ought the only way was to
let in public opinion upon the acts and conduct of individuals abusing
their power. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of
two hundred and sixty-seven against one hundred and fifty-five.

Another motion, referring to the exercise or regulation of the
parliamentary franchise, was that of Sir William Molesworth, for leave
to bring in a bill to abolish the property qualification of members of
parliament, which, after a brief discussion, was negatived. The other
notice which Sir William had given for a committee on peerage reform was
not followed up. The only motion relating to this subject was introduced
by Mr. Charles Lushington, who, on the 16th February, moved for leave to
bring in a bill for the expulsion of bishops from the house of peers, on
the ground that the sitting of bishops in parliament was unfavourable in
its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this
country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the
established church. This motion was decidedly opposed by Lord John
Russell, as introducing a change into one of the most ancient portions
of the British constitution. It was a motion not to amend, but to
destroy a part of our institutions. And where would such changes stop?
The conservative party seemed content to leave this question to be
debated between the two parties of their opponents; but when Mr. Buller
made some remarks on their silence, Sir Robert Peel declared that if any
unpopularity attended resistance to the motion, he was willing to put
in a distinct claim for his share. He feared he should not benefit Lord
John Russell by his compliments; but he would say that he had never
heard a speech delivered in a more manly tone than the noble lord's, or
one that did more credit to his judgment and abilities. On a division,
the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-seven
against ninety-two.

Another motion connected with the reform of the house of lords was
brought forward on the 9th of May, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. He moved
by way of resolution, "That the practice of any deliberative assembly
deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative
enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and
reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and
well-founded complaint among all classes of his majesty's subjects."
This resolution went, therefore, to abolish t