EXTRACTS FROM REFORM SPEECHES.

Mr. Joseph Hume says,—“But I must submit that in whatever way you view the question it is one of immense difficulty, because in the established institutions of this country any change from the worse to the better must always be attended with great difficulty, so far as individual interests and contending parties are concerned. It is with this view His Majesty’s Ministers have done wisely. I candidly confess that when the noble lord stated yesterday that it was not the intention of the Ministry to introduce any clause respecting altering the duration of Parliament, or Vote by Ballot, it struck me that the measure was defective in that respect.”

Lord Newark “Did not suppose at a moment’s warning it would put an end to all corruption, but it was the vainest of all possible expectations to imagine that reformed Parliament would not do more than anything else to abate the evil. He confessed that he had not been prepared for so sweeping a measure, and he hoped that they might be induced to modify it before it was passed.”

Lord Darlington “Thought the rotten Boroughs ought to be carefully observed, and when they were detected, should be deprived of their Charter, but he could never agree with those who sought to demolish the social structure for the purpose of erecting their own temple in its stead.”

Lord Stormont “Would not agree to the Ministerial Budget of Reform. He represented ‘Aldborough’ in Yorkshire. Now that borough happened to be surrounded with walls, and as the place was as fully occupied now as it was formerly, it was evident that no alteration had taken place in the constituency. According to the noble Lord’s statement, 163 members were called upon to pronounce civil death to their constituents; he, however, thought that there were not 168 gentlemen to be found anywhere who would be ready to vote their own damnation.” (Sensation.)

Mr. Macaulay. “For himself he could only say, that so far as he was able to consider the proposition of the noble lord during the last twenty-four hours, he thought it a great, noble, and comprehensive measure, a medicine most skilfully prepared for removing a dangerous distemper, a plan excellently contrived for uniting and permanently knitting together all orders in the State. They had forgot the attempts made to put down emancipation, and how fruitless those attempts had proved. Did they wait for a time when demagogues demanded again to divide the power in the Cabinet of the Government of this country? or did they wait for that worst of all resources in a conflict with public opinion, the fidelity of the military? If they did not, let them concede Reform, while yet concession could be made with advantage to the country. It was yet time to save the property of the country from risk, to save the multitude (who demanded reform) from its own ungovernable power and passion, to save it from that danger, which even a few days might expose them and the country to.”

Mr. Hunt. “The people of England had for many years past been anxious for reform, and in 1816, 1817, and 1819, had loudly expressed their wishes for some measure to amend the state of representation. He did not condemn the ministers for not going the full length (universal suffrage) of his views; on the contrary, if they had only gone for disfranchising one rotten borough, they would have had his support on principle.”

Lord Morpeth said, “If the House was prepared to say that the demand for reform was not proper, that the evil was not manifest, that the corruption was not glaring, that they might with perfect consistency determine not to give up a stone of Gatton, and to die in the ditch at Old Sarum, where there was nothing left now but a ditch to die in. He believed that the House would not so far outrage the sense of the community as to say that they would not so much as entertain the question of reform. Two extreme parties (Tories and Radicals) were now agitating the country; one was opposed to all amelioration, and the other advocated the worst species of reform, with a view of subverting the existing institutions of the country, and all the gradations of rank, society, and order. Between those two extremes the only safe path was the Conservative principle to which the measure led that was now submitted to the House; to that let them hold fast. By conceding what was just, wise, and honest, they would be armed with tenfold power to resist the dangerous principles of some now promulgated, which were unjust, unwise, and unsafe.”

Sir Charles Wetherell said, “It appeared then by this Bill 60 boroughs were to be deprived of their franchise, and the time-honoured right of sending 120 members to Parliament, and that 47 were to lose one member each, and in the whole 168 members were to be ejected from that honourable house. He did not wish to call this by an offensive name, but as a great man (Mr. Locke) said that things should be called by their proper names, he would call it by the name of “Corporation Robbery”—(sensation). The present Cabinet of the noble lord, and his associates, seem to have proceeded upon the precedent in the history of England which had been set by Cromwell, Fairfax, Milbourne, and Co. Those worthy regicides set about reducing the number of members of Parliament in their day, and this plan of cutting off the boroughs, and confining the number of members, had not the merit of originality, for it was almost the same in form, in substance, and in principle, as the Radical system of reform, which has been introduced by regicides when they established a Commonwealth in England. Did gentlemen recollect how many experimental governments were now afloat? Did they recollect that there was a smithy of political blacksmiths, where constitutions were constantly on the anvil which was at work in making new fangled governments for all Europe. Let him be permitted, as he was in extremis, to utter the last expiring expressions of a dying member that Great Britain might not be added to the catalogue of experimental states, and that those visionary projects of His Majesty’s Ministers might not be realised. He had taken the liberty to call this measure a corporation robbery, and as there had lately been special commissions sent down into the country to enquire into the breaking of thrashing machines, he wished there could be a special commission issued from the Crown for preventing the breaking up of ancient and independent Corporations. There being no precedent for this confiscation of corporate property, he should be glad to hear from the Attorney-General upon what principle of law he would justify the present audacious attack upon the corporate rights of so many of those ridiculed places called small ‘rotten boroughs.’ He defied whether even he could lay his finger on a single page of the journals of that house which would at all warrant such an act of wholesale confiscation, aye of civil sacrilege. Then what he asked was the mode by which this amorphous body proposed to carry out their iniquitous measure? Why neither more nor less than a most audacious threat to dissolve Parliament in the event of their failure. The man who would be influenced by this audacious menace on the present momentous occasion would be nothing less than a rebel to his country—the man, he repeated, whom such a threat (uttered by any government) would influence, was a man wholly unworthy the name of a British Senator; was a recreant in morals; wholly deaf to the calls of conscience and English liberty. Within the last three days the house had been promised with a ‘purge,’ to which, as no name had been given to it, he would attach the name of ‘Russell’s Purge.’ Yes, he would call this bill ‘Russell’s Purge of Parliament.’ He held that the principle of the bill was Republican in its basis; it was destructive of all property, of all right, of all privileges; and that the same arbitrary violence which expelled a majority of the members from that house in the time of the Commonwealth, was now, after the lapse of a century from the Revolution, during which time the population had enjoyed greater happiness and security than was ever enjoyed by any population under the heavens, proceeding to expose the House of Commons, and the country again to the nauseous experiment of Pride’s Purge.”

The Attorney-General. “Surely his honoured and learned friend (Sir Chas. Wetherell) did not mean to say that Colonel Pride’s Purge had anything to do with Cromwell’s system of reform, for the periods of time at which they occurred were quite different. He would, however, ask his honourable friend and those who were acting with him, whether there was to be any reform at all? He had said that he was no enemy to representative improvement. When, where, how, and in what shape had his learned friend ever expressed himself a friend to reform? He had never heard such a sentiment proceed from him before. If they were advocates for reform to any extent, would they inform him of the plan, and how far it went? His learned friend had never brought forward a plan of reform, or expressed such a sentiment before that night. Corruptions abundantly had been proved, and the people of England had at length discovered that the evils which gave rise to such corruptions were no longer to be tolerated. The House of Commons was called upon to redress it; and he was satisfied that the members of that House, as English gentlemen, would not hesitate to pursue their enquiries into the practicability of redressing it, by passing the present bill. If hon. gentlemen were inclined to say that no reform ought to be had, or only such reform as could be effected by an ex post facto law, or a detestable bill of pains and penalties, the country knew what it had to expect from them; but, if they said that reform was necessary, but that this plan of reform was not satisfactory, then he would ask them to try their hands at producing a scheme which would give them less annoyance, and would prove more beneficial to the public at large. He had the authority of Burke, Pitt, Fox, and Lord Chatham in his best and proudest days, that reform in the House of Commons was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the internal quiet of the country. Mr. Pitt had said, “that without reform no honest man would be, or could be, an upright minister.” It was the mere accident of Peers having purchased Boroughs, which made it worth while to consult them as to matters which ought to appertain only to members of that House, properly so called. He contended that this measure, far from being unconstitutional, was in strict accordance with the spirit of the constitution; to take the elective franchise from decayed and corrupt Boroughs, and send them to more populated and healthy places. He knew that there were some gentlemen who thought that the Attorney-General ought to be a sort of censor over the press; but let him tell those gentlemen that he could find occupation far more advantageous to the country than proceeding against those whose very violence prevented them from doing mischief, and only disgusted the people whom it was their object to excite and exasperate. There were other violators of the law who were much more dangerous to the public weal. Let them hear no more about vested rights, for now if a Peer chose to interfere, by bargaining and influence, to return members to the House of Commons, that Peer was not only guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of that House, but subjected himself also to indictment at law. The character of the people of England was well known, and it was not their character to approve and applaud acts of spoliation and robbery. It was not consistent with the fact to say that the people of this country had been a happy and contented people for the last century, for, on the contrary, it was true that during that time they had suffered much and severely from unjust measures of that House, which would never have passed into law if the people had been fairly represented in Parliament. Much had been said by hon. members about revolutionary measures, he believed in his conscience that this Bill was strictly within the constitution of the land, and the only measure that is calculated to allay the outside clamour for reform, and prevent revolution. His learned friend might quit this house a martyr to the cause he has espoused, but he would have the satisfaction of reflecting, that on one great question he had been the advocate of intolerance, and on another the last champion of corruption.”

Mr. G. Bankes. “The learned Attorney-General had referred to the plan of reform which had been introduced by Oliver Cromwell in his parliament, and had stated that Lord Clarendon had given it his opinion “that it was well worthy of imitation by other parties.” Now, let them but just see how it had worked. Every thing that was absurd, futile, and ridiculous, it would appear from their debates, had taken place in this reformed parliament. As a test, however, of the merits of that reformed parliament, he should quote to the House the opinion of the parent of the measure after he (Cromwell) had tried it by experiment. On dissolving this reformed parliament the Protector Cromwell said, ‘My Lords and Gentlemen of the House of Commons, I had every comfortable expectation that God would make the meeting of this Parliament a blessing, and the Lord be my witness, I desired the carrying on the affairs of the nation to that end. Having proceeded upon these terms, and finding such a spirit as is too much predominant, everything being too high or too low, where virtue, honesty, piety and justice are omitted, I thought I had been doing my duty, and thought it would have satisfied you. You have not only disjointed yourselves but the whole nation, which is in the likelihood of running into more confusion in these 15 or 16 days that you have sat, than it hath been from the rising of the last Session to this day. And if this be the end of your sitting; and if this be your carriage, I think it high time that an end be put to your sitting, and I do dissolve this Parliament, and let God judge between you and me.’ (Cries of hear, hear.) Cromwell had given that parliament two trials, in the first instance five months, and the second 16 days; at the end of which he was compelled to dissolve it.”

Mr. Hobhouse. “He had listened to all that had been said on both sides on the subject of this debate, and he had not heard one single argument to show that there was any danger whatever that could arise, or was likely to arise, from adopting the project of the noble lord. Mr. Horace Swiss had expressed himself very much alarmed lest the present plan of reform should throw the elective franchise into the hands of shopkeepers and attorneys. He should like to ask where the elective franchise voted now? By the bill of the noble lord, the franchise would be thrown into the hands of that class which ought to possess it—namely, of people of a certain degree of property, and of those who had the greatest hold upon the higher classes. This was as good and proper a basis as could be proposed. It was scarcely possible to believe that any gentleman was sincere, when he expressed an apprehension, that a system of public rectitude and intelligence in electors would give vice and ignorance an ascendancy in the choice of representatives, and that a system of perjury, bribery, and corruption was essential to the attainment of virtue and knowledge. If those with whom he agreed in opinion had been accused of appealing to the fears of the people, he must accuse gentlemen opposite not of appealing to the fears of the people, but of doing what was infinitely worse,—they had appealed, by the worst of artifices, to the fears and selfish passions of those whom they called the aristocracy of the country. Could the gentlemen who now opposed the Ministry so violently make up a Government amongst themselves? A Ministry can only be formed on one of two principles—Anti-Reform or Reform—and so long as Ministers attempted to go on without a majority in the house in their favour, and the people outside against them, it was hopeless to expect tranquillity or security in the State. He asked the right hon. gentlemen and the house in the words of Poet Waller, in his famous speech on Episcopacy, ‘to Reform, that is not to abolish the Parliament.’”

Mr. Baring. “He had sat in that House a many years; he had approved of many acts of his hon. friends, but when a question of this magnitude was brought forward he would state his opposition to it without apology. Those who supported this measure said, ‘let the king stand by himself; let the lords stand by themselves; let the people stand by themselves; let there be no mutual connection between them.’ Such was their doctrine, but such was not the constitution of this country. What grievance, he would ask, did any man suffer in this country from the action and conduct of the other House? Did they find those Peers pressing on them in any way? Did they find them making laws which were directed against the popular branch of the legislature? Did they not find that their rights and liberties were as well secured as those of the House of Lords? He knew of no such interference, and he was firmly of opinion that the mixture of different powers and interests in that House had been the great protector and promoter of public liberty. It was certainly right and just that large popular bodies should be represented; but could they, he would ask, allow that principle to be put in force without having something to counter-balance it? His noble friend had gone on a reforming tour, but he had taken care to make no stay at the Borough of Tavistock, (which he represented). By this plan Boroughs containing less than 2000 inhabitants were to be disfranchised, and 47 Boroughs, having 4000 inhabitants, were to retain one member. Would not Tavistock, which was to be retained, belong as much to the Duke of Bedford as before? He would have the same influence that he now possesses. If, however, great changes must be made, he should regret it, and he must say that all the intelligent portion of the country would view its progress with the greatest concern. Much of the excitement was caused by this being announced as coming from the crown, but he felt satisfied that, but for such announcement, the people would be satisfied with a much less sweeping, and much more moderate, plan of reform.”

The Marquis of Tavistock said, “It appeared to him that the government of this country had for years been carried on on principles of most unjustifiable and wasteful extravagance; that patronage had been kept up for the purposes of maintaining the influences of the Crown, and that which was known as Parliamentary influence, for the purpose of carrying on measures against the sense of the country. The people felt now that they had not their just influence in the councils of the nation, and they naturally sought for that change which would give it to them. He sincerely believed that the measure now before the House would give them all they reasonably could desire. He hoped it would curb the monopoly so long maintained by the higher orders, and give a fair expression of the sense of the middle classes. With this view he should give it his cordial support.”

Lord Palmerston. “Fondness for change he must say was not the character of the English people. They had always been remarkable for a tenacious attachment to their national institutions, affording in this respect a striking contrast to their neighbours, the French nation. We well know the difficulty of bringing the people to consent to any change in their laws, how long and difficult was the struggle which brought them to give up first the traffic in human beings, the accursed Slave Trade, and at a later period those laws which condemned a large portion of the people to political degradation—he meant the penal laws against Roman Catholics. He contended that the people of this country sought for a change because the state of the country was such as to require it. The rock which the late government had split upon was their defiance of public opinion. They went on spreading wide the canvas of patronage as they proceeded—but that patronage, and the use they made of it, did not accelerate their progress, or increase their power, but proved to be their ruin. Taunts had been thrown out during the debate against those who like himself were great admirers of the late Mr. Canning. They had been taunted for abandoning the principles which that great man had adopted with respect to the important question of reform. He thought that the events that had taken place in that House since the death of that illustrious man might have taught those who had indulged in such taunts that public men might change their opinions on questions of deep national concernment without being influenced by any but honest and honourable motives. If any man took a great and enlarged view of human affairs—without doubt that eminent statesman did—he would venture to say that had Mr. Canning lived in these days, and stood in the same circumstances as he (Lord Palmerston) did, his great genius would at once have comprehended the necessity of the occasion, and would have stated in that House his well-known convictions of the necessity for a reform of the representation of the people. If any hon. member wanted to learn the opinions of Mr. Canning let him refer to his speech delivered in February, 1826, on the freedom of the silk trade, when he said ‘that those who resisted improvements because it was innovation upon old worn systems, might find themselves compelled to accept innovation when it had ceased to be improvement.’ He believed that the proposition would prove satisfactory to the country; he believed that there did not exist in any country in the world a body of men more entitled to respect and confidence than the middle classes of this country. He would venture to say that there was not a class of men more distinguished for morality and good conduct; for intelligence and love of order; for true loyalty to the king; for affection for the constitution; and in case of need for devotion to the country. To the manufacturing towns it was intended to give thirty-four members, and to preserve the just preponderance of the landed interest, it was proposed to add fifty-five new members to the counties. He would add that it was not talents under the present system that procured a man a seat in that House, but length of purse, the ability to pay agents and post-horses up to the fourteenth day. This was a great and practical evil, and this evil the Bill would do away with, for it would alter the distribution of the different classes, and bring the middle classes into communion with others.”

Sir Robert Peel. “He begged his noble friend to believe that he did not join in the taunts against him. He never could think that public men did not look to higher motives than a desire to retain their places when they were induced to change their opinions, and the character, the views, and the conduct of his noble friend afforded a sufficient guarantee for the purity of his motives. In his anxiety to find cause for blaming the administration which had preceded the last, his noble friend had said, that if in 1828 that Government had consented to transfer the elective franchise from the rotten borough of East Retford to Birmingham, the House would not now be discussing the necessity for a general reform, for that single measure would have quieted the apprehensions of the people. But, if from such small events such mighty results would spring, it was incumbent upon the House to enquire what was the paramount considerations under those circumstances which now rendered it imperative to change the constitution of the country. Why did they not consent to the disfranchisement of East Retford? His noble friend had lamented that the voice of Mr. Canning could not now be heard in that House, and had assumed that his voice would have been raised in favour of this Reform Bill. God grant that voice might now be raised in that House, convinced as he was, that it would be raised to confound the fallacies and sophistries by which the public mind was deceived. He regretted that the name of the King should be obtruded upon the house day by day; and he could not dismiss from his mind doubts and fears as to the justice and expediency of this extreme measure of disfranchisement; but, granting that they did not exist, still it was a harsh measure towards the loyal bodies who were called upon to sacrifice privileges which they had long exercised; and even if it was justly introduced, why should the King be held out as the special author of the plan. Then, the House was threatened with a dissolution; in his opinion the chances of a dissolution were as strong if the measure were carried as if it failed. They did not think that if they rejected that bill it implied an aversion to all measures of reform! Upon the same principle those gentlemen rejected the ballot, and why was he not at liberty to discuss this bill? He had never been the person to excite the people to a pitch of frenzy, to spur their lazy indifference into an emulation of revolutionary clamour. If, therefore, this measure which common prudence would have forborne introducing at such a crisis in our foreign and domestic relations, when fresh causes of excitement ought to be very cautiously avoided; if, he said, this extraordinary measure should be defeated he would never allow that the responsibility of the disappointment could attach to him, or those honourable members who acted with him in that House. Some disparagement had been made upon the middle classes, but he did not participate in that sentiment; on the contrary, he should ever repudiate it from his heart, for he (personally) desired his strength from that order of society; he was one of themselves, and should always be proud of his connexion with the middle classes of this country. He had heard frequent allusions to Burke and Canning, and other authorities whose opinions had been advanced in the course of the debate, but he would quote a passage from a speech of the noble member for Tavistock (Lord John Russell), in the session of 1819, which he considered much more to the purpose, and was, besides being apposite to the question, one of the most beautiful specimens of eloquence ever uttered in that house. The discussion related to the disfranchisement of a corrupt borough in Cornwall. When asked what he would do with the unconvicted boroughs, he replied that he would consider a general disfranchisement of the unconvicted boroughs a reconstruction of the House of Commons altogether. He has therefore the noble lord’s own authority for so designating the present plan of reform. He then observed that ‘Old Sarum’ had existed when Montesquieu pronounced the constitution of England the nearest to perfection of any which the most enlightened States had ever before experienced. When Lord Somers, and the other great legislators who flourished with him, bore attestation to its merits, it was open to the same objections which have since been urged against it, and when Hampden lost his life Rutland returned the same number of members as Yorkshire. Such was the noble lord’s judicious, and at the present moment timely, warning against the danger of rashly departing from the practical wisdom of mankind during the centuries of historic experience, proffered at the critical junction of 1819. With respect to the question before the House, he could not but declare that he saw in it but the instrument of men endeavouring to retain power. It was the inevitable tendency of the Bill to sever every link of connexion between the poorer classes, and that class from whom the representatives were now chosen. Now, this severing of the ties which connected the highest and the lowest classes was opposed to the practical working of the present system of representation, which enabled every class, in some way or other, to have a voice in the election of the members of that House. With regard to the influence of the oligarchy, he would ask hon. members to point out to him any attempt to subject the people of England to the sway of an oligarchy, or to establish any laws of exclusion or distinction among them. Up to this time no practical advantage had been held out to the House, as to the natural consequences of the change now proposed. All the reason that had been urged that it was necessary to conciliate public opinion. No better way of conciliating public opinion had been devised, than that of adding half a million of electors to the constituency of the country; but if that were a good way of conciliating public feeling, then, if another Government, wishing to participate in this popular favour, should add another million of electors to the constituency, would that argument meet with the same favour and success? Look at the question of reform in all its bearings—look at the parliamentary debates, and you will find that whenever the question was agitated some dire misfortune lurked behind. It was brought forward with great pomp of circumstances in the year of the rebellion in 1745; it was brought forward during the American war; it was brought forward at the commencement of the French war; and, to come to our own times, it was prominently brought forward in 1817, 1819, 1822, in a word, at every period in which there was either commercial or great agricultural distress in the country. Then, it was sure to find great favour with the people. It was brought forward also at the periods when the excitements of foreign revolutions misled the judgment of the British public, and, deluding them with a false love of liberty, rendered them discontented with the moderate freedom they enjoyed. Let us therefore be content with the well-tempered freedom that we now enjoy, and which we have the means of securing if we act with ordinary discretion. I lament exceedingly that the Government should have determined to have agitated such a vital question, as that of reform, at this particular crisis; it would have been wiser in my opinion to have avoided these new causes of excitement, for depend upon it by this process throughout the land the first seeds of discontent and disunion are sown. Oh, sir, I lament beyond measure that the Government had not the prudence to adhere to that course of policy, which, if they did think it necessary to propose a plan of reform in this excited state of the public mind, they did not confine it within those narrow limits which are consistent with the safety of the country and the dignity of their own characters. They have sent through the land a firebrand of agitation; and it is easy so far to imitate the giant enemy of the Philistines as to send 300 firebrands carrying danger and dismay in all quarters, but it is not so easy when the mischief is done to find a remedy for it. In the present difficulty you should have the powers of summoning all the energies of life, and should take care that you do not signalize your own destruction by bowing down the pillars of the edifice of your liberty, which, with all its imperfections, still contains the noblest society of freemen known to the habitable world.”

Mr. Calcraft. “Solemnly declared his opinion that this measure must, in the end, convert this country into a Republic; and the trifling difference that existed between his noble friend, the opposition and himself, was this—that he was for reform, and the noble lord was for revolution.”

Mr. Wm. Duncombe. “He had listened to the proposition of the noble Lord, and in taking a retrospect of the whole debate he was compelled to acknowledge that there was much more of declamation in it than of argument, much more of assertion than of fact, and much more of fear than of resolution. He deemed it to be revolutionary with respect to the Constitution and Government of the country, and as it affected the people of England it was tyrannical and unjust. He had never consented to the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, nor would he ever consent to the disfranchisement proposed by this Reform Bill.”

Mr. Stanley. “Had anxiously listened to the discussions that had taken place in that House the last eight years upon the all-absorbing question of Reform, without having ventured to give more than a silent, though cordial vote in favour of the great principles which it involved. He confessed that he had heard the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel) with some sorrow, use, he would not say inflammatory language, when speaking of this measure, but declare that it would lead to revolution. It was not a revolutionary measure, no, but it was a new constitution. Now, his idea of revolution was this, that revolution was a great change effected in the constitution of a country by the use of unconstitutional means, and force, called by the extraordinary circumstances of the time into operation, and enabled, in consequence of the operation of those circumstances, to overthrow the constitution. When this was the case, let those who had always on principles of justice and of policy maintained and upheld this great question of Parliamentary Reform,—let them in bringing their proposition forward, without being told that they were endeavouring to overawe and intimidate the House, be allowed to advert to the situation of the country as a collateral argument in favour of the measure they advocated. He regretted as much as any man that the name of the Sovereign had been used in that House. He was sorry that that name had been brought forward in a manner which might be supposed likely to influence their decision. But the name of the Sovereign had been made use of in the public press, and to that he could only answer that the House had no influence over the public press. The hon. Baronet said, ‘Why has Government brought this Bill forward? It is a bad time and ought not to be introduced now.’ In answer to this we would ask, what was the conditional pledge upon which Ministers came in and without which his noble friend (Lord John Russell) would not have accepted office. It was this, that they would bring in a measure of Reform. Now, with this pledge on their lips, with those principles in their hearts, which they had always maintained, they entered office. Now, what is the kind of advice the hon. Baronet gives them, he said, ‘Now, that you are in office, tell the people that the time is not convenient for Reform!’ If the Government acted on such a principle as that, then indeed a fearful responsibility would rest upon their shoulders. Dreadful would be the consequences arising from disappointed hopes, and high expectations blighted and falsified by the mean conduct of those upon whom the people had relied. But let the House look back for the last few years and mark the time, the money, and the talents which had been wasted in discussing useless questions with respect to boroughs charged with malpractices, inquiring, for instance, whether one voter received one guinea and another five, when it was notorious that boroughs were commonly bought and sold in the market by the proprietors. And, after all this labour and enquiry, what had been gained in the shape of any reform, not one great town, not one great district, had been added to those represented in that House. Not one corrupt borough had been deprived of the means of corruption. It was the opinion of Mr. Pitt, when he attempted to effect a reform in Parliament, that a certain line should be fixed to the disfranchisement of rotten and corrupt boroughs, and asserted, that in the earlier periods of the constitution, ‘That as one borough decayed and another arose, the one was abolished, and the other was invested with the right.’ He had been told some curious circumstances connected with the proceedings at Wareham. His hon. friend had informed him that on the occasion of his being chaired as one of the members for Wareham, he heard one elector say to another, ‘Pray, which is the new member.’ Why, answered the other, ‘Calcraft is one, and a friend of his is the other; but I never saw him, and I don’t know who he is.’ Doubtless any person recommended by his hon. friend would be highly respectable but he was elected without being at all known by the electors. For his own part he felt no alarm for the results of the Bill. By that Bill would be upheld the influence of the aristocracy as it was before; he meant that legitimate influence which they ought to possess, not the influence of bribery and corruption, nor the influence of direct nominations, for the only influence which the Bill would remove was that which was notoriously illegal. Ministers had come into office pledged to economy, retrenchment, and reform; these pledges they had redeemed. They had cut off from themselves and their successors for ever that corrupt patronage upon which heretofore so much of the Government depended. With these views of the measure before the House, he earnestly implored hon. members, by their sense of justice to the country, by their respect of what was due to the people, by their regard for the maintenance of that glorious constitution, what had been handed down to them by their ancestors, by their regard for the permanency of our institutions, and the peace and security of the state; he called on them by all these considerations, by their respect for the petitions of the people, for what might be lawfully asked and could not be constitutionally refused, to support His Majesty’s Government in their endeavour to uphold and cement the legitimate rights of the Crown, the aristocracy, and the people, and, by so doing, to fix the whole as well as their own fame on the imperishable basis of the affections of the people.”

Mr. H. Seymour. “This measure proceeded not from fear, but from a desire to court popularity. It was an unjust attempt to reduce the power of the aristocracy, as well as of the lower classes. He contended that if the House was the corrupt body it was represented to be, it was incompetent to settle this great question. It was a measure devoid of principle, or if principle was asserted in some parts of the plan it was violated in others. It was broken through for some portion of the aristocracy to court popularity; if the constitution was to be violated in this manner, he would rather have no constitution at all. The whole measure was, in his opinion, one of deceit; it removed the direct influence which was seen, and left that which was much worse, the influence which it could not see, yet of which it complained. To a measure of that kind he could not give his consent.”

Mr. G. W. Wynn. “The constitution of this country was one of constant innovations and perpetual amendments; but admitting this, he thought such amendments ought to be gradual. Many changes which might be made with great advantage, would, if made at once, be found highly beneficial to the country. It was on this principle that he, from time to time, supported motions for the disfranchisement of boroughs which had been found guilty of gross corruption, and without any personal vanity, he might say, that he it was that drew the transfer clause to give the franchise of the corrupt Borough of Helstone to Yorkshire. He was aware that it had been said that the present measure, if agreed to, would preclude any further change; but if the measure was rejected, demands for greater changes would be made by the people. He had always thought that those great towns ought to have representatives, and he believed their possessing the elective franchise would be beneficial to the country.”

Mr. Tennyson said, “That he would support the measure of his noble friend (Lord John Russell), for he believed that it would put the representation upon a permanent and, he hoped, everlasting standing. The sacrifice he should make by losing his seat was nothing to him, but he felt bound to refer to his relative, Mr. Wm. Russell. That hon. member, by this present Bill, would be called upon to make a sacrifice of three of what are termed nomination boroughs; boroughs not purchased by him, but which had descended to him by inheritance; and he was willing to offer this £100,000, the value of these nominations, upon the altar of his country, in order to ransom her from that oligarchy which has too long held her destinies in their merciless and unhallowed power.”

Mr. Daniel O’Connell said, “That he looked upon the plan as large, liberal and wise, and he should give it his most decided and anxious support, for in fact it was an effectual measure of reform. It was well known that he was a Political Reformer, and that he was in favour of Universal Suffrage and shorter Parliaments; yet, though the measure did not embrace these points, it was still very liberal, and would be an experiment to prove whether any further extension was necessary. He was delighted with the mode in which the noble lord had treated the close boroughs; he had applied the pruning knife to the rotten boroughs with a thorough masterly hand. Every part of the constitution was violated by their existence. We could venture to say that the mound of Sarum was a Constitutional Borough? Why should noble lords have the right to send members to sit in that House? Good God, was it to be sounded in their ears that the Lords were to send their members, one after another, in the most open and avowed manner into that House for these rotten and close boroughs; and was he to be told that they were about to commit robbery; that they were guilty of an unjust seizure of franchises? But who were the robbers? He never heard of a grant of a Charter from the Crown, or any Parliament, empowering any individual to send members to Parliament. No, the franchises were granted to them, and it was not that this act seized and destroyed them; but this act was intended to lay hold of the spoliaters of them. That House had no right to question the privileges of the House of Lords, but it had as good a right to do it as the lords had to spoliate the privileges and liberties of the House of Commons. The people out of doors talked good sense, they say, ‘you have got our property, you have spoliated our liberties, but you must disgorge them.’ God help those members who could crawl into that House and then talk of coming in without stooping. He would ask the hon. members for Bowbridge and Aldborough, if they could stand forward and advocate that system, which in the rotten boroughs gave annual debaucheries, and every six years (for 14 days) all that bribery, and corruption, and robbery could inflict,—was it fit that such a system of misrepresentation should stand any longer? Were not the nomination boroughs openly sold, and was not the price of them as well known as cattle in Smithfield? In 1822, the votes against Reform and Retrenchment gave a return of 19 votes out of 20, by members representing places not containing an average population of 500 persons. When they talked of the excellent working of the present Constitution, he would whisper a single word into their ears, ‘Ireland,’ that country, of whose people perennial starvation was the lot; he would call upon them to secure to that country the blessings of good Government, and to give to that House a fair and honourable representation.”

Mr. Coke said, “That he had been a member of that House for more than half-a-century, and during that long time he had watched the proceedings of parties, and the results of great questions, and he must say that every day he was more and more convinced of the necessity for reform. When he had heard that the noble Lord had made a resolution to do away with rotten boroughs he felt great confidence in the measure, and was convinced of the necessity of giving the administration his warmest support.”

Colonel Tidthorp. “Although there were many blemishes in the existing representative system of the country, he could never bring himself to consent to a remedy by the means of taking away the franchise, at one whole sweep, from so many people who had never abused the constitutional trust reposed in them. He could not but pronounce the measure in this respect to be most unjust and tyrannical.”

Mr. R. Grant said, “That they were told that the Reformers entertained the most extravagant expectations, and that the only use that they intended to make of the present concessions was to render them subservient to the attainment of objects, remote, dangerous, and undefined. Had not the history of mankind assured them that the most effectual mode of resisting unreasonable demands was, to concede everything which reason and justice could claim. The people of England were entitled to the whole House of Commons, but in the debate they had been told that they were not to look for any such thing, that the Commons House of Parliament had never existed in the British Constitution, and that the House they had was not the House of Commons, but was something belonging to the Three Estates, it was the House of the King, of the Lords, and the Commons!!! In noting this argument he considered that he gave it its most complete refutation; the House to which he belonged was the Commons House, and nothing else, Peers and Bishops could not sit in it. It was vain to talk of maintaining the doctrines which had been broached in this discussion, in the present diffused state of knowledge throughout England, with the immense number of schools in every part of the kingdom, with the prodigious increase in Mechanics’ Institutions, and with all that could give an impetus to the human mind, it was vain to talk of arresting progress, or of blinding men to what interested them so deeply. The present state of the popular enlightenment demanded an improved legislature, and it would be at once dangerous and absurd, and unjust, to resist such a demand.”

The main features of this great Reform Bill were the disfranchisement of rotten small towns and places which had fallen into insignificance, and confer such franchise upon large towns and populations which hitherto had not any representation. The 40s. freehold vote for counties had existed for upwards of three centuries, but it was supplemented with a £50 occupation clause, and all borough votes were fixed at a £10 rental.

The effect of this sweeping measure was that 56 small towns and places, having a population of less than 2000, were entirely disfranchised. Thirty towns, having a population under 4000, hitherto sending two members to parliament, were reduced to one member; twenty-two large towns, not having had a representative, were supplied with two members each; twenty other smaller towns were allotted one member each. The remainder of the seats were added to the counties, some of which obtained two additional members, and others only one member.

The Reform Bill passed the House of Lords, on June 4th, 1832.

The debate on the Reform Bill in the House of Lords was of a very excited character, considering the usual gravity of the lords, and the following recital may be worth perusal:—

“The death of George IV. occurred on the 26th June, 1830. The question of Parliamentary reform belongs probably to the succeeding reign of William IV., at the opening of which—after the dissolution and general election—public feeling ran so high, in consequence of the declaration of the Duke of Wellington against reform, that the King was warned not to venture into the city to dine with the Lord Mayor. The scene in the House of Lords on the occasion of the King coming down to dissolve parliament is described as being ‘riotous.’ Lord Wharncliffe rose to propose his motion affecting the estimates; the Duke of Richmond was determined to defeat the motion, and interrupted the noble lord by calling attention to the fact—on a point of order—that noble lords were not in their places, and moved that standing Order No. 1 be read, which renders it necessary that noble lords ‘shall sit in their proper places.’ The opportunity seized for this intentional interruption arose out of a noble earl having sat next to one of the junior barons of the House. Lords Londonderry and Clanricarde simultaneously rose to ‘order,’ Lord Wharncliffe protested, and Lord Lyndhurst delivered a violent attack on the Duke of Richmond, to which the latter retorted by threatening that if this ‘tone’ were repeated he would move that Standing Order No. 1 should be read, and further, ‘that the order should also be read which forbids the use of intemperate and offensive language in the House.’ Violent rage and angry gesticulation, it is reported, ensued. Lord Wharncliffe again attempted to resume his address, when the Lord Chancellor cut short his remarks by clutching the seals and darting out of the House. As the King advanced the noise of the altercation became distinctly audible to him, and he asked, ‘What’s that, my Lord Chancellor?’ To which the Chancellor replied, ‘Only, may it please you, sir, the House of Lords amusing themselves.’ The King having ascended the throne, the ‘Commons’ were summoned to the Royal presence. The Usher of the Black Rod (Sir Thomas Tyrwhit) on proceeding to fulfil the Royal command, found the Commons in a ‘state of turbulence and disorder.’ On the presentation of a petition for reform Sir Richard Vyvyan arraigned Ministers in an ‘offensive speech.’ Uproar ensued, amidst which Sir Francis Burdett rose to order. The Speaker declared Sir Richard in order, when Mr. Tennyson disputed the propriety of the Speaker’s decision. The Speaker decided that Sir Richard was in order. The latter then remarked upon the proceeding of any member questioning the decision of the ‘chair.’ What followed is very remarkable. Lord John Russell at once rose ‘to complain that any member should be blamed for so doing,’ and ‘denying that the decision of the chair was necessarily imperative in the House.’ The entrance of the Usher, above mentioned, put a stop to these turbulent proceedings, and the King informed his ‘faithful Commons,’ in a shrill angry voice, that he came down with a view to the ‘instant dissolution’ of Parliament. After all, our Parliamentary ancestors were not the orderly beings now-a-days represented; nor is it deemed desirable that their turbulent example should be imitated. The ancient Borough of Dudley obtained one member by the Reform Bill, but in Charles I.’s time it had two Members of Parliament.”

Dudley, like most rising towns, was keenly observing these great political movements, and as far as its influence went in the county elections on the reform question, it was considered that the reformers of Dudley were mainly instrumental in unseating Colonel Lygon at the county election on May 11th, 1831.

In anticipation that the town of Dudley was to have a representative in Parliament under the Reform Bill, efforts were made by both political parties to secure a preponderance of power and influence in this question, and we quote a requisition to the Mayor, in 1831, to hold a public meeting to consider this business.

To J. C. BRETTELL, Esq.,

Mayor of Dudley.

We, the undersigned, request you will convene an early meeting of the principal inhabitants of this town for the purpose of petitioning for a Moderate Reform in Parliament, and at the same time praying that any reform that may be adopted may not include Vote by Ballot, Universal Suffrage, or Annual Parliaments.

Also to petition that our ancient privilege of returning two members to Parliament may be restored to us.

L. Booker, Vicar

P. Robinson

Wm. Lewis

John Booth

A. Hawkes

Thomas Badger

C. H. Molineux

John Roberts

Wm. Fellowes

Thomas Fear

B. Leadbetter

John Smart

Chas. Lucas

Jos. Windsor

John Owen

Wm. Izod

Thos. Griffiths

Edward Hollies

Joseph Guest

Edward Guest

Walter Williams

Sept. Badger

John Rhann

Wm. Fellowes, Jun.

John Williams

Whitehouse & Sons

William Chinner

J. S. Turner

Thos. Pitt Stokes

Richard Lakin

Chas. Homer

John Bagott

Alex. Gordon

Wm. Self

John Darby

Edward Foley

B. Dudley

Jos. Payton

Jos. Haden

Isaac Badger

C. F. Hewitt

Geo. England

Thomas Lester

Edward Terry

Edward Blakeway

Stephen Bullas

James Griffin

Samuel Paskin

Chas. Bunn

John Hodgetts

Joseph Cox

Thos. Cox

Edward Marsh

Joseph Royle

with seventy-four other signatures.

Dudley, Feb. 7th, 1831.

This highly respectable requisition to the Mayor seems to have awakened the indignation of “An Inhabitant,” for the following hand bill appeared!

INHABITANTS OF DUDLEY.

Some Gentlemen, having signed a Requisition to Mr. Brettell (the Mayor), but doubtless in ignorance of its real contents, to call a Meeting of the principal Inhabitants to support a Moderate Reform in Parliament, that is in effect, no Reform at all.

Arouse!!! and assert your dignity of character and right to Independence, and your abhorrence at tampering with Vice, for no honest men would wish the partial but entire Reform of vicious habits and principles.

Attend then the Meeting, which is to take place to-morrow morning, at the Town Hall, at 11 o’clock precisely, and by your Vote avenge the insult offered to you by this impudent Requisition, and shew the arrogant few that the many constitute the principal inhabitants of this Town, and at the same time do your duty to yourselves, your families, and your country, by demonstrating by your voice and votes that nothing short of the removal of the whole of the evils which oppress us will satisfy the just demands of an insulted and suffering people.

AN INHABITANT.

Dudley, Feb. 9th, 1831.

VOTE BY BALLOT.

Fellow Townsmen,

As some of you may not be aware of the essential importance of the Vote by Ballot, I take this opportunity of stating a few of its advantages:—

It will effectually destroy bribery and corruption, as it will be in vain for any candidate to purchase votes when he cannot possibly know on which side the elector will vote.

Vote by Ballot is the only means by which we shall get the House of Commons filled with men of principle, who will manage the affairs of the Nation in a way so as to relieve us from oppressive Taxation, and eventually to secure prosperity to every class of the community.

If we exclude Vote by Ballot we are giving up our own right of choosing a representative to persons who, from some local circumstances, may have influence over us.

Beware of signing any petition for MODERATE REFORM, which excludes Vote by Ballot, as a Reform of that nature will only increase our present burdens, and our National sins, inasmuch as it will cause Bribery to be still more extensively practised, and render still more universal those appalling scenes of Electioneering dissipation.

A TOWNSMAN.

Dudley, February 8th, 1831.

This Townsman little dreamt that Vote by Ballot, which we now enjoy, would be the very means of encouraging bribery and corruption continually.

Both Colonel Lygon, M.P. for the County of Worcester, and Mr. Abiathar Hawkes, Glass Manufacturer of Dudley, appeared to have anticipated an election, for they issued their addresses.

TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN AND PARISH OF DUDLEY.

Gentlemen,

In the event of the Ministerial Bill of Reform being carried into a Law, this Town and Parish will enjoy the distinguished privilege of returning a Member to Parliament.

Should that be the case, I beg to announce to you my intention of offering myself as a Candidate, and if I am deemed worthy of your kind support, and obtain through your Suffrages the high object of my wishes, I pledge myself to serve you faithfully, diligently, and honestly.

I have the honour to remain,

Gentlemen,

Your faithful and obedient Servant,

ABIATHAR HAWKES.

Kingswinford, March 12th, 1831.

Mr. Hawkes having signed the Requisition to the Mayor in favour of a moderate Reform Bill, was then looked upon as a moderate Reformer, but a stern advocate for Church and State; he eventually came out as a decided anti-reformer.

Colonel Lygon, M.P., was already one of the Members for Worcestershire, but his recent Votes on the Reform Question, had created much disunion amongst his supporters.

TO THE GENTLEMEN, CLERGY AND FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER.

Gentlemen,

When I had lately the Honour of being returned one of your Representatives in Parliament, I little expected that it would be necessary so soon to address you again; but seeing in the County Newspapers, that an Opposition is preparing against me, I feel it an imperative Duty to come forward with an Avowal of my Sentiments, and in Vindication of my public conduct. The Accusation is that I voted against Lord John Russell’s Reform Bill. Gentlemen, my Conscience and my best Judgment revolted at this Bill; so violent in principle, so hazardous to our well-balanced Constitution, the envy of other countries, the safety of our own. I am by no means an enemy to such Reform as Time and change of circumstances may have rendered necessary; but let calm, and deliberate caution attend the Measure, neither spoliating the Property of some, nor destroying the Privileges of others; such a Measure shall have my best support. I can, with truth say, that the retrospect of my public life, whether in a Military or Civil capacity gives me no reproach; I have served my Country independently, honestly, and faithfully, to the best of my judgment, ever anxiously promoting the wishes of my Constituents, never asking favour for myself. Let, then, the trial with my Opponents come when it will, I will meet it fearlessly; resting on the Integrity of my own intentions, and on the support of those numerous friends, who now voluntarily offer me their Services.

With the greatest Gratitude and Respect,

I am, Gentlemen,

Your very faithful and obedient Servant,

HENRY BEAUCHAMP LYGON.

Grosvenor Place, April 19th, 1831.

This ambiguous address of Colonel Lygon’s created a vehement outburst of opposition from the reformers against him, thus—

TO THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER.

Brother Freeholders,

A factious opposition, and the intrigues of the selfish Boroughmongers, have postponed that highly beneficial and absolutely necessary measure of Reform introduced into the House of Commons by His Majesty’s Ministers. Our patriot king, however, highly approving of the principles of his ministers, and determined that the Bill shall not be crushed, or his own and his people’s rights longer withheld by the vile machinations of the Wetheralls, the Lygons, and the other partizans of corruption, has exercised his undoubted right of dissolving the Parliament, and “England now expects every man to do his duty.”

On every occasion when Col. Lygon has voted he has opposed Reform in every shape—however bit by bit—however moderate—and now he adds to his political delinquencies, Insult and Hypocrisy. In his Addresses, “he begs most explicitly to declare that he is friendly to moderate and constitutional Reform, to remove any abuse or improper innovations which time may have introduced.”

Yet he voted against transferring the Elective Franchise of East Retford (convicted of gross bribery and corruption) to Birmingham!

He is friendly to a moderate and constitutional Reform, yet he opposed the Marquis of Blandford’s Bill!

He is friendly to a moderate and constitutional Reform, yet he voted against Lord John Russell’s motion to transfer the Elective Franchise from boroughs (convicted of corruption) to Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester! Is not this hypocrisy? If not, what is it? With these facts before the public—facts known to every individual in the county—he insults them by sending forth An Address, of which the assertions above quoted form a part, imagining that the Freeholders in the County of Worcester have minds so contracted, and understandings so degraded and debased, that a shallow hypocritical device like this would dupe them for a moment.

Freeholders, this Colonel Lygon again solicits your votes, that he may again oppose the beneficent and patriotic intentions of His Majesty’s Ministers—again oppose every measure beneficial to the people. You know your answer.

A FREEHOLDER.

Dudley, April 23rd, 1831.

“Read! Mark! Learn! and Inwardly Digest!”
IF POSSIBLE.

TO THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF SALOP.

Gentlemen,

An Address to you from Mr. Mytton has just now been published. He has an equal Right with myself upon your notice; though in this act of his it has not my participation—it however obliges me to declare my intention of setting forward a Canvass, which otherwise, on account of the immediate day for collecting the sense of the County at the Nomination, I had forborne to do.

Your obedient,

Faithful servant,

(Signed) J. CRESSETT PELHAM.

Buildwas Bridge, Sunday Evening, May 1, 1831.

THE STYLE OF POLITICAL WRITING IN 1831.

MORNING SERVICE.

First Lesson.

And it came to pass in the days of a mighty Monarch, that he called forth his mighty men and Counsellors, and said unto them, “Go forth every man unto his place, and if ye are approved of, return ye; and if ye have not served my people faithfully, return ye not. But let my people choose for themselves, those that will counsel with my people, that they speak their will before me, and plead for them to the intent that I may make them a great and happy nation.”

And of the two men who represented the ancient and loyal County, even that great County, Worcester, one was not found faithful, and the people murmured greatly, but the Elders and Rulers of the County said, “We will return those Men, let us make haste,” they said, and they did so; and in the morning, when they were in the Judgment Seat, going to return those men, the men of the County said one to another, “Will no one deliver us from the man we dislike?” and they were overwhelmed with despair, for fear of that awful Man which some of the Elders had elected, having £50,000, lest he should destroy their liberties, and bring them to bondage for ever! And there was sojourning that way a MAN OF WAR, and the people ran unto him within a few minutes of the expiration of the last hour, and said unto him, “Deliver us from our oppressors,” and the MAN OF WAR said, “I will deliver you;” and suddenly there was a shout of joy which rended the air, and those of the Judgment Seat were sore afraid, and said one to another, “What meaneth this?” And when he appeared, the Elders and Rulers of the County were struck dumb, and the hand of oppression withered at his presence, and the MAN OF WAR said, “I am come to offer myself to represent you in the Great Assembly, in the place of the man who is not approved of,” and the people shouted,

LONG LIVE THE MAN OF WAR!!!

SPENCER! FOLEY! AND REFORM.

MORNING SERVICE.

Second Lesson.

After these things the MAN OF WAR passed over and came unto a place called the HUSTINGS, in the land of the LYGONITES, over against WORCESTER, and great multitudes followed him.

And the children of the land rejoiced greatly because of him, for he was a mighty man of valour.

And the Chief of the LYGONITES went forth to meet him, and asked him, saying,—

Wherefore art thou come?

And the MAN OF WAR answered and said, for deliverance of the needy am I come, that the poor may rejoice, and the heart of the humble be glad.—

Then the LYGONITISH leader asked him again, knowest thou not that this country is mine? that I am chosen of the Elders of the Land?

But he answered Verily I say unto you, though the Elders have chosen thee, thou hast purchased them with Bribes;—yea, they have received the wages of iniquity.

And when the Chief of the LYGONITES saw, that by words he could prevail nothing, he set his army in array against the MAN OF WAR,—and the battle joined.

And lo, the Chief of the LYGONITES, caused men of foolish minds to enlist under his banners, and they fought till the going down of the sun.

And on the morrow they hasted to the Battle, and the army of the MAN OF WAR gained the VICTORY!

After these things there were great commotions and troubles; and the noise of their tumult was heard afar off.

For the Chief of the LYGONITES gathered other servants together, and fought against the MAN OF WAR:—But he could not prevail.

Then was heard great rejoicing, for the people were glad.

And they sung—“Rejoice, and be exceeding glad!—break forth into singing, for the victory is won!”

“For the enemy came forth like a flood; and terrible was his army of banners!”

“But he has fallen from his high estate, and his name shall sink into the dust.”

“Yea; now are the mighty fallen; and the doom of the oppressors is sealed!”

NO LYGON,

Down with the Boroughmongers.

A CONTINUATION OF THE BOOK OF KINGS.

Chapter I.

And George the King died and was buried with his forefathers, and King William the Fourth reigned in his stead, over the Land of Great Britain.

2 And this King William did that which was just and right in the eyes of the wise and prudent, and was to his people as a blessing from heaven.

3 He opposed robbers of the public treasury, the plunderers of the people, the oppressors of mankind, the sacrilegeous—hypocrites, and evil doers, and all such as did succumb to them, and brought on them shame and confusion.

4 And it was on this wise:

5 A certain man of ancient extraction, and of great repute, an Englishman, called John Bull, from various causes fell sick, and was grievously ill-treated by those to whom he trusted to be preserved, and from their machinations was become as one going down to the Grave; for many of his Members were exceedingly filthy and corrupt—disgusting to the eyes of men to behold.

6 Now it came to pass there were certain good ministers of the people, who beheld with horror the state of this man, and shuddered at the contemplation of the baseness and iniquity of the workers thereof.

7 And they straightway proceeded to the King, and he giving audience, they reported unto him what they knew concerning this matter.

8 And the King was wrath and sore displeased at what he had heard.

9 Then the King commanded them, saying, call me an assembly together, both of the good and the bad, and set this man’s case before them, so that searching diligently into the truth, we may relieve his affliction and punish the aggressors.

10 They went forth from the King’s presence and did according as he had commanded them.

11 And when that which had passed was made known to the evil doers, they consulted amongst themselves how they might repel the attack, and still hold on in the system of hypocrisy and plunder: and they, with one accord, cried what law is there to prevent the continuation of our practices, and who shall say unto us, “so far shalt thou go and no farther:” and they went forth, hardened in their sin, to attend the assembly.

12 And the people cried, lo! behold them bold in their iniquity, for shame hath not tinged their cheeks.

13 And the assembly being met, the man’s case was commanded to be heard: And the man groaned bitterly and cried unto the good ministers “Save me or I perish.”

14 And one of the good men arose, and said unto the assembly, hearest thou what this man sayeth, and addressing himself unto the evil doers, he saith, this thing needeth amendment, for the life of the man standeth in jeopardy.

15 And this good man with the assistance of another, like unto himself, who had grown Grey in the service of mankind, prepared a remedy, and he stood up and declared it aloud unto the assembly, saying,

16 Let the Members of this man that are become so filthy and impure, so corrupt and nauseous to the sight, and so poisonous to the man’s whole body be forthwith severed therefrom, that the more wholesome part may not be endangered; for without this he cannot be saved.

17 And he, proceeding, said let us make him a draught that might purge him of the filth within him, so shall he once more enjoy health.

18 And this draught is called “Russell’s Purge” unto this day.

19 When he had thus spoke the good men rejoiced exceedingly and approved of his counsel.

20 But the workers of iniquity, who sought their own gain, though at the life of the man, cried most vehemently against it and said, shall our places be taken from us and given unto others? Shall we lack our fees which we were wont to receive? Shall those Members be cast away that afforded us such profit and source of peculation? Shall the rottenness be purged away on which we and our understrappers feed? Oh! unjust sentence.—Alas! our hope is withered.—And Oh! ye our faithful Servants, who like fattened maggots have so gloriously gorged upon this man’s body, thy day of Short Commons is come.

21 And the Debate was of long continuance, for seven successive nights rested they not from their labours: and the hopes and wishes of mankind were great:

22 But the wicked dwelt not so securely as they in their vanity imagined, for the good men prevailed, and this was made known unto the King and the People.

23 And the King was wonderfully well pleased, and the people shouted their gladness.

24 And John Bull failed not in giving honour and praise to the King and his ministers; But he said unto the workers of iniquity—

O! ye hypocrites whom I have cherished with my substance,

And who have polluted my body,

Thy day of Punishment—the day of retribution, is at hand.

Thy baseness and cupidity are made known to all men,

And for these thy works,

Know that Tribulation treadeth hard upon thy heels,

And mankind shall curse thee with the curse of bitterness.

25 And the people cried Amen. So be it.

26 And they went to their homes rejoicing—praising the Saviours of their Country, and crying aloud—

Heaven’s blessings on our Ministers and supporters—

“God save the King.”

(Thus endeth the First Chapter.)

£50,000 REWARD.

LOST,

At St. Stephen’s, Westminster, on the 19th of April last, an OLD MILITARY CLOAK BAG, containing Colonel Lygon’s Popularity; the Tie by which it was held had been long weak and flimsy, and it finally gave him the slip at the above spot, along with that of an Old Trooper, one General Gascoyne.

The advertiser cannot but deeply lament the loss of this Garment, as although much soiled and worn, he had hoped with a little occasional patching it might have proved a good strong covering for himself and family, for many generations, and as he valued it more for the facility it afforded him of forwarding his own Views at the Horse Guards (in which he found it highly serviceable) than for any application he made to the service of the

FREEHOLDERS OF WORCESTERSHIRE,

he is very desirous of being reinstalled in possession, or of procuring some other Garment that may enable him again to enter St. Stephen’s, he therefore offers the above Handsome Reward for its discovery, which will be paid on application to LADY BEAUCHAMP!!

He more particularly appeals to the Attorneys of this and the adjoining Counties, and he trusts from the large Reward offered, they will exert themselves to the utmost to effect the restoration either of the lost Garment, or to procure him another that may pass for the original, and which from their known fertility of expedient, and the abundance of Funds at their disposal, he hopes they will have little difficulty of doing; but as he apprehends that in future more attention to DECENT APPAREL and CLEAN HANDS will be required at St. Stephen’s than heretofore, he requests that any counterfeit Garment may be made of decent stuff, as he wishes to sit near Sir ROBERT PEEL; Rat-skin will do provided the Fur is tolerably disguised and the smell removed.

N.B. It is strongly suspected that the said Garment has been picked up and converted into a SPENCER by a Sailor who has been much about the County lately, and who wears an old Whig, with a placard with REFORM stuck in it; he may be easily discovered as he has grown a great favourite with the FREEHOLDERS, and is followed all over the County with shouts of

SPENCER FOR EVER!!

Dudley, May 11th, 1831.

REFORM!

NO MONOPOLY! NO LYGON!!

A voluntary resolution of upwards of 360 Workmen in Stourbridge and its Neighbourhood has been entered into for the purpose of having no further communications with those persons who were in opposition at a Meeting, held in this Town on the 2nd of April, 1831, against LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S REFORM BILL.

SUCCESS TO THE
STOURBRIDGE IRON TRADE,
AND
LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S BILL FOR REFORM!
GOD SAVE THE KING.
The BILL, the Whole BILL, and Nothing but the BILL!!

TO THE WORTHY AND INDEPENDENT FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER.

Gentlemen,

I come among you as a stranger, and having certainly no personal pretensions to the honour of your representation; but I am informed that no approved second Candidate, belonging to your County, has offered himself to you on the principle of an unqualified support of the great measure of REFORM, proposed to the late Parliament by His Majesty’s Ministers. This Bill I am assured, you deem to be of vital importance to the state, and are anxious to secure, as far as depends upon you, its success, by returning two Members equally and fully pledged to it. My political principles being those of my brother LORD ALTHORP, I am emboldened to aspire to the high distinction of representing you, for this Parliament only, under the unequivocal pledge of voting for that most indispensable measure of Reform, to its full extent, whenever it shall again be brought forward. I hope that in taking this step for the attainment of such an object, I am not justly chargeable with presumption; and allow me to add, that it is only in consequence of the deep conviction I entertain of the necessity of the constitutional Reform, which His Majesty’s Ministers have brought forward, that I venture at all, under these circumstances, to offer my services to your notice.

I shall with the least possible delay pay my respects to you personally; and have the honour to be

Your humble Servant,

FREDERICK SPENCER.

Althorp, April 26th, 1831.

TO THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE TOWN AND NEIGHBOURHOOD OF DUDLEY.

In your election of a County Representative, you are called upon to shew yourselves to assert your Independence, by affording your support to a Man who will endeavour to promote your Interests by a conscientious discharge of his Parliamentary Duties. Tell the self-styled Aristocratic Supporters of COL. LYGON, that you will not compromise your Birthrights; that you will not be intimidated, and that

“Gold shall not prevail;”

but that by unanimity and the identity of your cause with yourselves, you will Stand or Fall. Tell them again, and tell them too, you use no undue influence, but that the justice of your cause constitutes its strength. Tell the partisans of oppression (who lament their Candidate’s loss of Interest less than their own) that you will return a Man who will bring to maturity the Plant nursed by your Patriotic Monarch and his Ministers.

Rise then, Brother Freeholders, and by your energy preclude the everlasting stigma being attached to your County of its representation being any longer considered the PATRIMONIAL INHERITANCE of the LYGONS!

Let me, I conjure you, by all the ties which bind Man to Man, to give effect to the great and glorious Cause in view; let it be your pride that you have defeated the Machinations of Party, and that you have given to your Country a Member who will emancipate you from the thraldom of Family Influence! let then our cry be “God for England, Spencer, and our Cause.”

I am, Brother Freeholders, Yours Faithfully,

A FREEHOLDER.

THE SECRET OUT!

MR. FOLEY HAS COALESCED WITH CAPTAIN SPENCER.

Why?—BECAUSE Captain Spencer’s BROTHER is CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER; and a Place in the Treasury, with a Salary of a Thousand Pounds a Year, will be no inconvenient or disagreeable REFRESHMENT after the Expense of a contested Election.

So much for Mr. Foley’s INDEPENDENCE and INTEGRITY.

Kidderminster, May 10th, 1831.

WORCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.

STATE OF THE POLL,
FIFTH DAY.

	FOLEY.	SPENCER.	LYGON.
FIRST DAY	191	131	206
SECOND DAY	370	301	288
THIRD DAY	361	321	200
FOURTH DAY	323	280	263
FIFTH DAY	279	252	178
	——	——	——
Total	1524	1285	1135
	——	——	——
Majority in favour of	389	150

Committee Room, Bush Inn, Dudley, Wednesday, May 11th, 1831.

THE TORIES’ DOWNFALL.

Oh dear, what can the matter be,

Dear Oh, what can the matter be,

Oh dear, what can the matter be,

Tories are dying away.

They flatter’d, they promis’d, they pledg’d, and intreated,

The Whigs to let Sutton the turn-coat be seated,

But brave Abercrombie their forces defeated,

In spite of all Bobby could say.