and
the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Durham went on to state that he had not
the slightest objection to the words being taken down, and denied the
imputations cast upon him. The Marquis of Lansdowne argued in favour
of the measure; in doing which he denied that he, or the rest of his
majesty's ministers, were introducing new doctrines. They wished, he
said, to go back to the elements of the constitution; and he argued that
there was nothing contrary to the principles of that constitution,
in extending the right of voting to those places which had become the
depositories of that knowledge, and the possessors of that influence on
society, to which the wisdom and policy of this government had always
endeavoured to attach itself; or in disfranchising small and unimportant
places, and enfranchising others of importance. As to the apprehensions,
he continued, that the new constituency were likely to be governed in
their choice of representatives by factious or revolutionary motives,
and, above all, by anything like a desire to disturb the tranquillity
of the country, they were groundless. In moments of great excitement it
might be so; but the class of persons on whom the franchise was now
to be conferred would generally feel themselves flattered on being
consulted by their superiors, and would in the end rely on their
judgment. His belief was that their choice would be governed by a desire
to elect such persons as would advocate measures contributing to the
public tranquillity; for, having acquired their property by their own
industry, they had as deep a stake in the country' as any noble baron
who derived a splendid fortune from his progenitors. Small fortunes
were as valuable to them as the ample incomes of any of their lordships.
Their lordships might convey away their land, and go to another country
to avoid the evils of a revolution; but to the professional man, who
depended upon the peaceful exertions of his talents; to the mechanic,
who depended upon his weekly wages; to the annuitant and small
proprietor, who depended upon their half-yearly and quarterly
incomes--revolution, or even agitation, would bring greater ruin than
could come upon their lordships, even by the confiscation of their
estates. Lord Wynford, in opposing the bill, said that those who were
voting for the second reading, in the hope of introducing amendments
in committee, were acting a very foolish and dangerous part. They might
beat government on differen