a wiser course. The petition is signed by a few; but by no man, who has not read it, who does not understand the contents, and is not convinced of the truth of it. The quality of the petitioners too, I presume, will be thought to entitle them to attention. It is not that I regard these factitious distinctions myself; but they, who do, may be assured that the majority of the petitioners I know, and all of them, I believe, are gentlemen who, in point of rank and fortune, are on a level with the generality of this House, and that, if I had not been precluded by my situation in parliament, I should have been proud of signing it myself, and even have claimed it as the post of honour to have taken my station among the foremost in the list. I have no earthly personal interest in the success of the measure. On the contrary, the agitation of this question has been to me the source of infinite personal uneasiness; of coldness, distance, and separation in private life, where once the warmest friendship and affection have subsisted; but my heart and mind go with the measure, and while there is hope, I never shall abandon it. meditations of his closet. On one subject alone he has studiously maintained a most delicate reserve. The unfortunate motion on your table, as far as I am able to recollect, has never been blest with a single moment of his attention. On the actual subject of the debate, you may find him every where but at home. One would have thought, Sir, that the power of invention could have added nothing to the curiosity of this proceeding. Other men, perhaps, with industry and resolution, might have stated the premises, and applied them to the question as accurately as he has done. But it was reserved for the genius of my hon. friend to discover a connexion between those premises, and the conclusion he has drawn from them. After giving the House a specimen of his skill in every department of abstract science, of the depth of his theories, and the extent of his speculations, without bestowing a single glance on the simple question, whether we shall or shall not appoint a committee to consider the petition, my hon. friend turns short upon us, and says, look you, gentlemen, I am a plain practical man. I take things as they are. My opinions are founded on. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Jenkinson), experience. It is you, philosophers, you theorists, you metaphysicians, who have done all the mischief, and would do much more, if you were not counteracted by simple, solid, experimental understandings, such as mine! I believe, sir, I may venture to say, that a more noble instance, than this, of bold and vigorous incongruity, a more intrepid disparate, as I think the Spaniards call it, is not to be found in modern or ancient eloquence. In the course of this debate some re-rected, and that, let the evil be what it marks have been made on the petition on your table, and some invidious inquiries about the persons, who have signed it. Allow me to answer them by stating the fact. Undoubtedly, Sir, if they, who have prepared this petition, had thought that the authority of numbers would be useful to strengthen the remonstrances it contains, or to enforce the prayer of it, they might easily have contrived to get it signed by many thousands. But, if they had done so, what would have been the consequence? We should immediately have been told, and I think with reason, "You have brought us a long, laboured, intricate representation, signed by multitudes, who could not possibly have read it, or known what they were signing." Foreseeing this reflection, we have taken I think, observed last night, that, in fact, there was no occasion for so general a remedy as that which the petition aimed at. He did not deny that corruption existed in the election of the House of Commons; but in part, he defended the practice as a thing tolerable in itself, and for the rest, he assured us, that the worst part of the abuses in question were gradually decreasing; that, as the instances occurred, they would be successively cor would, this was the best way of removing it. That hon. gentleman will pardon me, if, with longer experience and observation of the subject, I differ from him about the fact. I affirm, with certain knowledge, that corruption has been for many years, and is in a state of progression; that is, from the revolution to this hour. How it stands now, I need not attempt to explain; for I am in the company of those, who understand the subject as well as I do. But I beg leave to state to the hon. gentleman what the situation of parliamentary bribery and corruption was in this country about twenty years ago. The instance is curious and the authority unquestionable. I take it from a letter written by the late earl of Chesterfield to his son, never intended to be made public, § and unconnected with party views of any kind, even those of the time he lived in: "Since that I have heard no more of it, which made me look out for some venal borough; and I spoke to a borough jobber, and offered five-and-twenty hundred pounds for a secure seat in parliament; but he laughed at my offer, and said that there was no such thing as a borough to be had now; for the rich East and West Indians had secured them all, at the rate of three thousand pounds at least; but many at four thousand; and two or three that he knew, at five thousand." Perhaps it will be said, the times are mended. Sir, for myself I can only protest, that I have some reason to think otherwise. So far from any fall having taken place in the price of boroughs, I believe it never was higher than it has been lately, and that the most unfair advantages have been taken, by dealers and chapmen, of customers in particular situations. I have heard of a worthy gentleman who, after having made his bargain for five thousand pounds, without being known to the other party, was charged six thousand as soon as his name was discovered, and merely because the proprietor of the commodity would not take less from an honest gentleman, who had existed in the East Indies. You will allow, Sir, that the worthy person I allude to was hardly treated in that affair.-I give you this instance, out of many, as a proof of the actual state of the abuse. You see, by lord Chesterfield's letter, how the case stood twenty years ago. Do you seriously believe that the purity of borough mongers, and the morals of the electors of Great Britain, are mended since that time? that the commodity is not so scarce, or the demand for it not so considerable as it has been heretofore? On that point, I can give you nothing but my own opinion and conviction, and I shall give it to you now in the solemn adopted language of parliament, that corruption "has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." The Earl of Mornington said, that his objections applied to the whole spirit and substance of the measure which was the subject of this debate; but that he did not mean to complain of the particular form in which it had been introduced into the House. Every proposition containing a specific plan for altering the frame of parliament, must involve many intricate questions of detail, and must lead to the [VOL. XXX. ] ! consideration of a variety of complicated and minute provisions.The discussion of such a detail had been sometimes supposed to offer the most advantageous ground of opposition, which could be desired by those who were determined to resist the introduction of all new projects of representation, and to maintain the constitution of parliament on its old foundations. For his part, he desired no such advantage in this argument. He rejoiced, that on this occasion no specific plan had been proposed, which, either by the number and variety of its defects, or by the plausible appearance of some subordinate parts, might divert the attention of the House from that great, leading, and preliminary question, on which he was anxious, in the first instance, to fix the minds of those who heard him, "Is it necessary for the public good to make any alteration in the existing frame of parliament ?" The hon. gentleman who presented the petition had held an open and a bold language, and his candour in that respect deserved acknowledgment: he had plainly avowed, that if the committee should be granted, and if adequate remedies should be applied to the grievances alleged in the petition, the event must be "a change in the government of the country." By a change in the government, the hon. gentleman could not intend merely a change in the administration: he was, undoubtedly, incapable of proposing to the nation, to alter the whole order of the representation in parliament for a purpose so unworthy as that of transferring power from the hands of any party to those of another; he could not intend to pursue, by such means, an end comparatively so trivial. His purpose, therefore, is something of a more serious and durable nature; it is to change, not the administration only, but the very genius and spirit of the British government; to separate those elementary principles of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of democracy, which are now mixed and blended in the frame of this House, and by combining them again, according to some new and different rule of proportion, to create a system, of which we at present know nothing more, than that it is to be new in its texture, and wholly dif ferent in its effect from the existing order of our happy constitution. A project so stated, and of such extent, has not been agitated in parliament during the present century; and it is a duty which we all owe [31] to the present and to succeeding times, to pause, and to deliberate with the utmost caution, before we consent even to take the first step towards a measure of such powerful effect, and of such lasting consequences. Before we part with those foundations on which the government has been so long settled, it becomes us to recollect what that is which we are about to destroy, and to ascertain, as far as human foresight can enable us, what is likely to be substituted in its place. Lord Mornington said, he would state, as distinctly as he could, the several questions which occurred to his mind as necessary to be carefully examined in the earliest stage of this deliberation. In the first place, we ought to examine what is the nature, extent, and value of the practical benefits which the people actually enjoy under the present frame of parliament? and whether they are so evidently unconnected with the present frame of parliament, that an alteration of it could not possibly endanger their continuance? In the next place, what is the nature and extent of the practical grievances now alleged?-whether they can reasonably be imputed to any defect in the frame of parliament and if they can, whether they are of such weight and importance, as to overbalance the benefits actually enjoyed by the people? And lastly, is there a reasonable prospect that such a government is likely to be substituted in the place of the present, as shall better secure the benefits actually enjoyed by the people, or afford a more certain and effectual protection against the grievances of which the petitions complain? In considering the first question, no argument is necessary to persuade the House of the real existence of those eminent and substantial advantages which, for more than a century, have been universally felt, acknowledged, and understood, in this happy and flourishing nation. To enumerate them will be sufficient: and no man can hear them named without feeling a due sense of their value. We know, that in many other countries a large share of political power has been directly exercised by the people. The form of all such governments is, in the common acceptation of the word, free; but the practical result has often been the most odious and intolerable tyranny; and never, under any distribution of political power, of which the memory has reached us, or of which we now see the operation, have the true ends of society been so effectually accomplished, or so long preserved, as under that government, which it is the professed design of this motion to change. Under that government, the life of every individual is secured by the mild and equal spirit of the law; by the pure administration of justice, by the admirable institution of juries; and by the gracious and equitable exercise of that prerogative, which is the brightest ornament of the British crown, the power of mitigating the rigour of criminal judgments, and of causing law and justice to be executed in mercy. Under that government, the liberty of the subject is established on the same foundations, and protected by the same safeguards, which maintain the whole system of order in the state; it is a temperate and rational liberty, inseparably connected with all the most sacred duties of society. and while it adds new force to every civil, every moral, and every religious obligation, it derives from them its most powerful activity, and its most substantial strength. Resting on such foundations, and united with all the virtues, and with all the genuine interests, both of the mo narch and of the people, it has long remained inviolate, and it seems to contain every principle of stability, which can enter into the frame of any human institution; for it can neither be abused by the subject, nor invaded by the Crown, without equal hazard to the safety of both; without endangering some fundamental principle of private tranquillity and domestic comfort on the one hand, or without disturbing the harmony and impairing the vigour of the monarchy on the other. Lord Mornington next spoke of the right of property, a right which, he said, was rendered sacred by the whole tenor of our laws, and was the basis of the constitution of parliament. These are the principal advantages which every subject of the realm now enjoys the safety of his life, of his liberty, and of his property; and surely these advantages will not be more lightly esteemed by a wise people, because they are become habitual by long and uninterrupted possession. They are, in fact, the true sources of the security, of the repose, and of the affluence of private life; and therefore they may justly be deemed the efficient and immediate causes of all real happiness in society. These advantages are confirmed by a peculiar excellence in the practical effect of the present structure of Parliament. Whatever might be contended to be the defective state of the representation in theory, it is an undeniable fact, proved by daily, and almost by hourly experience, that there is no interest in the kingdom, however inconsiderable, which does not find some advocate in the House of Commons to recommend it to the attention of the legislature. From the same sources are necessarily derived the wealth, the power, and the splendor of the empire: it is the sense of safety, it is the confidence reposed in the protection of the government, which have encouraged the subject to adventure the fruits of his industry and skill in those enterprises of agriculture, of commerce, and of manufactures, which, in the various stages of their progress, contribute equally to the profit of individuals, and to the prosperity of the state. From the united effects of all these circumstances, the collective interests of the empire have been in a progressive state of improvement ever since the period of the Revolution. Even during most of our wars, the advancement of trade, and general opulence, has not been interrupted, particularly during the war of 1756; in the course of which, the commerce of the nation was scarcely less prosperous than her arms. One unfortunate exception to this statement must be admitted the American war. That war, (which was, in its origin, the war of the people) with every other calamity, undoubtedly produced a general stagnation in the sources of national prosperity. In 1772, the value of the imports was 14,500,000l. and that of the exports 17,700,000. They had sunk in 1782, to 12,700,000l. imports, and to 11,400,000l. exports, But whatever argument may be drawn from this period of disgrace and disaster, the rapid recovery of the country from the consequences of those misfortunes must not pass without remark. From 1782 to 1791, the imports rose to 19,600,000l. and the exports to 22,700,000l. In 1792 they were 19,600,000l. imports, and 24,800,000l. exports. Decrease from 1772 to 1782, imports 1,800,000l., exports 6,300,000l. period of American war. Increase, 1782 to 1792, imports 6,900,000l., exports 13,400,000l. period since the peace. Increase of 1792 above 1772,imports 5,100,000., exports 7,100,000l. Thus, with all the imperfections and irregularities of this reprobated frame of parliament, the nation has risen from the lowest state of humiliation and adversity, "More glorious and more dread than from no fall, "And trusts herself to fear no second fate." What had been the means by which the nation had not only surmounted all her difficulties in so short a time, but had been enabled to appear again among the states. of Europe with increased strength, and with augmented splendor? During that period, no change of the system of representation had taken place. Whatever was affected by the reduction of the influence of the Crown, proceeded from the House of Commons under its present constitution. There was nothing to aid the country in that memorable struggle, but the intrinsic vigour of the constitution itself, neither improved, nor impaired by any alteration; it was the wisdom of parliament, supported by the uniform confidence and co-operation of the people, which had been found equal to the arduous task of retrieving the affairs of the empire, in a crisis of such difficulty and distress, as perhaps had never before been overcome by any empire, of which the memory remained among mankind. This example, therefore, of the American war, considered in all its parts, exhibits another important practical excellence in the existing frame of the government. For it shows, that if the constitution has not the power (and what human work can have the power?) to exempt us from every vicissitude of fortune, yet it contains an active principle, which, after the most severe calamities, enables the nation to recover her strength by a natural effort, and to repair all her losses from her own internal resources. Lord Mornington then said, he did not think he was called upon to prove, that all these advantages would necessarily be destroyed by any alteration in the present construction of the House of Commons. The weight of proof in this argument must be imposed on those who propose a change in the government. It is incumbent on them to show, that these inestimable blessings are not interwoven with that system, which they mean to disturb. It cannot be denied that these blessings have been coeval with the present frame of government. We know that they can exist together; we do not know that they can exist separately. Their co-existence for so long a period will be a strong presumption of their being intimately connected, until some stronger proof can be adduced to the contrary. It is not, perhaps, within the reach of human wisdom to trace each of these happy effects (which every man feels) distinctly to its immediate cause, in any one of the mixed principles of our government, or in the specific proportion which those principles bear to each other, as they are now combined; but it is at least as arduous an undertaking to prove, (without a previous experiment) that any different temperature of the same principles would produce the same effects; happier effects cannot reasonably be expected, or desired, and it would be a most criminal rashness, to commit the happiness of a whole nation to the hazard of a perilous experiment, which, at best, does not even promise any practical improvement in the civil condition of the people. Even in a constituent assembly, deliberating with no other view than that of selecting the best possible system of government, without prejudice in favour of any doctrine, and without attachment to any institution, under every imaginable circumstance of advantage to the hon. gentleman's cause, what would be the determination of this argument? Let us suppose, that in a constituent assembly, the hon. gentleman were not merely to avow a design of changing the existing government of his country, but were to propose in its place a new theory, more perfect than any which the human understanding ever before conceived, and to all appearance exempt from any of the irregularities of the British constitution; his eloquence, and his ingenuity would certainly be applauded. But if, on the other side, some person were to rise, and to oppose to that beautiful theory, a constitution, which, however irregular and anomalous in some of its parts, had realized to the people, for more than a century, every substantial benefit, which the hon. gentleman could hope to attain by the complete practical success of all his most sanguine speculations; would not even a constituent assembly (in which wisdom and prudence had any influence) adopt that constitution, which had been proved to be competent to all the ends of good government, in preference to a theory, framed with a view to the same ends, but of which the practical operation was untried, and must therefore be uncertain? Having stated these considerations on that question, which he had proposed at the opening of his speech, as the first to be examined, lord Mornington next adverted to the nature of the practical grievances alleged in the petitions and proeeeded to inquire whether they were to be imputed to the defective state of the fabric of parliament. The principal grievances enumerated were.-The whole system of the wars in which the nation had been engaged; the debt in which it has been involved by those wars; and the taxes with which the people are burthened in consequence of the debt; and it is asserted, that these evils could never have existed, if the representation of the people in parliament had been differently modelled. That war is at all times a great evil, and that our wars have been the original causes both of the national debt, and of the taxes, is a truth which cannot admit of dispute. But it is also true, that under certain circumstances, war may be justly demanded by the unanimous voice of the wisest nation, and may become of necessity even the systematic policy of the most prudent, moderate, and incorrupt councils. In order to substantiate the comprehensive charge exhibited by the petitioners against every parliament which has sat since the revolution, it must be proved, that our wars since that time have generally been undertaken in contradiction both to the declared sense, and to the manifest interests of the people. But no man who is not entirely ignorant of our history, will hazard a proposition so false in all its parts. The peculiar situation and circumstances of this island engaged the nation for a long time in suc cessive contests for the preservation of her constitution, of her trade, and of her foreign dominions. The wars which immediately followed the revolution, were absolutely necessary for the security of that auspicious settlement. The recent establishment required protection, not only against the abdicated king, and those who supported his cause at home, or who had followed his fortunes abroad, but also against the pride and jealousy of Louis 14th. He could not suffer a limited monarchy, founded on the liberties of the people, to grow up, and flourish in peace so near his throne. He naturally foresaw that such a constitution must become a continual reproach to the tyranny of his government, and an insuperable obstacle to the progress of his ambition.-It was therefore his policy to attempt the destruction of so formidable a neighbour, by every means both of open force and secret machination; and under such circumstances, every motive of self-preservation, of justice, and of honour, required, not only that the English nation should oppose a |