Mr Baring made a few explanatory observations, previous to the petition being laid on the table.

Notwithstanding these declarations of liberal principles, the only specific attempt made to obtain freedom of trade during this session, was unsuccessful. This was Lord Milton's motion to repeal the tax upon foreign wool, a measure pressing so hard upon this favourite and staple branch of British manufacture, that it appears only wonderful that it should ever have been carried into effect. Lord M. asked, was it wise to check the introduction of raw materials, on which, by the industry of man, so great a profit was made? The value of the wool was doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled, when manufactured into cloth. Last year, the manufactures of Great Britain enjoyed in the American market an advantage of 7 per cent over the manufactures of every other nation. But if another sixpence in the pound were added to the wool tax, it would reduce our advantage to the ratio of 100 to 98, when compared to French manufactures. This, to say the least, was running a severe race, and a risk of losing the American market, which he thought no wise nation ought to run. -The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, urged, that this tax was both of considerable importance in a financial view, and at the same time that it operated as a protection to the growers of British wool. It admitted as much foreign wool as was necessary for the purposes of manufacture; yet it prevented that immense influx of foreign wool into the market at a low price, which might finally check the growth of the material in England. The importation had lately increased five-fold; while the importation had increased but two-fifths. The motion was in consequence negatived by a majority of 202 to 128.

Lord J. Russell, during the present session, continued to push his measures against the Cornish boroughs convicted of bribery. Disappointed in his attempt to exclude them from electing members to serve in the present Parliament, his views were now directed towards total disfranchisement. Grampound, in which corruption appeared to be pre-eminent, and almost universal, was selected as an unquestionably fit subject against which this sentence might be executed.

On the 10th May, his lordship moved for leave to bring in the bill. We would merely state the general scope of it. It disabled Grampound from sending members to Parliament, and enabled those voters in that borough who had not been convicted of corruption, to vote for members as if they were freeholders of the county. Another part of the bill was, that it empowered the election, by the borough of Leeds, of two members, at the conclusion of the present Parliament, or, in case any vacancy occurred in the borough of Grampound, before that period. The right of suffrage which he proposed for the borough of Leeds, would extend to persons renting houses to the value of 5l. per annum. The borough of Leeds, it must be observed, comprehended a much larger space than the town of Leeds. It was thirty miles in circumference-comprised eight or ten villages, besides the town and contained about seventy thousand inhabitants. Supposing the right of suffrage to be granted to those who rented houses of the annual value of 5l., the number of voters would be about eight thousand. Some individuals were of opinion that the right should not be granted to those who did not rent houses of the value of 10l. a-year, which would reduce the voters to the number of 5500; but, on consideration, he conceived that it

was better to extend the privilege of suffrage to the smaller sum. His great object was to have the principle of transferring the elective franchise from convicted boroughs acknowledged and established by Parliament. If that principle were established, it would be entirely indifferent to him whether the franchise was extended at all to Leeds; or, if granted to that borough, whether it was given in the particular manner which he proposed, or whether it was extended to the West Riding of Yorkshire, or any other populous place.

This motion was received on the ministerial side by Mr Canning, with a cautious consent to the simple proposition of bringing in the bill. He was perfectly disposed, on his own part, and on the part of those with whom he acted, to see the noble lord's bill brought before the House for discussion. And so far as the acknow. ledgment of the principle, that a borough convicted of gross bribery and corruption, such as in former times would produce an order for disfranchisement, went, he was ready to say, that to such disfranchisement, in such a proved case, he had no objection. So far would he go. But he was sure it was not necessary to appeal to the noble lord's candour for the preservation of any ulterior opinion as to the mode in which the franchise, so taken away, should be disposed of. He made this reservation at the present moment, lest his sentiments might be misunderstood; for, if there were any point which the noble lord had stated, on which he had decided differently from the noble lord, and to which no circumstances could make him agree, it was this" that the measure itself was comparatively indifferent, but that the establishment of the principle was every thing." He would look only to this specific measure; and, as far as possible, he would

VOL. XII. PART I,

avoid, and he hoped the House would pursue the same course, legislating on the general principle.

The bill was then brought in without opposition, and on the 19th May, when the second reading was moved, became the subject of a lengthened debate. Lord John now expounded the malversations, on the ground of which Grampound was to be divested of its rights. It seemed, that one of the electors had got a list, containing the names of 60 persons who had the right to vote, and of whom 58 had voted: of these 58 no less than 47 had the sum of 351. affixed to their names as the price of their suffrages. On exhibiting this list to Sir Manasseh Lopes, he allowed to Mr Teed, into whose hands it had fallen, that it was pretty correct. On this, Mr Teed indicted 34 of the corrupt parties, out of whom 24 were convicted. Some of the others he did not prosecute, on account of the insufficiency of evidence, and a still greater number on account of their poverty. It also clearly-appeared in evidence, that at various times sums of money had been expended in this borough to influence the return of members to Parliament. It was proved that one person had attended at a meeting of delegates from Grampound, at which it was agreed that 5000l. should be given for the return. Another individual, an attorney at Grampound, stated, that the sum of 8400l. was set down in a bill, as the regular sum required for the two seats for that borough. These transactions took place at different periods; and it was admitted by all the witnesses, that it had been customary to pay for the votes of the electors. So far the evidence went; but the common fame and notoriety of these transactions made the case still stronger. It appeared that it was a common saying with the electors, that "they wished

G

to be feeding again;" the meaning of which was, that they desired to be paid beforehand. One of the aldermen stated, "that he believed almost every freeman in the place received a bribe ;" and being asked, "how many he thought did not receive a bribewhether there were even three or four uncorrupt persons in the borough ?" he answered," perhaps there may be three or four." Upon these grounds the honourable member conceived the House were most fully justified in disfranchising Grampound; and the only question was, how the blank was to be supplied. He quoted three cases of boroughs which had lost their privileges on the ground of bribery. One was New-Shoreham, where it was first proposed, that the offending members should merely be incapacitated; but it was afterwards determined, that the franchise should be extended to the neighbouring rape of Bramber. Another was that of Cricklade, in which the borough was thrown into the neighbouring hundred. The third was that of Aylesbury, where the greater number of the electors, being proved guilty of bribery, were disfranchised. The question, whether Grampound was to be thrown into the neighbouring hundred, or the franchise transferred to some other place, was of very little consequence to that place, the voters of which, even in the former case, would form only a very small minority. "Alas! the glory of Grampound is gone for ever! The electors will no more have the pleasure of seeing a baronet, out of pure motives of charity, sending confidential agents to relieve their distresses and minister to their wants. They will no more be delighted with the gratifying spectacle of the merchants of London contending to represent them. Never again will they have the satisfaction of almost murdering those who had the hardihood to propound

the bribery-oath!" The neighbouring hundred had no right whatever to the elective franchise; and considering that the number of boroughs in Cornwall was out of all proportion to the population of the country, there appeared no expediency in this plan. But there had grown up, within the last thirty or forty years, a number of towns, whose large population and extensive wealth placed them amongst the foremost of the great towns of this country-and they were at present debarred from the right of returning members to serve in Parliament. Of these towns, five alone contained nearly 500,000 inhabitants. When they saw towns of such extent, so rich, and so abundantly peopled, without representatives in that house, could it be supposed that their ancestors, who allowed members for Wales, for Chester, for Durham, and other places comparatively insignificant, would, if those great towns had grown up in their times, have refused them the right of sending members to Parlia ment? If they looked to Bristol, Liverpool, and other great towns which sent members to that House, they would see none of those disorders which at present prevailed in the unrepresented districts throughout the country. He was prepared to contend, that the more generally the right of voting was diffused, the less likelihood would there be of the growth of bribery and corruption in the larger towns. The principles even of the members of that House had changed. There had been times when many of the members would not have scrupled to receive large sums of money for their votes. That practice was now abolished-such a thing was no longer known-because the people were less open to bribery. He stated this, because it ought to be understood that all the defects of the system were not to be traced to that House, but

it appeared on the face of that bill. He would never agree to transfer the franchise to a large populous town, in the form and mode of scot and lot payers having votes, so that an assessment of 51. as he understood, would entitle to a vote. This would give in the town of Leeds 8,000 or 10,000 constituents. He therefore pressed upon the consideration of the noble lord, that it was running great risk, and unnecessary risk, to hazard the reform of Grampound, by travelling out of the cases already recognized, and introducing a principle that would not only be denied, but most strenuously opposed.

Mr Tierney expressed his extreme disappointment at the change which appeared to have taken place in Lord Castlereagh's views of the subject. He understood the noble lord to have for merly given his assent to the transference of the elective franchise from Grampound to another place. Now he proposed only its extension to the neighbouring hundreds. He felt satisfied that if the noble lord had consulted his own good judgment, and not attended to the conversations of others, he would not have adopted this new plan, and the House would have heard nothing of this consideration for the neighbouring hundreds. "But," said the noble lord, "there are precedents, and, for God's sake, do let us keep to precedents on this question." He remembered the precedents to which the noble lord alluded, and he looked upon them as much innovations in their day as the proposition of his noble friend (Lord John Russell) could be considered in the present. He denied that there was any strict analogy between the cases which could justify the House in acting upon them; neither would he admit that the House of Commons should be governed, in debate at least, by what might be the feeling in the

other House. The House of Commons were bound to do their duty strictly and conscientiously to the country, without any reference to what might be thought elsewhere; and the other House, he supposed, would do what they considered to be theirs. Mr Tierney insisted, that in disposing of the two votes, the only question ought to be, where they were most needed; and that the admitting of the principle of reform to this limited extent, would be agreeable to moderate men on both sides of the House. There were men, and they were by no means few in numbermen of rank, of property-men who had the interests of the country sincerely at heart-who thought in their consciences that some reform ought to take place-who conceived that the country would be materially benefitted by reform; and knowing how prevalent was this feeling, most particularly without, to the present case, he was not prepared to hear the question met as it had been. He could see no one objection to giving the preference to Leeds except thisand, whatever might be avowed, he believed it to be the main objection -that the House should sanction no proposition which might, in any shape or way, tend to a reform in Parlia

ment.

Mr Wynn and Mr Holme Sumner supported the principle of transference, but preferred that it should be to the county of York. Looking, Mr Wynn said, at the vast extent of that county-its immense populationthe great number of freeholders, and the difficulty of bringing them all to any one place to vote within the time allowed for the duration of a poll: looking at those circumstances, he thought that a great evil would be remedied by transferring the franchise from Grampound to that county.

Mr Beaumont explained the plan