The Sun. — London, England, 1848-07-07 00:00:00

when in Yorkshire only York and Scarborough returned ene Member? Why, in the reign of Henry VII. there were only 28 boroughs. The wars of the Roses destroyed them. Did his Honourable Friend wish to go back to the time when the Crown nominated all the Members to that House?—(Hear, hear.) And when his Honourable Friend talked of rallying round pro perty, he would ask, what traditionary influences there were in connexion with it? Was it not well known that that great writer, the late Mr. Disraeli— (Chee , s)—said it was the boast of the cavaliers who fought at Edge Hill, that one troop of their guard possessed more property than the whole - House of Commons?—(Hear, hear.) But, in spite of all their property, they were defeated by the middle classes of the day.—( Hear, hear.) And when his Hon. Friend said they were not a collective party, as in Sir William Wynd hara's day, did he imagine that his own Honourable Friends, Newdegate and Sibthorp of this day, had any feeling in common with the Wyndhams of that day ? He was sure the Honourable Members for Lincoln and Warwickshire would forgive him for bringing their names into this dis cussion— " The knights are dust, their good swords rust — Their souls are with the saints, I trust" —(Hear, hear.) Then there were thecountry gentlemen, and a good deal was made of them by his Honourable Friend. Now he (Mr. Osborne) respected the class of country gen tlemen, but he had not been able to find that they had ever been the.leaders of public opinion. Take Hampden. He was cut by the gentlemen of his day; he positively would not have been asked out to dinner.—('. laugh). Had the country gentleman resisted the American war? Were they not opposed to Catholic emancipation and to the Reform Bill ? Take the gentry of the present day. As a class they had been occupied in another place with throwing out a measure which had for its object the destruction of the last rusty link of persecution, and the striking off the chains imposed by bigotry and intolerance upon a long injured race.—(Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he would say that he was no true friend to the institutions of this country who looked down either upon the middle classes or the working classes.— (Hear, hear.) He believed that the perpetuation of our Go vernment, and the real safeguards to our liberty, consisted in the removal of all shackles upon thought, education, and religion; and, entertaining these sentiments, he should give his firm support to the resolutions moved by his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. 'Sergeant TALFOURD said that haring on former occasions sympathised with and aided in the cause of re form, he felt bound on the present occasion to state why he was not guilty of inconsistency in opposing the motion of his Hon, Friend. And when he looked back at what had passed during the last thirty years, when he first en tered upon public life, and took an ardent interest in the cause of progres—when he saw how the power of the aristo cracy had been diminished—what great additions had been made to the popular strength—when he remembered how the stability of a paper currency had at that time been maintained by the sanguinary execution of blood-shedding laws, and how the power or the press had in those days been visited by the cruel oppressions of bigotry and fear, and when he saw how immensely the direct influence of the aristocracy had been/curtailed by the Act of 1832—how every municipal corporation had been popularised—how free was the press in these: days, not merely from prosecu tions, but even from annoyance ; when he recalled all these things to mind, he could not think that he was inconsistent in declining to proceed further in agitating for organic change, believing that• he should act more wisely by striving to consolidate our exist ing institutions, and to impart to the people that knowledge which was essential to the exercise of p ublic duties, and that piety without which knowledge was rather a bane than a benefit,—(hlinisterial cheers.) Proceeding to examine the motion before them, he was struck, in the first place, by its miscellaneous character. It appeared to be a small attempt to emulate a larger and infinitely nobler scheme. The People's Charter was a bold plan : this lesser charter seemed formed upon its model, only to induce the more timid politi cians to prefer it. It was developed, as it was arranged, with little caution. In the original plan there were four proposals; but the Hon. Member for Montrose had since offered them a fifth point; as if to show with how little discretion the whole plan had been arranged, and how little judgment had been exercised In introducing mighty changes of the whole scheme of the British Constitution. The Honourable Mem ber's first point was the ballot. In his (the Learned Ser jeant s) view, there could be little objection to any change in the mode of voting, which could save the humble elector from the coercion of power and the temptation of gold. Looking at the ballot singly, and believing that the defect it was to remedy existed, if it had been singly proposed he should have been prepared to give it his support—(Hear, hear)—believing at the same time that its importance was greatly exaggerated both by friends and foes —(Cheer ing)--and entirely discrediting the notion that there was efficiency in any mechanical contrivance which could prevent the greatest act of a ...r man's life from being known.— (Renewed cheers.) tut the Hon. Gentleman confessed that if the constituency he proposed to create were left without this protection, then that the franchise would be rather a bane than a blessing to them. Why, surely, this was the greatest condemnation of his scheme Could they be pre pared to unsettle the whole system of the nation to establish a scheme, the sole protection of which was a ballot-box? —(Hear, hear.) Was that the ark by which the new born voters were to be saved from the waters of revolution which were seeking to engulf them ? Why, he wanted no bettso confession of the inefficiency of the plan—of its otter u.elessness for the purposes it sought to realise.— (Much cheering.) But then came the next point—triennial Parliaments. Triennial Parliaments would produce so little practical change that he saw little solid argument either for or against them. The Charter gave annual Parliaments, and thiaplan followed at a humble distance. Whether, like the earth-born giant of old, who, every time he fell in the struggle, acquired f res h strength' for the contact, they were to derive renewed energies from each repeated refer ence to their constituents, he did not know, but that was about the only argument that could be used in favour of this branch of the proposition. But then came the substance of the Honourable Member's scheme —the extension of the franchise and the new distribution of the constituencies. And here he must admit that if the scheme was, as it was intended to be, a scheme for new electoral districts, then there would be a terrible consi&ency between the distresses of the time and this attempt to tear asunder the oldest political ties and local associations. But having evolved a cloud of " family petitions" in favour of the plan the Member for Montrose started back as if at the sound himself had made, and cried " God forbid that I should Propose anything of the sort. I have no wish to cut the country up into parallelograms." But the constituencies understood this to be a parallelogram project; and that being 5 0, what must they not think on the one hand of the studied disguise of the projector, and on the other of the value of the Petitions?—(Cheers.) Some of the petitioning families earnestly prayed for " Mr. Hume's motion," which was safe e nough others asked for electoral districts in p articular. What must these worthy families think when they heard of Mr. Hume having got up to declare that he did not want electoral districts at all?—(Cheering.) The Hon. Member's treatment of the suffrage ues tion was scarcely any better. Ems resolution, as se t out to the world, was framed to include householders. He passed over the subsequent introduction of the word " all." Mr. HUME—That was a mere error. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD quite believed so. But the public understood the Hon. Member to go for " household suffrage." If there had been a dinner, though he would not insinuate that any such festivity had taken place, the teastwould clearly have been " Horne and Household Suf frage." The universal cry was " Hume and Household Suffrage." The babbling gossip of the air repeated " Hume and Household Suffrage." But when the Hon. Memb er interpretation clause to explain hi s pl an h e introduced an clause ; and, accustomed as he (Sergeant Talfourd) was to interpretation clauses, he confessed th at this w as th e s t rang est S he had ever seen. one of them dir ected that every singu lar Should includ e a ll th e plurals ; ot hers that every mascu line, was to includ e a ll t h e feminn es ; but this i n t er p re tation for ( clause was still more curious, said the Learned Ser geant) it explai ne d the denemination ‘ household suffrage" to mean, not eve r y man t h at h olds a hou se, ‘ bnt every house that holds a man.—(Loud laug hter. ) H ousehold suffrage was, no'doubt, an endearing term. It was especially so at the tea-tables of the family petitioners, but this plan of household suff rage i nc l u d e d not householders alone, but every n!an alive i n thi s country, except those w ho slept under 09 1 7 tents. It was uni versa l su ff rage in another shape— less plain and Undisguised ; and so the family petitions a second time had evidently p rayed for so me th ing th e H on . Member never meant. But the reason lie gave wuast the s till w m ord ore s _edifyingrthan the interp r et a ti on . . I did n houses? 4 suffrage in my resolution," said the Hon. Gentle !o? "because, although the Com m itt ee on w h ose part I bringforward these resolutions, agreed to the words house hold suffrage, they did not agree as to their meaning." A Curious result of the combined deliberations of the Com- Mittee. The Hon. Member had done well, however, in ontltting the words, for the notion of h ouse h o ld su ff rage ttihn edveraliheet of existing circumstances of the popul ar m i n d, an d the most t conceptions formed of it, was, of all notions, Hon. li: i ssue , and delusive. Having thus touched upon the question_end s principal propositions, he now came to settlement of as the contemplated measure intended as a it were put theforth question, or merely as an instalment ? If argu mest. His as a settlement, it was wholly untenable in nits the suffrage Hon. Friends must know that the more defi certain limits , t h e made, the more you extended it within 'who still remain e more agitation did you excite among those tnde of the tenur without those limits. The very infini held lessened the" uPen which the elective franchise was did not exercise it effect : of their exclusion with those who cer tain degree of bnt once draw the line between a cer you would find those pove rty and the lower degree beyond it, and line with the fiercest lower degrees assailing this definite est determination, and keeping up, until they gained their point, an agitation altogether destruc tive of the well-b him not be eingof the State.—(Hear, hear.) Let a people prepared takenfoasr advocating l the principle that, with Property should be t h e exercise of their political rights, Power should rest. 1. 1 e sole ground on which political He well knew that there was a nobler 'wealth than what onsiss in acres or gold; he well knew that a deep attac hment e to country , a lofty patriotism, a generous pride in the institutions and ancient glories of his native land, held their existence among the very humblest classes of E n gl ishmen , i beneath th e mo d es t roo f of the p easant asn the pala ce o f t h e P eer; b ut he could not derive w t hence the conclusion that these humbler classes, in their present condition of knowledge, were fitted to take part . in the legislation of this country, or to be admitted, even in the wholesale way proposed, to the election of it * legislators. To such a proposition the educa tion returns said No • in th t e h returns of crime, increasing not much in number, but 'atrocious character of the crimes reported, said, No; te rri b le r t y h , e sais 0 outbreaks which had so dis turbed the count : the consci ence of the states man, who felt how little had yet been done by him for the spiritual and secular edu)catizno,:slfd people, emphati thheesee that any eorre cally said No.—( Hear, hea ls sponding increase had takseinnopelacleB3inztthe intellectual aggran adli would assent not disement of the country with ss o ion to the to this motion merely, but the distinction as fran chise of all his fellow -country men to their having or holding houses or simp ly living in intellec tual ; but he found that no such Member diffusion ad tual power had taken place. His Hon. Friend Mi for Oldham had eloquently cited, i n vancement of knowledge among us, the vast cheap literature, and the names of several men, such ' of Thomas Cooper and Ebenezer Elliott, who, men of theas humblest class of life, had distinguished themselves by th e i r glowing and powerful writings. The facts stated by his Hon. Friend not merely proved nothing—they indicated nothing as to the existence of mental power among the masses. In all ages it had pleased the Creator to bestow the gifts of genius upon the humblest among men as upon the highest. It had been so in the Dark Ages—it was so now ; but this proved nothing as to the general mind of the people, from among whom these meteors of genius arose. It could scarcely be said that the mind of Greece, after the Trojan war, was in a state of intellectual elevation, yet it was that age which pro duced those rhapsodies which bad vivified, and embalmed the truths they narrated, and whose sublime diction had ever mince been the rule of their art to critics—their inspiration to Poets. The Hon. Member for Oldham had cited the author of the " Purgatory of Suicides" as a man, fitted by his glowing verse, to adorn the Legislature of this country. The merits of Mr. Thomas Cooper, as a poet, no man better ape Predated than he (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) did ; but he THE S mark, which I am sorry he introduced, on the past career of a man who has since distinguished himself in a totally dif ferent walk, and who would be as glad to forget what hap pened in the potteries as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He did that to prove what I need not give an example to prove, that a very good poet may be a very bad politician. —(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Now, the motion of my Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose is for leave to bring in a Bill to give votes to householders; his object is, that parties who not only pay taxes, but who also pay rates for the support of the poor, shall have a voice in the election of Members. Now, one of the first difficulties of those who op pose such a motion ia, that we are in reality acting on the theory that that is the franchise in this country. It is an old constitutional theory that the people do elect the members who sit in this House. Now, is that a sham or a reality ? If there be one thing more evident than another, it is, that the people of this country do not like shams.—(Hear, hear.) If the Government of this country were what is called a paternal or a despotic Government, desirous of first educat ing the people, and then handing over to them political privileges, I could understand the present position of affairs ; but the theory of the country is, that the people have political power, and there is no one on whom is devolved the responsibility imagined by the Honourable and Learned Member (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) in his poetical flight, to exist somewhere, of educating the people, or preparing them fur the exercise of the franchise. If there had been any responsible party, I think the work would have been done long ago. Well, now, what danger can there be in giving the franchise to the house holders ? They are fathers of families, they are the people who fill our warehouses and our workshops ; and who will be endangered by their possessing the franchise ? Wheu our institutions are talked of, it is commonly said that they live in the affections of the country. Are you afraid that electors will be adverse to monarchical institutions? Why we constantly hear that the Queen sits enthroned in the hearts of of the people.—(Hear, hear.) I have no fear as to the result of extending the franchise. I do not believe that it will lead to any change in the form of Government ; and I sincerely hope that if there is to be a change in the form of Govern ment, I shall not live to witness it, for the existing genera tion could not reap the fruits of any change of that kind.— ( Hear, bear.) I do not believe that the people of this coon country desire any change in the form of Government. Nor do I join with those who think that if the people had the wide extent of suffrage which is proposed, they would alto gether, or in any a great degree, change the class of persons from which they select their representatives. I tell you can didly that I do not think it would make any great change in that respect. The people would choose their representatives from the easy class—the men of fortune—as they do now. But I will tell you what I think would result from the change of which I speak— I believe it would bring not only the legistion of this House, but the Executive Government also, into greater harmony with the wants, wishes, and interests of the people.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that if the people pos sessed household suffrage they would advocate a severe economy in the Government of this country. I do not mean to deny that a wide extension of the suffrage might not be accompanied by some mistake, for the liability to error must always exist where there are great masses of voters, but I have a conviction that the electors would not make a mistake in the matter of economy and retrench ment—(Hear, hear)—and I have an equally firm persuasion that the taxation of the country would be more equitably levied. Well, now I ask what are the two things which are most wanted in this country at the present time ? W hat are the two things which the wisest political econo mists, and the greatest philosophers, if they sat down to consider the dangers and the destinies of this country, would regard as the most pressing necessities of our day? Why a great reduction in the expenditure of the country, and a more equitable apportionment of its taxation. By a more equitable taxation, I mean that the taxation should be largely removed from the indirect sources from which it is at present levied, and more largely imposed on realised property. I believe that that is one of the objects which the people at large would accomplish.—(Hear, hear.) The very instinct of selfishness would induce them to aim at this, and that is one of the things which is wanted for the safety of the country. Now do not let any one misrepresent me. I do not mean to say that all taxation should be levied upon property—l would do no injustice to any one—but this I do maintain, that you should relieve taxation on consum able articles by reducing the Custom and Excise duties; that you should diminish the duty on tea, on coffee, and on wine, and, if you possibly can, remove every exciseman from the land ; and I believe that the selfishness, to designate it by no higher name—the selfish instinct of the great body of the people, would, if they had the power, and could bring their will to bear on the question, lead to the accomplishment of those objects which it is so desirable to have secured in this country. Where, then, is the danger of giving to the people of this country their theoretical share of political power? We shall be told, as we have been, that we should not settle the question by granting household suffrage. I admit it. You cannot settle any question for ever by legis lating in 1848. Nobody can tell what another generation will do, or what another Parliament will do. But will any one tell me that if you include in the list of those who are enfranchised the householders of this country, making the number of voters from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000, instead of 800,000, that will not have the effect of greatly conciliating the mass of the people to your institutions, and whatever dis affection might afterwards exist—and on that point I differ from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just spoken —that disaffection would not be se dangerous after you had thus extended the basis of the franchisee—(Hear, hear.) I do not think, however that the household test would produce discontent. The household test is not a test of property. Your present test is a test of property. It is a test of pro perty inasmuch as you say, .‘ you shall pay 101. a year, or have no vote." The Honourable and Learned Gentleman expended a great deal of eloquence on the subject of electoral districts. When you approach this subject with a determina tion to deal with it in the cavilling spirit of a special pleader —singling out the isolated phrases or chance words of an opponent, instead of treating the subect in a broad point of view— it is very easy to raise an outcry and to pre judice the question.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and loud laughter.) As I understand my Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose, what he desires is, a fairer apportion ment of the representation of the people ; and when he said that he did not want parallelograms or squares, separating people unnecessarily from their neighbours I quite coincided with him. Any Member approaching this question in a proper spirit may deal with it without resorting to any such disruption of ties. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman would lead us to suppose that we are proposing to cut up some an cient landmarks, something which has existed from the time of the Saxons. He forgets that the Reform Act cut up counties into two parts, and enlarged all the boundaries of the country,—( Hear.) I will meet him fairly on that ques tion, and I will undertake to show that what my Honourable Friend wishes to do may be done without removing the boundaries of a single county, or of a single parish. I must here say, that I consider this question of the reappor tionment of Members to be the most important question before us.—(Hear.) When you ask use whether I would have a man vote at twenty-one years of age—whether he should vote for six months residence or for twelve mouths—whether he should be a householder or a lodger—there is no principle which I can fall back upon in order to assure myself that I am right in my view, I agree with those who say that they do not stand on natural right at all. I know of no natural right that I have to vote for Members of Parliament. 1 have a legal right, and of that legal right six-sevenths of my fellow countrymen are now deprived; but I _know of no natural right whatever. And if I wished to cavil with an advocate of universal suffrage, I should deal with him as I once good huinouredly did in private with one of the men who drew up the Charter. This man urged me to support universal suf ovfefoatgpern making e in o ci n i t iek, groundheinagndt if elaws by h of principle. I said, " If it is a ground the which be they y t a a r l e l should governed,ha have whya shouldeffice at y c o h u u r r e e f h us w e a t rde oa e llg a woman to vote or to serve the " favour of allowing women to We vote, ll hbeutrtelfelie " I propositionwas in was rejected."—(Laughter.) " Why, then," said I, "you are as unprincipled as I am : you gave up your principle, and adopted expediency." But to return to the question of the reapportionment of Members. I say, there I have a prin ciple before me. I say, that whatever franchise you have— with 101., 201., or household suffrage-..the representation ought to be fairly apportioned. Now, what is the principle on which you proceed? I will not take the principle of po pulation, because I am not one of those who advocate uni versal suffrage. I will take the ground of property, and there is not a man in this House who can stand up and sa y a word in defence of the present system. The Hon. Member fur Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has alluded in playful terms to the representation of Manchester and Buckinghamshire, and he joked at the idea of Man chester having seven representatives. I must frankly say, that judging from the qualities of the two men whom Manchester has already sent to Parliament, I should be very glad if we had not only seven such, but seven times seven.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I want to know from the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire ; on what principle he would propose to apportion the Memomfabuneperwhsesaortfasetr i this House. I will compar e his own favourite count y of Buck- In g ham rental ghof 1,200,0001. The assessment on real property in Bucking assessed the Manchester. poor-rate atTh an ebo annualrou po pulation of the former is 2 h 4 a o m xi s co li o i e that h i is t 7 0 6 f 0 t , " e ' hlatter T 10,000. Buckinghamshire has ; I eleven Members, Manchester two. Bear in mind that the does not include 11 assessment in . the case of Manchest er the value of machinery. On the other hand, I admit, for I do not wish to state the case unfairly, that the annual value of land represents.a larger real value than the annual value of houses. But when you bear in mind that in Manchester ! machinery is not valued, and when further you take into account the enormous amount of accumulated personal property in Manchester, which, though it is not valued, pays taxation and sustains the commerce of the country, I think you will allow that I am not misrepresent ing the matter when I say that Manchester has double the amount of property to be found in Buckinghamshire. You must also remember that while the labourer in Buckingham shire receives about I la. per week, the skilled opera tive of Manchester receives twice'that sum. This is not a question, however, between the people of Buckinghamshire and the people of Manchester.—(Hear, hear.) The ques tion to be decided is not whether the men of the former should or should not have rather more power than those of the latter. If the middle and industrious classes of Buckinghamshire had rather more power than the same classes in Manchester, the evil would assume a mitigated form.—(Hear, hear.) But when I come to look at this darling county of Buckinghamshire, I find that tke eight borough Members are so distributed as, by an inge nious contrivance, to give to certain landowners power to send their nominees to Parliament. I will undertake to show that three individuals in Buckinghamshire nominate the majority of the Members ; and if called upon to name them I can do so. What is that but these three individuals having the power to send Members to Parliament to tax the people of Manchester?—(Hear, hear.) When this matter was alluded to before. the H on . Member for Buckinghamshire treated very lightly and jocularly the right of Manchester to send its fair proportion of Members to this House ; and that jocularity was cheered with something like frantic de light. I venture to tell the House that that is the last time that the argument can ever be so received. I stand up for Manchester, and I say that it has a right to its Lair propora tion of the representation of this country, taking as the basis, not its property, and not its population ; and I ask why should men who are engaged in ministering to the power and greatness of the country in the four quarters of the globe be deprived of their fair share of political powers, aye. and not only deprived of their right, but mocked, jeered at, and insulted by the nominees of landowners ?—(Hear, hear.) Now, take my own case, and that of the West Riding of Yorkshire. There is not a man of property in this House who will not go away in favour of a fresh appointment of Members as far as that Riding is concerned. The annual rent is there 3,L711,000/. The an nual rent in Wiltshire is 1,243,0001.—0ne third of the amount. They each return eighteen Members; but six of the boroughs in Wiltshire are actually put down in " Dodd's Parliamentary Companion," as openly, avowedly, and notoriously under the influence f certain parties, who nominate the Members. Why should not the people of the West Riding have the same proportionate share of political power as those of Wilt shire? Is there anything about a Yorkshireinan which refl• ders him less capable of taking care of himself than other men are ?—(Laughter.) I hold in my hand a list of ten boroughs each returning two Members to Parliament. On the same list I have ten towns in the Asa Riding, whish do not ro turn any Member, and the place having the smallest popula tion in the West Riding has a larger number of inhabitants than the largest of the boroughs returning two members. If there was a fair apportionment, the West Riding would have at least 30 members instead of only 18. This isnot a question between the people of the West Riding and the people of Wilt shire. Whatever representation Wiltshire and Buckingham shire are entitled to should be secured to them ; it should not be a mock representation, like that of Great Marlow, where an Hon. Member owning 120 houses comes in with his cousin, or like that of Aylesbury and other places. Something has been said about Middlesex. Now Middlesex is assessed upon an annual rental of 7,584,0001.; Dorsetshire at an annual rental of 799,000/. They both have fourteen Members. The amount of money actually raised for. the support of the poor in Middlesex is as large, within 61., as the whole amount of property assessed to the poor in Dorsetshire, yet they have the same number of representatives. Look at the rental of Marylebone -1,660,0001. a year is there assessed to the poor, being more than the assessment in two counties returning thirty Mem bers? Will any one tell me that the metropolis is not en titled to its fair representation in this House, according to the amount of its property ?—( Hear, hear.) I believe the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London in his speech intimated his doubts as to the propriety of giving to the metropolis so large a number of representatives as they would be entitled to upon a fair system of representation. I am surprised to hear such an opinion Irons the Noble Lord. I think he might be quoted as an eminent example, proving that the people of London may be trusted with the franchise to the full extent.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord has been elected in the city of London under household suffrage. There is not a louse within the walls of the city which has not a vote attached to it. Where, then, is the danger of giving to the metropolis its full share of political power? I believe that large cities, and the me tropolis especially, are inore qualified than any other part of the empire to exercise the right of voting, because they generally comprise the most intelligent and industrious por tion of the peos le. The inhabitants of the metropolis are, I conceive, the hardest-working people in England. Well, now. when Hon. Gentlemen talk of a large community sending inure Members, they have an idea that a great mob is to elect the Parliament. My idea is that you make a mob of your London elections, by making the constituency too large. Take, for instance, the Tower Hamlets, with 420,000 inhabitants, and Finsbury with 200,000 or 300,000. If you wish to give a fair proportion of Members to dif ferent parts of the metropolis, and to lay out the whole of it in wards as you do for the purposes of the civic elections, the whole would be more easily managed. And do not be alarmed by the supposition that they would return only Radicals; you would have some districts sending Conservatives, and others would be more liberal. The idea of danger from giving a fairer share of political power is a chimera. I do not say that there should, on the whole; be an increased number of Representatives; I think we have quite as many in this House as we ought to have—(Hear, hear)—and, therefore, I will assume that if you give a larger number of Representatives in some places, you would diminish the number in others. Wherever the power is, to that power the Government will gravitate. The power is now in the hands of the large proprietors in this House. It is they who govern the country—it is they who rule the Prime Minister of the day : and I say that if the voice of the great mass of the people were heard in this House, the Prime Minister might rely on the country with more security and satisfaction.—(g ear , hear.) Now on the question of the ballot I will say very little, because the ballot stands at the head of those questions which are likely to be carried in this House.— (hear, hear.) I mean to say that the ballot has the most strength amongst the farmers and the middle class of people.— (Cries of " Oh, oh !") It is not the farmers who say oh, oh, those who do so are landlords; the farmers are in favour of the ballot, for instance those of Li nco l ns hi re .— (Hear, hear.) The most ridiculous of all the arguments urged against the ballot is that it is un - English. I say that, so far from that being the case, there i s more vo ti ng b y ballot in England than in all other countries. This is a country of clubs, of literary societies, of charitable institu tions, and of popularly governed infirmaries and hospitals ; and in all such institutions voting by ballot is constantly practised: and when men who come fresh from the Carlton Club. with the ballot-box ringing in their ears, and say that balloting is un-English—when those who resort to the ballot-box in order to shield themselves from a passing frown —oppose the ballot on the ground that it is un-English— when it is asked as a protection to the former, not merely against the frown, but the tyranny of his landlord—l say tkat such a course is preposterous. Something has been said by the Prime Minister about preferring one year to three years for the duration of Parliaments. Now, I think I could suggest an improvement upon both. If you adopted the system which prevails in municipal bodies, of letting all serve for three years, and one-third go out every year, you would thus have an opportunity of testing the opinion of the country, and avoid those shocks and con vulsions you all so much dread. Now, one word in conclu sion, on a subject to which the lion, and Learned Member and the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire have both re ferred. It has been complained that leagues and associations are formed out of doors, and would be further encouraged by this alteration. Remember that whatever has been done to break down barbarism and abominations of every kind in this country, has been done by leagues and associations out of this House. And why is this so ? Because Manchester can net have its fair share of representation in this House, it is obliged to organize a league which is heard through the length and breadth of the land. This is the indirect way in which Manchester makes itself felt, and will do so, by one means or another, in proportion to the p ower w hi c h it ought to exercise. Do you want to get rid of these league agita tions out of Parliament ? Why, then, you must bring this House into harmony with the opinions of the people. The abolition of slavery and other great triumphs which have been achieved are your glory and exultation at this present moment. But is it not a most cumbrous machine--a House of Com mons, representing the people by a fiction ' • the people out of doors obliged to organise themselves into leagues and asso ciations to do your work! There is a league or !association at Liverpool, at the head of which, I believe, is the father of the Right lion. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). The object of this association is to effect a reform in our national expenditure. This House is, par excellence, the guardian of the people's purse; its primary duty is to administer taxation justly, and to take care that expenditure is properly managed; yet here is an association to compel it to effect that object. Now, Sir, it is not with a view of overturning our associations that I advocate this reform in our representative system. It is because I believe we must carry out reforms from time to time by discussions iu this House that I take my part in advocating this mea sure in this legitimate manner; it is because I believe it must be so done, or else must be done as they do it on the Continent, with bayonets and muskets in the streets. Now I ant not an advocate for any such pro ceedings ; and I say that those Members who, having a political standing in this House, 'advocate an extension of the suffrage at this moment, are the real security for the peace of this country. So long as the great mass of the people see that there are men here who are earnest in advocating a large reform like this, they will wait patiently. They may want more ; but if they believe that those are h onest w h o ar e trying to obtain thus much, in that belief we have a guarantee for the peace and safety of the country which I value as much as any Conservative in this Hotese.—(ca e ess,) Sir, my object in supporting this motion is to bring to bear upon the legisla tion of this House that tal ent and those virtues which have characterised the middle and industrious classes of this country. For, talk as you will of classes-1 do net wish to go into that question—but if you talk of your aristocracy and your traditions, I must speak of the middle and indus trious classes; and I say it is to them, after all, that your glory is due.—(Hear, hear.) The whole of what has been done for the last 150 years Co e l eva t e this country has been the work, not of the Government, but of the middle and in dustrious classes, whether we look at arts, manufactures, or commercial enterprise; and it is because I wish to bring the virtues, the industry, the intelligence, and the frugality of those classes into this House that I support the motion. Mr. URQUHART said, that in looking at this subject the country had now the advantage of experience, which they formerly had not ; for on the great occasion when the Reform Bill was brought before the House, they had hope of improvement to induce them to proceed with the move ment, and could not of necessity have had any experience as to the operations and proceedings of a reformed Parlia ment. The House had now the advantage of experience, and taking that as his guide, he (Mr. Urquhart) was bound to express his opinion that reform had not mitigated the evils which it was introduced to alleviate, but had aggra vated them. The failure of the Reform Bill in producing the benefits which had been expected to result from it, was, in fact, the greatest which had ever been witnessed in any civilized nation. It had been stated that, in a financial point of view, the present House of Commons was useless, and that was the ground which he urged for a new reforma tion of the representation ; but that argument went against the lion. Member's own view, for it seemed that the re formed Parliament had not been efficient in carrying out economical views. His (Mr. Urquhart's) opinion was, that as a former reform had not reduced the expenditure or proved advantageous in a financial sense, so the proposed reform would, it carried, also be found ineffectual in producing fi_ nancial advantage. The fact was, that in the conflict of parties which took place in that House, the advocates of practical measures fell asleep, and forgot their plans of prac tical reforms and imp rovemen t. H e s aw opposit e a great advocate fur reform (Mr. Hum e ), who at one ti me was to be found urging on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or at the elbow of some clerk of some public department, make reductions; but what has lie done of late to effect that re trenchment of which he was such an advocate? A great deal had been said about a reformed Parliament, and yet they had increased the expenditure of the country, while the Tory and unreformed Parliament had re commended reductions ; and, in 1828, a motion i n favour of a reduction of expenditure was carried in an un reformed House of Commons, a Committee of Finance was appointed, and the Hon. Member for Montrose said that it was not a reduction of 15 or 16 millions merely which was required, but such a reduction of expenditure as would leave a surplus calculated seriously to reduce the national debt. The Hon. Member added, that if the country did not effect that reduction it did not know what it was about, and added that a country must be mad which did not pay proper regard to reductions, and which did not in a time of peace look to the expenditure which would be necessary in a time of war. That Committee was granted by an unreformed Parliament, but what had been d one o f late by the reformed Parliament to carry out these views ? He (Mr. Urquhart) would re nrind Hon. Members that t he ec onomy which would apply to individuals would apply equally to nations, a n d that the same principles must regulate both. The reformed Parliament had been spoken of as the friend of retrench ment, yet the expenses of the country had in creased ; whilst Mr. Canning and „,„. Huskisson, in the unreformed Parliament, were eminently the friends of re trenchment ; and the Right Honourable Baronet the Mem ber for Tamworth was in favour of a financial reform before the passing of the Reform Bill. In 1835 the public expen diture was brought to a low point, but it had continually increased since, until it now reached the highest point to which it had ever attained in England, unless in time of war. The Honourable Member who had introduced this motion, and those who supported it, had spoken of the will of the public having a proper influence ; but to show in how far further reform would effect this object he could inform the Honourable Gentleman that he (Mr. Urquhart) tied spent a great po rt i on of his life in despotic countries, and he saw that what was often mere declamation here was real there, and that nothing of public importance was dune without the will of the people in fact, that when they said a public Act was wrong, it would be as impossible to maintain it, as it would be wrong in this country to persevere in violating the decencies of life against the good-feeling of the com munity. What had the Reform Government done in the way of reducing the expenditure ? N o l ess then forty two millions had been lost up to the present day by departing from the lessened system of expenditure in 1835, and including the loss which had occurred from not adher ing to the recommendations of the Committee of 1817, the loss in both ways up to this present day would be 80 mil lions. The expenditure had increased under the Whigs— they had exhibited a deficiency while the Tories had a sur plus ; the Tories left a full revenue, and those who were now in office exhibited a deficiency of nine mill:ons in three years. He was opposed to the motion as one which was cal culated, if carried, to be detrimental to the interests of this country, and to divert public attention during its discussion from the real and practical good of the nation ; and in doing so be firmly believed that he was a greater friend to the inte rests of the country in opposing it than those were who sup ported the motion. He looked upon the liberties of the nation as sacred, and he thought that they could be only preserved by not giving a preference or predominance of power to any class in the state. He was opposed to this motion, for he looked upon these additional reforms as a means of extending the basis upon which some of the usurped powers of Parliament were established. It was no argument in favour of the measure that the people of this country were in favour of it. There could not be a more loyal population than that of the Channel Islands, and vet they were not ambitious of sending Members into that House. To remedy the evils complained of there was but one course, and that was to go back to their duty as representatives of the people, to refuse to assent to any measure which was not strictly demanded, and not to suffer a single penny to be expended unnecessarily. These duties they had neglected entirely. Judging from past experience, he considered that it would be worse than useless to pass a new Reform Act, and lie therefore begged to move the tollowing amendment :—" That experience has shown that change in the constitution of Parliament has failed to obtain the ends for which it was desirable. and with which it was ~ riginally conjoined, viz., non-interference and retrench ment." Mr. ANSTEY seconded the amendment, which he con sidered would have stood better if the word " desired" had bee❑ inserted for " desirable" ; however, he would ac cept it as it stood. A more extensive measure than that sow dreamed of had been submitted at the desire of the late King to the Grey Cabinet, and it was the Noble Lord at the head of the Government who had cut it down and mangled it into the shape of the present Reform Act.— ( Bear, hear.) He had heard with great pleasure the state ment of the Honourable Member for the West Riding of his motives and his views in supporting the present resolution which, as the Honourable Member had stated, was only to obtain chrap and good government. He could not help, however, entertaining suspicion at anything coming from the school of which the Honourable Gentleman was a member. He found him "et dona ferentem," especially when he remem bered a speech which he delivered, in which he referred to the example held forth by the United Slates of economy and other excellent qualities, which, he said, should be imitated by the Government of this country. "If," said the Honour able Gentleman, " these changes are said to be incompatible with the maintenance of monarchy, then I answer, economy and retrenchment, runt ccdum." For his part be would desire that they should know the real object sought to be obtained. They should not be told it was one thing, when ill reality it was another. If the Honourable Member for Montrose would bring in a Bill for the repeal of the Reform Act, he would second the motion. The amendment having been put, Mr. L. RING asked the indulgence of the House for a very few moments. lie should not occupy them by replying to the two last speeches, the subjects and results of which were equally ill. timed. He would rather refer to the speech of the Learned Member for Reading, who appeared to have forgotten the old principle of the law of England, that every man who was taxed ought to be represented. Now since the passing of the Reform Act the intelligence of those who were not represented had increased in a most surprising manner. Commerce, shipping, steam navigation, railways, had all contributed to this great result. The central dis tricts of England were inhabited by a class of intelligent men earnestly desirous to be admitted to a participation in the franchise. For his part, he had no fear of admitting such a class within the pale of the constitution. Such a measure would do far more for the peace of the country than any Gagging Bill introduced, even as he hoped the last was, as a ' temporary measure. What saved this country in 183'2 but the Reform Bill? Contrast England with France now, and mark the distincoion between the nations, the one which had passed a Reform Act, whilst the other had engulfed herself in revo lution. He wished to see the principle of our Reform Act carried out. The small boroughs must form the schedule A of a new Bill. They were the disgrace and the laughing stock of the country. It was said that men of talent found their way into the House by their agency ; but had not the people an interest in returning the best men, and was it not possible that selfishness and corruption found their way into Parliament equally with talent through this machinery ? The instances of corruption in these boroughs largely called for an exension of the franchise. He thought it would have been better if the motion had been confined to that object. As he was called upon, however to say "Aye," or "No," to a mere general proposition, he:had no difficulty in giving his assent to it.—(Cheering.) Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR said it was an admitted fact that every new political party and every new political question went through a certain ordeal. First, the leaders were laughed at, then scoffed at, then reviled, then persecuted, then their proposals were heard, then discussed, and after wards legislated on. This motion and its treatment by the Prime Minister of the Crown gave him a guarantee that he and his brother Chartists had not laboured in vain. The speech of the Hon. Member for Reading had been much be praised. It had been called able, poetical, astounding, and astonishing—(A laugh)—but it seemed to him to be a speech based upon ignorance of the question. The Hon. Member wanted education, but political rights must pre cede it. Enfranchise the people and ignorance would be come a crime; but do not keep the people in ignorance and punish them because they were so. The Honourable Mem ber for Montrose said that this motion was the motion now adopted by the majority of the working classes of this coun try. lie (Mr. O'Connor) should be unworthy his place in Parliament if he did not give the flattest denial to the state ment. The majority of the people were for the people's Charter in all its integrity. He cautioned the Member for Montrose and the Government how they ventured to post pone the larger concession which the people required. Al that had occurred in other countries had occurred in consel quence of withholding the people's rights. Nevertheless though it did not go far enough, it was his intention to vote, for the motion before them. He should do so, if on no other ground, at least upon the ground that it proposed to shorten the duration of Parliaments. He declared that, after seeing how the time of the House was frittered away, he should prefer annual Parliaments without further change, to u •iversal suffrage with a septennial Parliament. Annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, electoral districts, payment of Members, no property qualification—all these, five out of the six points of the People's Charter, had been in former times features in the constitution of these re dins. Why were they not again to be recognised? As to the agitation by which the people ought to gain their legitimate aims, the gentlemen on the Ministerial benches certainly had no right to complain of it, since it was precisely themselves who, in former years, to gain their ends, had taught the people agita tation, and set the example of the very class of language which they now denounced as seditious. Those gentlemen stood by the Reform Bill of 1832, that measure which had wholly failed to fulfil the objects which it was announced to effect, whose motto was "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform," and the delusive expectation from which was, high wages' cheap food, and plenty to do, almost as great a bubble as the " Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" jargon of our neighbours across the Channel. Ho himself belonged to neither party, to neither faction in that House ; neither to the aristocracy faction on that side of the House, nor to the middle-class faction on the other, the only difference between whom was, that the former had deceived the people once, while the latter had deceived the people twice ; he belonged to the party of the people, and he would tell the House and the Government, that unless the just demands of the people, of the working classes, were conceded before long, Government would find themselves all at once in the position of the late French Government. —(Hear, hear.) Slot that this sheuld be done by a violent revolution—God forbid I He would heartily say, for he knew that the first shot fired in such a contest would seal the doom of the working classes, who would then be juggled here as they had been in France. It was said that the working classes were not fitted for the trust of elections. He regarded conduct as a most essen tial teat of qualification, and he should like to know what could have been more exemplary than had been the conduct of the working classes of England amid all the grievous miseries which they had suffered for the last six years. —( Hear, hear.) He should vote for the Hon. Mem ber's motion as better than nothing at all ; but he frankly repudiated it as a settlement of the question ; and so long as aught of influence and energy remained to him, that in fluence and that energy should be enthusiastically applied to the attainment of the great object of his life—the People's Charter. One class was set against another class, in order to promote the objects of a third party. That species of tactics was always resorted to in political straggles. The free-traders had done so, by setting the middle classes against the work ing classes. He would take that opportunity of saying to the Hon. Member for Montrose, that when, on a former evening, he had tau n t e d the Hon. Member with having withdrawn his motion for reform, and the Hon. Member for the West Riding had charged him with ferocity in so doing, he did not intend to make any harsh observations, and he begged to ex press, his regret if he had done so, for he never intended to show any ferocity towards the Hon. Member. But, in say ing what he did on that occasion, the Hon. Member for the Weet Eliding had only pursued the course to which he (Mr. F. O'Connor) hai already referred, and had tried to set the middle classes against the working classes, who were in fa vour of the Charter. lie would now conclude, only observ ing that if it had not been the intention of the Hon. Member to divide on his motion that evening, he should have reserved what he had to say until he had heard the sentiments of all those who were disposed to speak on the question before the House. But as it was for the advantage of the cause that the House should come to a division that evening he should con • tent himself with stating that, as the Protection party had adopted the cry of " No surrender," so he would take his stand upon the Charter, and say " Th e Charter, and no surrender." Mr. M. MILNES should detain the House only a few minutes whilst he stated his reason for not supporting tke new Reform Bill, at the same time that he was by no means opposed to reform. His objection to the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose was the fundamental one that there had been no grounds yet shown for the new reform league, or for the agitation which it professed to create in the country. In all organic reforms two things were necessary to inquire into —the first, what are the evils which it was sought to re medy ? The second, whether there was any great or general popular demand for that organic reform? Now he did not think that a sufficient case had been made out of great practical evils sufficient to show that such a reform as the one proposed was neces sary. A reform might be required, and he had no right to say, looking at the Corn-law League, and the successful in fluences which it brought to bear on the most distinguished minds in that House, together with its signal success, that agitation on behalf of reform was not necessary or right. But there was a very wide difference between the resolutions which were before the House and the one specific grievance which the Corn-law League sought to remedy. The motion of the Hon. Member was to elicit the declaration whether the people demanded organic change in the institutions of the country, and whether there were such evils in the present constitution of the kingdom as to require those organic changes. He would not enter into the question of the suf frage. The most satisfactory view that he could take of that matter was to regard it not as a right or a privilege, but as a trust. The House, therefore, was bound to inquire whe ther it was demanded by the people, and if so, how was that demand demonstrated? Why should forty gentlemen con stitute themselves a committee in order to stimulate this demand? The question of the suffrage was not one on which the Hon. Member or his fellow-committeemen could give any additional instruction to the people. They knew all that they ever could know on the subject of the franchise, and they knew, moreover, that if they went systemati cally to work in demanding it, the Parliament must at last grant it to them. On the ballot he had already expressed his sentiments in that House. lie had rather do without the ballot. But at the same time, if the people in any numbers complained of being coerced in the exercise of their franchise, if the complaint.. made in the case of the Stamford election were well established, he would not deny that the ballot must be granted to protect the . voters.lt had been said that there was something un-English t h e ballot, and he must say that there was a degreeofopeennanhesies in the social institutions of England which tended to the people to dispense with the ballot; and ift h highere mode of p r actice of open voting could be maintained, it was a re cording their sentiments than the concealment f the In the course of his humble political experie nce h e ballot.never witnessed any such intimidation as would, render it necessary to resort to the ballot to protect the voters. But as the Hon. e Member for the West Riding ha d trul y said, the real that of electoral divisions. question under consideration was Neither the ballot nor the suffrage constituted th e import ance of the present motion. He could not conceal from himself that the transference of large numbers of voters from the counties to the town coistituencies would be productive of a great and a hazardous change—for by &that means the influence of the counties would be trans ferred to the towns. The latter certainly had no right to complain of the manner in which the Reform Bill had treated them. And it would be well to remember that if the country gentlemen were to be eliminated from the House, there would then exist great and well-grounded cause of complaint that landed property was not duly repre sented there. The counties would never submit to see their Members transferred to the towns, without creating a great sediment of discontent. Ho was aware that a gradual change of this nature was operating in this country, as it had done in the middle ages. But do not let it be too sudden, and above all do not operate such a change merely because forty gentlemen met at a club-house in St. James's square and said it must be done. Whatever might be said of the constitution of the House, he knew that in the ulti mate resort it did represent the people, and he believed there was no true demand for a greater representation. It was true that a great preponderance was given to the aristocracy in that House; but that preponderance was freely given—it was given because the people liked the aristocracy. There was no doubt the people of England loved a Lord. There was no question that they' preferred having an aristocracy. Take the instance of the Noble Lords who sat in that House. Observe the habitual deference which was paid to them.—( Laughter and ironical cheers.) Did any one ever see a Lord put down in that place?— (Laughter, and Hear, hear.) He never did; and if people would persist in giving such privileges to the aristocracy, they bad no right in that House to complain of the aristo cratic elements which it contained. For all the reasons he had stated, he should not vote for the resolutions of the Hon. Member for Montrose; nor did he think they were called for. But he certainly did admit that the recent events of the Continent of Europe might leave traces of their oc currence in England ; and that if in France, Germany, and Italy a share of political power was given to every man, he could not deny that au echo of those events might resound throughout the land, and that they must be prepared to meet the demand, and to accede in some measure to the cry that would be sent forth for increased political privi leges on the part of the people. Ile thought that such an agglomerated measure, as that proposed by the Hon. Mew bar for Montrose, could only encourage the people in falla cious hopes, and therefore he felt bound to record his vote against IL - Mr. S. HERBERT, who spoke in a very low tone of voice, said that he was not about to trouble the House with a very lengthy speech. His only reason for making any ob servation, was his anxiety to show that in the vote he was about to give he was actuated by very different motives and held different opinions from many with whom he would retire into the lobby. He was not one of those who believed that the present system of representation was perfect, or that there were not many points in which it might be atnended.—(Hear, hear.) But it was not neces sary to go deeply into that part of the subject, because it had been already most clearly, wisely, and ably elucidated by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had heard with great pleasure that Noble Lord give up the doctrine of finality- in legislation.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Herbert) was one of those who regretted that when the representation was altered the suffrage was diminished. He feared it had been too much the habit to confound means with ends, and to argue as if the objects of free institutions were to give the people votes, not to obtain for them good government. whereas the former was only an incident, the latter the real object and end of such institutions. He thought they were bound to ask themselves whether they had that system of legislation which was most capable of carrying on the government of the country; and secondly, whether their legislation was such as to carry with it the sympathy of the great body of the people. He regretted the abolition of many franchises which had existed before the Reform Bill; for instance, he regretted what was called the potwalloping qualification.— (Hear ' hear.) He thought it desi ra bl e th at th ose c l asses should be represented, as he believed that among other good things it would go far to cure them of their hero worship. The power of sending a man to Parliament would cure the working classes of forming inordinate expectations, and their representatives of the equally mischievous habit of making fallacious promises.--(Hear, hear.) He wondered whether the llon. Member near him, when he went back to his constituents in Nottingham, after having been so long in the immediate proximity of the Thames without setting it on fire, as he had promised--(A laugh)—would be able to give his constituents a satisfactory account of his back slidings. He would most likely find that a more diffi cult task than telling an excited people what he would do if he only were in P arliameut.—(Laughter.) There was one point connected with this motion which had not been touched on before, but which, in his opinion, should not be overlooked—namely, the effects which the introduc tion of similar measures had produced in neighbouring coun tries. The Hon. Member for Montrose had said that Eng land, which had been formerly in the van of all countries in the adoption of free institutions, was in the rear; and the Noble Lord at the head of the Government had with great wisdom said in reply to that, " wait for the result."— (Cheers.) Now, without waiting long, he would call the attention of the House to a few of the effects which such measures had already produced in France. The Hon. Member for the West Riding had said that the great object of extending the franchise would be to re duce the expenses. Had that been the effect in Paris? They had increased their army by 30,000 men, besides 320,000 National Guards. They had, in fact, under that peaceful democratic Government the greatest amount of men in arms that had ever been known in the time of peace. Had democratic government diminished jobbing?—(Bear, hear.) There were the Ateliers Nationaux, which were neither more nor less than sinecure situations for 100,000 men.—(Hear, hear.) There had been, no doubt, sinecures before the re volution, but nothing like the enormous job of the ateliers. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had spoken of family com pacts, and complained of the number of appointments divided among persons rather curiously and inconveniently related together.—(Laughter.) But things were much worse in Paris. He had seen it stated that the editor of the ' National, M. Marrast, with his printers and publishers, divided amongst them public emoluments to the amount of 40,000/.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in England, where the do mestic feelings were strongest, they would prefer that per sons bound together by the recognised ties of family should enjoy the good things rather than that they should be scat , tered amongst persons wholly unfit through the interest of sonic party above them. -(A laugh.) lie might ask the Honourable Member whether he liked the manner in which the secret service money had been disposed of by a democratic Government.—(llear, heat.) Whether its ' disposal bad not given grounds for suspecting the most eminent men in the country of that useamst of all crimes, pecuniary speculation?—(Hear, hear.) Then, for the liberty of the subject, that had been soon asserted by carrying off the commander of the National Guards. He might mention many other instances to show that experi ments, such as the Hon. Member for Middlesex proposed, , did not always lead to the results expected.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was Prussia, a country in which, it intellectual cultivation were to be taken as a standard, the people were infinitely superior to the people of England. One of the changes there effected by the introduction of democratic principles was the payment of members, and the consequence had been that the legislative body was rapidly losing all respect in the eyes of the people.—(Hear, hear.) They amused themselves in criticising the dress of their represen tatives, and making proposals that they should be paid by taskwork, in order that they may get through their work sooner. They were to be paid, it appeared, by the job, ac cording to the number of Bills, and no Member was to speak against time for the sake of his 7s. 6d. a day.—(A laugh.) He was proud to see the tranquillity of this country, know ing as he did that there were causes of disturbance in this country as great as any that had exploded in France. He had great hopes of the country, but not from the measure proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose. He looked for improvement from that House setting itself seriously to consult the wants and wishes of the country, and from its remedying those defects and abuses in its own constitution which recent election petitions had rendered so painfully ' apparent. He should merely further say, that his object in rising had been to explain that in giving his vote against the present motion, he was not recording his opinion abso solutely in favour of cur legislative system as it now existed. Lord D. STUART rose amidst loud cries of " Question " and " Divide." He congratulated the House upon one of the results of the discussion that had taken place—namely, that it had induced the Noble Lord (J. Russell) to get rid of the principle of inality. The question was whether the people required such a measure as had been proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose, and whether that measure was supported by the people out of doors? Upon the first point he thought, after the debate that had taken pace, there could be no difference of opinion ; and as regarded the second, he believed the vast number of petitions that had been pre sented in its favour, was a convincing proof that it was sup ported by the great bulk of the people of that country. He regretted the attacks that had been made upon the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, because he thought the . services he had rendered to the cause of reform, during a long and active 'political life, ought not to be forgotten by that House. Without affirming the absolute right of every man to the franchise, it must be admitted that the principle of the British Constitution was to extend the basis of the representation as widely as possible; and the only limit was that required for the safety of the state. It was said that the greatest possible evils would result from the passing of the Reform Bill; but they had now had considerable expe rience of its working, and up to the present time they had seen no ill effects arising from it. During the last twenty years taxation had been considerably diminished in this country, and it had also been more equally distributed.— (Cries of " Divide.") lie believed, therefore, that the Reform Act had done some good, and he maintained that they ought to go on in the same course. He was not for finality ; he was for gradual progress ; and he believed if there ever was a time when the people of this country might be safely en trusted with increased political power, it was the present moment, when they were displaying so much moderation and love of order in the midst of the revolutions which had of late been agitating the greater portion of the nations of Europe.— ( Loud cries for a division.) Mr. MUNTZ said it appeared to him that although they had had many speeches that night upon the subject, the real question had been very much shirked. The first ques tion which they really had to consider was, whether in that House the people of England were fully and fairly repre sented; and the next was, whether, if that were not so, the Hon. Gentleman below him, the Member for Montrose.vl,f , n l _i cause the people to be fully and fairly represented. These were the real questions. It was the opinion of many s ti li n at Members that the present was a nursed agitation, and to be entitled to any attention such an agitationhad made no perfectly spontaneous. Well, he, for his ought a to be communication upon the subject to had voluntarily communicated with him, his co p n a n .s r d t t i t i u n e f n o r ts m . ed T h h i e m y hear, and that they entirely agreed with the p a _ro e p a o r s , ition of the llonourable Member for Montrose.—(n might laugh if laughter.) Honourable Gentle intimatem in such a man nerthey pleased. They to him that they mig ht believed he was telling them a falsehood.—(No, no, order , and great noise.) The people were greatly displeased with the present condition of affairs. And it was the conduct of the G overnment on the property tax, and on the Gagging Bill, as it was called, that had cau se d the present disaffection. But as to the constituti on o f the House itself, let them look . at the number of Memb ers that had been unseate d for bribery and corruption this session._ (Hear, hear, and " Leicester and r Derby.") He did not care what party they belon g ed to. he fact was all he looked at, and they need not tell him that those nho had been b ro ught forward and found out were all who had been guilty. He did not believe they were the twentieth part of the whole number.—(Hear and a laugh.) As to the great objections that had been made to the extension of the suffrage, they had already granted a 10/. household suffrage, and the Hon. Member for Montrose went only a very little way fur ther. But it was not enough to give thefranchise—the voters should be prote c t e d i n the exercise of it. The work ing classes were, to a great extent, as well educated as the aristocracy themselves, and quite as well acquainted with their own wants. Th ey were easily to be g o verned, if only they were governed fairly, and he begged the House not to think that if even th ey went as far as universal suffrage, the people would change their constitutional government. He believed the proposition as now made by his Hon. Friend was founded upon a sound, a just, and a right principle, and he gave it his most cordial support; and ,he believed that ' many Hon. Gentlemen who now opposed it would shortly change their sentiments in favour of it.—(Near, hear, anti loud calls for a division.) Mr. NEWDEGATE rose amidst renewed uproar, despite of which he proceeded to make some remarks in reply, as we understood him, to Mr. Osborne, who, he said, had committed a mistake when he said that they (the agri culturists) had carried on their agitation by means of hired lecturers. He begged to remind those Honourable Gentlemen who were now so anxious for reform, that they had a few years ago attempted to disfranchise nearly all the county voters of Warwickshire, and many in and about Birmingham, and that they had served 23,000 notices of objection to voters. The Honourable Member for Manchester had said that .1w Government should govern the country that did not , represent the feelings of Manchester and Yorkshire, and take them as their guide ; and he begged also to remind them that they had created no less than 1,600 voters in the West Pilling of Yorkshire, thereby exercising as great corrup tion as any that had existed in the days of Gatton and Old Sarum.—( Divide, divide.) 31r. VILLIERS said he was not going at that hour to no tice the attacks that had been made upon the party to which he belonged, nor to speak upon a question which was not be fore the House. But as he intended to vote fur his Hon. Friend's proposition, and as he did not agree with some of the terms of it, and still less agree in some of the reasons whi,ai had been'adduced in support of it, he would state those which induced him to vote for it. All its supporters were agreed tik,on household suffrage; but they did not know Nvtiut household !suffrage was. They were agreed, however, upon the principle cf an extension of the franchise, and he thought it was wise to recogiike that policy, because they could not in these days safely withhold th e r i g ht o f su ff rage fr. , iii the people. li e believed they had a right to it, and he could not discover the reason fur refusing it eilit , tt it was demanded. But lie wished to steer clear of one subject. lie did not think that legislation would have been very different if the suffrage bad been different since the time of the Reform Bill.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) Ile did not believe that their legislation would have been very different if the Reform Bill had not been passed at all.—(Renewed. cheers.) He believed the House was much impressed by public opinion, and their - sentiments much formed by public discussion—(Hear, hear) —and he believed there was nothing which Was honestly de sired by the country which that House would not give.— (Loud cheers.) But he thought it would increase the public confidence in the House if the suffrage were extended. As to the existing system of bribery and intimidation, they had found no remedy whatever as yet for it. It had been brought before the House more during the present year than in any other; and when there was a remedy pro posed for it by his Honourable Friend, it was not, in his opinion, right to resist it. But he thought that extending the franchise to the people, without giving suitable protec tion for the free exercise of it, would be doing no good, but rather tending to demoralise them. He reminded the House of the tyranny that was frequently exercised over voters by those who had power to influence them. He believed that that system existed quite as much in the towns as elsewhere. Many people thought they had a right to deal with their tenants, or any persons dependent upon them, as they liked. He thought they should endeavour to effect a change of that system, and perhaps they might be able to do sobi making such practices jnfamous. But as the p r a c tic e wa l at pre sent, every man who had tenants, even the owners of small cottages, expected that his tenaata would vote as he pleased.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") No places pro bably suffered so much from the practices as large towns, owing to the intimidation exercised over shopkeepers by those who were in the habit of dealing with them; in fict, it was a constant struggle between custom and con science. The consequence was, that a quarter of a million of voters now on the register, and who were entitled to vote, had not voted at the last election, and the fact was that to such persons as he referred to the franchise was a curse, and not a blessing. He must, therefore, differ with his Honour able Friend, who said that the extension of the franchise was the first thing to be obtained, and that the ballot was merely a secondary consideration. He believed that the ballot was a measure which ,geserally speaking, all wealthy people were most afraid of ; it would be the measure that would strike most directly at their interests, and it would be . the most generous concession that could be made by that House. He was sorry his Hon. Friend had not brought for ward a proposition for the ballot separate from his other pro positions. He believed that if he made such a proposition, he would have a larger division than he would have on that night, when he had included other questions of a more diffi cult nature.—(Cries of "Divide.") Mr. HUME rose to reply amid loud calls for a division. He assured the House that he should not long detain it, but there were a few points which he felt called upon to notice. With regard to what had fallen from his Honourable Friend who had just sat down he could assure him he was altogether under a mistake when he thought there was any difference amongst those who supported his resolution. There was merely a difference with reference to the extent to which the suffrage ought to go, and they were anxious to ascertain what the people of the country desired to obtain.—(Hear, hear.) He though his Hon. Friend was under a mistake in supposing the ballot would be a remedy in the present state of things. He (Mr. Hume) had stated distinctly in the outset that he thought the extension of the suffrage was the principal point, but that he would not agree to take that measure except it was accompanied by the ballot. He said he thought the two measures were inseparable, and that all must be carried to ensure to the people that efficient reform which they required. He might possibly refrain from saying one word with respect to any objection that had been made, or any answer that had been given in reference to the points he had made, but as there were many Hon. Gentle men who did attend to hear what his simple propositions were, he begged again to state in a few words what he bad proposed. He said that Parliament ought to represent the whole community, he said it did not represent the whole community, and - he contended th It no man in the country ought to be taxed without either through himself or his re presentative authorizing that taxation. He said the repre sentation, such as it is, was most unequally divided, and that there could be no protection whatever to the property of the country when they saw that seven or eight boroughs, with small constituencies, could send as many Members to that Hausa as would overrule the whole representation of London, Liverpool, and Edinburgh.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see any difficulty in providing a remedy, if the House would let Itioi introduce a Bill; he would save them all. trouble, and give them an opportunity of deciding upon the question. lie did not ask the House to concur in opinion with him, ex cept as a matter of right, because the people were entitled to have a voice in the constitution. Their Government was a representative one, and every man should be represented, but the people were not represented. Four millions were ex cluded from the franchise, and what was the consequence? —discontent and dissatisfaction. The bases of the Govern ment were not sound, and he (Mr. Hume) proposed this measure, as the late Lord Grey bad proposed his reform measure in 1831, as a measure of peace and conciliation, and for the purpose of preventing evil consequences.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilt shire (Mr. S. Herbert) had asked him to take into consi deration what was passing in France.— (Hear, hear.) When he (Mr. Hume) considered what was passing in France, he wished that England should not be sub jected to such an ordeal.—(Hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman had referred to the proceedings which attended the revolution in France, but he (Mr. Hume) submitted that they could have no reference to the circumstances in which they were placed in that country.—(Hear, hear.) The people had a right to representation; let them deny that right, and they were injured; injury produced discon tent, and with discontent in the country they were not safe. (Hear, hear.) Why, a few months ago half a million of people were called out to keep down another half. Would they, then, prevent the people from having that due share of political power which the constitution gave to them? The peace of the country could not be secure while they continued their injustice. He called upon the House to de cide the question, and let the country judge of their acts hereafter.—(Cries of " Divide.") The House then divided, when there appeared— For Mr. Hume's motion Against it Majority ...... ....... ..... The County Cea t (Ireland) Bill was passed through Committee. , The Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill (report) was postponed till Wednesday.' The Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Bill was read a second time. Mr. FAGAN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to make life policies assignable at law. The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday, the 26th inst. Mr. TRELAWNY moved. for a return of. khe annual amount of salaries paid in the y ear 1847 to the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses of each poor-law union in England and Wales, of the perquisites and emoluments allowed to them, and the various profession or occupation of such person?; also, of the number of vacancies which have occurred in each union since its formation, in the offices of school- master and schoolmistress; and the number of boys and girls respectively who attended the school of each an" i n the year 1847.—Ordered. (this Mr. PARKER gave notice that he should to day) take a few votes on account of the Inis" The Seers mates, and on account of the British Museum tary of the Admiralty would likewise take more v otes on ac of, and the count of the naval service. "linlaenrr°eouws esti- The other orders of the day were then disposed House adjourned at One o'clock. T soc he om accompanied by her Queen and his Royal Highness Prince HER MAJESTY'S TRHA Albert,T a a. Royal Highness the D uc hess of Kent, honoured the performances at her M aj es ty ' s Theatre yesterday even ing with their presence. In a ttendance upon her M a j es ty were the Viscountess Joce lyn , the Hon. Miss K h err, t e Earl of Listowel, an d Ma j or General . W erayss, Her Royal Highness t h e Duchess of Kent was att en d e d b y Lady Augusta Bruce ; and his Royal Highness Pri nce Albert by Lieutenant Colonel Seymour . IS Roya l Highness Prince George also visited the th ea tr e . audience we observed A m ongst the the Duke and Duchess of Cleveland , his Excellency the Russian Minis ter. Prince Lieven, the Marquis of Clanricard e, _ the Mar quis of Sligo , the M arquis of Anglesey, the Marquis of Donegal, the Earl of Lonsdale, the Count and Countess Batiste Metaxa, the Countess of Lovelace,' the Viscount Cllden, Lord Ward, the Ladies Browne, Lady Doraville, hi s Excellency the Prussian Minister (Chevalier Bun see), 'Lord Southampton, Lord Gardner, General the Hun. 11. Cavendish, Colonel Bowers, Sir J. Bayley, Bart., Sir F. T renc h , Bart:, M.P., Sir I. L. Goldsmid, Lady C. W. Taylor, Sir Edward Codrington, Lady Charlotte Guest, Major Buckley, Captain and Mrs. Griffiths, Mr. Taylor, Mr. W. M'Gregor, Mr. and Mrs. Travers, Mr. and Mrs. Tudor, M. C. Koudriaffsky, Mr. B. Sheridan, Mr. Barry Baldwin, M.P., and Miss Bald win, Mr. N. Leader and Miss Leader, Mr. Frank Mills, &c. ROYAL MATERNITY CIIARITY.—Last evening the anniversary dinner of this philanthropic institution (which was established in 1757, for the purpose of de livering poor married women at their own habitations), was celebrated at the London Tavern, Bishopsgate street. Viscount Brackley presided, in the absence of L' rd Robert Grosvenor from indisposition; and A goodly number of gentlemen sat down to dinner. In the course et the evening, the secretary (Dr. Rayner, F.S.A.), read the society's annual report, from which it appeared that the institution is advancing in prosperity, being enabled, by its steadily-increasing income, to eit tend its benefits to greater numbers of the class for whose especial behoof they are designed. During the past year a total number of 2.963 poor females were delivered, free of charge, at their own homes, within the 24 metropolitan districts. The last year's income of the charity amounted to 1,87 IL 10d., and the expendi ture left a balance in hand of 1371. 3s. 4d. The noble chairman ably advocated the claims of the charity to the support of the humane public, and the company substantially testified their sense of its merits by liberally contributing towards the funds during the evening. Mr. - R. Graham bad an interview with Sir Georg• Grey yesterday, at the Home-office. wholly dissented from the proposition that Mr. Thomas I Cooper was therefore the man fitted to legislate for the people of England, or to assist in guiding the helm of state. For, inquiring not into the political capacity, but into the po litical conduct of Mr. Cooper—what did he find? He found Mr. Cooper proceeding to the Staffordshire Potteries, at a time when; in consequence of some unhappy differences be tween the masters and the workmen, the minds of the workmen were in a highly excited state. He found Mr. Cooper haranguing those fierce and excited men in language of the most inflammatory description, in piercing words, which a day before, were sure to lead to deeds of ♦iolence. He found the hearers of those words, when the address urging them on was concluded, rushing forth to acts of plunder and of outrage, menacing the whole district with desolation and flames, and only deterred from their purpose by the armed interposition of the military, beneath whose enforced fire one of Mr. Cooper's victims — for such he must call the unhappy man—fell dead, checking by his fall the advance of his companions, and thus saving their lives by his death. He found that the outrages thus created by the glowing words of Mr. Cooper were the occa sion of a special commission which sat for three weeks, and spread terror and grief throughout hundreds of families com promised in the guilt of the insurgents.--(Hear, hear.) Surely the House and the country would not assent to the proposition that such a man as the inciter to these acts of violence was a fit and proper representative to legislate for England, or that his ignorant victims were fit recipients of the political power asserted for them.—(Hear, hear.) The history of mankind was not the history of the masses think ing for the masses, but of the genius, wisdom, virtue, and he roism of the few vindicating the liberties of the many, crest • ing them by their genius, informing them by their wisdom, and confirming them by their virtue, and cementing them with the blood offered up by their heroism. The time would come when the masses might be safely entrusted with a full participation in the administra tion and legislation of the State, but that time had not yet arrived. The people, uninformed by knowledge, were as the cyclop in his cavern, gigantic but blind, blind with a dark ness, which could alone be dispelled by the light from science, by the light from learning, by the light from above. —(Hear, hear.) He would quote, to the purpose of these views a few lines from Coleridge " My son, of these old narrow ordinances Let us not hold too lightly. They are weights Of priceless value, which oppress'd mankind Tied to the volatile will of their oppressors For always formidable was the league And partnership of free power with free will. The way of ancient ordinance, though it winds, Is yet no devious path. Straight forward goes, The lightnings path, and straight the fearful path Of the cannon ball ; direct it flies, and rapid— Shattering that it may reach, and shattering what it reaches. My son, the road the human being travels, That on which BLESSING comes and goes,doth follow The river's course, the valley's playful windings, Curves round the corn-field and the hill of vines, Honouring the holy bounds of property : And thus secure, though late, leads to its end." Before he sat down he would say a word or two about the petitions presented on this subject. There had been a great number of these, from very respectable parties, who in va rious points of view were dissatisfied with this or that fea ture in our present institutions, though probably for the most part with no very definite notion of the nature and extent of the Hon. Gentleman's motion ; but he denied that there had been manifested any pure enthusiasm throughout the country on the subject. He denied that there was any spirit of that kind which manifested a desire in the country at large for great changes. There was, on the contrary, a vast majority of right-minded and sound-thinking men who were of opinion that this was not the time to be talking about unsettling the institutions of this country. There were multitudes of petitioners who would never have come for ward but for a speech which had better never have been spoken.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe the nostrums of the Honourable Member for Montrose were so inviting as to inspire any considerable number of English hearts with a desire to try them—(Hear, hear)—or to embark in the struggle which his Hon. Friend was endeavouring to excite. He believed, on the contrary, that there was a general feeling of humble gratitude entertained by the people at large for the institutions of the country, and also a senti ment of just pride, which was occasioned by the belief that there was something in them which rendered those institu tions worthy of living anti dying for, and in behalf of which the prayers of thousands of Christian hearts were daily raised. Was it at a moment when England, by virtue of her institutions, and by the providence of God, showed herself to be the Thermopylae of the world, that the House of Com mons was to be called upon to proceed with these miserable tamperings with institutions that weathered the shocks of a thousand storms? He should rejoice when the condition of the people was ameliorated, to enable them to exercise the franchise I but, believing that the people of this country now were wholly unfit to receive such a boon—believing in his conscience that this resolution was founded on a principle leading to no end, presenting no settlement, but tending to a succession of endless and fruitless agitation, he entered his humble but solemn protest against the mischievous character of this new agitation, and gave his voice with all his heart, soul, and mind, against the first resolution, which was its first, its mangled, but no less destructive offspring.—( Hear.) Mr. COBDEN—Sir, I feel a difficulty in treating a ques tion of this kind in the same language in which the Hon . and Learned Gentleman has treated it, and if it were necess , sary to possess the same flow of eloquence which he has used, I should not have presumed to follow him ; but I feel another disadvantage in following him, inasmuch as he has not given us any facts as a groundwork of the reasons with which he has favoured us. He has mentioned it as an alleged fact, that the country is not in favour of this motion for the mea sures of my Hon. Friend. Now that was the statement made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government ; and I think it is a most important question to us, more important probably than any other question which could engage our attention in this House, for certainly on almost any other topic we may assume there would be great diversity of opi nion amongst the classes excluded from the franchise. But I now put it to the Honourable and Learned Gentle man, and I put it to the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, do they or do they not deliberately mean to say in this House, that the great mass of the un enfranchised population of this country do not desire to possess political power? That is the question. Will any one in this House utter such a libel on the great mass of the people in this country, that they are excluded from political rights, and that they are so abject, so servile, that they even do not desire to possess political rights? Sir, I should be sorry to believe it, and Ido not believe it. I should have a very poor opinion of my countrymen, indeed, if I enter tained such an opinion of them. But this is a very important element in this discussion. If you admit with me—and there is no one here who will deny the proposition—that the people atidl eunit you po w oup h ua o are lr aetii not on nt hofi s e t u ph f oi r ss a i n te oi c ou h nn i ! e ttr c desire i atr are pressing, eso u to b ti nogf : enfranchised, seve n desiring, o atnhde claiming the right which you deny to them; and if, in ad dition to that serious dilemma, it can be demonstrated that a very large section of the enfranchised middle class are in favour of the same views as the class not enfranchised, it becomes a serious element in the discussion of this question. Without venturing to anticipate the result of the division here to-night, I call Hon. Gentlemen to notice the division to-morrow, mid they will find that in the proportion that Members in this House represent large con stituencies, where the middle class, the ten-pounders, have the free and unbiassed exercise of their opi nion, just in that proportion will you find their repre sentatives vote in the lobby in favour of this motion. And I mention this fact in anticipation, for I know it will prove to be the truth ; I mention it with satisfaction, because I find iu that fact a strong and most effectual appeal to the great mass of the people to show them that it is not true, as has been attempted to be shown by more than one who has spoken middle eninth classesis debate , towardsthat t there theere isa working h hostile e s l p a t s r s i e t s t th a e t art of the just i u n nb p i r a o s p s o e rdt will, t t h h e e y m are i d ddl disposed p c 0 1 a s s e s d e s t c o a n o p e e x n e r t c h i e s e p t o h r e t a i s free o f a t n h d e constitution to their unenfranchised fellow -countrymen. These facts being admitted—and they must be admitted, for nobody can get up and say that the people who have not the franchise do not desire it—what is the assertion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman? That we have not had a great number of petitions and meetings. I have been long accustomed to watch the progress of opinion out of doors, and test; the progress of questions in this House by what was doing out of doors; and I have better op portunities of knowing than he has, that there has been a considerable movement in the country, at a short notice, and without organization, in support of the motion. I have taken the trouble to record the public meetings held in favour of the Honourable Gentleman's motion, recorded in the daily news since first he announced his intention of bringing it forward. There have been 130 public meetings held. I tell you that there have been more spontaneous movements throughout the country in favour of this motion than in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws after we had been at work agitating for five years, because I will frankly admit that in the movement for the repeal of the corn-laws, we galvanised from a centre, if you please; that meetings were got up at the instigation of a few men who were ex neeted to attend; but on this question the meetings were local, uninvited, uninfluenced. I do not deny the discres pancies of opinion at these meetings as to the nature of the objects for which they should operate; but there was much less discrepancy, much less of the leaven of dissension, than I have seen in times past, and less of discreditable dissen sion than many people would like to see in those meetings, but they have been petitioners—they are in favour of the Charter; in favour of universal suffrage in other cases; and in a great majority of cases in favour of the motion of my Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose. Standing here as the advocate of the motion of the Honourable Gen tleman, I have nothing to say against those who are for universal suffrage, or for the Charter. I will never enter the lists to oppose those men who advocate the right, as the llonourable Gentleman advocates it, to the suffrage, instead of any other test. I should feel I was not justified in taking the argument which the on Gentleman has taken, and which the Noble Lord the First Minister has taken. He addresses himself to the advocates of universal suffrage ; he seems to me to argue that they have more right than those who are for household suffrage. I can understand the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, if he intends to vote for universal suffrage, I can understand the force of the argu ment ; but as I am not going to oppose universal snffrage, I do not stand here to support it on this occasion. I will leave the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and all those who arguers as he does, in the hands of the advocates of universal suf frage, judging that they are quite disposed to make the most of the argument. put into their hands. In advocating the suffrage which the Hon. Member for Montrose introduced, and which he termed household suffrage, I must say that the [lon. and Learned Gentleman has not shown his usual legal knowledge ; and a difficulty and stumbling-block is thrown in our way as to the definition of household suffrage. To judge from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's speech, household occupancy has always been considered as nothing but occupying a house. Judging by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's argument, it has never been decided that a man living in a lodging is a householder. That I under stand to:be the Hon. and Learned Member's argument. lam not learned in the law, but the Court of Common Pleas has decided that a lodger claiming to be rated to the poor may claim to have a right for voting.—(Hear, hear.) What 1 say,. Y I say with some knowledge of the matter. lam sorry to have to correct the Hon. and Learned Sergeant in mat ters of law, but under the Reform Act it has been ruled in the court of Common Pleas that a lodger paying 101. a year rent, where the landlord does not live on the premises, can claim to be rated, and be upon the list of voters. Then my householdvoters; suffrage, merely takes a similar interpretation to that,4 which is taken by the Court of Commcn Pleas, and y s 4 o ) u • says, without requiring a 101. test, if you have been a lodger does claim to be put on the rate book, and on the list of in __ ; and it is really not a very difficult matter of arrange t to extend the rule a little further and say, if the land lordßon.and Learned on the premises, and you claim still to be rated, you may be Leeapduiffit c o u n lry the list of :voters; and then the tacos, y :phial; mwriele.end Gentleman will see this altogether gets rid of th We have opened a dwohoor which t he is throwing in our should exclude clerks and economi cal d o o t h e n c e t l e r w k si whose to causeget of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. There was one re- I