The Earl of Liverpool said, that a great part of the noble lord's speech had been occupied with eloquent declamation against the interference of the allied powers with Naples; and he could not help remarking, that when they had seen other independent states attacked in a similar manner, they had heard no eloquent declamation from the noble lords opposite. The noble lords on those occasions had, on the contrary inculcated the necessity of peace, and the impolicy of interfering. The only exception was, in the case of the invasion of Spain, against which his noble friend opposite had certainly expressed an opinion. The present motion he believed to be without precedent. The constitution invested the Crown with the power of making war or peace, and of negotiating with other states. The right of parliament to refuse the supplies, he believed to be equal to the right of the Crown to declare war; and he was not prepared to deny that parliament might advise the king to resort to war. It was an admonition improperly applied, and if fit to be applied, improperly expressed. There were two modes in which a great nation could interfere. Its influence might be exercised in private by its accredited agents; but, when its sentiments were recorded by a public declaration, they must make up their minds to enforce their declaration by arms, if it should be disregarded. If there was any doubt, whether this motion was a motion of war, the speech of his noble friend had removed all doubt. The noble baron avowed that he looked to war; he hoped, perhaps, that war might not be necessary; the noble baron should have credit for those hopes, but war was one alternative on which he relied. But if this was the sentiment of the supporters of the motion, they should say so distinctly, and give advice to the king accordingly. The question which the

House really had to consider was divided into two branches:-1. Whether in the was the desirable policy for England? and 2. Whether the present conduct of this government was fair neutrality? He agreed with the noble baron, that, however desirable peace might be to this country, as its general policy or at this particular time, there was no time when this country should not dare to undertake a war which was necessary for its safety or honour. But however abundant the resources of the country might be, he saw in the circumstances of Europe, in the declaration of the allies, in the speeches of the noble lord, ample reasons for saying that neutrality was the true policy of this country. As to the general principles laid down in the declaration of the allies, no one regretted them more than he did. No one, who looked at the affairs of Europe dispassionately could avoid seeing that there were two conflicting principles in the world. Never did Russia, Austria, and Prussia do a more ill-advised act, than when they put forth that declaration. Till then it might be doubted whether there were two extreme principles in action. But that declaration fully set forth one extreme principle, the disposition to crush all revolutions, without reference to time, to circumstances, to causes, or to the situation of the nations in which they arose. The other extreme principle, which he was sorry to see manifested in the noble lords opposite was to uphold all revolutions, not looking to their causes or justifications. Revolutions seemed to them to be certain good

the name cheered up their hearts. Let their lordships look, then, to the constitution of Great Britain, which they boasted to be as far removed from despotism on the one hand, as from wild revolutionary principles on the other. They would see that the policy which the constitution demanded between two such principles was neutrality. Neutrality was our policy: neutrality would command the respect of all the nations, and of all the temperate and moral men of Europe, But were we in a state of fair neutrality? The noble lord had referred to the manifesto of Austria. If the manifesto bore the sense attributed to it by the noble lord, it stated that which was not correct, but he did not think the manifesto could fairly bear the interpretation which the noble lord had put upon it. He was convinced that

by the allied powers" were meant Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and that Great Britain was not alluded to. These were in fact the only parties assembled at Troppau; For though we had a representative at that place, he was no party either to the conferences or to the protocols. He came now to the second question. Was this country in a fair state of neutrality? If he was not misinformed, his majesty's minister residing at Naples had made a declaration of the neutrality of this country, which had been deemed perfectly satisfactory by the Neapolitans, and had removed all doubt whatever respecting the disposition of Great Britain. He had further the satisfaction of knowing the sentiments entertained throughout Europe of the paper now upon their lordships table. He knew that all the 'states on the continent were gratified by it, and were convinced, from the principles it contained, of the neutrality of this country. He was convinced that Ferdinand of Spain had provoked the revolution in that country, but he had no case before him to show that the king of Naples had done the same. At the same time he wished to give no opinion whether circumstances might not exist to justify the revolution which had taken place at Naples. The opinion of the noble lords opposite seemed to be, that this country ought to interfere with every great event that occurred in Europe: but what had hitherto been the uniform policy of Great Britain? Had any motion been made in parliament against the partition of Poland? Had not noble lords raised their voices against that act of spoliation, and given it as their opinion that this country should go to war in defence of the Poles? It might be said, that this motion only called on government to state the reasons of their conduct; but let it be recollected, that if they once remonstrated, they must be prepared for the consequences. The country must not put itself into the situation of having made a vain remonstrance, which it had not the courage or the means to enforce. This was a case in which parliament could not interfere without either making themselves a laughing stock to all Europe, or resolving to hazard the consequences of a refusal.

After a short reply from the marquis of Lansdown, the House divided: Contents, 23; Proxies 14-37. Not-Contents 42; Proxies 42-84. Majority against the motion 47.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 2.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] The order of the day being read for the House to resolve itself into a committee to consider of this subject,

Mr. Plunkett said, that previous to moving that the Speaker should leave the chair, he had a few observations to make, in which he should not occupy much of the time of the House, as he saw no reason to anticipate objection to the course he was about to propose. It was highly gratifying to him to observe the feeling which prevailed on all sides in that House throughout the late discussion on this subject; a feeling which assured him that those who were bound by their sense of duty to contend against the measures which he proposed, would scorn to act upon a vexatious spirit in opposing the bill. He deemed it a duty which he owed both to the friends of the measure and to those gentlemen who were conscientiously opposed to it, now to state to the House the course he proposed to pursue, which was, to propose in the committee certain Resolutions, which he would presently read to them; and after they were carried, and leave given to bring in the bill which he intended to found upon them, to fix the first reading of the bill for Tuesday next, and the second reading for the Monday following; which arrangement, he conceived, would afford ample time for every member to enter fully into its merits. The Resolutions which he intended to propose were :

1. "That it appears to this committee, that by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declarations and affirmations are required to be made, as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned.

2. "That such parts of said oaths as require a declaration to be made against the belief of transubstantiation, or that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and that the sacrifice of the Mass, as used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous, appear to this committee to relate to opinions merely speculative and dogmatical, not affecting the allegiance or civil duty of the subject, and that the same may, therefore, safely be repealed.

5. "That it appears to this committee, that scruples are entertained by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects with res pect to taking the said oath, merely on account of the word spiritual' being inserted therein; and that for the purpose of removing such scruples, it would be expedient to declare the sense in which the said word is used, according to the injunction issued by queen Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, and recognised in the act of the fifth of her reign, and which is explained by the thirty-seventh of the articles of the church of England, imports merely, that the kings of this realm should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stub born and evil doer.

6. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that such act of repeal and explanation, should be accompanied with such exceptions and regulations as may be found necessary for preserving unalterably the Protestant Succession to the Crown, according to the act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject and for maintaining inviolate the Protestant episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, government, and discipline thereof; and the Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline thereof, as the same are by law respectively established."

Mr. Peel said, that after the vote the House had come to, it was not his intention to oppose the motion for the Speaker leaving the chair. With respect to the Resolutions proposed, he could only acquiesce in them on condition that the right hon. gentleman only demanded a formal adoption, and that those gentlemen who differed from him should in no way be precluded from offering any oppo

sition, either to the whole or part, He might perhaps, be allowed to say a few words, to discourage too sanguine expectations that might be formed. At a former period, when a similar measure had been carried by a much larger majority it was subsequently rejected. It was his determination to meet this question with temperance, but with the most decided opposition; for he thought that great temperance was perfectly consistent with great firmness. He would endeavour so to oppose it, as to guard against exciting jealousies or fears in the minds of the Protestants, or of exasperation and despondency in the minds of the Catholics.

The House went into the committee. The resolutions were agreed to; a bill was ordered to be brought in thereupon; and the House, on the motion of sir George Hill, was ordered to be called over on the 16th.

GRAMPOUND

DISFRANCHISEMENT

BILL.] On the notion of lord J. Russell, the House went into a committee to consider farther of the report of this bill.

Mr. Stuart Wortley objected to the amount of the qualification for voting which was proposed for Leeds, that qualification being for such persons as rented houses at 10%. a year. This qualification he thought too low; for he was ready to avow his opinion, that where the population was very numerous, the right of voting should be comparatively narrowed. He was by no means an advocate for placing Leeds or any other great town, upon the same footing as Westminster, with respect to the right of voting. Upon the best inquiries which he had been able to make, he found that the rate of 201 would include every person of the rank of a respectable tradesman in the Borough, and give a body of voters to the amount of between 2 and 3,000. He should wish therefore, that instead of 102. the sum of 201. be inserted.

Lord Milton begged leave to express his entire approbation of the mode of reform which had been introduced by his noble friend. It proceeded strictly upon constitutional principles, and for this reason he preferred it, both to the proposition for extending the elective franchise to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and to that for transferring it to the hundreds in the neighbourhood of Grampound. There was one point, however, on which he was inclined to differ, both from his hon.

fore, so far from being an argument against the exercise of the elective franchise by scot and lot, was directly in its favour. With respect to the borough of Southwark, his first election had not cost above 700. though he had to contend against great wealth, long possession, and high respectability. The expenses of his last election did not exceed 300l. He entirely agreed with the noble lord, that the House ought to extend the elective franchise as much as possible to the poorer classes of society, for it was an acknowledged principle of the constitution, that representation should be co-extensive with taxation.

Mr. Courtenay said, that there never was an instance of a scot and lot borough having been created by act of parliament. As to the purity of the electors of Westminster, upon which an hon. member insisted, he could only say, that the inha bitants of the city of Westminster had been grossly calumniated, if a great deal of corruption had not existed in former elections. The kind of corruption to which he alluded was, the paying up of arrears of taxes, in order to enable a man to vote.

friend, and his noble friend who framed the bill. Instead of making any fanciful experiments, or attempting to set our own wisdom above the wisdom of our ancestors, he thought it would be a much safer course to make the borough of Leeds a mere scot and lot borough, like all others where the inhabitant householders had the right of voting. It must be recollected, that there were other classes in this country who were entitled to protection, as well as those who possessed large property. The lower orders stood just as much in need of protection as persons in more exalted stations. If we examined the state of the country for the last 25 years, no man would deny, that the lower orders of the people had suffered more from the pressure of the times than persons in the higher classes of life. The House was bound, therefore, to consider the interests of that portion of the community; and as this was probably the first of a series of measures, which would be applied to the reform of the representation of the people, they ought not to lay down a principle which might exclude from the elective franchise persons in the humbler walks of life. The corruption which prevailed in the smaller boroughs, was rarely to be found in those where the electors were very numerous. It was perhaps of little importance, whether in the present instance the number of electors should be three or six thousand, with reference to the interests of the particular borough; but it was a point of material importance, when considered with reference to the way in which the inferior classes of the people would receive the boon which the House was now offering to them. As to the distinction of respectable classes, as distinguished from the inferior orders, he protested against the use of the term. One class of society might be poorer or more unfortunate than another, but the poorest man in the realm, if he were honest, sober, and industrious, was just as respectable as the most exalted. For these reasons, he thought that, in stead of wishing to raise the qualification, the House would do better to abandon all qualification, and in legislating for this particular case, to act upon the ancient and recognised principles of the constitu

tion.

Sir R. Wilson begged to observe, that the conduct of the electors of Westminster had been distinguished by the greatest purity. Their example, there

Mr. Baring said, that the particular mode of adding two members to that House was not in itself a question of great importance. At the same time, as this was the first instance in which parliament was called upon to apply a general prin ciple of legislation, in that view it was material that the House should weigh maturely what it promulgated upon this subject. In framing a system of representation, experience proved the neces sity of looking to property as an essential principle for the permanence of social order. At the same time, it was undoubtedly essential, that the interests of the poorer classes of society should be mixed up with those considerations. It would be unwise to take property as the simple basis of representation, as the French had done. It was true, that the basis of property was sufficient, as a security; but then the consequence would be, as in France, a total indifference on the part of the people as to the election of their representatives, or their conduct after they were elected. The representation in America, on the other hand, furnished an example of the defects of the popular principle, when taken as the principal basis. He thought, therefore, that the plan of representation best adapted

to this and every other country would be one graduated a little upon the scale of principle, and regulated by the principle of the Vestry bill that passed some years ago. If, for instance, 10l. were taken as a basis conferring a right of one vote, the scale might be graduated, so as to give to the higher classes of society three or four votes. Such a system as this would, in his opinion, supply the two desiderata of security, both with respect to property and the good will of the people. With respect to what had fallen from his gallant friend, he admitted, that the conduct of the electors of Westminster and Southwark had, in the latter instances, been unexceptionable. But though no great expenditure of money was incurred by the candidates, he must say that there was a most extravagant expenditure of what perhaps was a more serious tax upon the candidates, he meant nonsense [a laugh]. No person stood a chance of success as a popular candidate for those places, unless he condescended to use such language as he would be ashamed to use, in talking upon the same subjects, not only in the society of gentlemen, but among Englishmen possessing common

sense.

Sir R. Wilson rose to order. He apprehended that no member had a right to say that another member had not only talked nonsense, but used such language to his constituents as he would be ashamed to use in another place. If his hon. friend would attend some of the meetings where the members he had alluded to spoke to their electors, he would have ample opportunity to correct his opinion. Mr. Baring said, he should be extremely sorry if any thing which had fallen from him should be ascribed to a want of respect for his gallant friend, and to the hon. baronet, who was not now in his place (sir F. Burdett). There was no man for whose talents he had a greater admiration, or whom he should be so sorry to lose, as a member of the House, than that hon. baronet. At the same time he must maintain, that any man who would complain of great public grievances, and enlarge upon the sufferings of the people-any man who would talk the greatest nonsense upon legislation and good government was most likely to succeed at such elections as those for Westminster and Southwark. Under all the circumstances, he felt inlined to support the amendment.

Mr. C. Calvert bore testimony to the disinterested conduct of the electors of Southwark. No application, during the five contested elections which he had stood for that borough, had ever been made to him for the payment of rates or taxes.

Lord Milton considered, that it would be better to adhere to the constitutional practice, and say that the borough of Leeds should be a scot and lot borough, than to make any fanciful deviations, under the notion of forming a good representation. The absurdities which even men of the clearest understandings fell into, when they abandoned experience and took up theories, was but too frequent. He was not a little surprised at the argument of the hon. member for Taunton for a graduated scale of votes, rising according to the property of the voter; for his part, he thought it much better that the poor man should go into the county hall to give his vote upon a footing of perfect equality with his richer neighbour. If that principle were entertained, it would lead to discussions similar to those which had agitated France in the first period of her revolution. He trusted that when they were endeavouring to infuse new life into the constitution, the committee would see the necessity of proceeding on some recognised principle, and he therefore should wish to recommend the payment of scot and lot as that principle, and should therefore move that all the words after" the sum of" be left out.

Mr. S. Wortley, in order to take the sense of the committee on his noble friend's amendment, agreed to postpone the consideration of the amendment which he had proposed until that should have been decided.

Lord Althorp observed, that he was decidedly friendly to that alteration in the representation, which gave the people a greater share in the deliberative proceedings of that House. He should support the amendment of the noble lord.

Mr. Martin, of Galway, though he disapproved of every part of the bill, wouldsupport the increase proposed in the amount of the qualification. Without inquiring whether the imputations thrown out against the electors of Southwark and Westminster were true or not, he could not help observing that the opinions of the members for those places, and he might add for Middlesex, were not usually