958] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1797. 
consistency, in settinghis face against 
the present motion, though he had 
formerly made a motion in favour of 
reform. ‘He thought the constitu- 
tion was not well ; and if he saw a 
patient almost expiring, he would 
naturally ask the doctor, have 
you any experiments to try ?’ Phy- 
sicians we had, who had followed 
the plan of Dr. Sangrado, in bleed- 
ing too much. Some other plan 
ought to be followed. Though he 
Believed there were but few on ei- 
ther side of the house who had any 
religion, he believed there was much 
virtue in’ both, and he should like 
to sce them united ‘to save the 
country, which was, as it were, be- 
tween two «mill-stones, almost 
ground to powder. He wished well 
to teform, and he thought the best 
way to set this on foot, was, for 
every man to reform himself. He 
wished we had paid more devotion 
to the will of him without whose 
power we could do,nothing. Yet, 
after all these observations, on the 
necessity of self-reformation, and 
our inability to do anything of our- 
‘selyes, he trusted that he should 
not be thought inconsistent in vot- 
ing for Mr. Grey’s motion. 
Sir William Geary could not as- 
sent to Mr. Grey’s proposition, as 
it was so nearly allied to universal 
sufrage. 
‘Mr. Milbank wishéd for a par- 
liamentary reform,as the best means 
‘of destroying that confidence in mi- 
nisters which had .produced so 
many evils in this country, 
Sir William Young, after arguing 
against the motion, from the com- 
mon topic of concessions to the 
people, and encouraging and imbib- 
ing demands without end, made an 
observation on Mr. Grey’s plan, 
which was new, ingenious, solid, 
and worthy of serious consideration. 
Though it was intended, by that 
plan, to enlarge the representation 
of the small boroughs, yet, he un- 
derstood, that the great cities and 
populous towns were to be divided 
accordiny to their population ; ir 
which case, it was obvious, that the 
metropolis would have a preponde= 
rance over all the rest of the king~ 
dom; and become the republic of 
England, as Paris was of France. 
Mr. Barham,thougihe had been, 
through life, an advocate for par- 
liamentary. reform, objected to Mr. 
Grey's motion, because, it was not, 
in his opinion, called for by a ma- 
jority of the people ; and, because, 
this was not the proper time for 
agitating the important question. 
The motion was also opposed bysir 
Gregory Page Turner, who “always 
felt forthe constitution,and nothing 
else, when he got up in the morn- 
ing, and when he lay downat night.” 
Butit was supported by Mr. Smith, 
Mr. Pollen, sir William Dolben, 
and Mr. Fox. 
Tt would carry us far beyond our 
bounds to give even a brief analysis 
of Mr. Fox’sspeechon this occasion. 
And it is the iess necessary to do so, 
that his sentiments, on’the subject 
of a parliamentary reform, have 
apa and again been set forth in 
this work, on sundry occasions. 
1796, had decidedly pronounced that the high ‘price of provisions was owing to fore- 
stalling and regrating ; tocollusion between the salesman and the caicase-butcher, the 
29. 
bill was thrown out of the hipuse, on a‘motion for its being read a second time on June _ 
Other reasons for its rejection were alleged ; but the reason that fi 
Mr. Dundas, we may presume, wesnone of the weakest. 
rst occurred te 
a tear ft The 
