in that House to give weight or expression to their opinions. There would, besides, be found much practical difficulty in dividing Yorkshire into two counties: and the machinery requisite for that end would be not a little complicated. Neither would the scheme be popular; for Yorkshire was accustomed to meet as one county; and it was the boast of its inhabitants, that, from its extent and wealth, it carried with it more weight than any other county in England, Mr. Beaumont's amendment was lost by a majority of 126 to 66.

In the bill, as it now stood, the right of voting was given to all in habitants of Leeds renting houses at 10% a year. In a subsequent stage lord Milton moved an amendment for making Leeds a scot and lot borough, which was negatived on a division by 182 to 66. Mr. Stuart Wortley then proposed, that the qualification of a voter should be raised from 101. to 20%. This was carried by 148 Ayes to 94 Noes. Lord John Russell, after the amount of the qualification was thus raised, gave up the charge of the bill, as having ceased to be sufficiently popular in its character. Mr. S. Wortley moved the third reading, and on the 19th of March the bill finally passed the Commons.

Lord Caernarvon took charge of the bill in the Upper House. In the committee lord Lauderdale endeavoured to defeat it by moving, that some of their lordships should be appointed to report the names of the mayor, aldermen and freemen of the borough of Grampound; distinguishing those, against whom evidence of bribery had been given, from those against whom no such

evidence had been given. The Lord Chancellor, lord Bathurst, and lord Redesdale argued strenuously against the bill, as punishing the innocent along with the guilty, and as at variance with the principles of the constitution. Lord Liverpool supported it; and lord Lauderdale's proposition was negatived without a division. The clause, which enacted that the borough of Grampound should cease to return members to parliament, was carried by 60 to 26. Lord Liverpool then moved, that instead of giving representatives to Leeds, there should be conferred on the county of York the privilege of sending four members instead of two, by which means the introduction of a new principle of election would be avoided. The motion was agreed to.

On the question being put for the third reading of the bill, lord Harrowby objected to the transference of the two members to the whole of Yorkshire, and suggested the propriety of giving them to some district of the county, including the populous towns of Wakefield, Huddersfield, and Leeds: a plan which, besides its other advantages, would obviate the inconvenience of taking the poll at once of so large a county for four members. Lord Liverpool thought, that, if the alleged inconvenience was found really to exist, it might be removed by providing, in a separate bill, that the poll might be taken in different places. Lord Harewood deprecated such an alteration in the mode of election, and declared his aversion to every part of the bill. The measure, he contended, was a departure from every principle, by which parliament had been guided in former cases,

The county of York was, indeed, completely thrown off its guard with respect to it; for, as the other House had refused to transfer the representation to Yorkshire, no expectation could have been entertained of such an alteration in the bill, as that which had been made. As to taking the poll in different parts of the county, that was a scheme to which he objected, chiefly on account of the difficulty of executing it. Who was to be the superintending officer? Would persons be found willing to do the duties of sheriff only for a fortnight? If they did, it was likely they would be electioneering partisans, and therefore not the fittest persons to perform such a duty. The House of Commons had already resolved, that the representation of Grampound should not be transferred to the county of York. How, then, could their lordships expect, that that House would now agree to an arrangement, which it had so recently decided against?

The House divided: Contents, 39; Not-contents, 12. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

The bill being sent back to the Commons with these alterations, lord Milton on the 30th of May moved, that the amendments of the Lords should be agreed to.

Mr. S. Wortley, said, that the House of Lords had placed them in a more cruel situation than they had ever before stood in. The question originally was, whether the elective franchise should be given to the county of York, or to the town of Leeds. That House had solemnly decided in favour of the latter proposition. The Lords had,

however, entirely changed the bill. They said, "You shall not have two burgesses, but you shall have two knights of the shire." Now, he would ask, whether, in a case affecting the rights of the Commons, the Lords ought to have made a change of such magnitude, without the most serious consideration. He would contend, that, by the alteration made in this bill, the peers had added greatly to their influence. He would say, that a greater misfortune could not happen to the county of York, than the having four representatives in parliament. Looking, however, to the bill, he could not give it his sanction, for the mere purpose of securing the principle on which it was founded. It was a measure which satisfied nobody, not even those who were most favourable to reform. Their better course would be, to reject this bill, to agree to a second for the disfranchisement of Grampound, and afterwards to consider to what place the elective franchise should be granted.

Lord Castlereagh and lord John Russell, without approving of the amendment, thought that the measure, even in its present state, ought not to be rejected. The amendments were accordingly agreed to.

The necessity of Parliamentary Reform has always been a much more plausible doctrine, as applied to Scotland, than as applied to England; for the Scotch system of representation is so different from that of England, that the approbation of the one seems to involve the condemnation of the other. On the 10th of May lord A. Hamilton moved the following resolutions :1. "That it appears, by a cer

tified copy of the roll of freehold ers of every county in Scotland, as last made up, laid before this House in July 1820, that the total number of persons having a right to vote in all those counties together, did not exceed 2,889.

2. "That, by the same return, it appears that the greatest number of persons having a right to vote in any one county did not exceed 240, viz. for the county of Fife; and that the smallest number did not exceed nine, viz. for the county of Cromarty.

3. "That it further appears from the same return, that the same persons have a right to vote in several counties, and consequently that the total number of voters for all the counties in Scotland is considerably less than 2,889.

4. "That it further appears to this House, that the right of voting for a Scotch county depends, not on the possession of the dominium utile of a real landed estate in that county, but on holding the superiority over such estate, which superiority may be, and frequently is, disjoined from the property, insomuch, that of all the persons qualified to vote for a Scotch county, there may not be one who is possessed of a single acre of land within the county, while the whole of the land may belong to, and be the property of persons who have not a single vote for the representa

tive.

5. "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration, the state of representation of counties in Scotland, with a view to effect some extension of the number of votes, and to establish some connexion between VOL. LXIII.

the right of voting and the landed property of that country."

The debate was expected to have been a very important one; but the attendance was so very scanty, when lord A. Hamilton rose to make his speech, that he declined entering into any wide discussion, and after a short introduction read his resolutions. The House divided on the last of them, when there were 41 Ayes and 57 Noes; leaving a majority of 16 against it.

Just about the time when the state of the Scotch county representation was brought into notice, the attention of the House was much occupied by a question of privilege. Immediately after the termination of the proceedings against the queen in November 1820, a Sunday newspaper, under the name of The John Bull, had made its appearance, and rose all at once into a circulation of unexampled extent. Its declared object was, to attack the partisans of the Queen, and to hold up them and her to public scorn. This object it had pursued with great steadiness, great boldness, and great clever. ness, but with very little regard to delicacy, and not always with much respect for truth. clamour on every side was loud; the Opposition papers trembled to see the weapons of private scandal, which had long been almost exclusively their own, in the hands of their adversaries; and patriots and demagogues shrunk from the idea, that their private misfortunes or vices were to be held up to the general gaze. Even they, whose battles The John Bull fought, did not like to acknowledge an ally, who carried on war in so ruthless a manner, [E]

The

and applied the scalping-knife and the tomahawk without mercy to his opponents. His severity was directed in a particular manner against all women who visited the Queen: and he defended his conduct towards them on the principle, that those who came forward to bear witness to the character of another, must expect their own characters to undergo a strict scrutiny. Some of the ladies of the Tankerville family (the mother and sisters of H. G. Bennett) had thus come under his lash; and he had thrown out such gross imputations against a deceased daughter of lady Tankerville, that a criminal information for a libel was granted by the Court of King's-Bench, against the publishers of the newspaper. They and Mr. Bennett were thus in a state of open war. In their paper of the 6th of May, they stated that Mr. Bennett had made an apology for some reflections which he had thrown out against the lord president of Scotland, and that he had done so in consequence of the sudden arrival in London of the lord president's son, who came for the express purpose of vindicating his father's character. On the 8th of May, the paragraph containing this statement, was, on the motion of Mr. Bennett, voted to be a breach of privilege; and Weaver, the printer, was ordered to attend on the following day. He did so, and expressed his sorrow for having given offence to any member of the House; but his crime was too grave to be atoned for by contrition, and he was subjected to a long examination by Mr. Bennett, Ford Nugent, Mr. M. A. Taylor, sir Robert Wilson, Mr. Wynn, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. Scarlett, the

A

object of which was, to ascertain the author of the obnoxious paragraph. Not having obtained the wished for discovery from Weaver, Mr. Bennett moved, that three persons of the names of Arrowsmith, Shackle, and Cooper, who appeared from Weaver's evidence to be concerned in the management or preparation of the paper, should be ordered to attend at the bar forthwith. The order was made, and on the 10th of May, Messrs. Shackle, Arrowsmith, and Cooper, were examined at the bar. variety of questions were put by different members to ascertain in whom the proprietorship and control of that publication rested. Shackle and Arrowsmith admitted, that they had been once proprietors of the paper; but they alleged that they had ceased to be so in the month of February, and that the whole property was now in Weaver, though it was clear that no consideration had been given, and that they still acted as proprietors. Mr. Cooper, in his examination, avowed himself the editor of the paper, and the author of the paragraph in question After this avowal, Mr. Bennett moved, that the attorneygeneral should be ordered to prosecute Messrs, Shackle, Arrowsmith, Weaver, and Cooper, for a malicious libel, reflecting on the hon. H. G. Bennett, a member of the House.

This motion was objected to by the marquis of Londonderry, sir F. Burdett, Mr. Brougham, Mr. C. Wynn, and others, as unjust, after the House had, by its inquisitorial powers, possessed itself of a great portion of the defendant's case. The marquis of Londonderry, for the purpose of affording time for the

House to give cool, deliberate consideration to the subject, proposed, that the debate on the question should be adjourned till next day. This amendment, after some discussion, was adopted, and an order for the attendance of the parties was made out.

On the following day, Mr. Bennett having withdrawn his motion for a prosecution by the attorney-general, Mr. Baring moved, that Mr. Cooper, the editor, and Weaver, the printer of the paper in question, should be committed to Newgate. To this motion an amendment was proposed by lord Nugent: namely, that Mr. Cooper, having acknowledged himself the author of the paragraph, should be called to the bar, and reprimanded by the Speaker. The marquis of Lon

donderry, however, suggested, that this was too lenient a course, as the party ought, at least, to be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. Subsequently, both the marquis of Londonderry and lord Nugent withdrew their amendments, and the House decided that Mr. Cooper should be sent to Newgate, by a majority of 109 to 23. A discussion then took place on the subject of the prevarication of the other witnesses; but nothing was done with respect to them. Weaver was also ordered to be committed to Newgate, on a division of 34 to 27.

It ought to be added, that the general belief was, that Cooper avowed himself the author of what he did not write, in order to screen the real offender.