“such as it was in the time of Harry the Third, "when the two Houses first sat in separate

chambers, and such as it has to this day con"tinued!" This is the ignorant cry; this the very shibboleth of the party. But I have joined an issue with our antagonists upon the fact; and I have given the evidence of Selden, of Glanville, of Coke, of Noy, and of Prynne, proving to demonstration that the original right of voting has been subjected to great and hurtful changes, that the exclusive franchise of freemen is an usurpation upon householders,— and that our measure is a restoration of the rights thus usurped upon. I have shown that the Ministers are only occupied in the duty of repairing what is decayed, not in the work of destruction, or of violent change. Your Lordships were recently assembled at the great solemnity of the Coronation. Do you call to mind the language of the Primate, and in which the Monarch swore, when the Sword of kingly estate was delivered into his hands? "Restore "the things that are gone into decay; maintain "that which is restored; purify and reform "what is amiss; confirm that which is in good "order!" His Sacred Majesty well remembers his solemn vow, to restore the constitution, and to reform the abuses time has introduced; and I, too, feel the duty imposed on me, of

keeping fresh in the recollection of the Prince, whom it is my pride and my boast to serve, the parts of our system which fall within the scope of his vow. But if he has sworn to restore the decayed, so has he also sworn to maintain that which is restored, and to confirm that which wants no repairing; and what sacrifice soever may be required to maintain and to confirm, that sacrifice I am ready to make, opposing myself, with my Sovereign, to the surge that may dash over me, and saying to it, "Hitherto "shalt thou come; here shall thy waves be "staid." For while that Sovereign tells the enemies of all change, "I have sworn to restore!" so will he tell them who look for change only, "I have also sworn to maintain !"

"Stand by the whole of the old constitution!" is the cry of our enemies. I have disposed of the issue of fact, and shown that what we attack is any thing but the old constitution. But suppose, for argument's sake, the question had been decided against us-that Selden, Coke, Noy, Glanville, Prynne, were all wrong-that their doctrine and mine was a mere illusion, and rotten boroughs the ancient order of things —that it was a fundamental principle of the old constitution to have Members without constituents, boroughs without Members, and a repre

sentative Parliament without electors. Suppose this to be the nature of the old and much admired and more bepraised Government of England. All this I will assume for the sake of the argument, and I solicit the attention of the Noble Lords who maintain that argument, while I show them its utter absurdity. Since the early times of which they speak, has there been no change in the very nature of a seat in Parliament? Is there no difference between our days and those when the electors eschewed the right of voting, and a seat in Parliament, as well as the elective franchise, was esteemed a burthen? Will the same principles apply to that age and to others, when all the people of the three kingdoms are more eager for the power of voting than for any other earthly possession; and the chance of sitting in the House of Commons is become the object of all men's wishes? Even as late as the union of the crowns, we have instances of Informations filed in the courts of law to compel Parliament men to attend their duty, or punish them for the neglect-so ill was privilege then understood. But somewhat earlier, we find boroughs petitioning to be relieved from the expense of sending Members, and Members supported by their constituents as long as they continued their attendance. Is it not clear that the Parliamentary law applicable

to that state of things cannot be applied to the present circumstances, without in some respects making a violent revolution? But so it is in the progress of all those changes which time is perpetually working in the condition of human affairs. They are really the authors of change, who resist the alterations which are required to adjust the system, and adapt it to new circumstances;-who forcibly arrest the progress of one portion amidst the general advancement. Take, as an illustration, the state of our jurisprudence. The old law ordained that a debtor's property should be taken in execution. But in early times there were no public funds, no paper securities, no accounts at Bankers; land and goods formed the property of all; and those were allowed to be taken in satisfaction of debts. The law, therefore, which only said let land and goods be taken, excluded the recourse against stock and credits, although it plainly meant that all the property should be liable, and would clearly have attached stock and credits, had they then been known. But when nine-tenths of the property of our richest men consist of stock and credits, to exempt these under pretence of standing by the old law, is manifestly altering the substance for the sake of adhering to the letter; and substituting for the old law, that all the debtor's property should

be liable, a new and totally different law, that a small part only of his property should be liable. Yet in no part of our system has there been a greater change than in the estimated value attached to the franchise, and to a seat in Parliament, from the times when, one class of the community anxiously shunned the cost of electing, and another as cautiously avoided being returned, to those when both classes are alike anxious to obtain these privileges. Then, can any reasonable man argue, that the same law should be applied to two states of things so diametrically opposite? Thus much I thought fit to say, in order to guard your Lordships against a favourite topic, one sedulously urged by the adversaries of Reform, who lead men astray by constantly harping upon the string of change, innovation, and revolution.

But it is said, and this is a still more favourite argument, the system works well. How does it work well? Has it any character of working well?

pretensions to the

What say you to a

town of 5 or 6000 inhabitants, not one of whom has any more to do with the choice of its representatives than any of your Lordships sitting round that table-indeed, a great deal less-for I see my Noble Friend* is there? It works well,

The Duke of Devonshire.