a commission should be created in both countries, for the purpose of receiving and considering the rescripts from the see of Rome. Instead of these two commissions for England and Ireland respectively, he would propose that there should be but one commission only to transact the business for both countries, in this the seat of the government; and that the lay members of this commission should not be appointed at the fortuitous selection of the ministers; but that they should consist permanently of certain great officers of the crown, to be particularly named in the bill, and of no others. Lord Mansfield spoke against the bill, and was followed by the bishops of London and Chester. The duke of Sussex, lord Harrowby, and the bishop of Norwich spoke for it. On the second evening of the debate, the duke of York in a short speech made a declaration of sentiments, which coming from the heir of the crown, could not fail to damp the hopes of the Catholics. He rose, he said, with the utmost reluctance to oppose the second reading of the bill; but there were occasions on which it be came an individual not to step aside, but to come forward and boldly avow the sentiments which he entertained. The present he considered to be one of those occasions; for, were not their lordships called upon to sanction a measure, which it was admitted, even by its advocates, would effect a great change in the constitution as established at the Revolution of 1688, and in the system which had seated his majesty's family on the throne? When measures similar to the present had been proposed by a statesman, who had rendered the most eminent services to his country, his royal highness said, he had strenuously opposed them, on a thorough conviction of their dangerous tendency. The more he had since heard the subject discussed, the more he had been confirmed in the opinion which he had then expressed. He had always understood, that the Church of England was an integral part of the constitution. Long might it remain so! But let not their lordships imagine, that he was an enemy to toleration. He should always be happy, that every sect should have the full exercise of its religion, as long as it did not affect the security of the established church, and as long as its members remained loyal subjects. But, there was a great difference between allowing the free exercise of religion, and granting political power. As he felt himself inadequate to the task of entering into the details of the question, and wished not to detain those noble lords who were better qualified to take an expansive view of the subject, he should only repeat, that his opposition to the bill arose from principles which he had embraced ever since he had been able to judge for himself, and which he hoped he should cherish to the last day of his life. The Lord Chancellor, in opposing the bill, impressed upon the House that, if it passed, the person holding the office which he then had the honour to fill, would be the only layman in the kingdom, who must, of necessity, be a Protestant. He could not consent to so sweeping an alteration in the constitution. This bill would necessarily carry in its train a repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, and what security would then remain to the church? Mr. Pitt had never been able to devise any securities satisfactory to himself; and those suggested by lord Grenville had not proved satisfactory to the Catholics. He then analyzed the contents of the bill, which he contended was a mass of anomalies and inconsistencies. - Lord Grenville strongly contended for allowing a bill, which had received the deliberate sanction of the other House, and the object of which was, to give full effect to the Union with Ireland, by admitting the great mass of its people within the pale of the constitution, to pass on to that stage, in which its details could undergo a full discussion. Lord Liverpool said, there were not three lines in the bill to which he could agree. His opinion was, that the parliament and the privy council should be kept as they were. It was a more manly course in him to declare this at once, than to encourage hopes and expectations which might never be realized. The rights to civil and religious liberty ought to be enjoyed by every man in the state. But the possession of political privileges and political power stood on a different ground. It was for the state to say, who should be admitted to the enjoyment of those privileges, and that power; it was for the state to judge, what was best for its own security. He believed this measure, as it regarded the great mass of the population of Ireland, would have no effect whatever. If any be. nefit could be conferred on the Irish Catholics, their lordships ought to bestow it on them, if it was not attended with danger to the state; but they also owed a duty to the Protestants of Ireland, whose liberties, lives and properties, they were bound to protect. The Marquis of Lansdown contended, that the bill tended not to weaken, but to strengthen and secure the basis of the constitution in church and state.In the sequel of the debate, the motion for the second reading was supported by lords Melville, Ashburton, and Somers, and opposed by lord Sidmouth. On a division, the motion was negatived by 159 to 120, proxies included. The question of parliamentary reform had been suffered to slumber in the preceding session: it was now brought forward with increased ardour and pertinacity. Several petitions had been presented in its favour, and public meetings had taken place, in which language of extreme violence had been used. A reform dinner was given on the 4th of May, in the London tavern, which was numerously attended by gentlemen of consideration and property. Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Coke, lord Nugent, Mr. Curwen, Mr. Bennett, agreed with each other in the vehemence of their protestations; but perhaps Dr. Lushington out-did them all:-Parliamentary reform, be said, was the allimportant question. If it failed, every popular measure failed; if it succeeded, all the prosperous events, which the country expected, would be realized, and, what was above all other advantages most valuable, freedom of writing and acting would result from it. So long as his pen or his tongue could expose him to transportation, he must consider himself a slave; and his attachment to Britain must be mangled, contaminated, and debased. There were now but two alternatives: the last remaining spark of liberty must be quenched, or the voice of the people must be heard like thunder at a distance, and force reform in the House of Commons. It was all mockery and delusion to think that they would reform themselves otherwise. These remarks were followed by others, in which the learned gentleman assailed that, which of all things ought to be touched upon with the most shrinking delicacy-the administration of justice, and the conduct of the judges. This subject was brought forward in the Commons on the same night, on which the Catholic bill was rejected by the Lords: and, though the attendance was extremely thin, the debate occupied the House during two even ings. Mr. Lambton proposed a detailed and elaborate plan of reform, the principal features of which were the limitation of the duration of parliament to three years-the extension of the elective franchise to all persons possessing property, however small in value, which contributed to taxation and the abolition of rotten boroughs. The discussion, though long, was languid. Some members, who declared aversion to the particular measure recommended by Mr. Lambton, were nevertheless willing to support the motion for going into a committee. The debate terminated abruptly on the second evening at a very early hour, in their the absence of Mr. Lambton, the mover, and of several of his friends, who did not expect it to come so soon to a conclusion, Upon a division there were only 43 Ayes, and 55 Noes. Mr. Lambton entered immediately after the division, which he was not a little surprised to find had taken place. As he passed along to his seat, some of the ministerial members indulged in something like a laugh; and he, irritated by his recent disappointment, called upon them to avow that the laugh was meant for him, and appealed to Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Dawson to say, whether they had not directed their attention particularly to wards him with a smile. These two gentlemen, who had themselves been absent from the division, assured him, that he was mistaken; and the interference of the Speaker put an end to the expression of his querulous peevishness. Notwithstanding the weakness of the minority on this occasion, the subject was again brought forward on the 9th of May, by lord John Russell, in a more general shape, which, without adopting any specific plan, merely asserted the necessity of Reform, and pledged the House to the consideration of the measures by which it might be best effected. This he did by moving the four following resolutions : 1. "That grievous complaints are made in the kingdom, and manifestly appear to be true, of undue elections of members to serve as burgesses in parliament, by gross bribery and corruption, contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom due to the election of representatives for the Commons of England in parliament, to the great scandal of the kingdom, dishonourable, and may be destructive, to the constitution of parliaments. 2. "That, in order to strengthen and maintain the necessary connexion between the Commons of this kingdom and their representatives in parliament, it is expedient to give to such places as are greatly increased in wealth and population, and are not at present adequately represented, the right of returning members to serve in parliament. 3. "That a select committee be appointed to consider to what places, according to the principle of the foregoing resolution, it may be advisable to extend the right of returning members to serve in parliament, and of the best method of effecting that measure, without an inconvenient addition to the members of this House. com tended, that the committees prescribed by the Grenville act, were not adequate to this latter purpose. They could not extend their inquiries to any transaction, however unprincipled, unless it could be shown to have directly affected the return. It was likewise usual for these committees to allow the parties to promise their differences; and in that case, not a whisper was heard of any improper or corrupt proceeding. An instance of this was afforded in the case of Grampound. The Grenville committee, appointed to try the election, reported the next day, that the sitting members were duly elected, and that the petition was not frivolous or vexatious. It might have been supposed, that Grampound was purity itself; but when, in consequence of some convictions against sir Manasseh Lopez and the voters whom he had bribed and did not secure, the House went into an inquiry on the subject, it appeared, that the sitting members had given from 2 to 150 guineas to each voter. So much for an investigation by an election committee! Sir Manasseh Lopez, who had given 351. each to the voters was convicted in a court of law; but the sitting members, who, as it appears by the evidence given before the House, The speech, with which the had paid 7,000l. to suppress noble mover prefaced these re- the petition, in addition to all solutions, was calm and tempe- their former bribery, escaped rate. It insisted chiefly on two scot free, and represented the topics-the propriety of giving borough during the whole of the representatives to large towns, last parliament. Sir Manasseh and the necessity of applying Lopez lost his election, and was strong measures for the investi- sent to prison for two years; and gation and punishment of cor- persons much more guilty reruption in electors. He con- mained in the House to vote a 4. That it be referred to the same committee, to consider further of a mode of proceeding with respect to any boroughs which may hereafter be charged with notorious bribery and corruption, in order that such charges may be regularly and effectually inquired into, and, if proved, that such boroughs may be disabled from sending burgesses to serve in parliament for the future." prayer to the Crown, that that unfortunate man should be brought up for judgment. Mr. Whitmore seconded the resolutions. Mr. Bathurst opposed them. The discussion was brief and tame, none of the leading men of either party taking any share in it, and few of them even being present. The first, resolution was lost by a majority of 155 to 124: the other resolutions were negatived without a division. Mr. H. G. Bennett, after the failure of the attempts of Mr. Lambton and lord John Russell, thought that, even in the present state of the elective franchise, much good might be done by diminishing the influence of ministers in the House; and with this view he moved on the 31st of May, for leave to bring in a bill for the better securing the independence of parliament. The principle of his plan was, to leave the great officers of the government in the possession of their seats, but to exclude clerks and underlings: he was willing, for instance, to admit from the Treasury the Chancellor, with one lord for England, and one for Ireland; but he would absolutely bar the door against the other three lords. Upon the whole, of 51 persons in the House, holding places at the pleasure of the Crown, he proposed to exclude 29. Mr. Robinson replied to him and the motion was negatived, by 76 Noes to 52 Ayes, While all general theories of reform were rejected, the House showed itself not unwilling to alter the representation in particular cases, by transferring the franchise from boroughs con victed of corruption to large towns or populous districts. In our former volume, we had occasion to mention lord John Russell's proposition for the dis, franchisement of Grampound, and to state the different views entertained by different parties on that subject. On the propriety of the disfranchisement nearly all were agreed; and if nothing final had been yet done in the matter, it was only from the want of time, and the pressure of other business. On the 1st of February, in the present year, a bill for taking away the right of election from Grampound and giving it to Leeds, was introduced by lord John Russell, and read a first time. On the 12th of February, upon the committal of the bill, Mr. Davies Gilbert moved, that it should be an instruction to the committee, that they should have power to extend the right of voting to the freeholders, residing in certain hundreds adjacent to Grampound. This amendment was negatived without a division. Mr. Beaumont, member for Northumberland, then moved, that the committee should be instructed to give four members to the county of York, of whom two were to serve for the West Riding, and two for the North and East Ridings. Mr. Stuart Wortley opposed this amend ment, on the ground, that in giving additional members to the county of York, nothing was done for the improvement of the representation. Every freeholder of the county had already his members to protect his interests: but in Leeds there was an immense body of persons in the habit of thinking much upon political subjects, who had no organ |