limited to those three. Let this be examined; it deserves to be looked into, for it has something of a logical appearance though no real foundation in truth; for be it remembered, that the three towns for which I claim representatives are under peculiar circumstances; they are the capitals of three great branches of our manufacture; and Sheffield, though the seat, is not the capital of any great branch. Thus, the House will see, that though that objection sounds plausibly, it has no real foundation in truth; for the principle which admits Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, is not capable of extension to any other place. Not that I mean to say that either now or at some future time representation may not be further extended; but what I contend for is, that my particular Motion does not in its principle let in any but the three towns to which it particularly refers, and does not let in any others beyond that number. If Sheffield should, at any future period, attain the same rank, I see no reason for withholding from it a similar privilege. On like. grounds, I would advocate the extension of this principle to any town in Ireland or Scotland which might reach such an eminence as has long since been attained by Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds: but it is not probable that it could ever be applied, with propriety, to more than four or five towns at the utmost. But looking to its former Acts, I do not perceive that Parliament has been governed by such considerations of principle as those of which I have just been speaking. It was not restrained from disfranchising the Irish Forty-Shilling Freeholders from any consideration that future Parliaments would find in that proceeding a precedent for hereafter raising the qualification to 50l. or 100l. Excessively strict adherence to precedents must produce a practice of legislating for the maintenance of grievances, not for their abolition. Having thus briefly answered what I consider the chief

objections to my Motion, I have little more to add, except, perhaps, to advert to the supposed danger of this innovation-it will probably be denounced as an extremely dangerous innovation. I think the danger lies on the other side. I think the true spirit of the Constitution is in danger chiefly from those who, in their absurd apprehension of innovation, would resist all wholesome and salutary change-who are so wedded to ancient institutions that they overlook their unsuitableness to modern times and the altered condition of society. It is in prejudices such as these that I think the real danger will be found. I am not one of those who look upon the Constitution as a Grecian temple, perfect in all its proportions-a model of symmetry and grace, which additions would deform and diminution destroy. I rather regard it as a Gothic structure, from which many excrescences may be advantageously removed, and many additions. made which would improve its proportions, and add to the security of its inhabitants. But there is also danger if we do not in a wise and liberal spirit meet the augmenting disposition to regard us with distrust which prevails out of doors. One of the true modes of meeting the evil will be to collect, within the walls of this House, as many as possible of the real representatives of the people. It is then, and not until then, that we can be regarded as the true representation and image of a great and powerful and free country. The more I consider this question, the more am I persuaded that the real danger is not in the change which I propose, and which some would call innovation; but in adhering to our ancient scheme of representation, and thus excluding from this House the wealthier and commercial towns of the country which are continually increasing in opulence and population. When I look abroad to other countries-when I see in a neighbouring country the collision going on between the Royal autho

rity on the one hand, and popular resistance on the other; and when I see here institutions which temper those heats and animosities which confidence in a true Representative Government can alone fully allay, I cannot bring myself to believe that the danger is to be found in any quarter other than that which I have indicated. It is upon grounds such as these that I intend to submit to the House a proposition for enfranchising Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham-and this I do, being, as I trust I ever shall be, an enemy to disorder, though a friend to liberty -opposed to slavish submission, though an advocate for peace. Deeply sensible of the delicate machinery of a Representative Government, I am anxious to assist in procuring for this country a Legislature and Administration worthy of the respect and deserving the affection of the people. I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the towns of Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham to return Representatives to serve in Parliament.

AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.

March 10, 1830.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL rose and said he could not allow the question to go to a division, although reluctant to detain the House, without stating his reasons for supporting the Motion of the noble Lord. When the Speech from the Throne stated, that the numerous embarrassments arising from the interruption of our diplomatic relations with Portugal increased his Majesty's desire to effect the termination of the evil;' and when they were told that the recognition of Don Miguel was not far distant, he thought there was no time so proper for the production of the papers connected with the negotiations as the present, in order that the House might be able to

judge of the propriety of the course of conduct pursued by his Majesty's Ministers. If the papers were not to be produced now, he did not know when they would be. It was now more than two years since the usurpation took place. It was more than one since a Motion of a right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Mackintosh) obtained a portion of the papers connected with the negotiations which ensued, although it was now contended that to produce any part of the correspondence would be premature and unjust. Premature information was given twelve months ago, but further information was withheld now, because it was not mature enough for production. This was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling himself unable to answer the noble Lord, had shown a discretion much to be commended, by passing over in silence all the most important topics of his speech. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the Government of this country, as a Government, did not give the Constitution to Portugal. But it interfered, as it were individually, and the Ambassador of this country, Lord Stuart, had concurred in its propriety, had been instrumental in its transmission from Brazil, and instrumental in persuading Don Pedro to adopt it. Mr. Canning, also, when it arrived, declared distinctly, in one of his despatches to our ambassador at Lisbon, directing him to recommend the Portuguese Regency to put in operation that Constitution, that any other course than the adoption of the Constitution would be full of danger, not only to the safety of the Crown of Portugal, but the Monarchy of Brazil.' This was certainly, on the part of Mr. Canning, giving strong advice to the authorities in Portugal; and in considering these transactions it should. always be remembered that Portugal was the weaker Power, long accustomed to look to England for support in her struggles and difficulties, and assistance in her

times of danger. The right hon. Gentleman said, that while this Government felt bound to protect Portugal from aggression, it had repeatedly declared it would abstain from all interference in her internal concerns. Well, then, it was during this non-interference the Constitution was accepted. Yet it was said that it never was received by the people, and that its overthrow was to be attributed to their want. of attachment. Then how came it to be established? How came Don Miguel to send the Duke of Cadaval on a mission to Don Pedro, to compliment him upon his acts, if the Constitution were deemed worthless by those for whom it was intended? But the question, as regarded England, was simply this-Was the Government at liberty to recommend the adoption of this Constitution, considering the relative connection of the two countries, and then to withhold all moral support from the Constitutionalists, who stood forth to vindicate the legitimate authority of the Throne of Portugal? If any reliance were to be placed upon the faith of national support, these men, he thought, had a claim to it, after the adoption of the Constitution had been recommended by the British Minister. Those persons who are called the friends of that Constitution, and who have suffered grievously for their adherence to it, were not disposed to become parties at any time to a rebellion against the existing Government. They accepted the Constitution because it came to them guaranteed by the credit of England; and they afterwards rose in support of it because they considered themselves to be supporting a legitimate authority, which would receive the aid and countenance of the English Government. It was cruel to think to what a fate these unhappy persons had been subjected, and to feel that the dungeons to which they had been dragged, and the scaffolds on which they had perished for their support of the Constitution, were the work of the English Govern