Lord Grenville protefted, that if the motion merely concerned the removal of minifters, he fhould not have risen to oppose it; but he believed the object was to promote not a change of men, but a revolution in the country.

The earl of Moira denied that the motion was of a perfonal nature; and vindicated the noble duke who made it on conftitutional grounds. He, for one, was not difpofed to afcribe to minifters that profperity which arofe from the energy of our merchants. Their genius and enterprising fpirit would ever carry the country to the height of glory, if adminiftration did not put bars in their way. The motion, indeed, was meant to inflict a penalty on miniftry for the ill fuccefs of the war. It had been opposed, left the conftitution fhould be overturned-but this was a fallacious and pernicious mode of argument, because then all our prefent evils and difafters would be attributed to government, not minifters; and the fubverfion of it might infidioufly be pointed out as the only remedy. Of Ireland he wished to fpeak with caution: when the catholics had fhown their loyalty at the time that the French

were off Bantry Bay, the Irish government, under the influence of the British cabinet, hesitated in refufing them a community of privileges. He hoped, however, that it was not too late to conciliate; but this could not be done by half measures: minifters must speak out fairly and explicitly, and not leave a loop-hole for fufpicion. He denied the affairs of Ireland being foreign to the British cabinet; and therefore, fhould a convulfion happen in that country, it would be but juftice to inflict punishment upon those on this fide of the water who had not laboured to avert confequences fo ruinous. He concluded with lamenting the flumber into which the houfe had fallen in this feafon of danger.

Earl Spencer objected to the motion on the fame ground with lord Grenville. It was connected with a change of measures which would prove ruinous to the country; and if our fituation was really dangerous, every one should support the conftitution.

The duke of Bedford was furprifed to hear the fecretary affert, that there were fundamental rights of the people which the parliament could not take away: what (faid his grace), not after repealing, in fact, the bill of rights, and ftriking at fome of the most valuable and indifputable privileges of the people?

The question being called for, the lord chancellor rofe. He faid, the drift of the motion was not only to criminate minifters, but to introduce a new fyftem of govern ment, under the pretence of a parliamentary reform; that it tended to disfranchife all corporations, to empower the houfe of commons to uncreate their creators, and deftroy the rights of the very men who

made

made them members of parliament. The term freeholder had hitherto been the pride of the best part of the nation; but by the plan propofed, this was to give way to the more favourite appellation of potboilers; it would cut up by the roots whatever entered into the nature of franchife-property or privilege, and introduce, inftead, the principle of an agrarian law. He asked the duke how he would like the application of this doctrine to his own eftates? He reminded him of all which had happened in France in the years 1789 and 1790. There, it was obfervable, that those who were foremost in the revolutionifing the country, fell amongst the first victims of the pernicious principles they had laboured to infufe. He entreated their lordships to pause, and confider the tendency of the motion, and then did not doubt their strenuous difapprobation of it.

The duke of Bedford, after an obfervation on the uncandid proceeding of speaking after his reply, denied the interpretation put upon the plan of reform; and pointed out the fallacy of comparing the elective franchife, a right pof. feffed by individuals for the good of the whole, to private property. Were votes to be confidered as private property because they were bought and fold? It was a right, which, fo far from being injured by being extended, would be improved, becaufe extenfion would give efficacy. But whatever objections there might be to the bill, they were no arguments against its introduction, fince it was meant to be printed, and left open for difcuffion till next year.

The houfe divided, contents 12; non contents 65.

1

May 26, Mr. Grey moved a 1797.

reform in the reprefentation of the people. He faid, he was fenfible he thus expofed himself to many uncharitable imputations; and if in refifting the deftructive fyftem of minifters, he with his friends had been accused of 2 with to gratify perfonal intereft and private ambition, of a wanton defire to thwart the executive government, hey could not in the prefent in-, ftance expect to efcape fimilar, or ftill more odious, imputations.

His fpeech was of confiderable length, and he ftated with much ftrength of argument and brillian, cy of language our former profperity, and our prefent diftrefies. He folemnly affirmed, that he fought not to alter any part of the conftitution; his fole object was, to obtain for the people a full, fair, and free reprefentation in the houfe of commons. He wished our establifhment fhould remain as it was, compofed of king, lords, and com-. mons. He propofed that the county reprefentation fhould continue nearly upon the fame footingthere were, however, a few alterations which he thought might take place: inftead of ninety-two county members which there were at prefent, there fhould be one hundred and thirteen; for inftance, inftead of two for the county of York, there fhould be two for each riding, and fo in other counties where the prefent reprefentation was not proportionate to the extent of the population.

In order to put an end to com. promifes, &c. each county or rid ing fhould be divided into grand divifions, each of which should return one reprefentative. The next propofition he had to make was in the qualifications of electors. Inftead of confining the right of election to freeholders, as it now

:

was, it fhould be extended to copyholders and leafeholders, who were bound to pay a certain annual rent, a certain number of years. But the reform which he had to propofe in the other branch of reprefentation, was of a much more extenfive nature. It was, that the remaining four hundred members fhould be returned by one defcription of perfons, which were houfeholders. If it were poffible, one perfon fhould not be permitted to vote for more than one member of parliament. In order to prevent expenfe, the poll ought to be taken through the whole kingdom at one time this was the outline of his plan-to ftate that it could be obtained at first with exactness, or was not liable to difficulties, would be prefumptuous and abfurd; but he flattered himself there would be found no infuperable or fundamental objections to it. The landowner would find his property fuitably reprefented, the merchant fupport in the houfeholders, and men of refpectability and talents in the different profeffions would find a fair door open for admiffion into parliament. The only perfons whom he wished to exclude from that houfe, were men who were neither poffeffed of landed property, nor engaged in commercial enterprife, nor profeffors of any partiticular fcience, and who without property, without induftry, and without talents, obtained feats in the houfe of commons by the influence of great men, for the purpofe, not of confulting the good of the people, but of promot ing their own interefts. The members would then hold their feats, not on the bafis of univerfal fuffrage, but of univerfal reprefenta tion. The qualification would be fo fxed, that no man, however

mean, might not hope by honeft induftry and fair exertions to raise himself to diftinction. And he begged to obferve, that a man arrived at the refpectable fituation of being a father, and confequently mafter of a family, having given hoftages as it were to fociety, as an affurance of his intereft in its welfare, was not unworthy of a fhare in the legitlation of his country. If the reform in the reprefentation was adopted, but not otherwife, the duration of parliament fhould be limited to three years. One objection had always been made to fimilar motions, viz. that it was an improper time to agitate the question; fo far from this appearing of any weight, to him, the time was one of the great inducements to bring it forward. In profperity we were told that there was no need of reform: and though Mr. Pitt at one time had contended for its neceffity, if we would hun the recurrence of the evils of the American war, he quite forgot his promife on coming into power. We were now in a ftate very far from profperity: calamity had fucceeded calamity, and every effort of the friends of their country had been ineffectual in ftemming the tide of its misfortune; for himself he fhould defpair of any endeavours which he could make after this night being fuccéfsful, and though he always would be prefent to vote for or against measures which might be prejudicial to his conftituents, he would not again trouble the houfe with his obfervations.

Mr. Erskine feconded the motion, and with all the powers of eloquence, with all the knowledge and perfpicuity which the fubject required, he pointed out the advantages it was calculated to produce,

and

and its confiftency with the principles of the constitution.

In entering into an examination whether the prefent conftitution of the house fulfilled its office in the government, it was neceffary, he faid, to reflect what the office and character of the house of commons really was in genuine theory, and original practice: its office was to balance the other branches of the government, to watch with jealoufy over the executive power, which for the ends of good and active fuperintendence ought to be ftrong and powerful, to protect the popular privileges against the encroachments of aristocratic influence: and unless the house of commons was fufficient to maintain this character, it was a branch of the conftitution cut off: the principle of government was loft, and the people had no more political exiftence than flaves who groaned under the fcourges of defpotic power. That the houfe once fulfilled this office, was certain; that our liberties were established by its conftant exercife was acknowledged: we could recollect with pride and triumph the glorious exertions of our fathers within those walls, when tyranny, century after century, was combated and defeated, and the freedom of England, and of the world, was established. It may be afked, wherefore was it, that when the houfe of commons in its prefent frame had fo balanced the crown, and fo reared up the British go. vernment from infancy to maturity, we were called upon to restore it to its original purity and vigour Why, in fuch a moment of danger and difgrace, was it requifite to alter what, had for ages paft accomplished the purposes of its inftitution? Because the circumfiances of our fituation were no longer the fame.

Whilft the English were engaged in a struggle for their liberties a-' gainft an arbitrary executive, acting by prerogative, and not by corruption, it was enough that there was a houfe of commons. Whoever fent the members, they had, when affembled, a comm on intereft with the whole body of the na tion. Common danger united them against the crown, and they had nothing wherewith to buy off individuals from the performance of their duty to the whole. When the crown could not buy this houfe it was driven to curb its privileges. This made the house as one man; and the reprefentatives of ten or of ten thousand had the fame fpirit and the fame interefts on all political objects. Mr. Erfkine faid, if illuftration was neceffary, we had only to look back to the ftruggles of the commons during the reigns of the Stuarts; there we might be hold it in its genuine office and character, reflecting the image of the conftituent body, partaking its feelings, and contending with firm nefs and wifdom against every encroachment of the crown. But human inftitutions were not made for immortality; they muft change with the infenfible changes in human affairs, or perih by violence. The revolution of 1688 was a glorious era in the conftitition of England: it established the true principle of all political conftitutions, in maintaining the immutable right of the people to correct its' government - but unfortunately, too little care was taken to guard' againft abufes fo corrected. The formidable prerogatives of the fovereign were, indeed, reduced within the bounds of a juft executive autho-' rity, and limited by the ftri&t letter of the laws. But the terror and jealoufy of the people were quieted

Pa

by