, that according to a calculation taken in 1815, one-half of the English and Welsh representatives is this House should be returned by about eleven thousand persons, and the other half by above nine millions.

Sir, this is neither the time nor the place to enter into nice verifications of facts; it is sufficient to lay grounds for future inquiry, and I believe it will then appear that I have understated the anomalies of our representation. But, Sir, the answer given to all this is, "it works well!" This has been the ready reply since the time that the late Mr. Canning's eloquence gave it currency, and made popular. "It works well!" True; it does work very well for the jobbers in the borough-market; it does work very well for all who go on to power, and profit, and distinction, by the system; and I dare say ministers will be the last to say it works ill. But, Sir, it works destructively for the empire at large—it works destructively for the country and its colonies—it works against every one of the great interests of this country—against the well-being of its trade, its manufactures, its agriculture. Majorities, and (according to my views of the questions which have been camied) fatal majorities in this House have been swelled by means of this influence; and what is most mischievous is, she existence of such a system degrades this House in the estimation of the people—the representative body loses the respect and confidence of the body represented. It is to this cause, Sir, that the indignation of the country ascribes the success of the odious principle of free trade; a principle which, if persisted in, will spread the desolation still farther, which so fearfully prevails, and is now pressing severely on our commerce. To this again is to be attributed the largeness of that majority which lately over-threw the constitution, and proved to the people how very little their prayers were heard or heeded.

How then, Sir, is a system so mischievous to be mended? Which are the most pressings of its evils? Where should the proposed reform begin? Unquestionably, in the extinction of decayed boroughs. Whether this should be effected by compensation, or without compensation, and whether we should extend our inquiries to self-elected corporate bodies, possessing the rights of franchise, will be matter for future discussion. But, Sir, vital interests are in the meanwhile at stake. The nation knows and feels it to be so: it feels it in all the ramifications of its commerce, in all the elements of its wealth and greatness—it feels it in the very husbandry of its soil, the staple of its power and prosperity—and it feels, too, that it is not safe to trust to burgage tenures and proprietary influence what should be confided to a chaster representation. The disease, no doubt, is of long standing, but the seat of it has been well ascertained, and it will require no great skill in political anatomy to remove the parts affected. They cannot be cured: they must be cut away.—

"Immedicabile valnus

Ense recidendum, ne pars sincera trahatur.

Entertaining, therefore, Sir, these sentiments, and impressed with a strong feeling, that in the existing circumstances of the country (which it would be idle for any man to seek to disguise from himself), it would be expedient for this House not to separate, without evincing some disposition to take this question into its consideration at no distant period, I have thought it my duty, at this eleventh hour, to direct the attention of hon. members to it; and I shall conclude my present observations by conjuring them to bear in mind the ever-memorable words of Mr. Burke, as cited by Mr. Fox—" Representation (not the unreal mockery, but the efficient substance of representation) is the sovereign remedy for every disorder, the infallible security against popular discontent."^* The noble marquis then moved,

1. "That there exists a class or description of Boroughs, commonly called close or decayed, in which the Returns of Members to Parliament are notoriously capable of being effected by the payment of money in the way of purchase, and frequently are so effected; and also, another class of Boroughs, in which the Elective Franchise is vested in so few Electors, that the Returns are capable of being effected by the payment of money, in the way of bribes, to individual Electors, and frequently are so effected.

^* See Hansard's Parliamentary History, vol. xxx, p. 919.

2. "That the existence of such Boroughs, and the continuance of such practices, are disgraceful to the character of this House, destructive of the confidence of the people, and prejudicial to the country,"

The first Resolution being put,

said: I rise to second the resolution which my noble friend has so ably brought before the House; deeply impressed with their importance, and fully aware of my own inability to do justice to the subject. I am also aware, that an individuals construction has been put on the conduct of members who, having hitherto generally supported government, now bring forward a proposition to which that government is supposed to be unfavorable. I trust the House will permit me to exonerate myself from the imputations which such unjust inferences convey. If there be those who think the government dangerous, they will find not only a justification, but an eulogium, on systematic opposition, in the words of Mr. Fox, who says, that systematic opposition to a government considered dangerous is a noble employment. He adds, that if that opposition arises from pique, resentment, or disappointment, the people will be against it. Admitting the truth of both these propositions, I distinctly declare that neither applies to me. I would not degrade the great question of reform into an engine for party purposes; nor would I, were it in my power, throw any embarrassment in the way of a government which, it is said, entertains extensive projects of reform, by which alone the great establishments of the country can be rendered permanent and respectable; still less have I any pique to gratify. The recollection of the defeat of the party with which I had the honor to act is associated with better feelings than those of impotent revenge and resentment. If any acrimonious feelings, elicited in the warmth of debate, did exist, they have long since merged into an anxious desire to co-operate with those who obtained the victory in applying it to the best purposes for the general advantage of the empire. The reformation which my noble friend wishes to effect will not, it must be conceded, close all the sources by which corruption may taint this House. It cannot even be contended, that the doses-borough system is one of unmixed evil. A glance around us would offer a practical illustration, that such a doctrine was fallacious; for we see amongst the representatives of close boroughs, men whose splendid talents are devoted to the welfare of their country and whose votes here are the best records of their independence political integrity. But it is fair to infer, because a judicious or fortuitous situation has sent such men to parliament, that, from a system based on corruption, and acting in perpetual violation of the best principles of the constitution, any order of things can arise in which evil will not greatly preponderate over good; and would the abolition of close boroughs involve the exclusion of such men? On the contrary, the representation being transferred to populous places, would facilitate their approach to, parliament, and their return would be effected in a manner much more honourable to themselves, and therefore more congenial to their feelings. From the time of Richard the 2nd, all historical records establish the fact, that the Commons were rendered corrupt by means of undue influence at elections. Amongst the names of those who, on these grounds, advocated the necessity of reform, we find Camden, Savile, Chatham, Pitt, Grey, Fox, Sheridan, Burke and Erskine; and in one sentence of Erskine's, we find the spirit of the speeches and the writings of these great authorities: Mr. Erskine attributes to undue elections, "that the House of Commons, instead of being that for which it was intended, a control on Crown, had become the great engine of its power." Lord Bolingbroke, at an earlier period, took a similar view of the necessity of reform, and called the attention of the county to the state to which might be reduced by "a desperate minister, abetted by a mercenary faction, and supported by a standing army." Let us suppose, then, a venal parliament, such as lord Boling-broke describes—let us suppose a "desperate minister," rash, ambitious impetuous and powerful, over bearing to his colleagues, haughty and imperious to the Commons, insidious amongst his equals, dictatorial to his sovereign, despotic to the people, and reckless of their remonstrances—to whom would such a minister address himself, when about to force a measure repugnant to the people? To the great borough proprietor, knowing well that there are two codes of parliamentary honour; one by which we are exonerated from all promises or pledges, no matter how solemnly given to our constituents in a body, though they amount to thousands; whenever it may suit us to change our political creed; the other, by which we are bound to our single aristocratic constituent If we violate the most trifling pledge to him, we are considered as highly dishonourable; and if we have any compunctious visitings of conscience, we must console ourselves in the Chiltern Hundreds. There are some exceptions: it is true, we may see a government very honourably acquiescing in a freedom of opinion in some of those attached to it: it is true, we may see an independent nobleman, uninfluenced by the allurements of office, and unbiassed by the ties of friendship, registering his vote in; a manner that intitles him to the confidence of his country; but we may not argue from particular instances to universal conclusions. To whom, next, would this minister apply? To him who bought his seat, and might be said almost to have obtained a right to dispose of his vote for his own private advantage. How long, Sir, is this shameful system to be upheld? How long shall we continue to see, as in the days of Mr. Fox, men, and men of honor too—the one having paid, and the other received, 5,000l. for a seat in parliament—voting side by side for the imprisonment of a starving manufacture, who, to save, his family from perishing, had sold his vote for a single pound? Custom and impunity may familiarise men with crime, but they are not palliatives for it. Was there, then, ever a fitter moment to entertain the question of reform? We are at peace abroad, but we are in misery at home. The case of our foreign relations may at this period be intrusted to a government; but to alleviate the distresses of our countrymen will ever be the paramount duty of a parliament that fairly represents them. Lord Liverpool, when lord Hawkesbury, said in this House, that the evils incidental to corruption could be traced to close boroughs. He had no objection that a remedy should be applied. If the objections against close boroughs, which I shall now submit to the House, can be fairly met, I shall willingly admit that no evil arises from that system; but if they be not, I consider them established; and it is no reason for refusing to get rid of one nuisance that several exist. Close boroughs are notoriously bought and sold: to sell or buy a seat in this House is a gross violation of the law of the land. Peers are generally the borough proprietors. That a peer should even interfere at an election is a breach of privilege; and that he should actually return the member is incompatible with the independence of this House. Peers, from their wealth and conations, have ample and natural influence in county elections; and all beyond that is contrary to the wise and salutary principles of our constitution. The return of a member for a close borough is destructive of the tie which should subsist between constituent and representative; it obviates the necessity of all communication between them, and it enables men to enter the House of Commons as representatives of the people, who have never, on general questions, publicly expressed any opinion whatever—a course which every man is obliged to adopt at a public election. The close-borough system affords a great facility to any body of men accumulating a capital, and leagued together for any purpose dangerous to the establishments of the country, to send men, whose sentiments are unknown to the people, into the House of Commons, organized and acting in concert for purposes dangerous to our institutions, and fatal to our liberties. Lastly; the purchase and sale of seats is a glaring and disgraceful example to the lower orders, that rank and power carry with them impunity for guilt, and encourages them to consider a traffic in votes justifiable on the sore of precedent among their superiors. These, Sir, are my objections to a system for which I think it presumptuous to suggest any remedy, until this House has come to a decision that a disease exists. I certainly never can consent to entertain this portion of the doctrine of reform, without associating it with an idea of fair compensation. Great difficulties naturally present themselves; but, with every respect for individual opinion, I never will arrive at the conclusion, that these difficulties amount to an impossibility, until, after a full and impartial investigation, a committee of this House shall have come to that resolution.

said, that the present motion reminded them of the olden days of parliamentary reform, when the subject had been frequently brought before the House, though not with greater force and eloquence than had been displayed by the noble lord. He conceived that the noble marquis, in bringing forward these resolutions at that late period of the session, merely meant to pledge himself to introduce some measure, founded upon them, with its accompanying details, in the next session. The resolutions contained a statement of facts, which he did not imagine any member of that House would be able to deny or to refute, and he should certainly vote for their adoption. He was no wild or visionary reformer; he was anxious to give the people a full and fair representation; and he would therefore vote for any motion that was calculated to effect that object.

conceived, that none of the propositions contained in the resolutions could be denied. They had been over and over again proved at the bar of the House, and in evidence before various committees; the allegations advanced in the resolutions were so self-evident, that he did not think it would be possible to find a single member in that House disposed to dispute them. He should certainly vote for the motion.

said, he was not prepared to affirm the truth of the allegations contained in these resolutions. Though he differed in opinion from the noble marquis, he was ready to admit the temper and ability with which he had submitted this question to the House; and although his majesty's government had unfortunately incurred his disapprobation, and though he differed from the noble marquis on this particular question, he begged to assure him that that circumstance did not in the slightest degree lessen the satisfaction which he felt at seeing the noble marquis, the descendant of an illustrious warrior, and the representative of a noble House, bringing forward a measure of this description in such a moderate spirit, and supporting his opinion with an ability worthy of the cause which he had undertaken, and of the name which he bore. This was, however, a subject of such vast importance, that it was obviously necessary that ample time should be afforded for its consideration, and it was plain that if the House were prepared to affirm the abstract principles of resolutions like those, it should follow them up by some practical measure. Now, he conceived that it would be impossible for the House, even if they were prepared to affirm the allegations of those resolutions, to follow them up by any practical measure at that late period of the session. That was his first objection to this motion. He also objected to the character which these resolutions went to affix upon the small boroughs of this country. If hon. members would even go the length of adopting the charges preferred by the resolutions against the small borough system, would it be fair to give the sanction of the House to such charges, without adopting some remedy for the evil, if evil there did exist in that portion of our representative system? But he was not prepared to affirm the truth of the charges made against the close boroughs. He could not assent to the proposition, that boroughs, where the electors were few in number, were more open to bribery and corruptions than boroughs where the number of electors was great; because he had no evidence whatever of the fact. He could not, therefore, consent ha involve in a sweeping condemnation those boroughs where there was a small number of electors. He had no reason to suppose that the trustees of those boroughs had violated the trust reposed in them. But even if, after due consideration, it should appear that any of those boroughs had not honestly exercised their franchise, the noble lord had not stated how he would propose to appropriate the forfeited franchise. The hon. gentleman who had seconded the motion had advocated the necessity of adopting these resolutions now, with a view to pledge the House to the discussion of this important question next session. But if the resolutions were negatived now, the noble lord would no lose the opportunity of having this question discussed next session; and it so happened, by a fortuitous coincidence, that that very night a noble lord had given notice of a motion for next session for the purpose of giving the elective franchise to the manufacturing towns of Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds. So that if there should be no time for debating the question of parliamentary reform this session, ample opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of the subject in the next session. The noble lord, besides, rested his motion upon grounds which the imagined would not meet with the approbation of the advocates of the general measure of parliamentary reform on the other side of the House, The noble lord had attacked the close boroughs as having, in the first instance, been the means of the adoption by that House of the abominable principles of free trade; and, secondly, as having enabled that House, contrary to the sense of the people, to carry the question of Catholic emancipation. Now those who advocated the general measure of reform would scarcely support the resolutions of the noble lord on the ground that the close boroughs had contributed to the triumph of a great principle over local prejudices and passions; nor was he aware, that the noble lord's objection to the existence of the close boroughs, as influencing the adoption of the principle of free trade, would have a greater weight with those hon. members. If the system of close boroughs had contributed to the triumph of those great principles, such a system should rather be preserved than sacrificed. Even if he could at all bring himself to assent to the proposition of the noble lord, he would object to the period at which it had been brought forward.

said, that having been always the advocate of parliamentary reform, he should certainly vote for the resolutions moved by the noble marquis. If, however, he imagined that the adoption of parliamentary reform would be calculated to make that House less inclined to the great principles of civil and religious liberty, he should rather that the House should remain as it was at present constituted, than that such a change should be effected in its character. He uniformly advocated parliamentary reform, because it was calculated to produce a quite different result. The right hon. Secretary, in bringing in the bill for Catholic emancipation, had proved to demonstration, that the majority of the popular representation of the country was in favor of that measure. For himself, he had always advocated the principles of free trade; his only fault with the government was, that they did not go far enough; and if he thought that the people of England were so obtuse in their understandings, and so blind to their own interests, as to oppose those principles, he should prefer, under such circumstances, to refer the subject for consideration to the portion of the intellect of the country at present in that House, than refer it to those whose ignorance made them run counter to their best interests. Whoever the noble lord might have referred to, when he spoke of the persons who had deserted the cause of parliamentary reform, he would say, that as long as he had a seat in that House, he should not be found wanting in any crisis, or on any occasion, to support that question. He would be the last man to inquire into what were the motives of him who brought the question forward, but would give it his zealous support. The noble lord had urged many of those topics which, by frequent repetition, had become tedious; but it was only by their being so urged, that they had arrived at that point at which it was impossible any longer to contradict them. He trusted that the noble lord, in bringing forward these resolutions now, meant to pledge himself to introduce the subject to the notice of the House in the next session. He would congratulate the House and the country upon the change in the language of government upon this subject. The time was, when if a single finger had been stirred in the cause of parliamentary reform, the question was sure to be put down by the most decisive and uncompromising of all negatives. The late colleague of the right hon. Secretary, Mr. Canning, had in his place in that House, said, that in whatever shape the question of reform was proposed, it should find in him a determined and uncompromising opponent. It was not so upon the present occasion. The first objection of the right hon. Secretary to the motion was, that the time of the session was not convenient for the House to entertain a subject of such magnitude. Mr. Canning, on the contrary, had always treated the question as one of total insignificance to render it of any consequence, whether it were introduced at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the session. If the House was thin, he said it was so much the better; for it the better held up the subject and it supporters to the ridicule of the country. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, on the contrary, had never been one of those decided opponents of parliamentary reform, whom nothing could induce to look with any degree of favor to that all important measure; and he was happy to observe, in what the right hon. gentleman had said that night, that he did not object to the principle, hut that his opposition was rather occasioned by the absence of a fuller House, and by his feeling that a more mature deliberation should be given to the question. Now, with respect to the motion of the noble marquis, he would only say, that he was a very extensive, but he would not admit that he was a wild, reformer. He was very glad to take what parliament was inclined to give him; and he would feel deeply indebted to them if they would give him all he wished for. But, so long as parliament was constituted an it was at present, it struck him, that money must be able (he was sorry to say the word) but it struck him that money must be able to command a seat in parliament; and they all knew that it actually did so. Under that system, many persons who wished to sit in parliament, and who had not nerve sufficient to brave the marks of popular favour disfavour, which were generally shown where a man was obliged to face a large body of representatives, endeavoured, by their wealth, to make their way into that House. To prove this, he would instance a case. How did the late Mr. Ricardo come into parliament? He had often spoken to that excellent gentleman on the subject, and Mr. Ricardo had told him, that if he were to stand a popular contest, he should be sure to be defeated; for there was some thing in his disposition which prevented him from encountering the parties at a popular election. The consequence was, that he laid out a certain sum of money, which gave him a vested right to a seat in that House; which seat he might have held on these terms if he had lived to the age of Methuselah. Now, such men as Mr. Ricardo ought to have seats in that House; and unless they consented to reform the system altogether, he could not agree to a proposition for getting rid of the small boroughs alone. It was on that account, that he would support the motion of the hon. gentleman, who meant this evening to move that a new writ should be issued for East Retford. He was, however, thankful to the noble marquis who had brought this subject forward; and he was much gratified by the conduct of the right hon. Secretary, who had too much good sense to resist the principle of reform altogether, but rested his opposition on the inexpediency of discussing such a measure in the present state of the House and of the country.

said, that the hon. member had not treated him quite fairly in his observations. The fact was, when he saw the Speaker about to put the, ques- tion; after the mover and second had spoken, and a few words had been said by the hon. member for Wiltshire, he deemed it right, under such circumstances, to make one or two remarks. Now, he would ask, would it have been fitting, when the case stood thus, for him to have entered into the whole of this question, or to have stated what his views with reference to it were? To prove that the House were not ripe of the discussion of the question, he need only refer to the fact that, in the ten minutes' speech of the hon. gentleman, he had entirely mistaken the nature of the motion. The motion was not for inquiry: on the contrary, the noble marquis proposed the utter condemnation of those small decayed boroughs, in support of which the hon. gentleman had made one of his ablest speeches. He hoped the hon. gentleman would not draw any inference, therefore, from what had occurred that evening, as to his impression with respect to parliamentary reform. He thought he had shown that this was not the occasion on which the House ought to proceed to the discussion of such a question; and beings of that opinion, he had met the motion of the noble lord with a direct negative.

.—All he had said was, that so long as the present system prevailed, he would not oppose the existence of certain openings for the admission of clever men to parliament: but he by no means advocated the system.

expressed his intention to vote for the motion. One effect, he was happy to find had been produced by the Roman Catholic Relief bill—an effect which its best friends had not anticipated: it appeared to have transformed a number of the highest tories in the land to something very nearly resembling radical reformers.

in reply contended, that inquiry was of no use, unless the House determined to purify itself; and do any with public grievances.

The House then divided:—For the motion 40; Against it 114; Majority 74.

presented two petitions form the aldermen and burgesses of East Retford, in which they complained that they had now been, for two sessions, deprived of the advantage of having representatives in that House to watch over their interests, and prayed that a new writ for East Retford might henceforth be issued. The hon. member said, he fully agreed in the prayer of the petition. In his opinion, the withholding from the electors of East Retford the right to return representatives to parliament was an arbitrary act, not justified by any legal or constitutional doctrine.—He then moved, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for electing of two burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the thorough of East Retford, in the room of the hon. sir R. L. Dundas and W. B. Wrightson, esq. whose election has been declared to be void."

said, he should the motion. He thought he might appeal to the hon. member for Blechingley, whether this borough had been fairly dealt with. It seemed to him, that it had been sufficiently trusted the House would, in consideration of that punishment, allow it to re-elect two members.

rose, to move an amendment, which he said he did the more willingly, when he recollected that the petitions proceeded from the great body of the corrupt electors of East Retford, and that amongst the signatures was to be seen the name of the returning officer, who had received election-money, and to whom the writ, if issued, must be sent. He had looked into the precedents, and he found none in which, when parliaments intended to take subsequent proceedings, a writ had been issued. There were cases in which the writ was suspended for two sessions, and he now gave notice, that at the commencement of the next session, he should again move to transfer the elective franchise to Birmingham, and under such circumstances it would be of no use to issue a new writ, the only effect which would be to give representatives to East Retford for the vacations. He trusted the right hon. gentleman would consider the situation of the great towns, and would, next session, bring in a measure to give them representatives—a course in which he would meet with the support of all the respectable classes of the community. The hon. member concluded by moving, by way of amendment, "That Mr. Speaker do not issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of two burgesses to serve in this present parliament for the borough Of East Retford during the continuance of the present session."

though convinced of the corruption of the borough of East Retford, should vote for the original motion. He had voted for the transfer of the elective franchise to Birmingham, not as a punishment, but as one portion of a general measure which he should wish to see adopted. He did not agree with the principle adopted in the House of Lords, with regard to the Penrhyn Disfranchisement bill—namely, that the borough ought not to be disfranchised unless the guilt of corruption were proved against all the electors. He was as much opposed as any one to corruption in elections; but he did not feel, and would not pretend to feel, that indignation which no man really felt against bribery this sort in the present day. It was notorious, that a large proportion of the members of that House obtained their seats for value in money; and he might ask even the hon. member for Blechingley, and the right hon. Secretary, the member for Westbury, whether the public services of the one or the other had alone secured them the honour of their seats? He would ask them, whether a bribe was less a bribe because it consisted of thousands instead of single pounds, and because it went into the pocket of one rich instead of into the pockets of many poor individuals?

said, that having voted for transferring the elective franchise from East Retford to the hundred of Bassetlaw in the last session, rather than to the town of Birmingham, nothing that had fallen from honourable members in this session had induced him to alter his opinion; but, after every consideration, he was confirmed in it. He thought a harsh measure of punishment had been dealt out to this borough, in depriving it of its elective franchise, as thereby many innocent persons suffered for the crimes of the quilty. But, as the House had come to the resolution already so to act, the next step for consideration was the best means to substitute a fit representation in lieu of it. He confessed he did not think that conferring this privilege on the town of Birmingham would be the best step, and he was doubtful whether it was desirous of it. No such desire had, at least, been expressed that he had heard of out of that House; it had been alone advocated in it. Its inhabitants felt, perhaps, as he did upon this occasion—that the interests of this great town were sufficiently protected and advanced by the two excellent members for the county in which Birmingham was situated, and that it would willingly dispense with the expense, as well as the feuds and heart-burnings, that too frequently ensued after a contested election. The argument that had been made use of in this debate—that, by a decision one way, the agricultural, and by the other, the trading interests would be forwarded was an invidious and a false one; it was drawing a distinction between two interests, neither of which could flourish if the other decayed; and it was the duty of every member, whether a representative of the landed or the commercial interest, to endeavor to uphold an equal balance of prosperity between the two. As that House had already decided, that bribery and corruption had been proved against East Retford, consequently that as a borough it ought to be disfranchised, he should vote against the motion now under discussion; and, considering it immaterial to the general benefit of the empire, whether representatives be appointed in Birmingham or the hundred of Bassetlaw, he should, whenever that question came under consideration, give his vote for the latter; because he considered this was to inflict a lesser punishment upon East Retford, than to deprive it altogether of any share in the elective franchise.

said, he was decidedly against what was called parliamentary reform, because, when he saw the labours performed by the members of that House, he could not think the people inadequately represented. In this case he did not think that corruption had been proved to such an extent as to warrant the disfranchisement of the borough; but if the House should be of another opinion, he should have no objection to transfer the franchise to Birmingham.

deprecated the further postponement of the decision of this question. Postponement and procrastination seemed to be the order of the day in this session; so that the people felt now convinced, that the government had no decided opinion on any question. He should support the motion, at he thought the question ought to be determined.

supported the motion for the issue of the new writ, on the ground that the guilt of the voters of East Retford had not been sufficiently established.

observed, that the venality of the borough was admitted: it seemed to have descended from father to son. What was the inference from this case? The inference was, that capital would be represented in the country, and if an attempt was made to check it directly, it vindicated its power indirectly. He would refuse to restore the elective franchise to the corrupt electors of East Retford, upon the same ground that he voted for the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. When the House could adopt, as in the present case, a safe method of reform, it was worse than folly not to take advantage of it.

agreed, that the case of East Retford was not one of peculiar delinquency, inasmuch as nine-tenths of the members of the House were returned by the means now so severely deprecated. If an opportunity of giving the writ to Birmingham had offered itself, he should most readily have availed himself of it; but as there was no chance of that, he should vote for the issue of the writ rather than throw the franchise into the hundred.

said, he would not give a silent vote lest he should be supposed to be actuated by tenderness towards this borough; but bad as it was, the hon. member would not improve it by extending the franchise to Bassetlaw.

wished to make an observation upon the petition to which reference had been made. A more gross petition had never been brought before the House. Most of those who had signed it were persons who had received forty guineas each for their votes; and they now asked to be afforded another opportunity to receive the bribe.

thought, that the House had not done its duty in this case. It ought to have persevered; and he did not think it right now to take the strong measure of suspending the writ, owing to its own neglect.

said, he partook very much in the feeling that this subject had been so often discussed, that the House had reason to be tired of it; but he hoped that it was now about to be brought to a close, at least for the present. He could not coincide in the reasons which some honorable gentlemen had given for voting for the issue of the writ, although he arrived at the same conclusion by different road. He entertained sanguine hopes that they inquiry regarding East Retford would be renewed in the next session; but, in the mean time, he thought there was no inconsistency in issuing the writ, and on some accounts that course was preferable, inasmuch as the investigation might hereafter be conducted in the presence, and with the assistance, of two representatives, to guard the interest of the borough. Such had been the course in the case of Grampound. It was one thing to vote that East Retford was corrupt, and ought, therefore, to be disfranchised by statute, and another for the House to declare, that without the concurrence of the other branches of the legislature, it would prevent the issue of the writ to the extent of its power. There were constitutional grounds for objecting to allow any portion of the body of the people to be unrepresented. In cases of extreme necessity and of extreme delinquency, this defect had, however, been permitted to exist; but it was a most difficult, delicate, and dangerous power, because it was liable to abuse, for the House of Commons to exercise the power (he would not call it privilege nor right, because, constitutionally speaking, it had no such, right) of doing that which could alone be properly done by the three branches of the legislature. If East Retford were guilty, the course was plain and straight forward. It would only be disfranchised by a bill, originating in that House, and adopted by the king and the lords. East Retford was not disfranchised: no bill for the purpose was ever before the House, and as long as the writ remained unissued, the House was not full, and the representation of the people incomplete. The same reason which had recently influenced the House in issuing the writ directly for the county off Clare, ought to include it not to withhold the writ from East Retford. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. baronet, that on the scorn of corruption it was, perhaps, a less evil to return the writ to East Retford, than to give it to the hundred of Bassetlaw. The inquiry had been pursued for three successive sessions, and had failed; and yet, what was the House called t upon to do? It was required to punish East Retford because it had not been found guilty: at no time could that punishment exceed six years; but in this instance it might not amount to more than forty-eight hours, for the House would adjourn in two days, and the parliament might possibly be dissolved immediately afterwards: in that case the writ would be directed to East Retford as a matter of course. No man respected the hon. member for Blechingley more than he did; but he must say, that the amendment he had moved was of a paltry nature, yet full of solemnity mock-dignity. It declared, come what may, that no new writ should be issued to East Retford, for the whole of the rest, residue and remainder of the present session; which rest, residue and remainder amounted only to forty-eight hours. He thought it would have been much better to have met the motion by simple and direct negative. He would vote for issuing for writ.

that there would, bet greater inconvenience in now issuing the writ than in withholding it. When the House had almost unanimously declared that the borough of East Retford was corrupt, and that it deserved punishment of some kind or another, it appeared to him very improper to issue a writ, empowering these corrupt voters to return two members to parliament. He should vote, therefore, for the amendment of the hon. member. It would have been better, indeed, if the amendment had not been put into its present form by the hon. member, and he had met the question by a direct negative. He was desirous to meet it so; and if the hon. member would withdraw his amendment, and meet the motion by a direct negative, it should have his support: He begged leave to take that opportunity of replying to some charges which had been made against the government, of wishing postpone every question till the next session. If ever there was it parliament which could be complained of for not being business, this was not that parliament. He recollected that, at the early period of the session, the complaint made against the government was not procrastination. They were then accused of hastening their decisions beyond what was proper, and of having made up their mind on the questions that were submitted to them, too hastily. He did not think that the charge of wishing to escape responsibility was at all deserved; but it was not extraordinary that the members of government, time had been occupied, should desire, when questions were submitted in the parliament involving most important principles, which the individuals who brought them forward had mastered by their undivided attention—it was not extraordinary, that ministers should desire to have the recess, in order to make themselves masters of these important subjects.

expressed his determination to vote for the motion. He thought the House ought long age to have come to a decision on the question, and he saw no reason why they should not do so in the present session. Why could not the session be prolonged for a fortnight? The House was told, that the question could not be disposed of, because the session must be closed. It would seem as if some invisible power controlled the House. Honourable members were to be forthwith sent about their business. Every thing Was postponed. In future, when the practice of the court of Chancery should be under consideration, let no member condemn the judge of that court for procrastinating; for here they had been occupied four sessions with the East Retford case; the evidence was all taken, day after day they carried the papers home with them, but yet they were unable to come to any decision.

said, he would vote for the original motion.

The amendment having been, withdrawn, the House divided on the original motion: For the Motion 44; Against it 135; Majority 91.