posing nothing foreign to the ancient Constitution. Nomination, however, was the great evil he wished to remedy. Speaking of the conduct of that House historically, there could be no doubt that on many great questions within the last few years, it did not speak the sentiments of the people-(Hear, hear!)-To give but one instance, that of the Walcheren Expedition- (Hear!)-The decision of that House had certainly very far from sympathised with the real opinion of the country.-(Hear, hear !)—He had now stated his plan, and the House would perceive that it was in no way different from that he had submitted two years before. He did not wish to make any innovation, but rather to restore to the Constitution what the great innovator, Time, had taken from it. As that House was then orgapised, parties had their respective interest in every contest ; but what interest had the people? The spirit of the general contests in that House had little to do with the people. It was, in fact, a struggle between an antient aristocracy on the one hand, and an opulent borough faction on the other. He wished to give the people that share in constituting that House, which the Constitution originally meant they should have. As the system at present stood, it could only increase that suspicion and distrust on the part of the people which was already but too prevalent, and which nothing would more effectually remove than agreeing to the motion he should now have the honour to submit. He again regretted that such a question was to be discussed before such empty benches, and concluded with moving-That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the 31st of Geo. II. as related to copyhold tenures.

The Marquis of Tavistock, in seconding the motion, alluded to the manner in which the observations that had fallen from him last night had been met by the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right honourable gentleman seemed to consider what he then heard as personally directed against himself, when it was merely intended to apply to the influence of Administrations in general over the deliberations and decisions of that House. It was well known that persons, when opposing the measures of Government in that House, have been threatened by Members of that Government with an appeal to the people(Hear, hear!)-a threat that could not but imply a consciousness on the part of Government of their own influence in getting Members returned to that House more tractable to

their wishes than those they had so unconstitutionally menaced. (Hear, hear!)-The error did not lie in this or that Administration; the root of the evil was to be found in the defective and corrupt system of representation in that House. If the present motion should be agreed to, and the House should be disposed to suffer the Bill, for the introduction of which leave had been given, to pass, it was in that case his intention to follow it up with another Bill for the repeal of the Septennial Act. This subsequent measure, however, must depend upon the fate of the other, for he agreed with his honourable friend (Mr. Brand), that if the expences of the present mode of carrying on elections could not be done away, that triennial Parliaments would only increase the evil they were designed to remedy, and by giving the victory to the longest purse, alarmingly extend the influence of the Crown. He at once admitted and regretted the division of opinion that prevailed amongst even the best friends of Reform, as to the precise mode in which Reform could best be carried into effect. He thought, however, that the differences were such as might admit of complete accommodation; and he believed, that if the real friends of Reform could meet, and frankly consult together, their dissensions would be soon reduced to points that would be found to be any thing but important.(Hear, hear !)→ Some persons would be content with nothing less than what they called radical Reform; others thought moderate Reform would be the less hazardous proceeding. It appeared to him that both these parties might be easily reconciled by a radical Reform as far as it went, to the root of all corrupt influence, and moderate as far as it restrained itself within the limits of practical good sense, and kept clear of all the wild theories of visionary speculators. (Hear, hear!)-He trusted that in their attempts to prosecute this desirable object, they should not again be met with such an objection as had once been thrown out in that House, that a certain portion of corruption was necessary to the carrying on of the Government.-Hear, hear!)—Such sentiments could not be too strongly censured, for the toleration of corrupt maxims in theory must soon lead to the justification of corrupt principles in practice. He concluded by calling upon the House ever to keep in their recollection the memorable saying of Montesquieu, that when the Legislature should become more corrupt than the Executive, the liberties of England were no more!--(Hear, heur!)

Mr. Elliot opposed the motion. He looked upon the measure as a mere experiment, putting at a precarious and almost desperate chance the tried practical result of the wisdom and experience of so many ages-(Hear, hear! from the Ministerial bench.) He contended that the whole. weight of proof lay on the advocates of Reform; they were to prove the evil complained of, its nature, extent, and consequences; they were further to prove the remedy, its applicability, efficacy, and safety. For his part, when he looked at the present state of this country, unshaken amid the convulsions that have so long surrounded it, be could not readily consent to the impeachment of that Constitution which had kept them safe amidst such general ruin (Hear, hear!) The principle of Reform was to give the people a greater share and influence in that House than they at that time had. To prevail on him to accede to such a principle, it must first be made out that the people had not then all the influence in that House they ought to have(Hear, hear! from Mr. Perceval and others)-he thought they had. The making of wars was the prerogative of the Crown, and yet had not history proved that no war could be carried on by the Government of this country against the general sense of the people? The Government of that day had been compelled by the people into the war of 1759; the Spanish war might have been avoided, if the popular sense had not been so clamorously for it. The war with America was, at the breaking out, decidedly popular, and continued so till the people themselves began to feel the distresses arising from the extraordinary expence of it. The present war, begun in 1793, was also a popular war; Mr. Pitt was supported in it throughout by the people. As to the American war, the effects of which they then felt, it was owing to the virtue of the House of Commons that it was at last put a stop to. The economical Reform that followed was owing to the virtue of that House; and when it was remembered how the people afterwards treated that Parliament, there cannot be much said either for their partriotism or constancy: and it was remarkable, that were it not for that very part of their representation which it was now proposed to do away, that House might never have been adorned with the great characters that then did so much for their country, and who must so long live in its annals. As to the decision upon Walcheren or any other topic, there could be no argument from particular decisions against the

existing constitution. Reform, however, as they might, they could not expect that reform could produce unanimity: there would be still divisions, and minorities and majorities. As to the general principle of representation, he contended that it lay in-prescription and not in any theory whatever. The right honourable gentleman asked, did his honourable friend purpose wiping away the boroughs which had given such eminent Members to the House? No man could wish more sincerely than he did that the House of Commons were as pure as gentlemen could figure, but he did not wish to see it twirled about by the voice of popular opinion. There was nothing he so little desired as a change from septennial to triennial Parliaments. How could this prevent the purchase or sale of seats?-or how could a triennial Parliament be more free from corruption than a Parliament which might last for seven years?-If gentlemen were to look into the triennial Parliaments which had formerly existed in this country, they would find in them more personal corruption than in those which had succeeded them. If the country were to be driven, too, to this perpetual change, it would be productive of endless animosity and contests. As to the number of Members added to the House, in consequence of the Union with Ireland, the Union was a beneficial measure for both countries-it was a measure of necessity; but there did not seem to be any advantage to be expected at all adequate to the danger which might result from the experiment; and he contended, it was incumbent on gentlemen to make out the necessity before any alteration was made in so important a point. He was not aware that it had been practically felt, during the last century, that the representation had, at any one period, been inadequate to the purpose for which it was intended. Scotland, it was admitted, was the least adequately represented of any part of these kingdoms; yet there was not any one part of his Majesty's dominions which had gone on in the same state of prosperity as Scotland had done, notwithstanding her inadequate representation. When his honourable friend, however, proposed leading the House into these unexplored regions of ideal purity in Parliamentary representation, it would be well that he had explained how far he wished to carry them. At the meetings held on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, at Freemason's Tavern, the different supporters of the measure could by no means concur in the extent or nature of the Reform they wished,

and warm disputes in consequence ensued. Mr. Flood's plan went actually on the idea of representation, or universal suffrage. Was his honourable friend, or was the House prepared to satisfy the demands of the reformers to this extent? There was a club which had been lately held under the name of the Hampden Club, one of the resolutions of which was to this effect," that according to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, representation and taxation go together." If this was so, he should be glad to know at what pure period of our Constitution such was one of its fundamental principles? He confessed that he had looked in vain to discover such a principle. He knew this was the opinion of a worthy baronet, the Member for. Westminster, who had distinguished himself by broaching similar sentiments in that House, and who, in submitting a motion on this subject to the House, had laid it down that every man who paid taxes ought to be represented. But were the House now to listen to such a doctrine-were they to proceed, tearing up the established system of their representation by the roots, putting the country adrift to the vain speculating ideas of every man who chose to broach an opinion on the subject, and loosening every stone in the Constitution? Never was there a period, he contended, when any measure of Reform in the representation in Parliament was less called for. Never were there fewer petitions on that subject. Even had there now been a number of petitions in favour of Reform lying on the table of the House, he should have felt it to be his duty to examine minutely into the reasons of them, knowing what means were resorted to in order to procure such opinions. He had better reason, however, even than the absence of such petitions, for knowing that Reform was not at present generally sought for. The friends to Reform, at their meetings. last year, complained that the spirit of the country was sunk, and pledged themselves to raise it by every effort in their power. These efforts, however, had failed, as the House now saw. He recollected an estimable friend of his once asking one of those reformers if he would wish to commence the repairs of his house during the hurricane season. (Hear, hear!)-Now he wished to ask, whether gentlemen thought that it would be prudent or correct, at a period of such distress and difficulty as the present, to call on the House to look to the foundations of the commonwealth? And if they did so, whether it was not greatly to