amongst the electors or the elected; and particular diftricts of the nation were not then bought, in order to fell again at difcretion, not merely thofe who had been bought, but the reft of the nation, whofe interefts were left in the hands of the fmall number which conftituted the elective body. Whoever looked at the English hiftory would perceive, that in the infancy of that Houfe, and before the confirmation of its high privileges, the Commons were uniformly bent on maintaining popular privileges, and formed a real and prastical balance against the crown. There was no danger in those days that the reprefentatives of the few would betray the interests of the many. The crown and the Commons were feparated by fear and jealoufy, and when the Commons got together, no matter how elected, they acted on that principle. But fuch a change has fince taken place, that a fmall part of the nation was now in the habitual courfe of either felling the interests of the whole, or elle their elective franchise was the abfolute property of fome individual, frequently the crown, who fold it for them, and the perfons elected devoted themselves implicitly to the crown for the emoluments which were carved out of the people's fubftance to feed them; by which that House had become a council of the crown, and not an active balance against its power.

Mr. Erikine contended not only that the American war, and the confequent feparation of the American colonies from Great-Britain, but that the mighty agitations which now convulfed and defolated Europe, with all the difftrous events of the moment, were to

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

But though no fpecific remedy was demanded, the principle of it, Mr. Erikine faid, muft prefent itfelf to every one, though different perfons might differ in the detail. It must be to fimplify and equalize the franchife of election; to make each body of electors too large for individual corruption, and the period of choice too fhort for temptation.

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

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

Mr. Stanley admitted that the executive power must have a control fomewhere, and that House was certainly the place for it. But fooner than rifk the dangers of innovations at improper feafons, he would confent for a time, especially under a mild government, to have his liberties fufpended. Under an Aurelius, or Henry IV. he would prefer the abridgement of his freedom to thofe violences that are ever attendant upon revolu tions. Although he was a steady friend to the reform of parliament, he defired it to be understood that he was fo under fome modifica tions. He entirely differed from thofe gentlemen who wished to extend the elective franchife to all. Amendments were neceffary, and when the time fhould come beft adapted for the purpose, he would heartily concur with the friends of liberty in promoting them.

Mr. Buxton confidered the prefent time as wholly unfit for enter ing into fuch difcullions as that

now

now before the Houfe: while Mr. Duncombe, confidering that abules did actually exift, thought the prefent as proper a time for their correction as any other.

Sir William Young faid, that the country had too much of a commercial turn; and that its commerce would foon become too powerful for its virtues. He faid, that boroughs bought and controled by men of property, formed the only balance to the commercial influence, which ought to be checked. The conftitution of the House of Commons, as at prefent formed, was abfolutely neceffary to the support of the British conftitution. Alter the former, and the latter must perish. He denied that true representation was founded either upon property or numbers abftractedly confidered. Sir William Temple ftates, in his account of the conftitution of the United Provinces, that there is more property in Amfterdam, and greater numbers in the province of Holland, than in all the others united; and yet no objections have ever been urged against the reprefentation of the whole. He was, therefore of opinion, that the petitions had no reasonable foundation.

Sir William Milner oppofed the petition, because he conceived the opinion of the people to be decid-, edly against it.

Mr. Francis concluded a fpeech of confiderable length against parliamentary corruption, by obferving that it had encreased, was encreafing, and ought to be diminithed.

The earl of Mornington declared, that his objections applied to the whole, fpirit and fubftance of

the meafure which was the fubject of debate. It appeared to be no lefs than to change the very genius and fpirit of the British government. In a fpeech of great length and ability, his lordship exerted himfelf 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 prefent conftitution of parliament; and that there is the firongeft prefumption of an intimate connection fubfifting between them: that in comparison with these benefits, the grievances alledged are trivial and infignificant; and that they can in no degree be imputed to the alledged defects in the reprefentation; and above all, that the conftitution likely to be given to us in, exchange for what we now poffefs, fo far from fecuring any one prac tical good, or alleviating any alledged or practical evil, would utterly fubvert every foundation of our prefent happiness and profperity; would aggravate every evil of which any man now can complain; and introduce many others. of infinitely greater magnitude, and of far more mifchievous confequences.

For thefe reafons, his lordfhip concluded, that no alterations fhould be made in the exifting frame of parliament.

Mr. Whitbread entered, with great animation, into the abuses which he reprefented 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 adminiftration of it. He faid, that metaphyfical opinions have never, in any in

ftance,

ftance, produced a revolution. The engine with which Providence has thought fit to operate thefe mighty events, has been of a different defcription; the feelings of the governed rendered desperate by the grinding opreffion of their governors; and there is no faying more ftrictly 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 fpeculations of philofophers, but the impolitic avarice and injuftice of the church of Rome. What brought about the catastrophe of Charles the Firft? What the revolution in this country?-The oppreffions of the executive government. To the fame caufe America owes her freedom. Laftly, what brought about the revolution in France? The mifery of the people; the pride, injuftice, avarice, and cruelty of the court. The great characters who have acted in thefe different scenes, have had but little power to produce them. Luther, Cromwell, or Washington, the illuftrious perfons who appeared at the era of the English revolution, or the wild vifionaries of France, could never have perfuaded the people to rife, unaflified by their own miferies and the ufurpations of power. When the feelings of men are roused by injury, then they attempt innovation; then the doctrines of enthufiafts find ready accefs to their minds. The people are always long fuffering; and unless they are most grofsly abufed, no apprehenfions are to be entertained from any fpe culative opinion upon government.

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

that which is right, and though the opportunity might not be paffed, in which health and vigour might be reftored to the conftitution, he trembled at the confequences which a longer delay might produce. He, therefore, earneitly entreated the House to go into an investigation of the facts contained in the petition which has been prefented to it, and to apply a remedy to the grievances of which it complains.

Mr. Pitt rofe to explain the motives of his former condu& in propofing measures of reform, and to reconcile them to his prefent oppofition and after a fucceffion of very ftrong obfervations on the prefent ftate of things, on the confequences of the French revolution, and the probable contingencies of it, he proceeded to confider the petitions before the House. With respect to them, two queftions arofe in his mind; firft, what weight they ought to have with the Houfe, and how far they ought to be allowed to go in influencing their judgment; and, fecondly, whether this is a proper seafon for the confideration of that object which they claim, and favourable to a temperate reform? On the firft point, when petitions came to the Houfe, fabricated, in appearance, and fimilar in fubftance and expreffion, it did not require much time to determine in what point of view they were to be confidered. There was every reason to suspect that they were the work of a few individuals. They had certainly much more the appearance of the defign of a few individuals, than of the general expreffion of the fentiments of the country. If it was afked, then, what weight they

ought

ought to have; the answer was eafy. None.-What weight ought to belong to petitions coming to that Houfe in thofe circumftances, carrying every appearance of concert and fyftem, combined in the fame prayer, and expreffed nearly in the fame language? The fraud was too grofs and palpable, and it was evident from what quarter they came, and with what views they were prefented. All the circumftances in France and this country pointed out the present as a seafon unfavourable even to a temperate reform. The gentlemen who fupported the motion had been engaged in a fociety for a twelvemonth for the purpose, as they themselves stated, of allaying the violence of those who might be mifled by a blind rage of innovation, and enlightening the people with respect to the nature of their true claims. Such had been the objects which they had held out at their commencement; they had propofed to make a fair experiment, to allow the people of England a full opportunity of procuring a rational and moderate reform; and if they fhould find that they could not fucceed, and that the people fhould be difinclined to any plan of reform, and not difpofed to profecute the measures which they fhould recommend, they were then to abandon their purpose. They had now gone on for upwards of a twelvemonth, publifhing to enlighten the people, and ufing every means to promote their own influence, and during all that time they had not been able to make a convert of one man in England. They had been obliged at laft to come forward with a petition of their own, introduced to the Houfe

VOL. XXXV.

on the very day that the debate was to take place. The other petitions which united in the fame object of demanding parliamentary reform carried a fufpicious and dangerous appearance. Ought they not then, confiftently with thofe principles which they had avowed in the outfet, to have come forward upon this occafion, to have acknowledged their miftake and their conviction, that the people of England were not defirous of a reform; to have given up their ob ject in which they found they could not fucceed, and to have joined with us in oppofing a reform which is not even defired, and which could not be granted with any propriety in the prefent moment, or even with the chance of advantage to thofe for whom it is demanded? But what are the grounds upon which they now bring forward this queftion of reform? First, they state, that, from the general burst of loyalty expreffed by the nation. upon the firft alarm, there is no reafon to fear that the people will pafs beyond the bounds of difcretion, and that no feafon can be more favourable for a temperate reform than that in which they have fo ftrongly teftified their attachment to the established order of things, and their reluctance to any change. Of this temper they recommend to us to take the advantage. But how ftands the cafe? The fact, I grant, is indeed true. But it is alfo true, that focieties in this country have been anxiously feeking not to obtain reform, but to find cause of diffatisfaction; not to allay the violence of innovation, but to inflame difcontent. Is it then out of deference to that small party, actuated by such principles, M

and