and severely from unjust measures of that House, which would never have passed into law if the people had been fairly represented in Parliament. Much had been said by hon. members about revolutionary measures, he believed in his conscience that this Bill was strictly within the constitution of the land, and the only measure that is calculated to allay the outside clamour for reform, and prevent revolution. His learned friend might quit this house a martyr to the cause he has espoused, but he would have the satisfaction of reflecting, that on one great question he had been the advocate of intolerance, and on another the last champion of corruption.”

Mr. G. Bankes. “The learned Attorney-General had referred to the plan of reform which had been introduced by Oliver Cromwell in his parliament, and had stated that Lord Clarendon had given it his opinion “that it was well worthy of imitation by other parties.” Now, let them but just see how it had worked. Every thing that was absurd, futile, and ridiculous, it would appear from their debates, had taken place in this reformed parliament. As a test, however, of the merits of that reformed parliament, he should quote to the House the opinion of the parent of the measure after he (Cromwell) had tried it by experiment. On dissolving this reformed parliament the Protector Cromwell said, ‘My Lords and Gentlemen of the House of Commons, I had every comfortable expectation that God would make the meeting of this Parliament a blessing, and the Lord be my witness, I desired the carrying on the affairs of the nation to that end. Having proceeded upon these terms, and finding such a spirit as is too much predominant, everything being too high or too low, where virtue, honesty, piety and justice are omitted, I thought I had been doing my duty, and thought it would have satisfied you. You have not only disjointed yourselves but the whole nation, which is in the likelihood of running into more confusion in these 15 or 16 days that you have sat, than it hath been from the rising of the last Session to this day. And if this be the end of your sitting; and if this be your carriage, I think it high time that an end be put to your sitting, and I do dissolve this Parliament, and let God judge between you and me.’ (Cries of hear, hear.) Cromwell had given that parliament two trials, in the first instance five months, and the second 16 days; at the end of which he was compelled to dissolve it.”

Mr. Hobhouse. “He had listened to all that had been said on both sides on the subject of this debate, and he had not heard one single argument to show that there was any danger whatever that could arise, or was likely to arise, from adopting the project of the noble lord. Mr. Horace Swiss had expressed himself very much alarmed lest the present plan of reform should throw the elective franchise into the hands of shopkeepers and attorneys. He should like to ask where the elective franchise voted now? By the bill of the noble lord, the franchise would be thrown into the hands of that class which ought to possess it—namely, of people of a certain degree of property, and of those who had the greatest hold upon the higher classes. This was as good and proper a basis as could be proposed. It was scarcely possible to believe that any gentleman was sincere, when he expressed an apprehension, that a system of public rectitude and intelligence in electors would give vice and ignorance an ascendancy in the choice of representatives, and that a system of perjury, bribery, and corruption was essential to the attainment of virtue and knowledge. If those with whom he agreed in opinion had been accused of appealing to the fears of the people, he must accuse gentlemen opposite not of appealing to the fears of the people, but of doing what was infinitely worse,—they had appealed, by the worst of artifices, to the fears and selfish passions of those whom they called the aristocracy of the country. Could the gentlemen who now opposed the Ministry so violently make up a Government amongst themselves? A Ministry can only be formed on one of two principles—Anti-Reform or Reform—and so long as Ministers attempted to go on without a majority in the house in their favour, and the people outside against them, it was hopeless to expect tranquillity or security in the State. He asked the right hon. gentlemen and the house in the words of Poet Waller, in his famous speech on Episcopacy, ‘to Reform, that is not to abolish the Parliament.’”

Mr. Baring. “He had sat in that House a many years; he had approved of many acts of his hon. friends, but when a question of this magnitude was brought forward he would state his opposition to it without apology. Those who supported this measure said, ‘let the king stand by himself; let the lords stand by themselves; let the people stand by themselves; let there be no mutual connection between them.’ Such was their doctrine, but such was not the constitution of this country. What grievance, he would ask, did any man suffer in this country from the action and conduct of the other House? Did they find those Peers pressing on them in any way? Did they find them making laws which were directed against the popular branch of the legislature? Did they not find that their rights and liberties were as well secured as those of the House of Lords? He knew of no such interference, and he was firmly of opinion that the mixture of different powers and interests in that House had been the great protector and promoter of public liberty. It was certainly right and just that large popular bodies should be represented; but could they, he would ask, allow that principle to be put in force without having something to counter-balance it? His noble friend had gone on a reforming tour, but he had taken care to make no stay at the Borough of Tavistock, (which he represented). By this plan Boroughs containing less than 2000 inhabitants were to be disfranchised, and 47 Boroughs, having 4000 inhabitants, were to retain one member. Would not Tavistock, which was to be retained, belong as much to the Duke of Bedford as before? He would have the same influence that he now possesses. If, however, great changes must be made, he should regret it, and he must say that all the intelligent portion of the country would view its progress with the greatest concern. Much of the excitement was caused by this being announced as coming from the crown, but he felt satisfied that, but for such announcement, the people would be satisfied with a much less sweeping, and much more moderate, plan of reform.”

The Marquis of Tavistock said, “It appeared to him that the government of this country had for years been carried on on principles of most unjustifiable and wasteful extravagance; that patronage had been kept up for the purposes of maintaining the influences of the Crown, and that which was known as Parliamentary influence, for the purpose of carrying on measures against the sense of the country. The people felt now that they had not their just influence in the councils of the nation, and they naturally sought for that change which would give it to them. He sincerely believed that the measure now before the House would give them all they reasonably could desire. He hoped it would curb the monopoly so long maintained by the higher orders, and give a fair expression of the sense of the middle classes. With this view he should give it his cordial support.”

Lord Palmerston. “Fondness for change he must say was not the character of the English people. They had always been remarkable for a tenacious attachment to their national institutions, affording in this respect a striking contrast to their neighbours, the French nation. We well know the difficulty of bringing the people to consent to any change in their laws, how long and difficult was the struggle which brought them to give up first the traffic in human beings, the accursed