many others, yet have they no local habitation to which a right of representation could be affixed, and therefore they possess themselves of these places to which the ancient privilege is attached. Thus the most important interests in the country are in fact represented in Parliament, while in form the right of representation remains vested in a ruined mound, or some scattered walls." Then the astonishment of the stranger would cease, and he would see in the explanation he had received one great reason why this country was "unparalleled in wealth and industry, and more civilized and more enlightened than any country ever was before it." Such is the description which Lord John himself vouchsafes to give to the country, that has been so many years under the control of a system which he pronounces to be so pernicious. Do men gather grapes of thorns? or is it possible that the system can be so full of evil, from which such results have flowed? But Lord John Russell thinks a stranger would be " astonished," and this he really seems to suppose is argument against the present state of the representation!

The next argument of the noble mover, was in the shape of assertion, and every man must judge of its truth, according to the evidence which his own experience, or the knowledge he has acquired, will supply. He asserted that the confidence of the people in the constitution and construction of the House of Commons was entirely gone. This assertion was instantly, and with some indignation, denied by many members, of whom, several, at all events, were equal in character, and superior in ability and experience, to Lord John Russell. The statement then, even as an argumentum ad verecundiam, should go for nothing with the public; but even were it granted in the affirmative, though it would certainly settle the question that reform was necessary, the nature of the reform is left untouched by the argument, and it does not follow that by the adoption of the proposed measure, the confidence of the people in the House would be increased.

These were all the reasons for the reform which Lord John had to offer, and he then came to the statement

of what that plan of reform was, upon which the government had resolved. We omit the consideration of the remarks with which Lord John accompanied each item, and confine ourselves to the propositions themselves. First, they proposed that every borough which appeared by the population returns of 1821 to contain less than two thousand inhabitants, should lose the right of sending members to Parliament-this would utterly disfranchise sixty boroughs, (cheers and loud laughter.) Forty-seven boroughs which contained less than four thousand inhabitants, should be deprived of the right of sending more than one member, (more cheers and more loud laughter.) These reductions, along with two taken from the four members now returned for Weymouth, would make up a reduction of one hundred and sixty-eight members, which was the whole extent to which the ministers proposed to go in the way of disfranchisement, (yet more cheers and yet louder laughter.) We have already explained how the ludicrous contrast of Lord John's precise and feeble manner, with the importance of the matters he had to communicate, may have created momentary feelings of mirth, but certainly there was enough in this statement,-given, be it remembered, on behalf of the government of the country,-to make

"the boldest hold their breath for a time."

For such a desperate sweep at existing institutions was certainly never attempted before, except under the avowed name of revolution.

But this was not all the disfranchisement in Lord John's plan, though he was pleased to say sothe right of election was to be taken away from all non-resident voters for cities and towns, and the elective right belonging to freemen and members of corporations, whether resident or not, to terminate with the lives of the persons having the privilege at present, and during their lives to be shared in common with all householders rated at or above an annual rent of L.10. This surely is important disfranchisement; and though we do not question the power of the legislature to deal with pub

lic privileges, nor deny the possibility of its expediency in urgent cases; yet the case should undoubtedly be a very clear and undeniable one, which would justify the Parliament in taking such a course with long established rights. The extension of the elective right, though it diminishes its importance to each individual, is of a very different character from direct spoliation; and the change proposed with regard to the franchise in counties, seems agreeable to common sense and practical utility. The change it effects will be neither violent in its character, nor calculated to throw a large measure of power into the hands of a class not accustomed to exercise it. There seems to be no reason in practice, why copyholders of L.10 a-year and upwards, and leaseholders of L.50 a-year, having a tenure of twenty-one years, should not vote along with the freeholder of forty shillings a-year, and these are the persons to whom the franchise is proposed to be extended.

We now come to that part of the plan which regards the disposal of the 168 members of which the House would be deprived by the proposed disfranchisements. To seven large towns which have not at present the right of sending members to Parliament, it is proposed to give two members each, and to twenty places of inferior note, one member eachto four districts of the metropolis, two members each-to twenty-seven of the largest counties two additional members each-to the Isle of Wight one member-to Wales one additional member-to Scotland five additional members-to Ireland three additional members, making up the number of 106 in place of 168 taken away, and leaving the proposed House of Commons sixty-two less in number than the House now contains. Shall it be said that such changes as these, all effected at once, ought not to be considered and to be called revolution? There is no way in which change could be introduced in the constitution of the House, that is not resorted to, and to an extent fatal to all existing arrangements! The right of voting-the places to return members-the numbers to be returned from the places permitted

VOL. XXIX. NO. CLXXIX,

to retain the right-the number of voters-the positive and relative number of members from the several kingdoms of the Empire, and the total number of the Imperial House of Commons, are all at once proposed to suffer a violent alteration, and yet ministers, and the friends of ministers, are indignant that this should be called a revolution! But this is not all-in some of the places which are to have the privilege of returning a member or members, it is expected that three hundred householders rated at L.10 a-year may not be found, and in such cases a royal commission is to have the power of adding the neighbouring parishes or chapelries to such places, in order to increase their number; and this same commission is to divide counties where it is thought expedient to make two divisions, each division to return two members. In short, by this popular bill, a royal commission is to have power to cut and carve the people's representation in a way which, were it proposed at another time, and by other men, the popular party would rend the skies with clamour, and cry aloud that all liberty was lost. Along with all this, there is to be a reform in the mode of election, the nature of which, from what was said respecting it by Lord John Russell, seems to be nearly the same as that in the bill introduced by Lord Althorpe a few years ago-a bill exhibiting such a vexatious complication of details, and such complete ignorance of what was practicable-so dull, so heavy, and so difficult to be understood, that even were not Lord Althorpe its ostensible parent, the relationship might have been sworn to from the likeness. The bill was of course turned out, and its lucid wisdom is reserved for the "happier auspices" of the present period.

Well might Sir Robert Inglis say that " the plan of the noble lord was wild and impracticable"-its principles are revolutionary-its effects would probably be an utter subversion of every thing established in this country, which legislation can affect. But we are happily guarded against such fearful consequences, not only by the strength of the opposition which this bill will meet with, but also from the sheer impossibility of

2 U

reducing to practice the political romance with which the noble lord has been entertaining his own imagination, and giving exercise to the eloquence of his fellow-senators. Certain it is, however, that a government allying itself with the most violent of the populace, may have force enough to throw down that which it has not skill to build up again-it might create a political chaos, from which the lucidus ordo of its extravagant dreams is expected to arise, and then sink in helpless imbecility amid the ruins. Against this dark and dreadful fate, it is our duty to guard, by taking from ministers the power of even commencing their mad experiment.

It is to be especially noted, that Lord John stated no practical evil arising out of the system which he desired to reform-such argument as he brought forward was abstract in its nature, and, even if granted, proved no more than anomaly in form. It may seem contrary to reason, that, in a city where there are five thousand men of property, only fifty have the right of voting for a representative; but undoubtedly, to the practical politician, it would strengthen the argument for reforming this system very much, if the positive inconvenience or injury happening to the city in consequence of this limited right of voting were shewn. Lord John did not attempt any thing of this kind in favour of reform; but Sir Robert Inglis did not imitate this forbearance in his reply. He shewed that towns without representatives, flourished as much and more than other towns which had them; that while, by the present system, all classes and interests of the community were represented, and all varieties of talent admitted, by that proposed, one class would preponderate, and others be entirely excluded; that the most eminent persons who had ever adorned Parliament came there by means of the boroughs which it was intended to abolish; that the present House of Commons was less under the influence of royalty and aristocracy, and more affected by public opinion, than Parliament had been accustomed to be, and therefore less in need of a popular reform; that the debates being more public than ever, the

popular control was stronger than ever; that a House so popular in its constitution as that proposed, acting along with a free press, could not coexist with monarchy; and, finally, that such a House of Commons would cease to be a conservative body between the mass of the people and the crown. We do not mean to say that all these are self-evident propositions, but most of them are nearly so, and they involve practical results of the very highest importance. Sir Robert Inglis's speech was replete with good sense-it contained the germ of most of the arguments which were dwelt upon with perhaps more eloquence by others, and the more it is examined, the more will its solid value appear.

Mr Twiss principally directed his observations against the violent and sweeping nature of the measure, which he declared would take away all monarchical or aristocratical spirit from the House, in which already the will of the people had more control than it was strictly entitled to, consistently with the nature of our constitution. This learned gentleman's observations had, we confess, rather too much the tone of my lady's drawing-room for our taste; but with regard to the fact of the condition of the persons to whom the measure would transfer much of the elective power, he spoke correctly enough.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued, that the middle classes possessed quite enough of intelligence to qualify them to return the members of the House of Commons. This is one of those blunt, plain assertions, which, when Lord Althorpe utters, he thinks he says something to the purpose; but that is only because his views, although straightforward and passably honest, as the world goes, are coarse and confined. The middle classes have, no doubt, quite enough of intelligence to choose representatives for themselves and their interests, but they ought not to be able to exercise a preponderating influence, either upon those above or those below them. It would probably please the taste of the middling classes that there should be no aristocracy; does Lord Althorpe mean to say that, if such were their taste, it should be complied with? Their

intelligence for their own purposes is not to be denied, but their intelligence for the government of the whole, cannot be admitted. No reasonable man will gainsay their right to have very considerable influence in the House of Commons; but if a preponderating influence is to rest anywhere, it should be with those whose property, whose habits of leisure, whose opportunities of travel, and whose exemption from the necessity of looking to private emolument, should make them the most interested, and, we would also suggest, not the least capable, to act for the dignity, honour, and welfare of the state. We dislike, as much as any reformer can, to see dandy lords and gentlemen in the House of Commons, and we heartily desire that some mode might be devised of forever preventing such gentry from obtaining places which they cannot adequately fill, and receiving public money, which they by no means deserve; but certainly we are of opinion that, in the House, their manners are more offensive than their conduct is hurtful to the state; and we put it to any man's experience, whether your coarse, meddling, cleverish, confident member, does not often do more absolute mischief in a year, than all the coxcombs in the House. For example, if it were questioned whether, for the good of the nation, it would be more expedient to rid the House of my Lord C and the Honourable Mr B-, or of the Right Honourable Poulett Thompson and Mr Warburton, we should have no hesitation about ousting the latter gentlemen, who, although no fools, are positively mischievous, and are supposed by a calumnious world sometimes to have an interest other than that of the public in view.

The speech of Lord Leveson Gower should, we think, be read with particular pleasure by every Scotchman, for well did he describe its proud condition, in the ironical description of its necessity for reform. Lord Gower appealed to practical circumstances, and he conveyed his arguments in language rich with poetical imagery. We do not deny that his Lordship is sometimes guilty of the fault of sacrificing force of thought to mere elegance of expression; but

in this speech he combined them. In order to shew the usefulness of boroughs, as a refuge for able men against popular prejudice, he referred to the case of Burke, driven from the representation of Bristol because he preferred the cause of his country to the selfish ends of his constituents. "They saw him (Burke) ostracised from Bristol, take refuge on the hearth of a borough, and they felt that though the portal may be comparatively low which gives some of us entrance here, integrity may pass it without stooping, and that, though strait the gate and narrow the way, wisdom may enter there without losing sight for one instant of those great lights of truth, of reason, and humanity, which are the beacons of its course in the night of distress and danger-the landmarks of its bright and glorious pilgrimage by day." Perhaps this may seem too elaborately fine to the reader, but it appeared beautiful and most impressive in the delivery; and the plain fact is not to be got over, that protection from the occasional injustice of popular feeling, has been found over and over again to be necessary, in the case of members of Parlia ment whose seats have been forfeited by independent conduct, and that the existence of close boroughs makes an admirable provision against this emergency.

The second evening's debate was opened by Mr Hume, who did not advance any argument upon the subject in controversy, but contented himself with recording as a radical reformer his approbation of the measure, and his astonishment at the length to which ministers had gone, though he should have been better pleased had they gone yet farther. Mr Hume spoke with a highly commendable brevity. Mr Shelley, in a speech of some length and considerable spirit, roundly maintained that the members for the places called rotten boroughs, were the best and most independent members in the House-not fettered by local prejudices, nor bound down by local interests, but representatives of the whole country, and thus qualified to view every question fairly upon its own merits, and to vote according to justice and to reason.