Mr. Powys quoted from Mr. Condorcet certain sentiments concerning the foundation of the society of the friends of the people, which that writer had considered as about to produce the same symptoms in England as had preceded the convocation of the States General in France. Mr. Powys considered the House of Commons as possessing judgment to deliberate, and power to execute. He refused therefore, to listen to those measures which were then proposed to parliainent, which he considered as tending to infringe on both.

Mr. Windham, in a speech abounding with logical argument, observed, that much had been said of the theory of the constitutionthe expression imported much it was something that might easily be mistaken; it was an Etrurian vase, which, if some were to think made for the purpose of containing oil, and others for the purpose of holding water, both might be led into a ludicrous mistake. Besides, this idea of restoring the constitution to its ancient theory, opened a door for the wildest schemes of the wildest reformers. The petitioners had demanded that the House should represent the whole nation. If it were to represent the whole nation, where was the necessity of king and lords? and this these petioners knew, for they were excellent engineers. They knew that there was a gentle ascent terminated by a rock, on which was placed a fortification. They would not attack the heights of monarchy first, with all its thunder of privileges they would make their advances regularly, and take ground on the side of representation; when they had made good their station

there, they knew that success must attend their endeavours. Few grievances had been complained of by Mr. Grey, and those few operated against him. In the case of 1784, he differed in opinion with him. It had been a complaint against all former parliaments, that they had been too much addicted to the minister of the day. As soon, however, as they went against him, they were thrown to the people, and devoured by them with all the savage ferocity of hounds. At the present period, the effect of legitimate assemblies, emanating from the people, had been seen in France. The present national convention, though the legitimate representatives of the people, were overawed by two other bodies of men.

With respect to a perfect coincidence in opinion with the people, he contended that all good proceeded on a difference in opinion with the people, and that nothing could be so calamitous to the House as to become the agents of the people. The grievances ought first to be felt before a remedy ought to be applied; for should the people think such a reform as the present ineffectual, they would not stop. To give them any thing short of the entire completion of their wishes would be like throwing crumbs to hungry men, who have stomachs for greater things. Mr. Grey, therefore, might open the door, but would he be able to shut it? No. But even were he, for his own part, to be sure that the people would stop at a particular spot, still he would not agree to it. If there were even no mischievous consequences couched in the measure, he would object to it, as producing

producing no good.

Besides, he denied the extent of the grievance complained of

people had lost all share in our balanced constitution. Those were the facts they stated, and the simple question was, whether the

finds,

"Or rashness deems so."

But those offences were, he said, so mixed and interwoven with perfections, that the one could not be removed without destroying the other. The House could not pretend to correct blemishes in the constitution. It was like the style of ancient authors, of which the critics said, Qui corrigit delet tam vitia virtutibus mixta. What some people called its faults could not be corrected without destroying all its valuable parts.

:

Mr. Erskine, after a considerable length of preliminary observation, proceeded to consider the petition, which had been presented to the House. It asserted, he said, that the Commons of Great Britain were elected by a number of persons, which was even smaller than that of the subscribers to some of the petitions for a parliamentary reform. It stated also, that this inequality was rendered more unequal, by the disproportion of the bodies who elected it asserted that elections were procured by notorious corruption; that peers of parliament, moved to the other House from their influence in this, sent by their mandates others to represent them; and that small as the numbers were, compared with the whole people who elected the majority of the House of Commons, they themselves were but nominal electors; the majority of those who sat there being elected by the patronage of the crown and a few great men of the realm, by means of which the

face of the public, and to the people they represented, What of all this? Be it so; let these things continue: for that would be their language if they negatived the motion. To that it had been answered, that those theoretical defects, which the language of discontent had worked up into a libel upon the present government, belonged to its original constitution; that under it the counrry had improved from age to age, and arrived at its present prosperity and glory. He denied it. He said that there was not in practice, which both sides had agreed to resort to, the smallest analogy between the ancient and modern House of Commons. He said, that before the revolution, when the executive power of the country was in all its ancient vigour, ruling by terror and the instruments of authority, and whilst by the free spirit of the English people the Commons were only growing up in strength, and, by advancing upon the other branches of the government, were gradually bringing the constitution to what it now was, the defective representation of the people was a mere defect in theory, but of small account in practice: it was then of such immense importance to the people to struggle against the prerogative, that it was of little consequence who were the electors, if the people were but possessed of an organ where their authority could be deposited and act with force; the crown had not then the means of influence and corruption either amongst

amongst the eletors or the elected; and particular districts of the nation were not then bought, in order to sell again at discretion, not merely those who had been bought, but the rest of the nation, whose interests were left in the hands of the small number which constituted the elective body. Whoever looked at the English history would perceive, that in the infancy of that House, and before the confirmation of its high privileges, the Commons were uniformly bent on maintaining popular privileges, and formed a real and practical balance against the crown. There was no danger in those days that the representatives of the few would betray the interests of the many. The crown and the Commons were separated by fear and jealousy, and when the Commons got together, no matter how elected, they acted on that principle. But such a change has since taken place, that a small part of the nation was now in the habitual course of either selling the interests of the whole, or else their elective franchise was the absolute property of some indivi. dual, frequently the crown, who sold it for them, and the persons elected devoted themselves implicitly to the crown for the emoluments which were carved out of the people's substance to feed them; by which that House had become a council of the crown, and not an active balance against its power.

Mr. Erskine contended not only that the American war, and the consequent separation of the American colonies from Great Britain, but that the mighty agitations which now convulsed and desolated Europe, with all the disas trous events of the moment, were to

be traced to the corruptions of the English government, which were sought by the present motion to be done away.

But though no specific remedy was demanded, the principle of it, Mr. Erskine said, must present itself to every one, though different persons might differ in the detail. It must be to simplify and equalize the franchise of election; to make each body of electors too large for individual corruption, and the period of choice too short for temptation.

On the question of adjournment the House divided-Ayes 181Noes 109.

On Tuesday the 7th of May, the debate was resumed.

Mr. Stanley admitted that the executive power must have a control somewhere, and that House was certainly the place for it. But sooner than risk the dangers of innovations at improper seasons, he would consent for a time, especi ally under a mild government, to have his liberties suspended. Under an Aurelius, or Henry IV. he would prefer the abridgement of his freedom to those violences that are ever attendant upon revolutions. Although he was a steady friend to the reform of parliament, he desired it to be understood that he was so under some modifications. He entirely differed from those gentlemen who wished to extend the elective franchise to all. Amendments were necessary, and when the time should come best adapted for the purpose, he would heartily concur with the friends of liberty in promoting them.

Mr. Buxton considered the present time as wholly unfit for enter ing into such discussions as that

now

now before the House: while Mr. Duncombe, considering that abuses did actually exist, thought the present as proper a time for their correction as any other.

Sir William Young said, that the country had too much of a commercial turn; and that its commerce would soon become too powerful for its virtues. He said, that boroughs bought and controlled by men of property, formed the only balance to the commercial influence, which ought to be checked. The constitution of the House of Commons, as at present formed, was absolutely necessary to the support of the British constitution. Alter the former, and the latter must perish. He denied that true representation was founded either upon property or numbers abstractedly considered. Sir William Temple states, in his account of the constitution of the United Provinces, that there is more property in Amsterdam, and greater numbers in the province of Holland, than in all the others united; and yet no objections had ever been urged against the representation of the whole. He was therefore of opinion, that the petitions had no reasonable foundation.

Sir William Milner opposed the petition, because he conceived the opinion of the people to be decidedly against it.

Mr. Francis concluded a speech of considerable length against parliamentary corruption, by observing that it had encreased, was encreasing, and ought to be diminished.

The earl of Mornington declared, that his objections applied to the whole spirit and substance of

the measure which was the subject of debate. It appeared to be no less than to change the very genius and spirit of the British government. In a speech of great length and ability, his lordship exerted himself to prove, that the benefits actually enjoyed by the nation are invaluable; that no proof either has been, or can be established of their being unconnected with the present constitution of parliament; and that there is the strongest presumption of an intimate connection subsisting between them: that in comparison with these benefits, the grievances alledged are trivial and insignificant; and that they can in no degree be imputed to the al-, ledged defects in the representation? and above all, that the constitution likely to be given to us in exchange for what we now possess, so far from securing any one practical good, or alleviating any alledged or practical evil, would utterly subvert every foundation of our present happiness and prosperity; would aggravate every evil of which any man now can complain; and introduce many others of infinitely greater magnitude, and of far more mischievous conscquences.

For these reasons, his lordship concluded, that no alterations should be made in the existing frame of parliament.

Mr. Whitbread entered, with great animation into the abuses which he represented as prevailing in the elections for boroughs. He contended that the object of the motion was not to make any change in the constitution, but to produce a reform in the administration of it. He said, that metaphysical opinions have never, in any instance,

stance, produced a revolution. The engine with which Providence has thought fit to operate these mighty events has been of a different description; the feelings of the governed rendered desperate by the grinding oppression of their governors; and there is no saying more strictly true than this-that "Times make men, but men never make the times." What brought about that great event the reformation? Not the theories or speculations of philosophers, but the impolitic avarice and injustice of the church of Rome. What brought about the catastrophe of Charles the First? What the revolution in this country? The oppressions of the executive government. To the same cause America owes her freedom. Lastly, what brought about the revolution in France? The misery of the people; the pride, injustice, avarice, and cruelty of the court. The great characters who have acted in these different scenes, have had but little power to produce them. Luther, Cromwell, or Washington, the illustrious persons who appeared at the æra of the English revolution, or the wild visionaries of France, could never have persuaded the people to rise, unassisted by their own miseries and the usurpations of power. When the feelings of men are roused by injury, then they attempt innovation; then the doctrines of enthusiasts find ready access to their minds. The people are always long suffering; and unless they are most grossly abused, no apprehensions are to be entertained from any speculative opinion upon government.

No time, continued Mr. Whitbread, can be improper for doing

that which is right, and though the opportunity might not be passed, in which health and vigour might be restored to the constitution, he trembled at the consequences which a longer delay might produce. He, therefore, earnestly entreated the House to go into an investigation of the facts contained in the petition which has been presented to it, and to apply a remedy to the grievances of which it complains.

Mr. Pitt rose to explain the motives of his former conduct in proposing measures of reform, and to reconcile them to his present opposition: and after a succession of very strong observations on the present state of things, on the consequences of the French revolution, and the probable contingencies of it, he proceeded to consider the petitions before the House. With respect to them, two questions arose in his mind; first, what weight they ought to have with the House, and how far they ought to be allowed to go in influencing their judgment; and, secondly, whether this is a proper season for the consideration of that object which they claim, and favourable to a temperate reform? On the first point, when petitions came to the House, fabricated in appearance, and similar in substance and expression, it did not require much time to determine in what point of view they were to be considered. There was every reason to suspect that they were the work of a few individuals. They had certainly much more the appearance of the design of a few individuals, than of the general expression of the sentiments of the country. If it was asked, then, what weight they

ought