scarce manuscripts and treasures of ancient lore, but published in a hundred popular books, in sketches of biography and lessons for youth, the famous Letter of that most famous woman Anne Countess of Pembroke; who, amongst her other great titles and possessions, was undoubted patroness of the then, I presume, free and independent borough of Appleby. This great lady writes thus to Sir Joseph Williamson, Secretary of State to Charles II, in answer to his suggestion of a Member for the Borough of Appleby. "I have been bullied by an Usurper; I have been ill treated by a Court; but I won't be dictated to by a Subject; your Man sha'n't stand.-Anne Countess of Dorset, Pembroke, and Montgomery."

Now, Sir, I should be curious to know which generation of our ancestors it is that the exercise of political influence in the elections of the present day, so lamentably disquiets in their graves.-Is it the cotemporaries of the Duchess of Norfolk, and of the worthy Electors of Maldon, who were to be careful to choose Members so properly," towards" my Lady ?-or those who tasted the sweets of uninfluenced election under Queen Elizabeth ?-or those who contemplated with equal admiration the Countess of Pembroke's defence of her Castles against the forces of the Usurper, and of her good borough of Appleby against Secretary Williamson's nominee? Pity it is that the Noble Lord, the convert to Reform, did not live in the days of one or other of these heroines!-Their example could hardly have failed to reconvert him to his original, native sentiments upon the subject of influence in elections and the fit constitution of a House of Commons.

But I have not yet done with my list of patronesses: nor has interference in elections, and female interference too, been coupled with no great name in the unquestioned good times of the Constitution. The Noble Lord who made this Motion will pardon me for referring him to the published letters of his great Ancestress the Lady Russell; in which he will find the Lord Steward (the Duke of Shrewsbury,) and Lord Keeper Somers,-tendering to her, for her son Lord Tavistock, then a minor, the Representation of the County of Middlesex, upon the single condition that Lord Tavistock would consent but to show himself to the Electors for one day under the name of Lord Russell. The offer was not accepted on account, so far as appears, of Lord Tavisstock's minority; though instances are adduced by the makers of

'Lord Folkstone.

3. "At the General Election which took place in October 1695, it was proposed to her in the most flattering manner, by order of the Duke of Shrewsbury, then Lord Steward, and the Lord Keeper Somers, to bring her son into Parliament as Member for the County of Middlesex.' Life of Lady Russell, Third Edit. 8vo. p. 120.

the proposition to convince her Ladyship that that need not be an objection. But what would be said now-a-days, and what would be the agitation of our buried ancestors, if a Lord Chancellor and a Lord Steward were to concur in offering a seat in Parliament for a County to some young nobleman yet under age ?

Now here let me guard myself against misrepresentation. It must not be imputed to me that I am saying that all this was right: I am only saying that all this was so. I have been dealing (be it observed) with the second of my two questions :—not with the question, whether the House of Commons should be reconstructed ?—but with the question whether it should be recalled to some state in which it formerly stood? I have been endeavoring to dispel the idle superstition that there once existed in this country a House of Commons, in the construction of which the faults that are attributed to the present House of Commons, and attributed to it as a motive for inflicting upon itself its own destruction, did not equally exist: and not only exist equally, but exist in wider extent and more undisguised enormity. I have been showing that if the present House of Commons is to be destroyed for these faults, it has earned that fate not by degeneracy, but by imitation; that it would in such case expiate the misdeeds of its predecessors, instead of suffering for any that are peculiarly its own. I have been endeavoring to prove, that of the two options,- "do you mean to restore ?or to construct anew?"no Reformer who has carefully examined the subject, can in sincerity answer otherwise than "to construct anew :”—for that to restore the times of purity of election, that is, of election free from the influence, and a preponderating influence too, of property, rank, station, and power, natural or acquired,-would be, to restore a state of things of which we can find no prototype, and to revert to times which in truth have never been.

That the proposition "to construct anew" is the much more formidable proposition of the two, is tacitly admitted by the very unwillingness which is shown on all occasions to acknowledge it as the object of any Motion for Reform. Yet to that must the Reformers come. To that, I venture to tell the Noble Lord,-he,

"It is to be remarked that in those early days of our renovated Constitution, the objection of Lord Tavistock's age was considered merely in relation to himself, and as no obstacle to the success of his Election. Mr. Montague, in his letter to the Duke of Bedford, to obviate any scruple in the Duke's mind, mentions that Lord Godolphin's son was to be chosen in Cornwall, and Lord Leicester's in Kent, who were neither of them older than Lord Tavistock: and Mr. Owen, in a letter to Lady Russell, tells her the Duke of Albemarle's son had been allowed to sit in Parliament under age."-Life of Lady Russell, Third Edit. 8vo. p. 123.

with all his caution and all his desire to avoid extravagance and exaggeration, must come; if he consents to reform on principle. By reforming "on principle," I mean, reforming with a view not simply to the redress of any partial, practical grievance, but generally to theoretical improvement. I may add that even "on principle" his endeavors to reform will be utterly vain, if he insists upon the exclusion of influence, as an indispensable quality of his reformed constitution. Not in this country only, but in every country in which a popular elective Assembly has formed part of the Government, to exclude such influence from the elections, has been a task either not attempted, or attempted to no purpose. While we dam up one source of influence a dozen others will open; in proportion as the progress of civilisation, the extension of commerce, and a hundred other circumstances better understood than defined, contribute to shift and change, in their relative proportions, the prevailing interests of society. Whether the House of Commons in its present shape does not practically though silently accommodate itself to such changes, with a pliancy almost as faithful as the nicest artifice could contrive, is, in my opinion, I confess, a much more important consideration, than whether the component parts of the House might be arranged with neater symmetry, or distributed in more scientific proportions.

But am I therefore hostile to the reformation of any proved cases of abuse, or to the punishment of mal-practices by which the existing rights of election are occasionally violated? No such thing. When any such cases are pointed out and proved, far be it from me to wish that they should be passed over with impunity. When the Noble Lord' himself brought forward, two years ago, a Bill for transferring to other constituents the right of election of a borough in which gross corruption had been practised, he began, as I thought and think, in the right course. When he proposed the disfranchisement of Grampound, I gave him my support; and if other cases of the same description occurred, I should be ready to do so again. That, Sir, is the true way of reforming the House of Commons by adding strength to the representation where we can do so certainly and definitely, and without incurring a risk of evils greater than those we cure. In the principle of that proposition of the Noble Lord I concurred: and if I concurred with those who suggested the substitution of the County of York for the town of Leeds, as the recipient of the franchise to be detached from Grampound,----I did so, not because I was apprehensive that Leeds would abuse the privilege; but because for the last forty years the want of a greater number of Members for the County of York

'Lord John Russell.

had been the standing grievance complained of in every Petition for Reform." Shall the great County of York have no more Members than the little County of Rutland ?"—is the language of the Petition of 1793. "Shall so great, and populous, and manufacturing a County, be no more numerously represented in the House of Commons than the Borough of Shoreham, or Cricklade, or Midhurst, or finally than Old Sarum ?"-are the apostrophes which have added zest to every debate, and a sting to every Petition, from the year 1780 to the present day. Well! Here was an opportunity of meeting this master-argument, and quieting for ever the perturbed solicitude for Yorkshire representation. I thought, therefore, that it would be a pity to lose such an opportunity;-the House fortunately was of the same opinion;—and lo! the grievance of grievances, the subject of forty years' clamor, is redressed. But, to be quite ingenuous, I will own that I was not without expectation that when the Reformers had gained this point, they would find out that they had not gotten exactly what they wanted. So indeed it has happened. Since the bill passed, I have heard of no congratulations on the event; but I have heard of much regret, and of many fears lest great inconvenience should result from the measure to the County of York itself. This to be sure would be exceedingly to be deplored and to remedy so unlucky a result of the first effort at Reform, I understand that it is now in contemplation to bring in a bill for the purpose of dividing the County into two parts; assigning to one the old and to the other the new representation. We shall see how this expedient will be relished. For my own part, I apprehend that every true Yorkshireman will object to it as a sort of converse of the judgment of Solomon; and that the two old Members especially, will rush forward and implore that their ancient parent may be permitted to survive whole and unmutilated. In that case, I shall unquestionably join them in the vote for keeping Yorkshire in undivided magnitude, with its augmented representation; affording, as it will do in that state, a conclusive reply to near half a century of remonstrances and lamentations.

I do not recollect in the Speech of the Noble Mover any other topic on which I feel it necessary to remark; having already I think touched upon all the main principles, if not upon all the details and illustrations of his motion; and having, I am well aware, trespassed largely upon the indulgence of the House.

A few words more upon the more general topics, which belong to this debate, and I have done. It is asked over and over again whether the House of Commons ought not to sympathise with the People? I answer, Undoubtedly yes; and so the House of Commons at present does, finally and in the result. But I also main

tain that this House does not betray its trust, if on points of gravity and difficulty, of deep and of lasting importance, it exercises a wary and independent discretion;-even though a momentary misunderstanding between the People and the House should be created by such difference in opinion with the People. I do not believe that the change proposed by the Noble Lord would infuse into the House of Commons a more wholesome spirit. I do not believe that to increase the power of the People, or rather to bring that power into more direct, immediate, and incessant operation upon the House,(whether such effect should be produced by rendering elections more popular, or by shortening the duration of Parliaments, or by both,) -I do not believe, I say, that this change would enable the House to discharge its functions more usefully than it discharges them at present. With respect to the plan of Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments, it seems to be pretty generally agreed, that it would deprive the government of all consistence and stability. Most of the advocates for Reform disclaim these doctrines and resent the imputation of them. I am glad of it. But I confess myself at a loss to understand how any extension of suffrage on principle, how any shortening of Parliaments on principle, can be adopted without opening the whole scope of that plan: and I confess myself not provided with any argument satisfactory to my own mind, by which, after conceding these alterations in principle, I could hope to control them in degree. I am still more at a loss to conceive in what way such partial concession could tend either to reconcile to the frame of the House of Commons those who are discontented with it as it at present stands, or to enable Parlia ment to watch more effectually over the freedom, the happiness, and the political importance of the country.

Dreading therefore the danger of total, and seeing the difficul ties as well as the unprofitableness of partial alteration, I object to this first step towards a change in the constitution of the House of Commons. There are wild theories abroad. I am not disposed to impute an ill motive to any man who entertains them. I will believe such a man to be as sincere in his conviction of the possibility of realising his notions of change without risking the tranquillity of the Country, as I am sincere in my belief of their impracticability, and of the tremendous danger of attempting to carry them into effect. But for the sake of the world as well as for our own safety, let us be cautious and firm. Other nations, excited by the example of the liberty which this Country has long possessed, have attempted to copy our Constitution; and some of them have shot beyond it in the fierceness of their pursuit. I grudge not to other nations that share of liberty which they may acquire: in the name of God, let them enjoy it! But let us warn them that they lose not the object