the condition of the people and the constitution of the government had unhappily come to exist, calamities must some day or other ensue, unless the state of the representation were amended, from which neither the constitution nor the country would ever recover. It was certain, he argued, from the history of our parliaments, that the knights of the shire were originally elected by all the freeholders of the county, and that the representatives of boroughs were chosen, not by a select corporation, always easily managed by a few influential individuals, but by the whole body of the inhabitants; for, in point of fact, all the inhabitants were burgesses. It was impossible, he thought, to look back upon our history and not see that the origin and early usage of parliament went upon the principle that those only should be summoned who were qualified to speak the sense, and represent the feelings, of the people, and that members should not be sent from such places as Old Sarum, while Leeds and Manchester were left unrepresented.

Having noticed the objections commonly urged against the necessity of reform, the noble mover continued, that, of two modes of reform which it was customary to propose, the one a total reconstruction, and the other a partial, and, so to speak, a piecemeal renovation, of the House of Commons; the latter appeared to him the sounder in principle, and the better suited to the condition of the country. The principal feature of his plan would be, to restrict an hundred of the smaller boroughs to one member, instead of allowing them two, and give the number of representatives thus subtracted from them to other towns which had risen

into importance, and had no representatives at all. These details, however, would be matter of future deliberation. The object which he had in view, in moving the present resolution, was, in the words of Mr. Fox, "not to pull down, but to work upon, our constitution, to examine it with care and reverence, to repair it where decayed, to amend it where defective, to prop it where it wanted support, to adapt it to the purposes of the present time, as our ancestors had done from generation to generation, and always transmitted it not only unimpaired, but improved, to posterity."

Mr. Denison, in speaking on this topic for the first time, could not help feeling that there was nothing in the state of the House, or the conduct of the government, to have rendered it necessary to press such a motion on the very eve of a general election. He was opposed to it on principle. The object of those who advocated reform seemed to be, to reduce the system of ›representation to greater uniformity in its operation. There were only two ways by which this could be effected. The first would be by a greater extension of the popular system of representation; the second went on the ground of apportioning the representation to the amount of property possessed. Of these methods there were living examples; and, as experience was, in such matters, the best instructor, in France, the elective system was founded upon property. If we desired to proceed in that way, the first step necessary to be taken would be to disfranchise a large portion of the country. But his majesty's ministers were aware of the consequences of such a proceeding, and knew too well how weak and feeble government must be

come, if supported by a House of Commons resembling the French Chamber of Deputies. The other method, was to place the representation on a popular basis, approaching to what might be called a Representative Democracy. The example of that course was to be found in the United States of America. Great allowance must, notwithstanding, be made in any attempt to draw a practical argument from the circumstances of nations in many most material points so different. Here we had a limited monarchy, there the government was a pure democracy. Whatever liberty we possessed in this country had grown gradually up among us; whatever freedom existed there, had been suddenly obtained. There the principle of universal suffrage, with little or no restriction, was admitted; here the parliamentary advocates, at least, of reform, had never ventured to go so far. Even the differences between the state of society in the two countries rendered all reasoning from the one to the other inconclusive. He could not admit the advantage of any change in the existing system of representation, embracing, as it did, the advantages of both schemes, without the defects of either. We had the French principle of property, controlled by the American principle of democracy, and that in its turn checked by the influence of the aristocracy. The House partook of all the changes and varieties of the state, and afforded a means for the introduction of every expression of public opinion. No one parliament had ever greatly deviated from the path of its predecessors; and to this circumstance, perhaps, more than any other reason, was owing the even tenor VOL. LXVIII.

British politics had maintained. This consistency he wished to preserve inviolate. He felt no disposition to tamper with the integrity of the constitution. Its fabric had not been constructed on the chaste and simple principle of Grecian uniformity, but rather partook of the minute and multifarious character which distinguished the Gothic temple; and he confessed that he found it impossible not to stand in awe and admiration of the venerable pile, and he dared not approach it with the hand of a daring, though specious, reform.

Mr. Hobhouse made a very discursive speech in support of the motion. It was objected, he said, that the reformers had no plan to offer; now this he denied. The noble mover had a good plan; the member for Durham (Mr. Lambton) had a very good plan; and he himself had a plan, of whose merits he would say nothing. It was objected to them, likewise, that the property of the country was really represented; he denied this too. Property was not represented: for the most ragged part of the population, who ought to be in the work-house, were voters, and perjured themselves at the poll by saying they gave their votes for such a candidate, when, in fact, they gave the votes of those who sent them there. The electors themselves were not possessed of property: the persons really possessing property resided in towns which had no representatives. The House, therefore, must either adopt some reform, or abandon the hypocrisy of pretending that there was a representation. The effects of the system on the votes of that House furnished irrefragable answers to every pretence of its voice being that of the coun

[H]

try. He had an analysis of the majorities on the great questions which had been discussed in 1821 and 1822, which showed that these majorities were wholly made up of the eighty-nine placemen, and of members intimately connected with the government, and if it were not un-parliamentary he would read their names. He had also another analysis, showing the divisions on thirty-six great questions which had taken place in those years, the result of which was rather curious, and which he would take the liberty of reading to the House, to show how the state of the representation really stood: Of the 40 counties of England, 25 members voted for the government, and 37 against. Of the 24 counties and towns of Wales, 18 members voted for, and 9 against the government. Of 89 cities and boroughs, where the election was open, 57 members voted for the government, and 107 against. Of the 99 cities and boroughs in which the election was confined, 151 voted for the government, and 12 against. Of the 33 counties and boroughs in Scotland, 25 members voted for, and 11 against the government; of the 65 counties and boroughs of Ireland, 45 voted for, and 21 against the government; of the remaining 112 members, making up a total of 658, they either did not vote at all, or voted occasionally on either side. Even the vote which the other night had prevented the creation of a new placeman, proved thoroughly the corrupt state of the representation. * The majority in favour of ministers on that occasion, consisted of 38 gentlemen who enjoyed places and salaries; of ten more who were intimately

See infra, p. 113

connected with them; and only one county member voted with them. Such was the system by which ministers ruled parliament, and parliament the country; and of which Mr. Pitt had declared in the days of his youth, that, under it, it was impossible for a minister to be an honest man. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs had once said, that he would scorn to govern by a majority of placemen ; but the boast was an empty one. Ministers had no other means of governing, and would have none, till they had deserved the confidence of the country. "Without that confidence, in vain is all the boasted independence of the Foreign Secretary, in vain is all his manliness of spirit and eloquence with which he delights his enraptured audience. He would, indeed, be supported while he spoke from the benches where he now sits; but strip him of his robes of office, and what has happened to him before will happen again; his supporters will fail him, and he will find that the empire of his persuasion is over, so soon as he is reduced to charm them only by his native graces of truth and wisdom. The present condition of a minister of the Crown is neither enviable nor desirable; but I can depict nothing more noble, or more animating, than the situation of a minister in a reformed parliament, presiding, with the consent and support of the people, over the destinies of the greatest nation that ever challenged the admiration of mankind. Then, indeed, the cheers of the assembly would not only play round his head, but they would reach his heart; his proud condition would enable him to anticipate the judgment of posterity, and admiration would follow the mention of his name in history.”

Mr. W. Lamb said, the measure recommended to the House was so uncertain in its character, that he found much difficulty in seeing his way through it. So far as he did see, it appeared to him that it was likely to be mischievous; and he doubted not that the motion was one of intimidation, brought forward for the purpose of being hereafter employed on the hustings. Neither all intimidation, nor all corruption, was on the side of government. The member for Westminster had talked much of the corrupt motives by which majorities in that House were influenced. How could the hon. member know what these motives were? They might be influenced by motives which appeared to their judgment as correct, and as well founded in just policy, as those which governed the votes of a minority. He knew of votes given in that House, on professed constitutional grounds, which, in his soul, he believed those who gave them knew well to be hostile to the constitution and to the interests of the country; but if government had certain ends to obtain, so also had they who voted in this manner. Perhaps some opposition among their constituents was to be got over, some party to be conciliated, some expense to be saved. Were not these motives as corrupt as any by which ministerial majorities could be influenced ? Corruption was not necessarily or exclusively connected with majorities.

Neither Mr. Canning nor Mr. Brougham took a share in the debate, which could not be expected, on so hacknied a topic, to present much novelty; and it terminated in the rejection of the motion by a majority of 247 to 123.

Mr. Abercromby again made an

[99

effort to apply the doctrines of reform to a particular instance, and again moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the representation of the city of Edinburgh, which contained, he said, a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants, while the elective franchise was in the hands of a town council of thirty-three members self-elected, and what were called the vested rights of that body were generally the principal obstacles thrown in the way of a better system. But the franchise had been given to the council for the benefit of the public; and whenever it appeared to parliament that the old mode of election was no longer fitting or beneficial, it might competently resume what it had given, and vest the franchise in other hands. Another objection was usually founded on the assertion that the articles of union precluded any interference with the rights of private property. To this he would reply, that the heritable jurisdictions had been abolished in the year 1747. If there existed any species of privilege which, more than an other, ought to be peculiarly accounted private, the heritable jurisdictions ought to be referred to that class. Nothing could ever have been more distinctly recognised as private property than were the heritable jurisdictions--they had been sold and mortgaged, and treated on every occasion, and for every purpose, as matters of private property. Yet they were abolished; and that at least showed that the articles of union did not preclude such an interference with private property as might be esteemed for the general good of the country. It was by no means required, he said, that those who opposed reform as it re

garded England, should, for the sake of consistency, likewise oppose it as it regarded Scotland: for in no one case, in Scotland, was there the most distant approach to popular representation; and yet, no city in the empire, of the same size, contained so many householders of independent fortune as Edinburgh. Mr. Dundas, the member for Edinburgh, and Sir George Clerk, the member for the county, opposed the motion, as being evidently intended to undermine the barriers which resisted the inroads of a more wide and sweeping innovation. The unexampled prosperity of Edinburgh in every branch of art and industry, was convincing proof that the system of representation had not been prejudicial to her interests; and the contentment which pervaded the whole country shewed abundantly that a limited franchise was not in itself necessarily mischievous. There were in England many large cities in which the franchise was confined to a small number of individuals; and it would be less objectionable to alter the system here, than to disturb interests which had been secured by the solemn compact of the Union. No borough had ever been disfranchised in England, except in cases where gross and scandalous corruption had been fully proved; and the present proposal went to disfranchise the corporation of Edinburgh without charging or proving any thing.

Sir Francis Burdett confessed that he felt in some degree less zeal in support of the motion than he should have done; if, instead of being placed upon insulated and independent grounds, it had been combined with the general interests of the empire, which he was

anxious to see compelled to unite in one firm and unanimous struggle for reform. That, however, which was a reason against his entire and unqualified approbation of the motion, was a reason for the House with the less scruple to accede to it; for the case made out was complete in itself. It was unanswered and unanswerable, for so flagrant was the injustice complained of, so very reasonable and moderate the demand, that it was utterly impossible to conceive any feasible objection to it.-For a perfect case, indeed, he knew of nothing like it, but the corruption of Scotlandit was totus, teres, atque rotundus ; it was so complete in all its parts, that it must thoroughly con¬ vince all those who were not, from inveterate principle and prejudice, opposed to every species of reform, no matter in what modified shape it presented itself. The course adopted by the opponents of the motion was, to answer one abuse by another. Edinburgh was admitted to be an atrocious case, but Bath, it was said, presented an instance equally atrocious. Such a course was most insulting to that city and its representative. He had no doubt that a few apothecaries in Bath could send as good a member to parliament as the mock member for the city of Edinburgh; but would that be any answer to the just demand of the enlightened citizens of Bath for that share in the representation to which they were justly entitled? Upon this principle of setting one abuse against another, it would be impossible ever to make any way y what ever against corruption; for no conceivable case could be stated, to which twenty gentlemen on the other side might not conscientiously start up, protesting that there