of the Bill to sever every link of connexion between the poorer classes, and that class from whom the representatives were now chosen. Now, this severing of the ties which connected the highest and the lowest classes was opposed to the practical working of the present system of representation, which enabled every class, in some way or other, to have a voice in the election of the members of that House. With regard to the influence of the oligarchy, he would ask hon. members to point out to him any attempt to subject the people of England to the sway of an oligarchy, or to establish any laws of exclusion or distinction among them. Up to this time no practical advantage had been held out to the House, as to the natural consequences of the change now proposed. All the reason that had been urged that it was necessary to conciliate public opinion. No better way of conciliating public opinion had been devised, than that of adding half a million of electors to the constituency of the country; but if that were a good way of conciliating public feeling, then, if another Government, wishing to participate in this popular favour, should add another million of electors to the constituency, would that argument meet with the same favour and success? Look at the question of reform in all its bearings—look at the parliamentary debates, and you will find that whenever the question was agitated some dire misfortune lurked behind. It was brought forward with great pomp of circumstances in the year of the rebellion in 1745; it was brought forward during the American war; it was brought forward at the commencement of the French war; and, to come to our own times, it was prominently brought forward in 1817, 1819, 1822, in a word, at every period in which there was either commercial or great agricultural distress in the country. Then, it was sure to find great favour with the people. It was brought forward also at the periods when the excitements of foreign revolutions misled the judgment of the British public, and, deluding them with a false love of liberty, rendered them discontented with the moderate freedom they enjoyed. Let us therefore be content with the well-tempered freedom that we now enjoy, and which we have the means of securing if we act with ordinary discretion. I lament exceedingly that the Government should have determined to have agitated such a vital question, as that of reform, at this particular crisis; it would have been wiser in my opinion to have avoided these new causes of excitement, for depend upon it by this process throughout the land the first seeds of discontent and disunion are sown. Oh, sir, I lament beyond measure that the Government had not the prudence to adhere to that course of policy, which, if they did think it necessary to propose a plan of reform in this excited state of the public mind, they did not confine it within those narrow limits which are consistent with the safety of the country and the dignity of their own characters. They have sent through the land a firebrand of agitation; and it is easy so far to imitate the giant enemy of the Philistines as to send 300 firebrands carrying danger and dismay in all quarters, but it is not so easy when the mischief is done to find a remedy for it. In the present difficulty you should have the powers of summoning all the energies of life, and should take care that you do not signalize your own destruction by bowing down the pillars of the edifice of your liberty, which, with all its imperfections, still contains the noblest society of freemen known to the habitable world.”

Mr. Calcraft. “Solemnly declared his opinion that this measure must, in the end, convert this country into a Republic; and the trifling difference that existed between his noble friend, the opposition and himself, was this—that he was for reform, and the noble lord was for revolution.”

Mr. Wm. Duncombe. “He had listened to the proposition of the noble Lord, and in taking a retrospect of the whole debate he was compelled to acknowledge that there was much more of declamation in it than of argument, much more of assertion than of fact, and much more of fear than of resolution. He deemed it to be revolutionary with respect to the Constitution and Government of the country, and as it affected the people of England it was tyrannical and unjust. He had never consented to the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, nor would he ever consent to the disfranchisement proposed by this Reform Bill.”

Mr. Stanley. “Had anxiously listened to the discussions that had taken place in that House the last eight years upon the all-absorbing question of Reform, without having ventured to give more than a silent, though cordial vote in favour of the great principles which it involved. He confessed that he had heard the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel) with some sorrow, use, he would not say inflammatory language, when speaking of this measure, but declare that it would lead to revolution. It was not a revolutionary measure, no, but it was a new constitution. Now, his idea of revolution was this, that revolution was a great change effected in the constitution of a country by the use of unconstitutional means, and force, called by the extraordinary circumstances of the time into operation, and enabled, in consequence of the operation of those circumstances, to overthrow the constitution. When this was the case, let those who had always on principles of justice and of policy maintained and upheld this great question of Parliamentary Reform,—let them in bringing their proposition forward, without being told that they were endeavouring to overawe and intimidate the House, be allowed to advert to the situation of the country as a collateral argument in favour of the measure they advocated. He regretted as much as any man that the name of the Sovereign had been used in that House. He was sorry that that name had been brought forward in a manner which might be supposed likely to influence their decision. But the name of the Sovereign had been made use of in the public press, and to that he could only answer that the House had no influence over the public press. The hon. Baronet said, ‘Why has Government brought this Bill forward? It is a bad time and ought not to be introduced now.’ In answer to this we would ask, what was the conditional pledge upon which Ministers came in and without which his noble friend (Lord John Russell) would not have accepted office. It was this, that they would bring in a measure of Reform. Now, with this pledge on their lips, with those principles in their hearts, which they had always maintained, they entered office. Now, what is the kind of advice the hon. Baronet gives them, he said, ‘Now, that you are in office, tell the people that the time is not convenient for Reform!’ If the Government acted on such a principle as that, then indeed a fearful responsibility would rest upon their shoulders. Dreadful would be the consequences arising from disappointed hopes, and high expectations blighted and falsified by the mean conduct of those upon whom the people had relied. But let the House look back for the last few years and mark the time, the money, and the talents which had been wasted in discussing useless questions with respect to boroughs charged with malpractices, inquiring, for instance, whether one voter received one guinea and another five, when it was notorious that boroughs were commonly bought and sold in the market by the proprietors. And, after all this labour and enquiry, what had been gained in the shape of any reform, not one great town, not one great district, had been added to those represented in that House. Not one corrupt borough had been deprived of the means of corruption. It was the opinion of Mr. Pitt, when he attempted to effect a reform in Parliament, that a certain line should be fixed to the disfranchisement of rotten and corrupt boroughs, and asserted, that in the earlier periods of the