The Sun. — London, England, 1848-06-21 00:00:00

for 'an extension of the suffrage, and in support of Mr. Hume's motion. The Noble Lord also presented peti tions from Maryleboae and St. Pancras in favour of the vete by ballot and the establishment of electoral districts. C: LUSHINGTON presented similar petitions f r om the Westminster Reform Society, and the inhabi taas of St. Paul's, Covent-garden. Mi. M. WILSON presented similar petitions from Trurti. Mr. W. J. FOX presented 287 similar petitions. Mr. MO WATT presented petitions to the same effect from Falmouth, complaining of the outrageous expenditure of the country, and stating, as a proof of the House not representing the sentiments of the country, the evidence recently adduced before Committees appointed to determine returns petitioned against ; also against the interference of Peers in elec tions. Colonel THOMPSON presented a number of peti tions from Manchester, Sunderland, Dundee, Wrexham, .and other places, in all signed by 3,000 persons, in ft...veur of Mr. flume's motion. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Birmingham, signed by 10,000 persons, stating, though the Reform Bill was a step in the right direction, and might have satisfied its framers, it did not satisfy the rest of the community ; that class legislation had in a great degree brought about the present state of things on the Conti nent, and praying for Parliamentary reform. Mr. COCKBURN presented a petition to the same effect from Southampton, signed by 300 persons ; also, from the Isle of Wight, to the same effect. Sir E. BUXTON presented petitions from places in Essex. Colonel TYNTE presented petitions from Bridgwater and Glasgow. Mr. OSBORNE from several places in Middlesex, which he stated were not got up by committees; Mr.'.RICE from Dover ; Mr. ADAIR from Cambridge; Mr. PATTISON from a place the name of which did not reach the gallery; and Mr. CLAY from Hull. _ _ Petitions to the same effect were presented by Mr. Hindley, Mr. Westhead, Mr. Fox Maule, Lord Lincoln, Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. E. Denison, Sir De Lacy Evans, Sir George Strickland, Mr. Fitzroy, Sir William Molesworth, Dr. Bowring, Mr. George Thompson, Lord Duncan, Sir J. Hanmer, Sir G. Clerk, Sir T. Egerton, Mr. Divett, and Mr. Granger. Petitions to the same effect were then presented by Von. Members from Monmouth, Cardiff, York (signed by .5,550 persons), from Stamford, from the brush makers and bellows makers of Bristol, from Stoke-upon-Trent, Kelso, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone, Seven Oaks, and other places. Mi r COBDEN presented a petition, signed by 2,000 electors, also in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose. The Hox. MEMBER also presented similar petitions from Staleybridge, and nearly two hundred other places. Mr. AGLIONBY presented similar petitions from Cockermouth, Whitehaven, and several other places. Mr. C. PEARSON presented similar petitions from Lambeth. Mr. HENLEY presented similar petitions from Read- ing. Mr. WAKLEY presented a great number of petitions from different parts of the borough of Fins b ury , com plaining that the House as at present consti tuted did not represent fairly the population of the c ountry, the H and pray ingon. the House to adopt the proposition o Member for Montrose. Mr. C. P. VILLIERS presented several petitions in favour of Mr. Hume's motion. Mr. J. B. SMITH presented similar petitions from various parts of Scotland. Lord ASHLEY wished to direct the attention of the House to a petition which he held in his hand of rather a peculiar character, in theprayer of which, however, he did not agree; but as it came from a respectable body, he felt bound to pre sent it. It was signed by a number of persons who described themselves as the delegates of 200,000 artisans of London and other towns. They imputed the present state of distress to various causes, and prayed for the adoption of a number of remedies. They prayed for the emancipation of land, for the abolition of the system of gold coinage, for the getting rid of untaxed machinery, and for the putting a stoppage to the workhouse system of labour. They stated that there were several million acres of unoccupied land in this country ; Ciey therefore prayed that the Government would adopt a syetem of home colonies for the destitute portion of the peo)'le. They also prayed that, for the protection and maintenance of the just rights of labour, a certain number of Members should be elected solely by the working classes, and that a President, elected by them, should be a member of the Cabinet as the representative of the work ing classes in the Government. They prayed that imme diate steps should be taken for the relief of the country, and among other things that there should be an equalization of taxes, and of the profits of capital, and that in the place of the present system of currency there should be an unrestricted Government issue of paper ; also that a eommission should be immediately constituted to examine and establish what is a fair amount of work for each man Jaily to perform—(A laugh, and hear, hear from some Mem bers on the Ministerial Benches.) The Noble Lord proceeded to say that he knew the meaning of that cheer, coming as it did from a certaid quarter ; and he was not surprised at the interruption.—(Cries of " Order.") The petitioners prayed that it should be determined what was the extent of a fair day's labour, and also legal means should be adopted to secure a fair remuneration for it fur each working man. They next prayed the adoption of what were called the six points of the people's charter, and also the repeal of the legislative union between England and Ireland.—(Laughter.) The.- petition wound up by calling on her Majesty's Govern ment, to appoint a commission to investigate the whole sub ject, and the various suggestions which they had made. Mr. HUME asked upon what authority these persons described themselves as the delegates of the great body of artisans ? Lord ASHLEY replied, that he could only state the peti tion was signed by E. Edwards as chairman, and by four other persons as delegates. He had seen these persons, and he could inform the House that they were very. respectable and very intelligent men. Petitions in favour of Mr. Hume's proposed plan of reform were then presented by Lord John Russell from many parishes.of London, and from various places in the country; by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Halifax, which, in addition, prayed for the adoption of the People's Charter; by Mr. Macgregor, several petitions from Glasgow and its vicinity ; by Sir W. Clay, several from the Tower Hamlets, one of which, signed by 200 workmen employed in one manufactory in that borough, prayed in addition, for the adoption of a system of universal education; by Mr. C. Buller, from Liskeard, East Looe, and other places ; by Mr. Labouchere, from Taunton ; by Mr. Wilson, from Westbury ; by Sir John Guest, from Merthyr Tydvil ; by Mr. F. O'Connor, from Nottingham and other places, in favour of the Charter; by Mr. Bright, from Manchester, signed at a public meeting at which 5,000 were present; another from the special con stables of that city, who stated that there would be less occasion for their being called out to preserve the peace if the people were satisfied with the Government—(A laugh) —kind several from Derby and other parts of the country; by Mr. Pigott, from Reading; by Mr. Poulett Scrope, from Stroud ; by Mr. M. Gibson, from Yarmouth and places in the neighbourhood of Manchester; and by Mr. Hume, 311 petitions from various parts of the country, including Boston, Sandwich, Carlisle, Northampton, Stourbridge, Leamington, Paisley, Holbeach, Edgeware, Walmer Castle, St. Ives, Sheffield, Lewes, Ayr, and Hammersmith. Altogether the signatures affixed W them exceeded 20,000, and after each name was given the place of residence of the person signing it. REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. Mr. HUME said, that after the exhibition which had taken place on that day, as well as yesterday, lie hoped he s-hould be allowed to state that the public did take some in terest in this question.—(gear, hear.) As far as his know ledge went, no arrangement or organization whatever had been entered into with the view of procuring signatures to petitions, but he conside re d t h e language used by the Noble Lord, in the short speech be made on a former occa sion, bad given rise to the adoption of the various petitions which had been presented. He could assure the Hous e and the Noble Lord that it was with the greatest reluctance that he had been induced to bring forward this question, as he was aware of his inability, but he had been induced to do so after much pressing. His Honourable Friends near hi m knew that it was at their suggestion that he had been in duced to do so at a meeting which had been called 'to en deavour to avert evils which threatened the country b y a disturbance of the public peace.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it also necessary to state, that although he h ad been zequested by a considerable body of Reformers to bring the subject forward before the lOth of April, that he had refrained from doing so; but after that time he had consented to do, so with the view of showing that the cause of reform might be advanced in connexion with the preser -.ration of the public peace, in contradistinction to those who by their conduct led to the commission of acts of violence. It was not, then, until after the 10th of April he had resolved to bring forward this subject. He believed there was much greater precaution used npon that occasion than there was any necessity for. But there was, at all events, exhibited a readiness on the part of every class in the community, from the - highest to the lowest, to come forward for the protec tion of law, peace, and order.—(Hear, hear.) And he (Mr. Hume) knew nothing ,thist was of greater importance than the rendering of the civil law and power paramount, and the military force unnecessary for the repression of civil disorder. (Hear, hear.) On the occasion to which he was alluding he believed it would hove been quite unnecessary, had any dis turbance really arisen, to have employed a single soldier in the metropolis. The display in support of law and order by the citizens was highly creditable to the country at large; and it should make the House listen the more at tentively to him (Mr. Hume) whilst he unfolded the propo sition he was about to make, the object of which would be to ensure still more safely the preservation of domestic tranquillity. And whilst he stated what it was that led to the affair of the 10th April, and what led to all the breaches of tip pea ce on th e part of those Radical Reformers called Chartists, during the last t en years, i t should be for the House to consider—when they saw matters brought to such crisiis as that of the 10th A pril--whether there was any just ground of complaint e t" part of those who sought to obtain an extension ie t o n f g th t e l suffrage, the and to pro cure a voice in the election of those who ruled the destinies of their country; further, if those grounds of com plaint were f the duty o f to exist, whether it was not the House House of Co mmons to correct those abuses as o soon as th possible. He thought that all would agre e with h im , the country w as no t i n the condition this ye ar t h at it had been in dari ng th e l ast three or four years, with regard either to trade or the revenue. The circumstances which had recently occarred had alto gether altered the conditi on of the w orking classes. Thi s country, which had been put forward an example, -a s having a better form of constit u ti on than rnynother country in the world—we, who had boasted that ou a learnt represented the whole of the peopl gooses of Par been accustomed to boast that we could, h we, who had the aid of Parliament only, carry all measures necetshsyaerj,Wfor the amelioration of the cundition of the people— uld, by the civil power alone, without having any reed:areas the military, repress tumult and preserve order—we, wh o eto bad stood distinguished from the rest of Europe almost all the countries of which might be said to have had military governments, and many of which bad mili tary despotisms, many of which depended for support upon the large armies they maintained, had recently found our condition materially altered. We had, thought, heretofore, that our military forces were required for our foreign posses. miens and the - defences of our colonies much more than fur service in this country. He (Mr. Hume) was not cal at those. be begged to say, who thought there ought not to be a sufficient military establishment kept up to back the civil authority. He thought that such a division of labour was milessary ; and be was therefore not one of those who had said in public that there was no occasion for a military force, anti that we should depend upon our civil power alone.—(Hear, hear.) But, on the other hand, he should contend that the country had far outdone in that respect what prudence or necessity pointed out. It had, in fact, become a military nation.—(Hear.) It had lost its civil character, and it seemed to be now verging fast to wards that system which had been lately overthrown throughout the rest of Europe. It had become, therefore, imperative to examine why and wherefore the pre sent discontent existed ? Whether there were any grounds for that discontent? and to take measures imme diately for its removal and the restoration of public order. It was on those grounds that he considered it his duty to submit to Parliament what he believed would remedy the evil. Whilst the Parliament, as reformed in 1832, had failed to answer all the purposes which he, as an ardent reformer, in common with others, anticipated that it would, he yet should be acting most unfairly were he not to say that the reform effected by the Bill of 1832 had done much to secure the peace of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He believed if we had not had so much reform then, that the country would be at the present time in such a state of discontent that he did not know but that it might be in cluded in the list of those who had risen in arms against their Governments. Ile, however, wished to have gone further than the Reform Bill of 1832 ; and it was because that Bill had not gone further—because it had not effected that for which the reformers then struggled—because it had not answered those purposes for which it had been passed, that he (Mr. Hume) thought the time was now come when that which was wanted should be effected.—(Herr . ) Sixteen years had passed away, and during that time fa th r e y had had sufficient opportunities of ascertaining hos v it had answered the purposes for which it was intended._ In order to give to the House the view he entertainedtght h thought 0 f the Par liament precisely, he should first say that h e country nal Parliam Parliament was tohe am g er o e v : e e r n n g ed in ; e should ul d the andby t w h h a i t ch a oo c rd on ing stitutotiog p r contain incipl es a o f f u t l h l e a n ß d r i t f i a s i h r re constitutionpresentation country, in order that the interests of anell to on all occasions by that House. consider, first, whether that was the caretheorre s houldfno therefore w a a n t h t t e ee n tdh d e e tr d o, share in the repre pinosrtaodn 0 o ff thets being community,so, w e had most no importantt, on t he itnrhicontrary,right utthtohe numbers ss l b a aa r n g rd in interest, excluded from their sentation. If he was righ .n t Consti tution gave to every man h i u th in ec t o h u in n k tr i y ng a in the hould ghe o together; t o h e g r h ; t andt h a . t that taxation th e and ma n w repre sentationhopay taxes, not having any right to assist little differing from that of slavery —the only i w n a t s h o e b c l h ig o e ic d e of to his r epresentative in the Legislature, was in a condition difference he could see between a freeman and a slave being, that every free man ought . to have a voice und er t h e con stitution in the choice of tne representatives of the people at large in Parliament, a privilege from which the slave was excluded. Now, the question was, were all the. classes of freemen in this country who paid taxes represented by the persons of their choice? If they were not, then some classes must be injured by exclusion, and the proposition he h a d to submit to the House was, that the classes who were ne w discontented were those injured classes: injured, because they were excluded from the pale of the constitu tion. They were obliged to suffer whatever the laws might direct to be placed upon them, without having, as freemen ought to have, any voice in the election of those who had the power to tax them. Again, he had to submit that if Parliament did not represent all classes in the community, it became an engine of oppression in the hands of the few against the many; and if they had not a good Parliament, he thought it would be better they should have no Parlia ment at all, but that they should be as the people in other countries were, where the will of the governor or the will of a despot decided. But they had seen the result of that con dition of things, and it was because they had seen the ruin which had taken place abroad within the last few months, that he thought they should not continue to do injustice to men who had a right to a voice in the election of their re. presentatives. His view of the political power which Par liament should exercise was, that it should, in the first place, be founded upon the broadest possible basis of popular power, and thence rise up, the Crown being the highest point of the executive. Government was made for the good of the com munity at large, and not for the benefit of the Crown, or for the benefit of the nobility, or of any particular class. But the Government, consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, act ing under and by the authority of Parliament, was for the benefit of all.—(Hear.) In order, then, to place the House of Commons in the highest place of power in the country, it would be necessary to give to the largest possible number of our fellow-countrymen the right of the elective franchise. Now he asked Hon. Members, could they in conscience say that justice was done to the large number of the people, when live out of every six of the male adults of the country were without any voice in the election of the representatives of the country—when they found that, out of 6,000,000 of nisale adults above twenty years of age, there were upon the registry, as possessing the suffrage, less than 1,000,000, and that of them about 150,000 were doubly registered? So that of the 1,000,000 there were 150,000 who had votes in three, four, and five different places—so that the whole number of males actually represented under the present system would be found to be little more than 850,000, forming a class separate and distinct; and the remainder of the 6,000,000, who had not the privilege, were placed in an inferior situa tion, by being deprived of those rights which by the Constitution they were entitled to enjoy. He (Mr. Hume) said " rights ;" he did not say " favour," because every man born in this country owed allegiance to the Throne, and allegiance to the laws; and, in return, he was entitled to have protection to his person and his property, and a share in those civil rights which, as an Englishman, the constitu • tion gave to him. And it was only just that he should have those rights, for he incurred serious liabilities, At sixteen years of age he was liable to be drafted into the militia. Any day, whilst walking along the streets, he was liable to be called upon, and might be compelled by a magistrate to assist the civil authorities even at the risk of his life in keeping the peace. He was obliged, by the Constable Act, passed a few years ago, not only to obey, but to assist the civil power; and by the Conscription Act, which was not yet repealed, he was liable to be dragged away from his home, from his family, from all he held dear and near to him, when the service of the State required it. And was it, then, too much to say that such a man ought to be placed in the situation which the constitution gave him? He (Mr. Hume) did not speak of natural rights, which was a phrase that no one could understand.—(Hear, hear). He spoke of constitutional rights, which, under the authority of the con stitution, had been given, and he then said—What right had Parliament to shut the door and say that any class of men —many of whom, too, it should be observed, were of much superior talents and acquirements to many who sat in that House, should be excluded from the enjoyment of their con stitutional rights? Ile had said that many of the men who were excluded from: the suffrage were men of talents supe rior to those of many Hon. Gentlemen in the House.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He repeated it: some of collegiate education, some of the best informed and most ingenious classes of workmen, men who were famous throughput the world for ingenuity, industry, and ability, and many of them men of superior acquirements, were shut out from the giving of a vote fora representative in Parliament. They were shut out from the rights of Englishmen, whilst they were adding to the glory of the country as soldier or as artisans. Was not that, he asked, a sound and a legitimate ground for discontent.—(Hear, hear.) He, therefore, asked the House for a reason why every man in the situation he had described should not have a vote? It was not for him to state the difficulties which had been alleged. He wanted those who shut the door to give him their reason. Many of the excluded classes belonged to colleges, and had not what was calltd the 101. franchise. It was a matter of serious consideration whether they were not blindly going on creating discontent. Whether they were not placing themselves in the condition of requiring to keep one portion of the people of the country armed in order to keep down the other?—(Hear, hear.) It became a serious matter, and those who were friends of peace and order ought to consider at once whether the means were not before them of restoring and securing both by grant ing those rights which were now withheld from the people. He asked the House to consider the state of the city of Manchester, and what passed there on the 10th of April, after the special constables had assembled to preserve the peace, which however was not broken. The question was asked the special constables, '° What were they there that day for ?" and the answer was, "They had met to prevent the Chartists from breaking he peace, if they were likely or desirous to do so. " To that it was replied that the Chartists only wante I te have a voice in the elec tion of members of Parliament ; that they wanted to have a vote in defending property and life ; that they considered that Parliament was placing them under heavy contributions by taxing articles of consumption for useful and necessary purposes; and that the money was expended for purposes that were unnecessary and useless ; and they were asked were they themselves contented with the present condition of affairs? With one consent the special constables said, " No, we are not contented." They were then asked, why should they be the oppressors of their fellow-men, who merely wanted to express their discontent? But there was no class that ought to feel more anxious than the aristocracy to remove the existing discontent. The aristocracy had flat property and great wealth to p ro t ec t. Th ey h a d , refore, a greater stake, and it was of the greatest im -o,Ttece to them to have peace and order in the country. y ought to remove every cause that might tend to Produce discontent, for no disturbance could arise, no dis ittheffiis,B;uld be displayed th a t wou ld no t i nter f ere w i t h Governor of the country. He, therefore, appealed to the ar i steeracy u uNi? . o . _t as men of property, not as belonging to the bound by the aiehhaving a duty to fulfil which they were to look to this of office they had taken to perform, question for the ra ma t t e r to whilst there was yet time. It was a s h o orw . hat lt w der, individually, as Ministers as well as Members of th co ae n l T e would rethe be of i o n c o s n o s m , portance that he should had been expresed by various easimte the right f ef a v u o th ti o n r g ayegu h po i ch pers n various opinions had existed as to cilsubject, He knew that right of voting, and ro y al r d e stand. But fixed or the Reform Bill had failed to lay d ow e intel ligible principle as the one on which 4.1 s as to the opinions that had bee Pressed right of voting, Earl Grey, when move _ gardin the Lug the second reading of the Reform Bill, on the 3d of Octob hen so disturbed, sa i d _fr Mg th e speaking of the great importance of e as i_s 1831, public mind, t I believe the present measure to be a measure . of Justice, sound on the one hand, peace, policy, peace, and conciliation. I believe, that en its acceptance or rejection depend, e, tran quillity, and prosperity; on the other, that state of p o li tical dissatisfaction and discontent, the continuance of which threatens all those disastrous consequences, which must arise when ill feeling is engendered in the people towards the Go vernment of the country. I have said, that I more than any other man am responsible for bringing forward this measure, and it is therefore necessary, in the first place, that upon this point I should set myself right with your Lordships. My opinion on this question of Parliamentary reform is well known to such of your Lordships as have done me the honour of observing the political conduct of so humble an individual as myself. I have uniformly supported the prin ciple of reform. So far back as the year 1786, soon after my introduction into Parliament, I voted with Mr. Pitt for a motion which was then brought forward for shortening the duration of Parliaments. I voted for a measure of re form introduced by Mr. Flood, at the commencement of the French revolution, before the breaking out of that unhappy war, carried on at such a fearful expen diture of blood and treasure. I myself; on two different occasions, brought forward motions on this subject, believing then, as I believe new, some change in the repre sentation of the people to be absolutely necessary, in order to give new vigour to the Constitution, and to make the House of Commons in fact that which it professes to be in theory— a full, free, and efficient representation of the people." Now if Lord Grey, who had from his earliest days been a re former, and who had witnessed the evils of rejecting reform in 1793, and who had borne testimony against the Govern ment for refusing the reform then required, found it necessary to express himself in such terms in 1831, ought not those who were now his successors, and some of whom were in office with him at the time, t o l et t h ose wor d s s i nk EaP into their minds whilst vi ew i ng t h e present i ssue? .rl Grey quoted the opinion o f M r. S ergeant Gl anville, who stated that all men residing within the borough ought to have a vote. That was one definition which Earl Grey cited in the debate on the resolutions in 1702 in the House THE SUN, LONDON, of Commons. In Fraser's Election Cases, in the case of the borough of Cirencester, there was another definition of the right which the people of England could stand upon. It was that "every male person of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, and who should occupy any house or dwelling, the same being bond fide used for the purposes of a residence, &c.," should have the right of voting. He (Mr. Hume) stated those opinions, because there were many persons who opposed that very ground had endea voured to obtain that very right. Another Parliamentary authority was that given by the Committee appointed in the be e o n si t x e frmacotn,t months where s wast ent i n laid down g t h h a p t t e t v h i e o u p s e l y r s o t n o shoul d e e f d c t o i o u n , a s and c t e h s e s a p as m l e v n h t a of t r i a l e t n e w a n a s d t h t a s o s in e s e ani a n s g n o o wt f the ridicule which they so often heard thrown upon the working people when theydemanded the franchise ?-(Hear.) Why, it was a decision of the House of Commons itself, and - he (Mr. Hume) was not to blame if he agreed with such opinions as he had quoted. He would next quote that u ofda classes, u e txnthooahtsnoul etertqnr v auuteddnycale elections of Sir T. Smith, who in the time of Elizabeth said that " every Englishman was supposed to be present in Parlia ment, from the Prince to the lowest person in the country, and that the consent of Parliament was taken to be every Englishman's consent." Now, how could they take the Acts of Parliament to be done with every man's consent, when five out of every six were precluded from their share in the representation?-( Hear, hear.) It was important to keep that in view, to show that it was not a favour they were ask ing, but a right which had been acknowledged in former times. Lord Brougham had brought in a Bill 'in 1836 to extend the suffrage, and he recommended that all persons rated to the relief of the poor and all owners of property rated to the parish, and all such persons having had their holdings for twelve months before the election, should b s eeon w fNuf e h s orraaaebi attendance hee, w ne t e :Lh r hraa e oai ntgr c t :h e el tova l called d pe tlTnoh t vn h eehbv e e ibecrt reeeesrieduca tionaltotawaenoLkiyn: entitled to the suffrage. But there were other classes to which classes s er e w e questioncc o o n al s whosetmi t ouontpsi about went always betfoorethe favour House of was en election, thinking that the more free the elections were, the more free would be the consideration of the interests of the country. And he added, that in many boroughs the election still remained popular. He (Mr. Hume) need hardly re mind the House of the Toting by scot and lot, which they all knew was an ancient practice, which existed until, he would admit, it became an encroachment upon the rights of the people at large. But up to the present hour the great number of non-represented were deprived of that which the rules of the constitution fairly gave them. The Society of the Friends of the People, on the 30th of May, 179 i, Mr. W. Smith in the chair, came to the following resolution : -" That it is undoubtedly desirable, for many reasons, that the collective body of qualified electors shall be as numerous as possible. To reach the numbers, by whom the power ought to be exercised, it mast be distributed equally and impartially over the whole surface of the king dom. What we want is a free House of Commons and a real reformation. Any measure of reform which does nor really give and effectually secure that object, is more than unprofitable, and the efforts to obtain it more than thrown away." The Hampden Club, in 1814, proposed that every t. adult male, contributing to the support of the poor, should to n si c t eoain e odnitrssn' stated They dfieyowaycubna ywddt certificates rerhhdoe have the franchise, and that club improved upon the old borough decision, by requiring payment of taxes. After all these opinions, he asked the House whether they were not really aggreisors when they excluded so many from their rights, and whether they were not the parties who were driving the people to commit breaches of the peace?- (Hear, hear.) He wished to hear reasons why they should not render the basis of their constitutional power broader than it was at present, and why such a course was not likely to make their institutions more stable. He had brought with him tables, which belled prepared, as he had upon a former occasion, showing the condition of the repre sentation in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The popula tion of Great Britain, as appeared from the returns laid upon the table of the House, was, in 1841, 15,000,000 ; of Wales, 911,000; and Scotland, 2,500,000. Making the total population of Great Britain, 16,411,000. The males above 20 years of age were 4,000,009, and of that number only 944,000 were registered as electors. If they took oft the doubly-registered electors he (Mr. Hurne) did not be lieve there would be more than 850,600 bona fide electors Now, that being the can, he asked whether it was possible that all the great number excluded without being guilty of crime from the franchise, could be other than dissatisfied? It was so great an inequality, so great, so monstrous, that com mon sense was shocked at it. He would cite one or two ex amples of counties and boroughs to illustrate the working of the inequality. He would take three English counties first -Huntingdonshire, Rutlandshire, and 1V estmoreland. The male adults amounted to 26,400 in these counties. The elec tors registered were 9,000. They returned six Members of Parliament. Middlesex, Lancashire, and Yorkshire returned six Members also. Their male adult population above 20 years of age, was 316,000. Their registered electors were 73,000. Consequently those 73,000 electors and 316,000 adult males were met and equalised in Parliament by the 9,000 electors and 26,000 adults in the three former counties. In the borough of the Tower Hamlets there were 40,000, whilst Harwich, with its 190 electors, balanced it. Was that anything like justice? Instead of that being a House of Commons fully and fairly representing the people, it was brought together by means grossly unjust, and the interests of the community were placed in great danger by such a system. In the six boroughs of Harwich, Chippenham, Knaresborough, Rich mond (Yorkshire), Totnes, and Thetford, the electors were 1,805 out of a population of 28,000 adult males, and they re turned twelve Members, the same number that were returned by Westminster, the Tower Hamlets, Liverpool, Finsbury, Marylebone, and Manchester, with a population of 1,500,000, and the influence of these six boroughs was pre cisely balanced in Parliament by the six former. But a greater evil was this-that in the large towns something of public spirit existed, and they were counterbalanced by those small boroughs that were at the mercy of a few individuals. Now, with respect to the condition of the constituency of Scotland, he found that the three counties of Banffshire, Selkirkettire, and Peeblesbire, with only 2,173 electors, re turned as many Members as Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire, and Lanarkshire, with a population of nearly 800,000, and with more than 10,000 electors. He could mention other similar instances of a like kind, but he did not wish to trouble the House by doing so. Turning to Ireland, the anomaly of the present system was still inure apparent. He held in his hand a publication from the pen of a late distinguished Member of that House-the late Mr. O'Connell-in which a contrast was drawn between the state of the elective fran chise in Ireland and in this country. The writer took very naturally what appeared to him to be the most favourable contrast for Ireland, and he justly complained of the mise rable deficiency of the electors in Ireland compared with the population. Thus, the county of Carlow, with a population of 86,000 inhabitants, had only 1,700 electors ; Kildare, with a population of 114,488, had but 1,200 registered electors ; Leitrim, with a population of 155,000, had but 1,434 electors ; Kerry, with 237,000 inhabitants, had 1,240 electors ; and Mayo, with 306,000 inhabitant 4, had only 1,300 'electors. Thus it appeared that Rutland, with less than 20,000 inhabitants, had more electors than two Irish counties, containing together between 700,000 and 800,000 inhabitants.-(Hear, hear.) He went on to ask, as he (Mr. Hume) thought very properly, was that fairness ? was it justice? And he then proceeded to compare the two counties of Londonderry and Westmoreland. The former county, with 297,000 inhabi tants, had but 2,172 electors, while Westmoreland, with only 42,000 inhabitants, had 4,592 electors, so that London derry, with an excess of population of 255,000, had less electors than Westmoreland by 2,420.-(Hear, hear.) Again, he compared Downshire, haaing a population of 337,000 and 2,330 electors, with Westmoreland, and he found that though Downshire had an excess of population in the ratio of 6 to 1, Westmoreland had an excess of electors to the number of 2,262. In the same manner he went on to Galway, and then to Cork, where there was a population of 720,000, being 14 times that of Westmoreland, and yet Westmoreland had an excess of electors over Cork of 550.-(Hear, hear.) All these were irregularities calling for the attention of the House, and which ought to compel them to do justice with out further delay, seeing, as they must do, that peace, con tentment, anti public order could only be secured by putting an end to such inequality and injustice. In the Irish boroughs the unfairness of the present arrangement was very strongly apparent. Thus, in the six boroughs of Lis burn, Portarlington, Tralee, Ennis, Dungannon, and Kin sale, there were only 1,097 electors, while Cork, Dublin, and Limerick, with over 14,000 electors, returned only the same number of representatives. In the one case there was one Member for every 180 electors, and in the other there was but one Member for every 2,423 electors.-(Hear, hear.) Thus it appeared that there was nothing like fairness or equality in the state of the representation either in England, Scotland, or Ireland. He had received a letter that morning from a gentleman residing in Rochester, in which he alluded to the injustice of giving two Members each to such towns as. Rochester and Maidstone, while Woolwich, Gravesend, and other important towns were left without representatives. -(The Hon. Member read the passage, and then continued.) He thought that he would best consult the feelings of the House by not dwelling at greater length on these details, but he could assure them that these were only instances selected from many others of a_similar kind which he had near him.-(Hear, hear.) That being the case, what did he ask the House to do? He asked them to change the system, to open the door to those who were excluded, and to equalize the distribution of the electors whom they had so arranged. If Hon. Members would take his advice, he would strongly recommend them to consult a pamphlet which had lately appeared from the pen of Alexander Mackay, barrister-at-law, and entitled " Electoral Districts ; or, the apportiQuasent of the Representation. of the Country on the basis of its Population."-(Hear, hear.) It was an inquiry into the working of the Reform Bill, and though he had prepared his own analysis to submit to the House, he felt bound to say that the analysis given by Mr. Mackay was so much stronger and so much more accurate, that he had no hesitation in referring Hon. Members to it in prefer ence. They would find in that publication an analysis of the House and of the country, prepared in the most com plete manner possible, but he would only delay the House by reading 'a very few extracts from its In speaking of the boroughs, Mr. Mackay said - " Let us now look more directly into the House of Com mons, and see how different interests and populations are balanced in that assembly. The following 22 boroughs, Andover, Ashburton, Arundel, Bodmin, Bury St. Edmunds, Chippenham, Devizes, Dorchester, Evesham, Harwich, Honiton, Huntingdon, Knaresborough, Leominster, Ludlow, Lyme Regis, Lymington, Maldon, Marlborough, Richmond ( c Y h o es r t k e s r h , i m re i ) i , Totnes, and Thetford, the aggregate population of which is but a fraction above 100,000, have 42 represen tatives in the House of Commons-that is to say, one Member 4arieutrsi f h o ,u r r y e ue v i se e utb r mbo y lnii nne 2 s. 2,390 persons. The following 20 cities and boroughs, London, Liverpool, Leeds, Lambeth, Man -9reot,uoorno persons. Thus, Members, t e F c:or i n r s k b ß, r rß y ine , iintagshta Sheffield, IBSvoreuirsththoawim, Glasgow, a p r t k o , n T , ower Greenwich, with an'aggregate population of 3 780 000 also eairnletg one g h a o the Me p m o .s, as compared to that g of the pbuer l l a at t fi te oern ; group ithirty-seven, they balance each other in the L oaef e bs g to'h i ue s ent l a ef t oe' u riv r sme e ; eye: In the same manner Mr. Mackay went on very properly to analyse the state of the electoral body in boroughs. In 1831, the Noble Lord pledged himself that every borough should have at least 300 electors, and that that number would, he trusted, be increased gradually to a large amount, but it ap peared that there were fifteen boroughs with not more than 150 electors, and that there were 5 6 Members of that House returned by 10,000 electors, while ten times that amount of electors elsewhere only returned one-half that number of re presentatives.-(llear, hear.) With such facts before them, he would say that no man who gave an honest opinion on the subject could arise from a perusal of that analysis without feeling that the time had arrived when such an anomalous state of things should ,be put an end to.-(Hear, hear.) Mr. Mackay, ,remarked that, " There is in England one county Member for every 3,290 electors ; Wales, 2,700 • Scotland, 1,633 ; Ireland, 1,078 ; d E I ng au , one borough Mem ber for every 1,045 ; Wales, 785 ; Scotland, 1,280 ; Ireland, 1,684." He did not mean tosuppose that by any plan which he could propose they would ensure absolute equality, but they might arrive at something like equality; and it should be recollected that in Other countries, where the representa tion was based upon populatiog. a revision of the electoral districts was made every ten or twelve years. On this part • of the question there was a very strong comment in the pamphlet from which he had been quoting, and it was the last with which he would trouble the House:—" Of the bo roughs with the number of electors represented by each Member below the average--are Honiton, which is $22 below it ; Totnes, 875 ; Lymington, 893 ; Harwich, 858 ; Richmond (Yorkshire), 904, and Thetford, 933. The differ ence between the two extremes, Westminster and Thetford, the former having one Member for every 7.286 electors, and the latter one for every 107, is 7,179. The two boroughs are equal in Parliament, although the electoral body of the one is 1.48 per cent., or one sixty-seventh that of the former. Again, the aggregate electoral body of London and the metropolitan boroughs is 83,062, returning amongst them sixteen Members. The aggregate electoral body of the boroughs of Bridgnorth, Honiton, Harwich, Thetford, Stafford, Richmond (York shire), Totnes, and Lvmington is 3,766, also returning amongst them sixteen Members. In the former, the average number of electors returning one Member is 5,191, in the latter it is 235 ; from which it appears that one voter in the latter is equivalent in the electoral scale to twenty-two in the former." Thus the whole influence to London was neutra lised by the Members of these eight boroughs, who got into (Laughter.) b is_ Te st, the House, as they all knew, with very little trouble, though he would say, was not a fair (Hear, L ear .) B u t b e f ore stet lantg some the e a courses expense.— e e u. ti s w hich he would recommend them to pursue, he might observe that tip suffrage was at the present time on no fixed principle. Honourable Members might not be aware that though they had a 10/. suffrage as the standard for boroughs, and a 40s. franchise, if they pleased to call it so, in the counties, yet many would be surprised to hear that there were altogether no less than eighty-five dif• ferent suffrages at pre , ent in existence. It was impossible t o tell and expense which this vari e ty franchise gave rise to. What they ought the suff rage as s i mp l e , as genera l , and as uncertainty easily t the doobtained, confusiontoofthe and e and aer delay easily defended as possible. It was at present narrow , complicated, difficult to be preserved, and attended w ith great expense, not only of money but of time. He would counsel the House to adopt some uniform system of suffrage for the counties, and one for the boroughs, but first he would state what were the various suffrages that now existed. (The Honourable Member read a list of several denominations of the franchise, but said that the entire number would e under d u ; r i t occupy too much time in going through.) Th e y were ' taken down by a barr ister who had made the subject his study. This much he would say, th a t many per sonse°me because of thesethey heads w , w ho d h n a o d t a ch ri eo gh s t e toto avail the themselvesfrnchis did not wish to go to the trouble and expense of registra tion.—(Hear, hear.) Now what was the result of this state of inequality? Why, that the people of this country did not believe that that House represented the public.—(Hear, hear.) They found votes and proceedings agreed to that were altogether at variance with the interests of the people. They found that class interests and the interests connected with the aristocracy were always in favour, to the exclusion of the interests of the people. They found that the agri cultural interests were in a great measure freed from taxa tion, and it was no wonder that it should be so, seeing that until a few years ago no English Member could sit in that House without having 3001. a year in land. In Ireland it was, he believed, the same thing; but in Scotland they had, and still have, a better order cf things. A working man could be elected as a Member of Parliament for Scotland as well as the wealthiest landholder in the country, and why should it not be so, if his fellow-electors bad confidence in him ? It appeared to him, there fore, that in every point of view the absurdity of the present state of the representation, and the confusion to which it gave rise, were all owing to their own neglect in applying the remedy which they had it in their power to employ. He would submit that the time had come when they ought to effect the changes that were desirable. He would not speak now of the great increase of taxation which had been allowed to spring up under the present system. and which the coun try believed to be imposed for the benefit of certain classes. Increased taxes were imposed on account of the army, the navy, the colonies, but he would only say on this subject at present, that his own opinion was that one-third of the whole amount expended for these purposes might be very easily saved.—(Hear, hear.) After the Reform Bill, and while [lon. Gentlemen were on their good conduct before the coun try, the national expenditure had been brought down by seven or eight millions; but whcn the public became careless, the taxes were again gradually increased to the present enor mous amount. He would wish that Hon. Members would look over a return that had been moved for by the Hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell). They would see how the taxation had gradually risen to the enormous amount of nearly sixty millions annually in a time of peace. Was it possible that under such a state of things the people of England—writhing under the injustice of being refused their civil rights, and of being at ' the same time taxed to that vast extent—could be con tented? They were not content, and they ought not to be content; and only that those who had the suffrage were re gardless of their duty, they would have taken care what class of men they sent as their representatives to that House. He did not see the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth in his place; but he held in his hand a statement made by that Right Honourable Gentle men at the time that Parliament disfranchised the 40s. freeholders of Ireland. The Right Honourable Baronet stated on that occasion, in speaking of the franchise, " No doubt it is a vested right; but it is a right which differs in its character from the rights of property and other private rights. It is a pubic trust, given for public purposes, to be touched, no doubt, with great caution and reluctance ; but still which we are competent; to touch if the public interest manifestly demands the sacrifice." That was the language held when 340,000 freeholders were struck off the roll in Ireland. Now he was anxious to see no man's money taken out of his pocket without his consent. It was contrary to the constitution and contrary to justice to do so, and what was contrary to the constitution and to justice could not, and ought not long to continue. The people were now, he was glad to see, alive to the importance of this subject. But let them bear in mind that every voice in that House was a voice sent against them to keep up the present extravagant system, and it was their own fault if they did not come for ward and perform their duty. Under the Reform Bill of 1832 they had the undoubted benefit, that whereas the bo roughmongers filled the House before the Reform Bill, di viding it into Whigs and Tories, who always formed two factions, influenced only by their individual inter ests, the electors had now the power of making what selection they pleased. He had often heard it said, by way of regret, that the Reform Bill was likely to destroy the influence of the Crown. Why, the very contrary was the fact. The King of England could not do anything as he pleased before the Reform Bill. He could not choose even his own Ministers, except as the two fac tions of the aristocracy decided.—(Hear, hear.) But now, if the 101. householders were but honest, if they fulfilled what the Right Honourable Baronet called the trust given to them honestly and fearlessly, they might at the next election take care to place in that House men who would act up to the demands of the interests and necessities of the people,and this could be done in the constitutional mode, is which only it ought to be accomplished. At the same time he hoped that the electors would not do anything to impede the great extension of the suffrage which he believed necessary for the welfare of the country. They had heard complaints against the Radical Reformers or Chartists. They had heard complaints of their disturb ances; an d h e was sorry to say that for the last ten years they had interfered with the progress of almost every public meeting, and had thus, in fact, destroyed one of the most important elements in the Constitution—freedom of opinion. He had always objected to them on this ground, because he thought that whatever might be their owa views they ought not to inter fere with the expression of opinion by others. But at the same time, when he looked back to the causes of discontent which prevailed, and to the manner in which their petitions had been treated in that House, he could not feel astonish ment if they were dissatisfied and unsettled. When he remem bered the reception of the petitions that had been presented by his friend Mr. Duncombe again and again, he could not wonder that they should have adopted the mode of family petitions that had been recently acted upon. Mr. Livesey, of. Preston, was, he believed, the first man who suggested the plan of having the name, address, and occupation of the peti tioner inserted. Under the Act of Charles the Second it was said to be illegal to send a petition signed by more than 20 persons. He had himself presented lately a number of petitions, each signed by less than that number, and he thought that in the present state of things persons were w i se in sending petitions bearing only a small number of signatures. But to return : he thouglit it was unnecessary for him to say more in order to satisfy the House of the inequality of the present system, of the great proportion of the population that it excluded,and of the necessary dissatis faction which prevailed throughout the country.—(Hear. hear.) The remedy which he would now propose was quite a constitutional one. He was about submitting to the House the following propositions :—" That this House, as at present constituted, does not fairly represent the popula tion, the property, or the industry of the country, whence has arisen great and increasing discontent in the minds of a large portion of the people; and it is therefore expedient, with a view to amend the national representation, that the elective franchise shall be so extended as to include house. holders ; that votes shall be taken by ballot; that the dura tion of Parliaments shall not exceed three years ; and that the apportionment of Members to population shall be made more equal." Great anxiety existed in the country on the sub ject of this motion. He had many applications made to him to know what he meant by household suffrage, and here he begged to remark that a word had been acci dently omitted in the resolution, as his intention was to in clude all householders. Not wishing to create any alarm he drew a distinction between the vagrant and the man who ought to have a vote, and adopting the opinion given by Whitelock and others, and very lately by Lord Brougham, his definition was as follows. He might remark. in the first. instance, that the Committee who had met and had asked him to bring forward this motion, had all given different in terpretations to the the term household voter. The defini tion which he would suggest if the House allowed him to bring in a Bill on the subject was this—" that every male person of full age, and not subject to any mental or legal in capacity, who shall have occupied a h ouse or part of a hou se who shall for twelve months, and w all have been rated to th e entitled to be re gis , and poor as an elector, shall be te tied twelve mont tered hs from shall be entitled to vote shall have a right to be rated that period ; and every lod ouch to the poor, and after ser - ch rating and such residence for twelve months he shall in like manner be entitled to be _ There would be no difficulty in registered as an elector." carrying out this object- The apparatus all existed. In every parish there were ratings to the poor, and persons who kept accounts of those ratings- All that was wanted was to have so much of residence as s hould separate and distinguish the steady inhabitant, who was entitled to a vote, from the entitledto one. He knew that thi s proposition would exclude vagrant, who was not a ce rtain portion of the populati on , but at the same time it would include a great many, and be a strong inducement to a great many more, who would remain 12 months for the sake of being registered. in their residence for of any difficulty that g registered. He was not awareexisted. By the present law every Louse was rated to the poor, a n d the Act conferring this suffrage would provide that eve r y man who so desired might, upon en tering upon the occup a ti on o f portion, part of a house, have a right to be rated fora what ever it might be, of the poor-rate assessed upon that ho use. bothof which were impor tant,Thus registration and residenc e,. line would be drawn between would be secured, and a the mere vagrant and the wor thy and educated man who wa s of the nature excluded from the suffrage merely on account nature of his occupa • tion It might be argued that this proposal did not keep up the distinction b e tween personal right s an d too property. He did not wish todraw that distinction tight, but he must say that by the law as it stood too much attention had been paid and • to bricks an d mortar, too little to brains—(Hear, hear, and alaugh )—and the time had now come when common sense should prevail. He submitted to course to pursue would be, to also the House that the proper and su • lish all qualifi ca ti ons now existing in boroughs, _ c. bsti tute this simpl e an d intelligible principle, by a large portion of the p e ople now excluded would be admitted. The would admit Noble L or d an d some others might say that it toe many—(He a r, hear)—but tha t was not his opinion. The more were admitted the better the chance of a free and a fair expression of opinion, and of doing away with bribery and other i nfluences which h a d been brought to bear. He would tell Hon. Members who might not have had the experience of the working men which he had had. that he had held his position in that House, and been protected for some 12 or 14 years during the worst of times, by the virtue and honesty of the working Dien of Montroee, and the Ave burghs had kept him in that WEDNESDAY EVENING, J UNE! 21, 1848. House in spite of every effort made by the whole Tory aris tocracy, who would have given his weight in gold only to get rid of him.—(Cheering and laughter.) The working men now thought and acted for themselves; and lion. Gentlemen should remember that the schoolmaster had been abroad, and that there was a great difference between the days of 1831 and those of 1848. Public affairs were now far better understood, although he could wish education had been still more widely extended.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that a large suffrage—such as he hoped to see realised be fore long—was so consistent with the interests of all classes, high and low, that he believed no Minister would be able long to refuse it. It was as clear to him as any proposition he had ever examined, that, if those were admitted within the pale of the constitution who were now ranging discon tented over the country, a grand cause of such discontent would be removed, and thereby the number of advocates of order and peace would be increased.—(Hear, hear.) This, therefore,', was the principal object ; all the others were merely subsidiary. The extension of the suffrage was the one great object—( Hear, hear)—all the others were matters of detail. Having obtained an extension of the suffrage, the result would be—for he would not trouble the House with figures—according to his estimate, that 2,000,000 of votes would be added to the constituency.—( Hear, hear.) This increase of the constituency was itself a good. The more votes that were added the better. He hoped that all would be included in the franchise who deserved it ; for it was a heartbreaking circumstance to see men of ability and talent, though in a low condition of life, excluded by law from the exercise of their rights in a representative constitution. If this was not to be a representative con stitution, it must be a military constitution ; it must be one or the other, and, he hoped, when he looked round at the state of the continent, that this truth would be remembered ; it ought to ring in the ears of those who obstructed the extension of the principle of re presentation, and he hoped it would continue to ring in their ears until the object was obtained. If he found the county prepared for the change, he was bound to explain why the resolution,7put forth as the resolution of a committee, was put in this shape. It was thought better to throw out the principle, and to let the country say how far they would go. having answered what he considered as the calumny of the Noble Lord, and having stated the definition which he was anxious to embody in an Act, in order that his plan should have effect and operation, he would mention one circumstance, which he had referred to on a former occasion—namely, why he had put all into one reso lution. The extension of the suffrage without protection would, in his opinion, be an evil, since in many cases voters would be subject to a coercion and an influence which was not very delicately exercised by masters; he therefore thought it perfectly right, and he took it upon himself to express the opinion on the part of the community at large, that voters should be protected. It was not the humbler classes alone who needed this protection ; the petitions bad not been confined to those -classes: All had joined—Conser vatives and Whigs, the man of wealth and the tradesman, mayors and justices of the peace, had joined in the prayer that the suffrage should be extended; and the next and most important question was, in what manner it should be exercised. Hitherto there had been the grossest inequality. What was to be done? It was not his intention to adopt the plan proposed by some, of cutting the country into squares. He was one of those who thought that every change was an evil.—(Hear.) Every change ought, in his opinion, to be well considered beforehand ; and he never would advocate any change merely for the sake of change, or unless he was sure it would effect great good. He did not, therefore, pro pose to divide the country anew, and he did not propose to alter the proportion of Members for England, Scotland, and Ireland. He would leave the proportions the same as they now were. He was aware that there were counties with a population treble the amount of other counties, and it might be desirable to alter the limits of some counties, as well as of some boroughs. He had the number of the population in each county and in each borough, and he could state what should be the average of each. The next proposition was the vote by ballot. He knew that this subject had been very fully discussed in this House upon former occasions, and he was not now disposed to renew the discussion ; but he would notice one objection to the ballot, namely, that it was un-English. If the ballot was nn-English, was it meant that bribery and coercion, against which it was meant to guard, were English?—(Hear, hear.) If the franchise was a trust, those in possession of it should vote according to their honest opinion. If a man came into the possession of an estate giving him the command over a cer tain number of votes, why should the men who had them be called upon to vote at all, when they could not do so honestly? But was it those men alone who required pro tection? Why, men with hundreds and thousands a year had not courage to vote as they ought, and required a pro tection as well as the poor man. But it was the poor man he wished chiefly to protect against the rich, in order that he might give his vote freely, without suffering the conse quences which in many cases a working man endured if he gave an honest direction to his vote. What was surprising was, that the higher classes did not object to the Ballot among themselves. They should do to others as they would be done by. When they got to their clubs they voted by ballot, and why not permit the poor man to exercise his franchise by ballot ? He wished any man, when he came to vote, to be able to go in an erect and independent manner and exercise his right; he wished him to be as independent in that act as the Honourable Member for Sunderland oppo site, and therefore he thought the ballot was necessary to the due exercise of the elective franchise. Having dis posed of this point, the next was the duration of the Par liament. Some proposed that Parliaments should be elected for five years, some for three years, and some for two years. He admitted that there was no rule by which a person could form an opinion upon this question, which depended upon practical experience. His own opinion, after all his expe rience in that House, led him to say that if the Parliament were elected for a not longer time than three years, that term would afford a sufficient opportunity of control over the representatives. If the elections were annual, it would occasion trouble delay, and expense, though if his plan were adopted candidates would be put to little expense. He thought, however, taking it altogether, that Parliaments ought not to be elected for more than three years. These were, therefore, his propositions—household suffrage, under the conditions he had mentioned; the more equal apportion ment of Members , to population; triennial Parliaments; and vote by ballot. There was likewiie as' fifth proposition which he wished to adopt. He wished to act upon the prin ciple he had before referred to, of doing to others as others 'ld to him. He sat in that House without qualification. He was an elector, and as an elector he had a title to be elected. In Scotland there was no qualification required —no property qualification —but the fact of being an elector. He was anxious to put the people of England and Ireland on the same footing in this respect as thoee of Scotland, where there was no property qualification, and where even working men of Latent who had no property qualification were not therefore excluded from the House. Upon this ground, he thought that all the rest of the United Kingdom should be put upon the same footing as Scotland was, which would open the door for the removal of property qualification. This was the plan of Reform which he thought ought to be adopted ; he thought if the House stopped short of this the plan would be defective ; he thought they ought to carry it out entire, and - they stamild' beware of making such another mistake as they had done in 1832. In justification of his views he had no occasion to refer, but he must refer, to the sentiments expressed by the Noble Lord when he introduced the Reform Bill in 1831, which he sup ported in this strong manner, and he (Mr. Hume) saw no reason why the Noble Lord should have since changed his opinions. The Noble Lord, on the Ist of March, 1831, said " But what is the case at this moment? The whole people call loudly for Reform. That confidence, whatever it was, which formerly existed in the constitution of this House, exists no longer—it is completely at an end. Whatever may he thought of particular acts of this House, I repeat that the confidence of the country in the construction and constitu tion of the House of Commons is gone, and gone for ever. I will say' more. I will say that it would be easier to transfer the flourishing manufactures of Leeds and Manches ter to Gatton and Old Sarum, than to re-establish confidenee and sympathy between this House and those whom it calls its constituents. I end this argument, therefore, by saying, that if the question be one of right, right is in favour of Reform—if it be a question of reason, reason is in favour of Reform—if it be a question of policy and expediency, policy and expediency are in favour of Reform." He (Mr. Hume) could not use stronger language to support his ar guments than this, and it was only necessary to read it to show what the sentiments of the Noble Lord then were. There was another passage of the same speech of the Noble Lord which it was very important that ,the House should bear in mind. The Noble Lord showed the necessity of a change in the state of the representation at that time, and he (Mr. Hume) wanted to show what the Noble Lord's opinions then were :—" It will not be necessary on this occasion that I should go over the ground which has frequently before been gone over, for arguments in favour of a change in the state of the representation ; but it is due to the ' House that I should state shortly the points on which the reformers rest their case. In the first place, then, the ancient constitution of our country declares that no man shall be taxed for the support of the state who has not consented by himself, or his repre sentative, to the imposition of these taxes; the well known statute De Tallagio non conceded° repeats the same lan guage ; and although some historical doubts have been thrown upon it, its legal meaning has never been disputed. It includes all the freemen of the land,' and *vides that each county should send to the Commons of the realm two knights, each city two citizens, and each borough two bur gesses." He read the .next passage to introduce the two branches of his plan, namely, the ballot and the duration of Parliaments;—" I ought to notice certain points which are looked to with great interest by the most zealous advocates for reform but which are net included in the proposed measure. In the first place, then, I have to state that there is no provision in this gill for shortening the dura tion of Parliament. That is a subject which has been much considered, but, upon the whole, without stating the opinion of his Majesty's Ministers on it, I may observe that it was thought better to leave that matter to be brought for awaßr l l a s aff a e s c e t p i n a g r a t f e r aquestion and tha n ma to tte b r r s in o g f i l t oc a a t i t r b e e fe e r n e d nc o e f , separate and essentially different from any question concern ing the duration of Parliament. Without saying to what opinion his Majesty's Ministers incline on this point, I may say that they consider it of the utmost importance not to burden this measure with any other, but to reserve it by itself, leaving it to any other Member, at any time that may be considered fitting, to introduce the question, and to make it the subject of future consideration." " There is another question, likewise, which has excited a vast deal of interest in the country, and of which no mention is made in this Bill, I mean the vote by ballot. I have no doubt the ballot has much to recommend it as a mode of election. More in genious arguments never fell under my eye on any su bj ect than I have seen in favour of the ballot.' , He (Mr. Hume) believed that the Noble Lord and his colleagues wore at that time in favour of the ballot. " But, at the same time, I am bound to say that I hope this House will pause before it sanctions the motion which the Hen. Member for Bridport is to make, and adopts the mode of voting by ballot." Now, he (Mr. Hume) said that these argument s o f t h e Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) were very good, and ought to weigh with the House on the present occasion ; but he wanted to clear away, as the Noble Lord did, the objections to a great measure of reform, and in the same speech the Noble Lord referred to the doubts entertained by some as to the expediency of bringing forward a great and effectual measure of reform, when the Noble Lord said,—" I think, therefore, that they have a right to be believed when they come forward with a measure of effectual reform, and say that they do not so for any sinister purpose of their own. Interested as they are—all must be—in the future welfare and prosperity of the country, they do think that thif mea sure will tend to promote that future welfare, and secure that future prosperity; and above all do they think that it is the only way calculated to insure permanency to that con stitution which has so long been the admiration of foreign nations on account of its popular spirit, but that admiration cannot be made to exist much longer unless, by an infusion of new popular spirit, you show that you are determined' not to be the representatives of small classes or parti cular interests, but that you will form a body which, representing the people,—which, springing from fairly !he people—which, sympathising with the people, can call upon the people to support any future burde n s, d ,like them soay.teo do a;o; united heart and hand with them, and look counter, struggle confident wi th any f t u h t a u t r e those difficulties who e/er ot all ask them tTs a m y selves, to the glory and welfare the P time? wad clime observationa applicable to the preeeht not show in stronger language the necessity of bringing forward and adopting the plan he proposed than by citing this passage of the Noble Lord's speech. Upon these grounds lie thought that the Government were bound to give their support to his plan, which the Government, as far as the Noble Lord was concerned, had approved ; for no stronger reasons, no stronger arguments could be adduced in its favour than those he had read from the Noble Lord's speech. He would repeat once more, that he thought the time had arrived when an important onward step must be taken. If they only did justice to the mass of the people, they might rely upon this, that the mass of the people would give them cordial and unqualified support; but of this they might equally rest assured, that, if they continued to exclude a large portio❑ of the people from the enjoyment of civil rights, it would be impossible for the Government of this country any longer to repress universal discontent. To his mind no thing could be clearer than this, that they must freely grant civil rights to their fellow sabjecta, or else they must be pre pared to coerce them. They had already—most prematurely in his opinion—begun the plan of coercion, and it certainly had beet productive of no good fruits. He meant, not merely recent coercion, but that also of a more distant date. Let him be allowed to refer to the year 1793. That was a period when the first French Revolution raised in this country a wide spread and eager demand for more popular institutions. The cry of reform was then raised with great loudness and strength ; and he entreated them to look at the measures that were then taken for the purpose of repressing that cry. Let them look at the measures that were taken for the purpose of putting down reform, and let them look at the penalty which this country paid for the pleasure of carrying those measures into practical operation. All possible means of coercion were then resorted to, and what did we pay fur it?—no less a sum than 600,000,0001. England added 600,000,0001. to her debt —it might be 800,000,000/.—the debt was 1,000,000,0(01., and certainly at the lowest computation 600,000,01101. of that must be set down to . the account of the war, which war arose altogether out of attempts to coerce the people. Look ing back, then, as no one at present could help doing, to the state of things in 1793, could any rational or dispassionate man deny that all we had since then suffered in the way of war and its consequences, in the weight of public taxation, and in the misery and distress which followed in its train, might all have been avoided if Parliamentary reform had. been conceded in good time? But the aristocracy were against it, the Sovereign was against it, and that arch-traitor to reform, Mr. Pitt, was against it. That Minister, who in 1785, took his great stand upon reform principles, kept this country under the severest coerceive rule throughout the many years that his administration lasted. Such had been the consequence of formerly refusing to make any concessions to the just demands of the people, and such again would be the inevitable consequence of any resistance to the popular will; that which the people of England had done before they would do again. It was the duty of the Legislature to con cede that which they believed to be just and right, and to trust the people; if they trusted the people they would be perfectly safe, but if they deceived the people they might expect severely to suffer for that crime. Trust the people, and there need be no ground for alarm ; the people were as much and more interested than the wealthier classes were in the maintenance of law and order, for there were none in the community more interested than the working men in the public tranquillity, for they would be the first to suffer by anything like disturbance. Persons of property,„though they might to some extent suffer, could get thr,,ugh such diffi culties infinitely better than the poor working man; he was, therefore, much more interested than those who belonged to any other class in preserving the institutions of the country from any species of harm. If the Legislature denied the fair demands of the people, let them not suppose that the working man could be insensible to so great a wrong—let them grant the boon in time, and they would meet with nothing but gratitude in return. On that ground, then, and on the other grounds which he had stated, he should say It was the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to counsel her Majesty, and assure her that the pro posed change was for the benefit of the monarchy. They should tell her that they did not make this demand for the especial benefit or advantage of a class ; that, on the con trary, it was for the good of the whole body politic that every one should participate in the privileges of the British Constitution. The people whose cause he then pleaded re quired no more, and they would be content with no less. He asked the House to agree to his motion more as a pledge than anything else that they would carry out the principle of reform. If the House agreed to his motion, such assent would not have the effect of pledging them to any of the details of any measure that he might seek to found upon a motion so agreed to. Further, if they permitted him to bring in a Bill, Hon. Members who supported his motion might nevertheless propose any alterations that they thought proper in the Bill when it came before the House. If he ex ceeded the just limit of reform, they might correct and cur tail what he proposed. If he fell short of what the neces sity of the case demanded, they might extend his plan ; but he hoped that the House would at least come to such a decision as would restore confidence and impart peace to the agitated feelings of the country, for they much needed a con fidence and peace which every one felt they did not at pre sent enjoy. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by making his motion as above stated, correcting an omission by inserting the words" all householders."' Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion. The SPEAKER having read the resolution, Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he could not understand how the alteration in the suffrage proposed by the Hun. Gentle man could have the effect of alleviating that distress which at present, unfortunately, so much prevailed; neither could he understand how the adoption of his proposition would have had more effect in stopping the ,proceedings of the 10th of April, than had the means adopted by the Govern ment for that purpose. He well knew that the enumerat ing of such principles as the Hon. Gentleman had given utterance to, tended considerably to produce dissatisfaction, and he was glad that to him was not entrusted the keeping of the public peace on that occasion. That was fortu nately entrusted to her Majesty's Ministers, who were in possession of information regarding the matters which the Honourable Gentleman could not possibly be, and he thought that the manner in which they preserved the peace on the occasion alluded to, entitled them to the gratitude of the community. He confessed he had felt a difficulty in following the Honourable Gentleman through his details; but he would mention, in order to show that the subject was not new, that in 1829 an extension of the suffrage and the shortening of Parliaments was recommended. Several circumstances which had, how ever, of late taken place on the continent, had given it this year an impetus it had never before received, and there was not a doubt but that it was a subject which they would all have to discuss on the hustings at the next election, when they would find, as was said by Easclipus Judaicus, "That he who will not argue is a bigot, and he who cannot is a fool." —(Cheers and laughter.) There was no doubt but great dis tress prevailed at the present time, and those parties who were suffering distress the most were those who adhered most closely to the opinions expressed by the Hon. Gentleman. The distress which prevailed had been the means of causing scenes of the most heartrending description, and men, stung almost to madness by being subjected to such misery, could not be brought to a calm consideration of the question. There was another class of what might be termed intellectual labourers, such as mechanics, persons connected with the various trades, having charge of steam-engines, and so forth. These people earned very high wages, but it was notorious that they were for ever in poverty notwithstanding, and a gentleman with whom he was conversing the other day re garding them, told him that one man in his employment had five guineas a week, but yet he was never possessed of a farthing.—(Laughter.) All these joined the cry for the franchise extension, while it was notorious that a reform in their physical condition would be of much more benefit to them.—(Hear.) There was a higher class above these,whom he might call intellectual speculators. These were composed of doctors without patients, and lawyers without briefs.— (Laughter)—and a host of such like characters, who wanted to turn the world into one great chaos, and see if they could not fetch up a constitution out of it to suit themselves. The system pursued by them was carried on in France at present to great perfection, and on a small scale it was carried on in this country; all of these parties being strong advocates for the Charter. He was aware that the word charter was of bet little repute, but he remembered the time when the fact of a man being a reformer was sufficient to have him set down as a black sheep. The word reformer soon, h.__ewever, turned into Radical, and that had now shifte d into Chartist. And while the Chartists included all those evil persons be had mentioned, still it did not follow t hat the y were all of such an evil stamp. They all, however, seemed to have strange notions as to the first principles of law ;. and, to prove this, the Hon. Gentleman read an extr a ct from the report of a meeting held at Leeds some time ago, at which, he said, the Hon. Member. for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) attended. The extract he read was from a speech of one of the aldermen of that town, wherein it was stated that, while they were all loyal subjects, and willingly submitted to the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, the two former of which were evils which they could afford to en dure, yet they conceived that they were entitled to those rights they demanded. They were advocates of peace, law, and order, but if their demands were refused by the Go vernment, and if the Ministry hesitated too long in grant ing them, let it not be said that they were the first to trample on the institutions of the country, and to raise the standard of anarchy. The Honourable Gentleman then went on to state that, whatever they did with the present motion, they ought to make up their minds to stand by the institutions of the country--(Cheers)—and they must not allow themselves to think that the King, Lords, and Com mons were mere evils which could be endured.—( Hear, hear.) Having thus shown who the parties were who asked for these changes, the next point was what did they ask for? He would not say ask " us" for, because he was no party to their Reform Bill. He hated it then, and he hated it now.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It gave away all their old suffrages, and established one in the stead which had no principle to rest upon. Nobody could give a reason why 101. was more entitled to vote than 9/. 19s. 6d. When the authors'of that measure talked of its being a final one, they certainly displayed very little foresight for it must have been evident to all that it was only the first step to a great num ber of similar measures.—(Hear.) At the same time he would say, that though it was said everybody was now dis satisfied • with the Reform Bill, there never was a time when the people were so fairly represented as now.—(Hear, and " Oh.") Why, there was a little book, Mr. Dodd's " Par liamentary Companion," in which that fact was duly chro nicled. But reverting to the point of the real nature of the changes asked for, he objected to all of them which wese new. He contended that the vote should only be given to property, those who had no property should be entirely excluded.— (Oh, oh.) It was of no use talking of intelligence. They, could not define wisdom by an Act of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) The object of every civilised society was to make men live in peace, and the first duty of Government was to put down mob force. Property was the aim of all parties, and it was, therefore, the right and the duty of property to rule. There was no such thing in nature as equality —they did not find it either in the animal, vegetable, or the mineral t kingdom. Inequality was the law of nature, and they mjgh agitate to all eternity, but they never could alte r it. Then ben he had no objection to triennial Parliaments , because _ _ reverting to the old Constitution. He felt besides that it it would be of great advantage to the Members if they met their constituents more frequently, and not only to Members but to their constituents also.—( Hear, hear.) How many of them before they were acquainted with facts and details made flaming professions and fine promisesare totally at the hustings which they afterwards discoveredh w imprac ticable?—(Hear, hear.) If better practical political educationtey met more frequently a would result. At present that House was too much separated from the people.— (Hear, hear.) To the demand for electoral divisions, un i ve rsal suffrage , no property qualifications , the ballot, and similar claims, he was prepared to give a direct negative. If asked •for his reason, he replied they were new. That was sufficient.—(A laugh.) He dis liked all these things because they were merely e h r e ely wou th ld its the means of getting at certain other thing r ather the House s hould take stand where it now was, than make concessions. It was to the interest of the great mass of the peop le that there should be a division of property every twelve months.7(: • lo.) He knew it. Political eco nomists might espial how the poor man was as much the security of capital as its owners, but poli ticalinterested in much falsified, and political economy had been very; economists Tory much astonished by what had taken place in France. If they attempted to put all men upon an equal footing a s to the right of e l ec ti ng representat i ves, an d o f being representatives, they would begin a system which would be totally subversive of the rights of property, and therefore totally deatruotive of property iteelf.—(No, no.) 1 There was in these days a great deal of talk about the rights and the duties of property. He said it was the duty of every man to maintain! himself in the position in which he was placed. The man of property ought to defend his poi tion.—(Laughter.) Hon. Members were perhaps not aware that the most popular works issued in England within the last twelve months—he did not mean the writings of Louis Blanc, but English works—works promulgating opinions which w ere widely entertained by the most intelligent of the working men —laid down the proposition that all property was a public robbery.--(0h, oh, and No, no.) He did not remember the exact words, nor did he expect that he s hoolt have been called upon to p rove hi s p os iti o n, but he en uldi d refer them to a work in French.—(l ron i ca l cheers an laughter.) He understood th e c h eers , but he asserted tbatd the same principle was contained in English works; ,!,I,3_ue here also it was held that property was a public robber. 't Hon. Gentleman, after adverting to several objections, the!! opposed the extension of reform, on the ground that it would cause a number of Members to be sent into the House who', instead of taking a rational and comprehensive view of affairs, would be absorbed by petty local matters, and ru A down the taxation at the expense of the character an,' greatness of the country. He repeated that the whe t i l e object of the movement was to divide the property of t country. The ideas of advantage from the practice of ' these political theories were mere delusions. No House °L Commons—no Legislature—do what it might, could P re ; d vent distress among the people; and to tell them that Legislation had any power to relieve them was a gross e' lusioa. It was a delusion to tell the people that anything but money was the lot of the great mass of ma nkind.--( oh.) There was .at present running through the whole Europe a strong desire for a total 'regeneration of societY.' He would say in conclusion, you shall have that regeneration, but you must first pass through a baptism of blood — as t he) : are now doing in France—and you never shall have regsuers tion until He comes who is alone able to give it. Lord J. RUSSELL—I rise thus early to address the Bose because I think it is entitled to an explanation from we the views I entertain, not only regarding this motion, h it other propositions to which it is nearly akin, and w hich, after the speech of the Hon. Member for Montrose , I COn' jecture are like to follow it (as we understood). But alloW me to allude to the petitions which have been presen ted to . this House, and to what the Hon. Member for Montrose calle d the expression of a general opinion on the subject. Ur bo that I have to say that it does not appear that, except for t ot provisions called the People's Charter, there was any 1(4 8 numerously signed petition presented to this House i n s" A early part of the session. Regarding those since prese nt " and regarding those meetings which have been held to St' port th motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose, ther e P i si , two remarkable circumstances—one is, that consiclert e pains were taken to misrepresent a speech which I made 5 ?7 weeks ago—( Hear)—when notice of that motion was pti . poned by the Hon. Member, to the effect that I decin therein that the people wished for no reform. I h a ve seen ' done with such care that in placards all the words whichr plied my belief that there ought to be reform were caret expunged, and in some cases directly the reverse stst The words I used were—" My belief is that the middle .a, working classes desire that there should be a gradual P r ; gress of reform; that this House should give its attention,., the question before it, and that on peace and tranquility, pend their interests.—(Cries of "Read on.") Of course ru not deny that which has been stated over and over age s that I expressed my belief that the country, nal:Bell , i es middle and working classes, were not in favour of the re o PA Charter, or the plan of the Hon. Member for Montrose; that declaration has been used as if it were a declarstt; against all reform; whereas I went on to say, after bacil excluded these specific measures, that the peopled es. r irT,,, , gradual progress in reform, and in using that term I eluded no species of reform, neither parliamentary nor fis:l; nor any other kind of reform which it might be usefu& adopt. But so great has been the misunderstandi n g; misconstruction of what I said, that at the MarYl leb „. o o, meeting the Hon. Member for Montrose moved a resou t. o g which began thus :—" That the Prime Minister, h eli c es stated his opinion that the people require no extensive lued,,, sures of political and fiscal reform, it is hereby real:3'lA and so on. The Hon. Gentleman having heard what I .0 and accurately knowing what I said, really should bin'to taken more pains. When that resolution was Put co , his hand, he should have said, '° This is a resolution nns . trary to the fact ; I know it to be so—(Hear) --it is her sible M for me to move it as it stands." ith the r. HUME.—I can only say, it is consistent W" fact, to my knowled.—(Order order.) We ° Lord J. RUSSEL ge L.—Now there is another circutu tn o. which has attended many of these meetings for Ite t vi v i: They have been meetings convened and assembled 1 1.01 view of proposing and supporting the four points con" p i ed' in this resolution which the Hon. Gentleman has lll- tina to-day, and to which he has now added a fifth, itt with the view of sending petition to this Hou s e support of this resolution. But when the m atter 57; 5 1 to a discussion it has repeatedly happened either that some Shartist has risen and moved an amendment' get every person of tull age and unconvicted of any crime ) , et to have a vote, and that that resolution has been carnet else that, such a resolution being proposed, such a d icl , o lll in the meeting took place that the reporters, who ge n " s tate attend accurately to these matters, have been unable told to the result of the meeting. I say, therefore, with reg s this movement, that, in the first place, it has been in!.lt t er degree founded upon misrepresentation of what I saiu l „ s tto place in Parliament ; and, in the next place, that it 0 100. be considered at all as a movement in support of the Getleman the Member for Montrose—whether we tithe, "t o her or Birmingham, or Merylebone, as I think, or severs , lo ot of the great cities. It is to be regarded rather as a tweV e chsr• in which there was a division of opinion, in which the d t he tists very often had the majority ; and where they ° b l o t° majority the meetings cannot be considered as favours able the plan of the Honourable Gentleman. The 11 0 _,„„ni i by Gentleman, to my great satisfaction, be gan his sP7 ) , s ottr declaring that the plan of reform which I had the:, pd''. to propose in 1831, and which was carried into effect " , j . v itig liament in 1832, had been mainly instrumental in prr e acs ept the peace of the country during the present year. that testimony as a testimony that the plan of rein t aity, been useful in averting discontent, preserving Visa be er.) and in bringing about other useful measures.—(Heat' t he The Hon. Gentleman, indeed, afterwards said, that clot people. according to their present rights of electienlsed LO those who would fitly represent them, if they At. s ans w their own interests as they ought, they had the "i s o f the carrying into effect measures conducive to the intete s nau se as community. If that be so, it must make the House dorm t° to the necessity for any Government measure of re g o ose• enable the people to find a fair representation in th i S it is only Bcause, by the Hon. Gentleman's own statement , re sen from their mistake of their true interests that the4 ve t he House does not fairly represent them, and that they il __ en ted. opportunity at a general election of being fairly reperufaideno The electors, indeed, might reply to the Hon. :t in the, that they had the power, but did not choose to use r ', rio s manner he recommended, for that they had a their true interests than he himself had—Wea r t h thinking that they had chosen their present represents ti their 00 that their views were the sound views accordin g hich the Hon' notions of public policy, and not, the views wh ich v contend for Gentleman entertained. For, although he rna, d c w hatever any particalar right of suffrage, he cannot conten h is right he may establish, that the people are to a . a P t °the rero notions, and that they are not fairly represented if _oions.... betteeso_sod sentatives do not coincide with his views and °l n - a -OA (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman began by a decl l 7 .. . n y that every man who was a contributor to the taxes vent way should have a share in the representation, and that r h ol man of full age who contributed in any way to the taxes t i positively a right to vote. Why , Sir , it this propor;ps were true there would be an end of a l l dis p ute about '„is matter—an end of the Hon. Gentleman's propositions' ,d limitations, his restrictions, his qualifications—and we shoj i _ have nothing to do but pass an Act of Parliament al oa , ledging that right, and ad mittin g all to vote. But the ..0 G en tl e man in his plan does not carry his Preposition 114 effect.—( Hear.) His remedy is to extend the franchi se se ; to include " all householders," the word " all" having b e t° left out by mistake; and from his explanation he apPe e ,„ rs , 0 intend the word " householders" to include persons nav"'" o t, fixed residence, and who may be lodgers in the as I understand, who must claim to be rated, and else-S be actually rated, and placed on the the ° ate-book for..i o o, the poor. There is a restriction, a qualification, a copal., 0, which, if the Hon. Gentleman is right in his former pr,eoP:sr, thin, you have not the smallest title to imPose•tl of hear.) Here is a man of full age, belonging to the paris,..,, house, b Westminster; he claims his right to vote. Are yon t° Te d • that he not registered, and his name is not on the r , he book, and therefore he cannot be admitted ? " W h3 says, " I have an i n d e f eas ibl e, a constitutional right , to being a man 21 y ears o f age; and it is impossible for r' yo te deny that right, or set aside or evade my claim t 10, by any pretence of y our qua lifi cat i ons about rate - tn. e.. , and registration, and conditi ons o f l o d g i n g, and so t br fica tiel (Hear, hear.) The Hon. G en tl eman by that qua t i i i le 00. destroys his own proposition. I will confess that t he Gentleman quoted some sentences of mine in bringluf ne hat Reform Bill in 1831, which, I mus t a dmit, Were B ,: d a s th B loosely quoted. They could no t h ave been apPh oa t oil foundation of the measure I proposed ; but at lea st I rr _ c a ny to state exactly what the measure was. 1 did not logo' doubt about it, and every one can judge what the B obo was which I wished to see Parliament adopt. . it i s Gentleman's proposition is of a very different naturrejori of a very vague and indefinite character.—(Hear' sat When the Hon. Gentleman says that all house u s , do Dot lodgers who claim to be rated are to vote, I really his • f o g understand how large a part of the working classe fo ol include. Many sons living with their fathers, o ',L e coo: part of a family, might or might not form part k ot er 'n' ar e sa atituent body under this proposition. He says tu s od , millions of persons of full age who ought to vote,e repro_ only one million or less are included in the p ro !.% sentation. But I should imagine, if carried out, and every man had a right his t P o r°P ; elle r e lri t t W il t r being registered and rated, you would find st ill three millions at least excluded from the right who would not come under the definition the rL e rtion' Gentleman has made. What, then, becomes of his, 7 / 01 that you have disqualified those who have the right,_" ca stoo_ and that it is beyond the power of Parliament W I di those who have that constitutional right ?—(Hea r 'l oo of 11 1 entirely from the Hon. Gentleman as to the foundation the proposed representation. In my opinion, that .o T,,, n , p.! ' people have the right to, not only every man of f 1 11; s sibi,e 0 the whole population of this kingdom, is the hee' h f c h it government and the best kind of representation w", n d if is poss ible for the Legislature to give.—(Hear, hear.) f: Legit s h ou ld be that universal suffrage would give th e berdo oos lature, the best laws, and the best government , ~1 e mit?: see that this House would be justified in refusing the But if this would not give so good a government 21;01100 ferent form of voting, then it was mere pedantry an d a; for philosophy to say that every man ought to have A vr o f 00r the main object of representation, as the main object of t he institutions, being good government and the welfare _.OOO people, you ought not, for the sake of some abstract or,ht about the means, to lose sht of the very object you °M t ? , cad 09 ' to keep in view. —(Hear, bear.) We have a nu- o f thss tution—the Crown and the House of Lords are a part _ et constitution • they are not evils to be endured, but P o Pi t he the benefit Of the institutions which we enjoy. On_.p ia itft greatest and one of the most profound writers of not in•writhog words subject of government, said, n m t ?f a to exactly in but in sentiment, what I a_ ro irhy, quote—" Every government is formed, either otf_ormu_7o butl of aristocracy, or of democracy. A governn.sen combined out of the three may be ifeasitilsyhailtni abgeiburoeau,ghtitoo cannot be easily brought to pass; or, great and profound historian—a sentimentn modern thnea,t pass it cannot be durable." Such was the sentiment an 0 0 1 Justified by all the experience of the world most fortiiol„so with the exception of one, and I should say had these elements combined which Tacitus said d mocracy: country. It has so happened that in this cao.dunctoryuidsrhearwbu_sTfi be combined—of monarchy, aristocracy, and ,e_ Sir,it h als confess happened tthat, that seeingthat constitution t it difficultution be s t e De a tt n li g that judgment, and which I believe to very of on" ie how difficult it is to maintain that species o f peop 0 be a e e n ,ordi dti o reb :to: judgment, with the exception which we have seen --see :iis tution which has provided for the happiness tee had much t in this country—l have always felt, do since the year reform, how and with assisting other measures of ~n vial 1819 with proposing the and nice a matter it was to alter co adjustment of the different powers of the foot remember, on the night before I wars about to P having gures of creriforiruloni