14 The New Bill." [JAN. 



to be. In spite of Lord Porchester's opinion, that " it is impossible for 

 the middling classes, while in pursuance of their daily avocation, to in- 

 vestigate the political scheme of government, which must be doubtful 

 even to the wisest," we much doubt whether the generality of "unkempt'' 

 artisans of the unions would argue so incorrectly. 



Sir E. Sugden delivered himself of a long incongruous series of com- 

 plaints against the measure, and wound it up by lamenting that a dis- 

 solution of the present parliament must be one of the consequences of 

 passing the Bill. Sir Edward speaks feelingly, and seems to have 

 taken the example of ladies who tell their minds in the postscript of 

 their letters ; we may easily infer the main cause of his opposition. 



Lord Mahon compared the English Constitution, after the proposed 

 improvement, to that of Poland. In the reports, he is made to say the 

 constitution of 1765. This we conceive to be a mistake ; for at that 

 time the population was many times more than that stated by Lord 

 Mahon. This error, however, is not greater than his view of the 

 Polish constitution, and we should recommend Lord Mahon to read 

 Polish history a little more carefully before he next holds forth, for the 

 edification of the Commons. We suppose the noble Lord was thinking 

 of the constitution of 1791 ; but, if such be the case, he is equally mis- 

 informed. The number of electors was very different from 100,000 j 

 and the change, so far from entrusting the elective franchise to one 

 class, threw it open to other classes for the first time. Lord Mahon 

 talks of the working of the Polish constitution ; but we can tell his 

 Lordship that the constitution was not allowed time to work ; and so 

 far was the subsequent partition a consequence of it, that the enemy 

 were on their march before it was completely framed. So much for 

 Lord Mahon : and if such be a specimen of the arguments with which 

 he treats the Commons, we think he need not feel proud of sitting 

 in that assembly, or at any rate that assembly has no great reason to 

 be proud of him. 



Mr. Croker says, " none of the obnoxious clauses " of the last Bill 

 have been abandoned, and immediately afterwards boasts that " nearly 

 every one of the amendments, upon which the opposition had divided, 

 were now adopted in the Bill." We leave those who so loudly cheered 

 the remark, about opening the gates of the citadel, to find out its point. 

 Mr. C. then turns (and his speech contains a good many such turnings) 

 to the Ministry, and taunts them with not being able to protect their 

 dignity, and prevent the burnings at Bristol. Mr. C. then proceeds, 

 after a few equally sensible remarks, to impute all the late disturbances 

 to the Bill ; and inquires, if it has caused such trouble before passing, 

 what will it do when it has? Sapient legislator; " a Daniel come to 

 judgment." Supposing a man with a sharpened hunger sits down to a 

 piece of roast beef, what a voracious appetite (vide Croker !) must he 

 have by the time he has finished it ! It is like founding an argument 

 against the Christian creed, on the troubles caused by its propagation. 

 Our opinion of Mr. Croker is very different from that of his fulsome 

 reviewer in the Quarterly. Lord Althorpe might well express his doubt 

 as to the subject of his speech. 



Colonel Sibthorpe said he gave a proof of his own integrity by voting 

 against the Bill ; and added, that if schedule A passed, schedule B 

 might as well be cut up ; but as he did not condescend to assign his 

 reason, we cannot tell our readers why. 



