low. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, opposed it in opposition to his
constituents in the city of London, who had petitioned in favour of the
bill. He had passed the earlier years of his life, he said, principally
in two close boroughs; and among the representatives of those had been,
during his remembrance, Messrs. Fox, Pitt, Canning, Perceval, the
noble lord at present at the head of foreign affairs, and the Duke of
Wellington. Such had been the representatives of those close boroughs,
and he much doubted if by a reformed system more able members would be
introduced into that house. Again, when he first entered that house he
had looked at both sides to see who were the most influential members,
and he saw on the ministerial side Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and on
the opposition side Mr. Tierney, Sir James Mackintosh, and the present
lord-chancellor (then Mr. Brougham), all of whom had either been, or
were at the present time, members for close boroughs. Such was the case,
and it would be fortunate if large and populous places always found and
returned men of such abilities. On the other hand, during his
experience but three members had been called to account by that house
in consequence of their conduct, and all these three members were the
representatives of large and populous places. Mr. Calcraft, paymaster
of the forces under the late administration, who had expressed his
unqualified disapprobation of the bill, startled the house by declaring
that he intended to vote for the second reading. At length the house
divided on Sir B. Vyvyan's motion, when there appeared for the amendment
three hundred and one against three hundred and two, thus leaving Lord
John Eussell a majority of only one in an assembly of more than six
hundred members. This division was, indeed, in substance, a defeat of
ministers, although the mob celebrated it as a victory by illuminations,
and by venting its vengeance on the houses of all who would not join in
the triumph. Ministers, however, could not labour under such a delusion,
although they still resolved to try their fortunes in a committee. That
committee was delayed till the 18th of April, and in the meantime the
bill was brought in for Ireland.

The bill for amending the representation of Ireland was brought in by
Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, on the 24th of March. In explaining
the bill, he said, in the first place, that the right of voting for
comities would be left to freeholders,