CALVERT, and from Bridgewater, by Mr. TYNTE.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition in favor of reform from Colchester.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL.-I rise, Sir, with feelings of the deepest anxiety to bring forward a question which, unparalleled as it is in importance, is as unparalleled in points of difficulty. Nor is my anxiety, in approaching this question, lessened by reflecting, that on former occasions I have brought this subject before the consideration of the House. For if, on other occasions, I have invited the attention of the House of Commons to this most important subject, it has been upon my own responsibility-unaided by any one,—and involving no one in the consequences of defeat. And although in most instances my projects of reform have been entirely frustrated, I have sometimes been gratified with partial success. But the measure which I have now to bring forward, is a measure-not of mine, but of the government, in whose name I now appear before the House, (hear, hear) it is the deliberate measure of the whole cabinet, unanimous upon this subject; it has only been reserved to me to place it before the House as their measure, and in redemption of the solemn pledge which they have given to their Sovereign, to parliament, and to the country. It is, therefore, with the greatest anxiety that I venture to explain their intentions to this House on a subject, the interest of which is shewn by the crowded audience who have assembled here; but still more by the deep interest which is felt by millions out of this House, who look with anxiety, with hope, and with expectation, to the result of this day's debate. I am sure it will not be necessary for me to say more to do away with the notion which the honorable and learned member op

posite has endeavoured to excite throughout the country, that this question, not being brought forward by a member of the cabinet, is not the measure of the King's ministers. I assure the House, that what I am about to propose is a measure that they have determined on; but though I cannot say that it is one of my originating, neither can I pretend that I have been kept in ignorance of its nature. The measure itself, after the noble lord, who is at the head of the government, had framed it in his mind, and communicated it to his colleagues in the cabinet, was explained to me, and I have been ever since consulting individually or collectively with the members of that cabinet on the subject. I only wish that the noble lord, to whom I have alluded, could have been permitted, by any law of parliament, to have explained this measure in his own clear and intelligible language; but, as that is impossible, I trust that the House will favor me with its indulgence while I perform the task of laying before it the details of the measure-inadequately, I fear, but with a most sincere and earnest prayer for its efficiency and success. I am aware that much cavil has been raised upon an expression used by the noble lord to whom I have alluded-that he would endeavour to frame such a measure as would satisfy the public mind without endangering the settled institutions of the country. Some persons have said, that one part of the settled institutions of the country was composed of the close and rot ten boroughs; but all must be convinced, I think, that the close and rotten boroughs were not what was intended by his lordship (hear, hear). "But can you (say this party) pretend to satisfy the public mind without shaking the settled institutions of the country?" We are of an opinion the reverse of what is expressed in this question.

b

We think that, attempting to satisfy the public mind will not endanger the institutions of the country, but that not to attempt to satisfy it would most certainly endanger them (hear, hear). We are of opinion, that these institutions rest, as they have always hitherto done, upon the confidence and the love of Englishmen - and that they must continue to rest on the same foundation; and while we desire not to comply with extravagant demands, at the same time we are anxious to bring forward such a measure as every reasonable man may be satisfied should pass into a law. We wish to place ourselves between the two hostile parties-not agreeing with the bigotry of those who assert that no reform is necessary-not following in the path with others who fanatically declare that some particular reform will alone be satisfactory to the people, or wholesome in its effect upon the state of the representation in this House; but, placing ourselves between the abuses we wish to amend and the convulsion we hope to avert, we have chosen that which we trust will prove firm and steadfast ground. It will not be necessary, on this occasion, that I should go over the ground which has frequently before been gone over for arguments in favor of a change in the state of the representation; but it is due to the House, that I should state shortly the points on which the reformers rest their case. In the first place, then, the ancient constitution of our country, acting on the principle that what concerns all, should be judged by all, declares that no man shall be taxed for the support of the State, who has not consented, by himself or his representative, to the imposition of these taxes. The wellknown statute, De Tallagio non concedendo, repeats the same language; and, although some historical doubts have been thrown upon it, its legal

meaning has never been disputed. It includes "all the freemen of the land," and provides that each county should send to the Commons of the realm two knights, each city two citizens, and each borough two burgesses. In the first instance, about 120 places sent representatives, and some thirty or forty others occasionally enjoyed the privilege, which was discontinued or revived as they rose or fell in the scale of wealth and importance. There is no doubt, therefore, that at that early period the House of Commons did represent the people of England; there is no doubt, likewise, that the House of Commons, as it now subsists, without entering into the history of the alterations it has from time to time undergone, does not represent the people of England. Therefore, if we lock to the question of right, the reformers have right in their favor. Then, if we consider what is reasonable, shall find a similar result. On any view of the case, then, it will be impossible to keep the constitution of the House as it at present exists. We have heard-as who has not?

we

of the fame of this country-that in wealth it is unparalleled-in civilization unrivalled-and in freedom unequalled-in the history of the empires of the world. Now suppose a foreigner, well acquainted with these facts, were told that in this most wealthy, most civilized, and most free country, the representatives of the people, the guardians of her liberties, were chosen every seven years from the population, would he not be very curious and anxious to hear in what way that operation was performed? Would he not be anxious to know the way in which this great and wise nation selected the members who were to represent them, and upon whom depended their fortunes and their rights, and to whom they entrusted their free and liberal institutions?

Would not such a foreigner be much astonished if he were taken to a green mound, and informed that it sent two members to the British parliament? -if he were shewn a stone wall, and told that it also sent two members to the British parliament; or, if he walked into a park, without the vestige of a dwelling, and was told that it, too, sent two members to the British parliament? But if he were surprised at this, how much more would he be astonished if he were carried into the North of England, where he would see large flourishing towns, full of trade, activity and intelligence, vast magazines of wealth and manufactures, and were told that these places sent no representatives to parliament. But his wonder would not end here; he would be astonished if he were carried to such a place as Liverpool -and there can be no sufficient reason for my not naming it by way of illustration - and were there told that he might see a specimen of a popular election, what would be the result? He would see bribery employed in the most unblushing manner, he would see every voter receiving a number of guineas in a box as the price of his corruption; and after such a spectacle would he not be, indeed, surprised, that representatives so chosen could possibly perform the functions of legislators, or enjoy respect in any degree? I say, then, that if we appeal to reason, the reformers have reason on their side. It may be said by the opponents of a change," We agree that in point of right, the House of Commons does not represent the people, and that, in point of reason, nothing can be more absurd than the constitution of such a body; but Government is a matter of policy and expediency; and as long as the House of Commons enjoys the respect of the people, it would be unwise to change the system." This argument carries with it a cer

tain plausibility and so long as the people did not answer the appeals of the friends of reform (among whom I was always one), I felt that the argument was not to be resisted. But what is the case at this moment? The people call loudly for reform. That confidence, whatever it was, which formerly existed in the constitution of this House, exists no longer-it is completely at an end (loud cries of No!) Whatever may be thought of particular acts of this House, I repeat that the confidence of the country in the construction and constitution of the House of Commons is gone, and gone for ever (loud cheers, and cries of No! from the opposite bench). I will say more-I will say that it would be easier to transfer the flourishing manufactures Leeds and Manchester to the deserted walls of Gatton and Old Sarum, than to re-establish confidence and sympathy between this House and those whom it calls its constituents (loud cheers). I end this argument, therefore, by saying, that if the question be one of right, right is in favor of reform-if it be a question of reason, reason is in favor of reform-if it be a question of policy and expediency, policy and expediency are in favor of reform (hear, hear). I come now to the most difficult part of the subject

of

the explanation of the measure, which, representing the ministers of the King, I am about to propose. Those ministers have thought, and, in my opinion, justly thought, that it would not be sufficient to propose a measure which should merely lop off some excrescences, or cure some notorious defects; but would still leave the main battle to be fought hereafter. They have thought that no half measures would be sufficient

that no trifling, no paltry reform could give stability to the Crownstrength to the parliament—or satisfaction to the country (immense

cheering). Let us look, then, at what have been the chief complaints of the people; and in my mind there is much difference between complaints of grievances and propositions of remedy. We ought to look with deference to the opinions of the people on a matter of grievance; but, with regard to remedies, I should endeavour to discover, in communication with my friends, the relief that ought to be afforded. The chief grievances of which the people complain are these:-First, the nomination of members by individuals; second, the elections by close corporations; third, the expense of elections. With regard to the first-the nomination by individuals-it may be exercised in one of two ways; either over a place containing scarcely any inhabitants, and with a very extensive right of election, or over a place of wide extent and numerous population, but where the franchise is confined to a very few residents. Gatton is an example of the first, and Bath of the second. At Gatton the right is popular, the suffrage is by scot and lot, all householders have a vote; but then it so happens that only five persons have this popular right. At Bath the inhabitants are numerous, but the elective franchise is in the possession of a few individuals only. We have addressed ourselves to both these evils, because we have thought it essential to apply a remedy to both; but they must, of course, be dealt with in different ways. With regard to boroughs, where there are scarcely any inhabitants, and where the elective franchise is such as to enable many individuals to give their voices in the choice of members for this House, it would be evidently a mere farce to take away the right from the person exercising it, and to give it to the borough; and the only reform that can be justly recommended is, to

deprive the borough of its franchise altogether (loud cheering). I am perfectly aware that, in making this proposition, we are proposing a bold and decisive measure (cheers and cries of hear). I am perfectly aware, and I should myself vote upon that persuasion, that, on all ordinary occasions, rights of this kind ought to be respected (hear, hear, from the opposition). For no trifling interest-for no small consideration, ought they to be touched or injured; but I perfectly remember an occasion on which the Right Honorable Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) proposed a great and important measure to this effect. Two years ago the Right Honorable Baronet, standing here as a Minister of the Crown, proposed the measure of Catholic Emancipation. It was accompanied by another measure for the disfranchisement of 200,000 unoffending freeholders-who had broken no law, corrupted no right; but exercised their privilege, ignorantly, perhaps, but independently, and according to the best light they could obtain from their consciences (cheers). Now, if I am about to quote his words, it is not because I think he is bound to be consistent (hear and laughter). On great questions of this kind, men must act as the interests of the country demand; but I beg the House to recollect that he stood here as the servant of the Crown-representing the Ministry which has gone out of officeand declaring in their name what principles ought to bind Parliament in the decision of a great question at an important crisis. I remember he told us that on fit occasions the House was bound to step beyond its ordinary rules, and that it did so on the discussion of the Union with Ireland-of the Septennial Actand some others. To avoid great dangers by extraordinary remedies, the House has not unfrequently disregarded the common rules that