66

{LORDS} details, of course, depending on the skill with which the measures may be constructed. The noble Earl also tells us that he intends to deal with the laws affecting the representation of the people. On that subject the noble Earl spoke in a tone somewhat oracular; for he said the noble Lord the Member for the City of London must be a Conservative, or he would not have joined that noble Lord in a Government; and that, on the other hand, he must be a Liberal, or the noble Lord would not have joined him. Perhaps he might have mentioned other Members of the Government on whom he might have depended for even a larger degree of liberality than characterised the noble Lord; but the antithesis was, perhaps, complete: and the noble Earl has contented himself with stating that his measure of Parliamentary Reform will be conservatively liberal, and liberally conservative, and that is all the intimation we have with regard to his future policy in reference to the representation of the people. I confess that it does not convey to my mind any very distinct idea, and I hardly think that it can be satisfactory to the country. The advantages to the noble Earl are obvious from this vagueness; for whatever his measure, he can say that he had described it. If it is extreme, and people complain that it goes too far, the noble Earl will say, "Well, did not I tell you I meant to be liberal;" and if other parties say "Oh, this is nothing at all it is a distinction without a difference," the noble Earl can turn round on them and say, "Gentlemen, I told you at the outset I would be extremely Conservative.' The noble Earl and his Colleagues, in fact, so far as they are pledged by his description as given this evening, can do what they like. They may go the length of the right hon. Baronet in the Cabinet, who is favourable to the consideration of the ballot; or they may make some paltry alteration in the constituencies, for which they would receive no thanks, and because it would be a useless, would be a mischievous change. My Lords, I say the existing system is not perfect; it is capable of amendment and improvement; but everything depends upon whether the improvement be one in principle, on the animus with which the measure is introduced, and on the skill with which the plan is adapted to its object. Unless there be a clear benefit without corresponding danger, then I say the noble Earl and his Colleagues do not act wisely in entering on a field calculated

to raise so much difficulty and apprehension, unless they clearly see a palpable and manifest advantage. The noble Earl has alluded to language of mine at various times, and which I repeat now, conveying my apprehension of the extension of the democratic principle in our constitution. The noble Earl says that he never knew the country more contented, or less disposed to listen to agitation, or more thoroughly satisfied with existing institutions than at present; and he says that he sees nothing like the prevalence of democracy;" and that although there are some individuals who entertain visionary political schemes, he does not believe that the great body of the people sympathise in those schemes. I entirely concur with the noble Earl; I think the great body of the people do not concur in those schemes; and I believe that if they foresaw the possible consequences of such schemes on the Government, they would shrink from them and from their authors with horror. But when he asks me if the great mass of the people-those, I mean, who, in point of position and station, are very far below the classes now entitled to the franchise-are, from their intelligence and far-seeing, capable of well-judging the effects of alterations in our constitutional system, or of extensive and complicated political measures, then I say, confiding as I do fully in the good faith and in the loyalty of my countrymen, there is danger in entrusting with political power those who have too little-mark, not of intelligence, but-of acquired information, and too small a stake in the country, for them fairly and impartially to consider questions of political change. When I speak, therefore, of the spread of the democratic element in our constitution-and that is the phrase I have always used-I do not, I say, impeach the loyalty of my countrymen, but I contend that, great as the influence of the House of Commons is at present, and great as it must be in the constitution of the country, generally, there is a serious danger of altering the character of the House of Commons by throwing too large a proportion of the representation of that body into the hands of the lower and lessinformed classes of society. I cannot, however, anticipate opposition to the measure the noble Earl may bring forward; from his language it is at present impossible to surmise what the character of that measure may be. The noble Earl says that the proceedings of the recent general

election convinced him that the present
system is unsatisfactory. If he can find
a remedy for the correction of those evils
to which he refers-and let him observe
that the remedy is not to be found in the
mere extension of the franchise, for it is in
the large constituencies chiefly that these
evils have been perceived-then I say there
is no one from whom he shall receive a
more cordial support in applying that re-
medy, however stringent it may be, than
from the man whom the noble Earl very
erroneously supposes to be hostile to his
Administration. I can only say, in con-
clusion, that I have no feeling, personal or
I can-
public, hostile to the noble Earl.
not say, when I look at the composition
of his Government, that I entertain any
confidence in it, for I have no conception
of the principle upon which the combina-
tion has been brought about. But if the
noble Earl is prepared, and has power in
his own Cabinet, to act on those which I
have hitherto believed to be his own prin-
ciples, he may rely on it, not only that he
will receive no evidence of hostility from
me, but that it will be satisfactory to me
to find that, under his auspices, the Go-
vernment of this country can be safely,
steadily, and constitutionally carried on,
in the true Conservative sense of the word,
not avoiding or shrinking from useful and
necessary amendments, but strenuously and
determinedly resisting organic changes, and
firmly opposing any interference with the
just principles of the constitution.

House adjourned to Thursday, the 10th of February next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Monday, December 27, 1852.

MINUTES.] NEW WRITS.-For London, v. Lord John Russell, Secretary of State; Tiverton, v. Viscount Palmerston, Secretary of State Oxford University, v. Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer ; Wilts (Southern Division), v. Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, Secretary at War; Carlisle, v. Right Hon. Sir James Robert George Graham, baronet, First Lord of the Admiralty; Halifax, v. Right Hon. Sir Charles Wood, baronet, President of the Board of Control; Southwark, v.

Household; Scarborough, v. Earl of Mulgrave, Treasurer of the Household; Hertford, v. Hon. William Francis Cowper, Lord of the Admiralty; Morpeth, v. Hon. Edward George Granville Howard, Manor of Northstead.

House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Tuesday, December 28, 1852.

The House met; and certain petitions and returns having been presented, House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

Oxford

MINUTES.] NEW WRITS.- For Wolverhampton,
v. the Hon. Charles Pelham Villiers, Judge
Advocate General; Aylesbury, v. Richard
Bethell, esquire, Solicitor General;
City, v. Sir William Page Wood, Vice-Chan-
cellor; Leith District of Burghs, v. James Mon-
crieff, esquire, Lord Advocate of Scotland;
Dumfriesshire, v. Viscount Drumlanrig, Comp-
troller of the Household; Gloucester City, v.
Hon. Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley,
Commissioner of the Admiralty; Limerick
County, v. William Monsell, esquire, Clerk of
the Ordnance; Brighton, v. Lord Alfred
Hervey, Commissioner of the Treasury; South-
ampton Town, v. Sir Alexander James Edmund
Cockburn, Attorney General; Carlow Borough,
v. John Sadleir, esquire, Commissioner of the
Treasury.

NEW WRIT FOR SOUTHAMPTON. MR. HAYTER moved, that a new writ be issued for the borough of Southampton, in the room of Sir Alexander Cockburn, who since his election had accepted the office of Her Majesty's Attorney General.

COLONEL FORESTER said, he should like to have the opinion of Mr. Speaker whether a new writ could be issued for Southampton pending the petition against the former return of Sir Alexander Cockburn on the ground of bribery?

MR. SPEAKER said, that in the case of an election petition complaining of an undue return, or of the return of a Mem ber in consequence of bribery, but not claiming the seat for another person, it was competent for the House to issue a new writ; but in the case of a petition complaining of the undue return of a Member, and claiming the seat for another person, it was not competent for the House to issue

Sir William Molesworth, baronet, Chief Com-
missioner of Works; Leeds, v. Right Hon.
Matthew Talbot Baines, President of Poor Law
Board; Nottingham, v. Right Hon. Edward
Strutt, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster;
Cavan, v. Right Hon. Sir John Young, baronet,
Chief Secretary for Ireland; Marlborough, v.
Lord Ernest Bruce, Vice-Chamberlain of the a new writ pending the petition, inasmuch

First Lord of the Admiralty

President of the Board of Control

Secretary at War

THE CABINET.

Right Hon. Earl of ABERDEEN.
Right Hon. Lord CRANWORTH.

Right Hon. WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE.
Right Hon. Earl GRANVILLE.

His Grace the Duke of ARGYLL.
Right Hon. Viscount PALMERSTON.

Right Hon. Lord JOHN RUSSELL.

His Grace the Duke of NEWCASTLE.

Right Hon. JAMES ROBERT GEORGE GRAHAM, Bt.
Right Hon. Sir CHARLES WOOD, Bt.

Right Hon. SIDNEY HERBERT.

First Commissioner of Works and Public Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH, Bt.

Buildings

1R. 2R. 3R. First, Second, or Third Reading.—Amend., Amendment.-Res., Resolution.-Com.
Committee.-Re-Com., Re-committal. -- Rep., Report.-Adj., Adjourned.-cl., Clause.--add.
cl., Additional Clause.-neg., Negatived. ., Lords.-
-C., Commons-m. q., Main Question.-

o. q., Original Question.-o. m., Original Motion. p. q., Previous Question.-r. p., Report
Progress.-A., Ayes.—N., Noes.-M., Majority.—1st Div., 2nd Div. First or Second Divi-

72 When in the Text or in the Index a Speech is marked thus, it indicates that the Speech
is reprinted from a Pamphlet or some authorised Report.

When in this Index a* is added to the Reading of a Bill, it indicates that no Debate took place
upon that stage of the measure.