e party that was anxious for reform, and
the party which felt alarmed at the consequences of great changes, while
they had introduced a proposition which would gratify neither party.
Earl Bathurst took the same view of the question: he had no objections
to a bill for reform, but the present measure would make parliament
worse than it had ever been. His lordship particularly called on the
house to recollect the declaration which the lord-chancellor had made
regarding the ten-pound qualification: that it was emphatically a
subject for deliberation in committee, and for such alterations as their
lordships should think fitting. Now, however, it was not to be touched,
though it was a qualification opposed to the recorded opinions of its
present patrons, as well as of the people. The Earl of Haddington had
changed his opinion on the subject of reform. On the former occasion, he
said, till within a few days before the debate, his mind had been made
up that the bill should be read a second time, because he conceived it
expedient that the question should be arranged by the house as soon as
possible. He had abandoned these sentiments from a conviction that, in
the existing state of feeling in the country, anything like an amendment
in the bill would not be practicable. Lord Gage also declared that he
had changed his opinion. He thought it impossible to prevent the people
from having a reform, and by refusing to go into committee, their
lordships might deprive themselves of the opportunity of introducing
such amendments as they wished into the bill. On the other hand,
the Earl of Wicklow conceived that the reasons which had led to the
rejection of the bill of the last session were equally as potent for
rejecting the present; and he therefore continued his hostility to it.
The Earl of Shrewsbury, a Catholic peer, distinguished himself while he
supported the bill by a violent attack against the Protestant bishops.
The Earl of Mansfield objected to the present bill, as he did to the
former. The Earl of Harrowby had already announced that he would vote
for the second reading; but he had yet to state his reasons for this
change of sentiment, he having been one of the most distinguished
opponents of the bill of last session. In doing so, he denied that the
sentiments he had delivered against the former bill were those of a
man determined to resist, under all circumstances whatever, the
considerations of parliamentary reform. On the contra