-his gesticulations are so odd-his style so singular, and yet the sense, honesty, and force of what he says, so remarkable, that we cannot choose but highly respect him, while we laugh both with and at him. Never was any thing at once so ludicrous and so sensible, as Sir Charles Wetherell's speeches. The House was convulsed with laughter during his speech on the Reform Bill. The chief force of his argument was directed against the violation of chartered rights, which this bill would occasion. Because Mr Locke said that things should be called by proper names, he would call the measure corporation robbery." His description of an imaginary scene between Sir James Graham and one of his Cumberland constituents, in which the baronet admits that he could take off no taxes, but had taken off sixty-two members from the House of Commons instead, was given so well-the dialogue managed with such irresistibly comic effect, that Treasury bench and all joined in the universal roar of merriment. He concluded by affixing a name to the measure, which is not likely to die-the "Russell purge" will not soon be forgotten.

Sir Thomas Denman replied in a speech, to which, had the House not been previously exhausted, it would have been pleasant to listen, as it always is to a man possessing so fully the graces and ingenuity of an orator as Sir Thomas Denman; but of argument bearing on the general question we found none, except that drawn from his own individual experience, of the painfulness of sitting as the nominee of the patron of a borough. This is a matter rather of sentiment than reasoning, and when the question is, whether the boroughs are or are not of advantage to the working of the political system of the country, we do not think that an argument of this kind goes for much. On the third night of the debate, the speakers against the bill were Mr G. Bankes, Mr Hart Davis, Mr Baring, and Sir Robert Peel; in its favour, Mr Hobhouse and Lord Palmerston. It is with great regret that our limits compel us to notice these speeches so slightly; for we must confess that, in the absence of any very leading man, we could not have

supposed that the House would have been able to produce such a night's debate, of which England at any time might be proud. Mr Hart Davis's talents are not those of an orator; but setting him out of the list, Lord Palmerston, who can sometimes make a good speech, was considerably inferior to all the rest. Mr Bankes's speech was forcible and ingenious, and shewed great research upon the history connected with the question. Mr Hobhouse's reply was full of force and spirit, and made the very best of the subject, but he did not enter with any closeness into the practical details of the measure. The weight attached to Mr Baring's position in the House, and the strict common-sense view in which he discussed the question, gave to his disapproval of the measure a force that very sensibly affected the opinion of the House. He maintained, that " while a mixture of aristocratic and popular influence in the House had been the greatest promoter of freedom and of equal and just laws, he knew of no oppression, of no grievance, which had sprung from their union." What has been the reply to this? Has the grievance, the practical evil, the pernicious laws, arising from the present state of the representation, been pointed out? No. Has the practical good, in the shape of greater liberty, or less taxation, or more trade, or greater plenty, which the reform will effect for the people, been pointed out? No. Lord Palmerston talked vaguely of public opinion in favour of a change-of what Mr Canning's opinion would be were he now alive; and lightly assumed the existence of five defects in the representation; when the whole matter in controversy is, whether these things do exist, or, if existing, whether they are defects? But he pointed out no direct evil as the result of the working of the system which he says is so defective. We do not say that the system is so perfect that no evil result could be pointed out; but we do not find that the supporters of the measure of reform have discovered such a result.

From the speech of Sir Robert Peel the House and the country expected much; and we who have been, and may perhaps be again, as ready to blame Sir Robert Peel as to praise

him, confidently feel, and, therefore, hesitate not to say, that whoever has heard or read the speech must in candour admit, that even the highest expectation has been amply fulfilled. It is, in truth, a most masterly disquisition, both upon the general question, and the arguments (if such they may be called) brought forward in support of it; and, indeed, were it not that the public craves something new, and will not bear a repetition of the same dish, however excellent, we should feel that we served the cause better by a reprint of this speech, than by any commentary of our own. The menaces by which the necessity of the measure is sought to be established, are met, and indignantly repelled-the sophistries and avoidance of the real question, on the part of his adversaries, exposed-the authorities in favour of our mixed constitution, quoted, (the noble mover of the present Revolution bill being one,)—the disfranchisement of various bodies of electors, without any delinquency proved against them-the exclusion of the lowest orders, in some places, where they are now enabled to votethe "tendency" of boroughs to become the means of introducing men of talent to the House-the desire of other states to imitate our forms of legislative deliberation-all these are used as arguments against the adoption of the measure, and then he comes to that which to us appears the most important of all. “ What, sir, are the practical advantages which are now promised as the consequence of the change we are invited to make-as the compensation for the risk we must incur? Positively not one. Up to this hour, no one has pretended that we shall gain anything by the change, excepting, indeed, that we shall conciliate the public favour. Why, no doubt, you cannot propose to share your power with half a million of men, without gaining some popularity-without purchasing, by such a bribe, some portion of goodwill. But these are vulgar arts of government; others will outbid you, not now, but at no remote period -they will offer votes and power to a million of men-will quote your precedent for the concession, and will carry your principles to their legitimate and natural consequences.”

On the fourth night of the debate, the measure was supported by Mr Gisborne, Mr John Smith, Mr Stanley, and the Lord Advocate, and opposed by Mr Freshfield, Mr Duncombe, Mr Calcraft, Mr H. Seymour, Mr Wynn, and Mr Croker. Here is a goodly array of debaters, and they played their parts well. Mr Stanley's speech was a very able one, but entirely theoretical as far as it related to the question, and only touching facts when it became personal. Mr John Smith did allude to one practical result to arise from the measure, which he seemed to think would be a beneficial one; it was, the disappearance of many now in the House

"many well-dressed, well-behaved, well-bred young gentlemen, but whose loss would be well supplied by the twenty new members who would be returned from the towns to be enfranchised." We are willing to give this fact, whatever weight those who dislike well-dressed, wellbred young gentlemen, may please to allow it; it is well to get even one practical argument out of such a heap of declamation. Mr Calcraft declared himself a Reformer, but directly adverse to a Reforming measure of the extent of that proposed. Mr Wynn held the same view, and evinced his sincerity by sacrificing his place in support of it.

The high character of the Lord Advocate for profound and varied abilities, and great dexterity in the use of them, led to great expectation from this his first important display in the House of Commons. He was destined to be tried by a high standard, that of his own reputation; and if he in some degree failed, which, in the general impression of the House, and the metropolis, he certainly did, it was because mere excellence disappointed, when something transcendent was expected. He did not hit the tone of the House -he fell into the error, in this respect, which many men of genius do, who adopt a more refined, and less obvious train of argument or illustration, than such a mixed auditory as the House of Commons have patience to follow. They require something that strikes the senses more immediately, and which it takes very little trouble to understand. It was thought that the mantle of

Brougham was to descend upon Jeffrey; but this thought is gone for ever: the intense earnestness-the headlong passion-the strong plain sense of Brougham, which made him the wonder, terror, and sometimes the delight, of the House of Commons, are not found to belong to his literary associate. While Jeffrey spoke, it was whispered about in the House," this is not a speech he is delivering, but a treatise; he ought not to have spoken it here, but printed it in his Review." So great was the impatience of a part of the House at his manner, that, at one time, an attempt was made to silence him by coughing and other noises, but the vehement cheers of his friends put an end to what must certainly be considered unfair towards a man of Mr Jeffrey's character for intellect, even though the manner of its display, on that occasion, was not the most fortunate. As to the practical part of his argument, he avowed that the evil he wished to avoid by the measure, was the danger of driving a great proportion of the distressed population into excess, by a denial of their just demands-that is, we suppose, the danger of a violent exertion of physical force, and the good to be derived, was the "infusion" of 500,000 new constituents, who would create an additional phalanx for the protection of the authority, and the loyalty of the kingdom.

Of all the men in the world, the very one whom we could have wished to rise up after Mr Jeffrey, did actually rise-his literary and critical rival, Mr John Wilson Croker. Mr Croker was, and is, we are sorry to say, suffering from severe ill health, but he nevertheless made a speech full of admirable points, some of them rather over-laboured; and his manner altogether too bitter, but still his speech was powerfully effective, and the facts that he flung out, like Congreve rockets, stuck and burned where they fell. After his facts about the history of Parliamentary Reform Petitions, no one could venture to speak of the gradually increasing desire of the people for Reform; and the "principle" of a representation adapted to population, was pretty plainly shewn to be utterly disregarded in the government scheme, though it served to point the arguments and

adorn the speeches of its supporters. The quotation from the Edinburgh Review bore very hard on the consistency of its quondam editor, and were we to regard the speeches of these two learned and literary gentlemen as a trial of strength between them, we should be inclined to decide that he of the north came off but second best in the tussle.

The fifth night of the debate brought forward no less than seventeen speakers, of whom, ten were for, and seven against the measure. Of the former, only one, Mr Robert Grant, said any thing deserving of notice or remembrance, unless, indeed, we except Lord Howick, the tone of whose speech excited very marked disgust. On the other side, the principal speech was that of Mr North, which we have heard experienced judges declare to have come nearer the best style of Mr Canning, than any thing that has been heard in the House of Commons since the death of that fascinating orator. Sir George Clerk and Mr Hope gave spirited answers to the speech of the Lord Advocate; and Colonel Tyrrell, in a plain country-gentleman style, spoke effectively upon the question, and put the House in great goodhumour, at the expense of Mr Whittle Harvey. The balance of effective speaking on this night, was exceedingly in favour of the opponents of the measure. On the sixth evening, the promoters of the bill rather recovered ground by the powerful talk of O'Connell, who certainly, on that occasion, brought up a great deal of leeway in the estimation of the House. Sir J. Graham's was rather a good speech, but not so good as was expected, and he made sad blunders with some nautical illustrations which he attempted-he broke down in the principal one, amid great laughter of the House, and got quizzed by that merry bluff gentleman, Admiral Sir Joseph Yorke.

Mr Attwood's speech against the measure, was, as his speeches always are, full of sound practical sense. Sergeant Lefroy, from Dublin, was not well, nor very well received. Mr Praed's speech, which was also delivered under manifest indisposition, and at a bad hour of the night to win easy approbation, was one of very great promise. The

newspapers very inadequately reported it; but those who heard it, were not disappointed in marks of that brilliant genius which has led to his obtaining a seat in the House. Mr Bethell of Yorkshire spoke, but it was not discoverable on which side.

On the seventh and last night, there were many speeches, of which the principal were Mr Perceval's against, and Mr Harvey's for the measure. The former, let who will ridicule it, was an excellent speech, striking home upon the really important matters in the question.

"Facilis est rigidi censura cachinni." It is easy to laugh at Mr Percevalbecause he puts his religion, perhaps, too much in the van, when it is not likely to be treated with respect; but when a man speaks plain practical sense, he should not be sneered down for a peculiarity of manner. As to Whittle Harvey, he spoke as he generally does-clever, impudent, hard, and superficial. His support adds no weight of character to any measure-he is sufficiently well known to be, as Colonel Tyrrell said, "not particular to a shade." Lord John Russell's reply was very bad in the beginning, and better towards its close, but throughout feeble in manner, and uncandid in statement.

Such is a sketch, rapid and imperfect it must be allowed, of the great debate on the bringing in of the reform bill; but who can describe within a few pages the minute particulars of seven times seven hours speechmaking? Upon the whole debate we should not fear to leave it to any honest critic, of any party, to decide which had the advantage, sure of a decision in favour of the speeches against the measure. In the mortifying consciousness of this being the fact, the friends of Ministers cry out against the right of borough members to have been heard at all upon the question. So violently unjust a point was, we suppose, never before set up upon a matter where public rights were in controversy. Why should not borough members be heard? They do not appear as witnesses in their own cause-they are, as members of the House of Commons, members for the whole country, and on an equality as senators with

any other members. They are pleading a cause, not giving evidence, and they come forth as champions in the fair field of argument, to stand or fall by the test of truth and facts, which are open alike to all. If the members for boroughs be able men, should we not be cautious how we interfere with the system which brings them into the House ?-if they be not able men, why are their speeches thus feared? for as yet it is not the interference of their votes which has been objected to.

We do most sincerely trust that no clamour without, nor intimidation nor abuse within, the House, may have the effect of giving any successful countenance to a measure of a tendency so revolutionary, that were it to pass into a law, we cannot see how sober thinking men could have confidence in the stability of any institution in this country. We think it perfectly obvious that such a revolution in the mode of electing the House of Commons, would give a preponderance to the democratical part of our constitution, which would soon be fatal to the existence of the other parts, and therefore destructive to the well-being of the democracy itself. If we could believe that the common people, or the middle class, (as that is the favourite phrase,) were capable of more happily governing themselves, if all authority were taken away from those above and below them, we might look upon such a measure as this with some hope, but we think no such thing; and whatever respect we may have for the sound sense of this class, displayed in the management of their own affairs, we firmly believe that, in matters of government, a mixture of other influences with theirs is necessary not only for the good of the nation at large, but even for their own peculiar good.

We have looked, but looked in vain, for any argument establishing a link of connexion between the Reform so much clamoured for, and an abolition of the causes which distress the people, check their industry, and thwart their efforts to be prosperous and happy. This should be looked to first, and were this attended to, we should then be by no means adverse to such a cautious and gradual amendment of our representative