analogy between that question and the motion before the House. Should hereafter any hon. member who supported the present motion be charged with inconsis tency because he opposed the general question of reform in the representation, he pledged himself to be the man, who would prove that the charge was ill-founded that there was no necessary connexion between a vote for the motion of his noble friend, and the larger question of parlia mentary reform. The House would bear in mind, that no popular election whatever existed in Scotland. To refuse the rights of freemen to a neighbouring people, so fitted by knowledge and by property, for the enjoyment of them, was a system of policy not merely unjust towards Scotland, but dangerous to the security of the empire at large. was the bane and curse of Ireland. They had no opinion of their own. They were driven to the hustings, there to vote just as the proprietor of the soil pleased. Between the proprietor of the soil and the voters thus fabricated, there was no community of interest, there was no reciprocity of feeling, which was the link that bound together the landlord and the tenant in this country-It was the true source of a fair and legitimate influence of that influence which he hoped would never be extinguished in England. The voters of Ireland were driven, like slaves, or rather like irrational brutes, to give their votes; when, in reality, they had no voice in the election, but were compelled to act as others dictated. In the present instance, the people of Scotland complained of nominal and fictitious voting; and it astonished him that the hon. baronet should have met that complaint by referring to a place where nominal and fictitious voting had produced such baneful effects. He had long lived in England. He had spent his life in studying the practical effects produced by a free constitution; and he was convinced, that the greatest blessing they could bestow on the people of Scotland, would be, to approximate, as nearly as circumstances would permit, the system of election adopted in Scotland to that pursued in this country. He was ashamed to hear it said that the constitution of England was unfit for Scotland, at the very time when they were reproving other nations for not bringing their constitutions nearer to the great model of justice and liberty. Mr. Burke had truly said, that "liberty was not an evil to be limited, but a good to be increased." The observation was founded on the experience of ages. As much liberty as there was in a government, so much happiness would there be in a country. Liberty was the great stimulant which called forth genius. It was the school of every public and every private virtue. The nearer they approached a pure elective system, the nearer were theyto rational liberty. Ifthese, then, were its beneficial results, upon what ground was Scotland to be denied even an approach to the enjoyment. He begged the House to recollect, that in giving its support to a measure which led to such an approximation, it was not to be presumed that it was committed on the question of popular representation. He acknowledged himself a friend to parliamentary reform; but, in the present instance, there was no Lord Binning entered his protest against the assertion, that the present motion had no connexion with the question of reform in England. The proposition of the noble lord, with respect to the county representation of Scotland, would make a greater change than the adoption of universal suffrage in England. Much had been said about the want of freedom in Scotland; but he would appeal to any English gentleman who was at all acquainted with the state of Scotland, whether he did not consider it a perfectly free country? If the people of Scotland had been dissatisfied with the state of the representation of that country-if they had entertained the same views as the noble lord did on the subject-they would have been forward enough in letting the House know their opinions. But he denied that they wished for the projected change; and he would not consent to unsettle the whole system of representation in Scotland, for the advantage that might be derived from a few votes at a county election. It was said, that all the members might be elected by persons not re siding in Scotland. This was the fact theoretically;-but, practically, it was not the case. There was no part of the empire in which the land was more decidedly in possession of the elective franchise. If the noble lord's statement, had been true, it would have been a ground for some change, but he denied its correctness. The noble lord had stated the fact, that in the county of Lanark there were 95 superiority votes; but he had not shown how they were connected with the land. Now, twenty of those votes belonged to The landed estate of the duke of Hamilton, and twenty to the landed estate of lord Perceval. Here were 40 out of 95 directly connected with the land. This might be a bad system; but, whether good or bad, it was clearly connected with the land; and when he showed that it was so connected, he overturned the noble lord's argument. He had heard no complaints against the existing system, amongst the people of Scotland; and he believed it would be allowed that the peasantry of that country were as enlightened and as happy as any portion of the empire. The noble lord had not proved that any abuse had taken place under this system; and therefore be trusted the House would not be induced to alter it. When it was stated that there were only 2,889 voters, gentlemen, who were unacquainted with the subject, doubtless felt considerable surprise at the smallness of the number; but the house had no notion of the very limited number of landed proprietors in Scotland. The extreme barrenness of the soil necessarily reduced the number of proprietors. It required a very large piece of land, in Scotland, to realize 100l. a year. Therefore, when 2,889proprietors were spoken of, that number, in Scotland, was equal to a very large number indeed in this country. He was convinced, that the introduction of popular elections in Scotland would not produce any of those blessings which the noble lord had pictured. Besides, the plan of the noble lord was by no means clear. He was quite certain that any alteration would be mischievous; and he would contend that they had no right to interfere with that article of the Union which applied to this subject, unless it was for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland had not called on them to do so: and they ought not to be induced to alter the law, either upon the ar guments of the noble lord, or the reasonings of general theorists, however ingenious those reasonings might be.. of this part of the kingdom. He did not wish to conceal his sentiments on the question of general reform; but he abstained from doing so, because he thought it was better that they should confine themselves to one tangible point. This question was said to affect only a district of the empire. But how could any gentleman who recollected that that district contained two millions of inhabitantswho considered that it was rich in every attribute which constituted power and greatness argue that it should have no popular election of any kind, and assert, that such a state of things could have no prejudicial effect on the general prosperity of the country? If the House looked to the case of England, what was it, he would ask, which connected the higher and lower classes together, and brought all portions of the community into communication with each other, but popular representation? While in England all classes took the warmest and most anxious interest in a popular election, in Scotland the case was quite the reverse. The question then was, not as to the providing any specific remedy for the evils of Scotch representation, but whether or no those evils did really exist. On these grounds he gave his hearty support to the motion. The Lord Advocate said, that at that late hour, although he had originally in tended to go into the subject, he should not now discuss it at any length. He admitted, that those who were attached to the English system of representation, could not be favourable to the system of Scotch county representation. But gentlemen would do well to consider whether seeing that such as it was, it was approved of by the people of Scotland, they would do right to force a new system upon them. As it now stood, it was as ancient as the reign of Charles 1st, and had remained unaltered and uncomplained of since the time of the Union of the two Mr. J. P. Grant supported, the motion crowns. The hon. and learned member of the noble lord. With reference to the for Knaresborough had spoken of the article of the Union which had been so complaints made by the people of Scot frequently alluded to, he held it to be land at the period of the Revolution, and perfectly clear, that no country could the remedies proposed in the mode of bind its posterity by any stipulation which representation; but there was then no the circumstances of the moment had subject of complaint but one, and that created. He was clearly of opinion, that was, that where the large counties return. no gentleman who voted for the proposi-ed two members, the small counties retion now before the House, would be bound, in consequence, to support any motion for a reform in the representation turned the same number. To this sole cause of complaint a remedy was applied, by allowing an additional number of county representatives; and since that the representatives of that country had a event, the people have expressed no dis-vote in the united legislature, the question satisfaction on the subject. He contended, was one of imperial interest. It was not that the more powerful country of Eng- denied that the Scotch system of repreland was not entitled to make a change in sentation was imperfect, and the learned the representation of Scotland, unless the lord had allowed that there was a body necessity for it was clearly proved; but in the Scotch counties capable of forming no such change was called for by the political opinions, and, consequently, as people of Scotland. Had there been one capable as the corresponding body in petition in favour of such a change? England of exercising the elective franWhat had the noble lord been about for chise. He believed the middle class of these three years, during which he had people in Scotland the most moral and been bringing forward motions affecting virtuous in Europe. What reason, then, the elective franchise in Scotland, that all could there be that the elective franchise that time he had not procured the support should not be intrusted to them? But it of one petition? The House had been had been said, that if this improvement told, that there were no popular meetings were conceded to Scotland, something of in Scotland; but the fact was otherwise; the same nature ought to be granted to popular meetings could and had taken England. He did not see the connexion place in the towns, and he did not see between the two questions. That might be what was to prevent popular meetings in necessary in Scotland which was not so the counties. In the counties, all the in this country. He should give his freeholders, the justices of the peace, the warm support to the motion. commissioners of supply, and every heritor had a vote. How, then, could it be said, that there was no such thing as a popular meeting in Scotland? Were the people of Scotland so blind to their own interests, or so inveterately stupid, as to neglect a matter of essential national benefit, if they regarded a change in the representation in that light? If the state of the representation was a grievance, would it be passed over by a people who treated all measures of national import with wisdom and intelligence? He could instance the tithe question, the game laws, the poor laws, and the laws relative to insolvent debtors. It was, therefore, to be inferred, that they would have been fully sensible of the necessity of the present proposition, if it were really founded in a true view of their interests. He entreated gentlemen The previous question being put on the not to suppose that this was an isolated first resolution, the House divided: Aycs, question. Let them be assured, that if it 117; Noes, 152; Majority against lord was carried, it would be a great advance A. Hamilton's motion, 35. The antowards the carrying of the general ques-nouncement of the numbers was received tion of parliamentary reform. On the with loud cheers from the Opposition grounds he had stated, he should benches. oppose the motion altogether. Lord Milton observed, that an erroneous impression had gone abroad with respect to this question, as if it were interesting to Scotland alone. Now, he considered it interesting to the whole united empire. If it were the law and the practice for the Scotch members to confine themselves to subjects of Scotch legislation, the question would in that case exclusively affect Scotland; but as VOL. IX. Lord Glenorchy said, he felt he should be wanting in the discharge of his duty to his country, if he did not express his decided concurrence in the motion of the noble lord. If there had been no petition in favour of the motion, it was because public sentiment had not the organ of county meetings in Scotland; but it was not less true, that the people of that country wanted a full, ample, and equal representation, instead of the system now existing, which was marked by egregious absurdity and injustice [Hear, hear!]. Lord A. Hamilton, in reply, took occasion to observe, that the heritors of Scotland who were not represented, were, in every other respect, similar to the yeomanry of England, who were represented in parliament. List of the Minority. Maberly, J. Maberly, W. L. White, L. Mackintosh, sir J. Marjoribanks, S. Marryat, J. Martin, J. Maxwell, J. Milbank, M. Milton, visc. Moore, P. Mostyn, sir T. Tennyson, C. Tierney, G. Titchfield, marq. of White, col. Wood, M. TELLERS. Hamilton, lord A. PAIRED OFF. Knight, R. in the early part of the evening had anticipated. Sir J. Sebright could not omit that opportunity of stating, that he had been accidentally locked out during the division. Had he been in his place, he should have thought himself unworthy of the seat he had in the House, if he had not given his vote for the motion. SHERIFF OF DUBLIN.] Mr. J. Williams rose, in the absence of his hon. friend the member for Westminster (sir F. Burdett), to give notice, that on Thursday the 12th instant, that hon. baronet would submit certain resolutions to the House relative to the late investigation into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin. SALE OF GAME BILL.] Lord Cranborne, on moving the second reading of this bill, observed, that the details of the measure would be best discussed in the committee, and respecting them he should therefore reserve himself until that stage arrived. Against the principle of the measure he was not aware that many objections could be made. He referred to the evidence given before the committee, to show the great quantity of game which was annually disposed of in the London markets. The object of the bill was, to take that supply out of the hands of the poachers, and place it in those of licensed dealers. Sir John Shelley objected to the bill, that it would not only increase the number of poachers, and add to the demoralization of the lower classes, but would tend also to the entire annihilation of the game. He much doubted whether the bill would increase the sale of game; and observed on the great difficulty there would be in keeping the market regularly and fully supplied, as it was not to be supposed that every gentleman would dispose of his game. He much doubted whether the fair trader would be able, as it was said, to undersell the poacher. How should he, when the latter stole that Lord Milton said, he could not help which the former paid for? He begged expressing a hope, that the result of the to refer honourable members to the welldivision which had just taken place would known story of the rival broom-sellers. be well considered by the whole country; The one asked the other how he could and that in it the inhabitants of Scotland, afford to undersell him, since he stole the who take an interest in the state of their materials. "Why," replied the other, representation, would see a much nearer" I steal mine ready made." On this prospect of their wishes being accom- principle, he was persuaded the licensed plished than some gentlemen who spoke man would not be able to compete with The previous question was then put on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th resolution, and negatived. The last resolution was then put and negatived. the poacher. The bill would take away the odium of selling game, and increase thereby the number of poachers; for every farmer's son and small tradesman would fall into their ranks, and the difficulty of convicting a poacher would be increased in the same proportion as their numbers increased, sheltered as they would be by the licenses to be granted. He declared that he looked upon field sports as a part of the political institutions of the country, which this bill would have a direct tendency to destroy. He could not approve of a law which went to alter the good old habits of the country, and induce gentlemen to sell that for a paltry consideration in money, which, as it was now disposed of, gave equal gratification to the donor and the receiver. He would therefore move, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time on the 1st of September next. Lord Deerhurst seconded the amendment. The bill, in his opinion, would increase the number of poachers by as many as there were idle men to be found in each parish in the country. He insisted strongly on the policy of encouraging country gentlemen to live on their estates, by securing to them the amusements to which they were accustomed. Legali zing the sale would have the effect of destroying the game. He would, therefore, resist the bill upon that principle, though he was willing to vote for the correction of the game laws in any salutary way. Mr. W. Peel objected to the bill, which, if passed into a law, would confine the possession of game to persons occupying large tracts of country. Mr. Poyntz said, he could not agree with those who thought that the passing of the bill would decrease the quantity of game or increase the number of poachers. The offence of poaching had been carried to a great extent of late years, in consequence of the miserable pittance which labourers had been accustomed to receive for their labour. That class of persons had preferred poaching to being employed for a few shillings a week in breaking stones on the highways. One reason which would induce him to vote for the present bill, was the severity, he might say the unconstitutional severity, of the existing game laws, which rendered it, in many instances, impossible for magistrates to enforce them. He thought, also, that respectable tradesmen, who possessed the pecuniary means of regaling their friends with game, should be invested with the legal right of so doing. Any change that might be made in the law as it stood at present, must be for the better. Mr. S. Whitbread was convinced that the laws respecting game required to be amended. He saw that the offence of poaching had grown with the growth and strengthened with the strength of those very laws which were enacted with the intention of suppressing it. Those laws, under their present severity, were a disgrace to the national character, and a great cause of the demoralization of the poorer classes. Mr. Brougham said, he concurred in what had fallen from his hon. friend who spoke last, and from the hon. member for Chichester, respecting the system of the game laws. He felt as strongly as they possibly could do, not only disapprobation, but an abhorrence, of that system and its principles-if any thing in itself so unprincipled could be said to have any. Any thing which was calculated to mitigate the evils of that system he would hail with the greatest satisfaction. But a specific measure being here proposed for his adoption, he was bound, in the first instance, to inquire-agreeing as he did in all that had been said in reprobation of the old system-whether that which was intended as a substitute for that system was likely to produce the effect which was expected therefrom. Nevertheless, when he looked at the bill, however he might approve of the principle on which it proceeded, and whatever credit for humanity he might give to the noble lord who had brought it forward, he could see nothing in it which entitled it even to the benefit of a doubt in his mind, as to whether he should support it or not. Did gentlemen know what they were about to give their approbation to? Did they know what the bill was? Were any persons led away by the cry of "we are about to abolish the game laws?" If such there were, to them he would say, that they would not abolish the game laws by passing this bill. They were, indeed, about to preserve the worst parts of the system. Some gentlemen, perhaps, were led away by the cry of "let us legalize the sale of game." But would that be done by the bill? No such thing. He would tell those who were so anxious that the bill should pass, what they were about blindfold to give their sanction to. One of the objections to the present system of gaine |