The Sun. — London, England, 1852-03-26 00:00:00

SUN, tension to revise or review the whole question. If it should ever be the province of the Noble Lord to revise the ques tion, he (Sir J. Walmeley) would recommend him to take into his serious consideration tha - , part of Parliamentary re formwhich he bad left out of his Bill—a part which, in his (Sir J. Waltnslev's) opinion, was most important, as any measure that did not include the protection of the ballot Would, as far as he could judge. be lightly esteemed by the Peopl e of this country. His first objection to the measure of tee Noble Lord was founded on the disparity between toe borough and the county franchise. No goood reason had been alleged, nor did he think that any could e e alleged, why the franchise shou ld be 51 in a borough and , 4 /. in a county, and unless Hon. Gentlemen were disposed ,Lo admit that the inhabitants of r ural districts were less qua tided tor the exercise of political rights than those of boroughi, he did trust that they would press forward for an equal mea sure of justice for the agricultural as for the manufacturing districts. The proposition to enfranchise by means of the I ° B - direct taxation appeared to him to be a step in the right direction, inasmuch as it recognised taxation to `le the basis of representation—(Hear, hear)—and he trusted that that ?tinciple would be further carried out. But he could not eole vi uponew. another eortion of the Bill with the same favour- He conceived that tha retention of the rate- Iwieing clause for the qualification of the voter was en un neitigeted evil, and he thought that the House would allow that such a measure as the ratepaying clause had been a traitful soutce of litigation, chicanery. and fraud, and 'that it had been an unnecessary restriction to the right of Votin g —( Hear, bear.) It might not be necessary to increase the number of Members for large towns, hut he could not conceive how the Noble Lord could justify the retention of two Members to a small andinsignificant borough , while he r e fu se d a Member to large, populous, and important districts. Another feature et that Bill to which he (Sir J. Walmsley) objected was, that it did not remove nominati .n boroughs, which were a crying evil.—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion, the interes sof agriculture, commerce, and manufactures were identical, and aeon this broad view of the question ought the electoral !ower to be based. He had referred on a former occasion to the numerous demands which had been made by the people at various periods for enfranchisement. and he had pointed cut the acknowledged loyalty and intelligence of the en franchised classes as evidences of their fitness for the exercise of political rights. He had also adverted to the patience and forbearance which had been shown by the people under What he conceived to be very unnecessary and unjust treatment, and subsequent thought had convinced him that reason united with justice in demanding a recon struction of the electoral system. So far from perceiving a lly cause for apprehension in extending the basis of the representation, he was persuaded that the; was the only course by which they could remove the existing causes of discontent, and the only means by which any Government could ever obtain the full confidence of the people.—(Hear, hear.) Twenty years had elapsed since the Reform Bill Was introduced, and, with all its defects , t here could be no thr'est of the satisfactory results of that measure, which folly acknowledged—the benefits of that Bill, he could not shut his eyes to its defects. The evils of the nomination bw„ roughs were only very p artiall y removed. It was true Fat titty-six rotten boroughs were placed in Schedule A, but nearly an equal number were retained as a sop to the Oligarchical party; tied, altogether the Reform Bill of 1834 Wee one of the most aristocratic measures offered to the nation. The effects of the Chandos clause, in involving the occupiers of the soil in a political serfdom, were fore• told. There were 250,000 houses in England and Wales !lone, whose occupants, although assessed at between AO& and 501. annual value, were totally excluded from it e l l share in the representation . Surel y , then, they might fairly ask for a revision of the system which twenty years 'perience had shown to be so ineffective for its declared ° °,iect. Within the last twenty years the population of the Country bad considerably increased, its commerce had ex- Pauded, popular intelligence bad been more widely diffused, ~ata our national literature had p ro g ressed. But, in broad eentrast with all this, there had been no advance and no i mprovement in our representative institutions Five-sixths 4 f the adult male population of these realms continued to be : I cluded from all voice either in flaming the laws they had :(.). obey or in the distribution of the funds of which they had it' contribute so large a proportion. A paper was laid upon e 'e table of the House two sessions ago, stating the number relectors in the United Kingdom to be 1,050,1e7 ; being 1 3 0 of the population, or lin ' of the adult males. That tve an average of 1,600 votes to each of the 656 Mem lets of that House—he said votes rather than electors, e 'ecause many electors had a plurality of votes ; un t different qualifications , and it was su pp osed that t he total number of electors did n ot exceed three- q uarters of 'Million. Thus upwards of six millions of the adult male tpulation by the existing system were kept without the pale the Constitution ; and there was a grievous and unjust 410 ni poly of electoral power in the exclusive bands of a co mparatively amad m i no rity I , f the nation. He had said t hat the total number of the electo a would give an aver age of 1,600 to each member of that House; but the real f act was that 32) Members, or a clear majority, only te Presented 430 electors each, whilst the minority re resented 2,729 electors ea ch. Caine with 159 electors ad the same power as Stockp ort with 2,400; and Man chesterll with 12,000 electors , or Mar y lebone with 18,010, l i ; c1 no more weight in that Howe than Thetford with 10 electors, or Knaresborough with MO. These facts suffi tently demonstrated the way in which the influence of the tger boroughs could be neutralised by marshalling the PeWer of the smaller ones against them. He had said that te e representative system had made no advance, but he „s hoved it had actually retrograded ; 184 of our constituen t'ea had a less number of electors now than they had at rner periods. If he were told t hat the g ross number of el ectors h‘ had increased, he would r e p l y that the increase had ;Can place in counties where extraordi nar y exertions had t ore made for special objects , and in t he borou g hs which included in those counties; and tha t the re g ister for the English counties showed a decrease o f 13,600 electors in fie Year 1849-50, as compared with the numbers in 1846.7 Was said that electoral power ought not to be bas ed on m ere numbers; but in truth at present it wa s neither based s ' h :numbers nor on property , nor on nu mbers and p ro p ert y co mbined ; and indeed he could not tell upon what it was based. The statistics given by Mr. Alexander Mackay, in Paniphlet on Parliamentary Reform , and which he had ho ver h‘ heard controverted, showed that in the year 1811 t he amount of the poor-rate assessment of the country was re presented Millions; and of that sum he stat ed that 7 millions were in that House by 329 Members, and the remain teg 7 8 millions by 329 Members. What was the practical ei nd encY of such a system? To render that House subser slit to the territorial aristocracy, and, instead of a real ipresentation of the people, to make it a representation of te e peerage, the army, the navy, the Church, and the Go 2rtiment. The taxation of the country was levied unequally, Wherever tended to restrict the expansion of trade an d c ommerce. ',, v _herever a barren rock was to be found among our col o nial asessions, a governor , lieutenant-governor, and a costly st aff of useless officials were saddled upon the public purse; t a keioas and sinecures were dist ributed with an uns p arin g 41,1" i njurious, ; and a system of Church pa trona g e was administered, tb be believed, to religion a s it was offensive to t hese consciences of a large portion of t he p eo p le. To remed y e,t , e evils—moral, political, and financ ial—his Honourable F riend (Mr. Hume) had brought forward this measure of 4r,liamentary Reform ; and, believing it to be safe, 'erecti le, le- and constitutional, he should give the motion his l Mble but earnest support. There m i g ht be those who ap t,hended dangers and difficulties from a measure which ttight to add five or six snillitms of the adult male popula-' k r to the electoral registry of the United Kingdom ; bet s oe tia part he saw no such dangers, nor apprehended any e' difficulties. There was indeed a d a ng er ; but it arose t' o °lll a very different source—from the refusa l t o do j ustice ve teen who not only knew their rig hts, but knew their Z j wer to enforce them. The present moti on onl y aimed at otecting abuses which time and a vicious s y stem had pro h:.ed ; and the present period of com p arative pros ltY and domestic tranquillity appeare d to him eminentl y cculated for the calm consideration and settlement t tt this important question. The only sounds that the L I ," heard of the injustice under which the per pie ,:eniured, or believed they laboured, were those of calm re monstrance and and enlightened reason •, but none might venture continue. Predict how long such a favourable state of things might to t o ltin ue . The burdens which the people now bore might n become insupportable; the evils that they now endured b asses ere long assume an as p ect which mi g ht drive the to oisses t o d e speration, and they mi g ht a pp roach that House t o a temper which all must deprecate but none would be able I , resist. Should such a time ever arise— which he prayed VI wisdom of that House to avert—then they would see te u en too late the political folly of treating with contumely e mejust demand of millions of their fellow-subjects. By etnei Y concession, to that just demand they would strengthen the guarantees for public and popular content , because th e taxes would then be imposed, and the laws made with 'Le concurrence and consent of all. ti kr. H. DRUMMOND said the excuse urged by f the two th e Gentlemen who had preceded him for bringing orwar to e present question was that the country was in a state of Itel4PthearatMembers ive tranquill of it th y. at House back to Gentlementheir constituents , were anxtuents, ious to k ed e ii ! Yet they occupied a whole ni g ht i n discussi n g a measure ich could not possibly be passed. No less than six gentle had brought for Ward measures for improving the repre ;:ntation, but he trusted, coming in that shape, the Govern 'l'3•l it would not fall into the error that had been committed its predecessors, but tha t the y would at once re p udiate it. e present measure differed from Lord others that it con titTen no principle. The Noble Lord in his Bill connected te.: right of voting with a beneficial interest, of 10/. ; b ut g l i - d r a, Was no more connexion between the right of voting 15' 10 /. than there was between the right of voting and 9/. 4 1 , 3 ' 6d. The system was altogether absurd, and the wee ee,e- r e contained no real pr i n ciple. With r e g ard to the weer of th e elective franchise, he laid this down as a rule, sad of as the only essential rule, that the exercise ttn the franchise should be He with di. tot ed service to the State. He would include all t e „" ° ,° classes whose pockets the Chancellor of the Exchequer " 41 reach , all those whom the rate-collect or called upon— ad to, ue would go further and say where a man was too poor tempt the rate-collector or the Chancellor of the Exche 4aer. it he had rendered service to the state—as, ,ofit a soldier after his discharge, or a militia - m an, he should say o n as entitled to exercise the right of v otin g . (Hear.) Point had had an adventitious inaportance conferred Po • ti 11 . it. although it had really nothing to do with the ques ts/I t o m e —he meant the ballot. What could it possibly signify lel;'''ltt how the electors voted, whether secretly or openly, ktber standing upon one leg, or upon both ?—(A laugh.) 1' ; seemed to him that that was a question that might be ti ehe ll Y left to the constituents. He had himself special rea es"''' for preferring the vote by ballot, but he would not to ."'r enter upon that question. But they must bear in e s t'd that when they added to the electors, as was pro did by the present measure, they did not add a similar op' similar thing. It was not the mere addition of electors e `ue same kind, but electors of a very different kind. Wouldegiye an illustration of what he meant. He W ouldtake the case of the savings banks. He found by r eturn which he held in his h and that out of 1,000,00 e con tributors in the savings banks there we re onl y 2,000 who g' l ee 7 stied 2001. and upwards, while there were no less than '°° o who possessed less than 20/. Let theni take that as Pide or an illustration. In point of fact, when they had em ended the franchise as far as they p ro p osed they would akesent the poverty of the country, and the wealth would et be fairly represented, but actually overborne. He had nteard other Hon- Members talk of education as the basis te fee re Presentation, but he could not see any connexion be fr:'ri reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the elf ctive ee - e nchise, Tue argument, however, showed that they had l t ;usidered the danger of extending the franchise, and try teie by indirect means, to correct the evil. Much bad been ate" of the good old times and of the practice of the C0n •,4,! _ oft ",°n —the practice of that House formerly was that no L 'lnould sit in it unless he possessed a certain amount p r ` .4(1 - Land was formerly the only means of possessing Nl:lV—trade bei-g confined to the Jews, and after to the Lombards and the Flemings. Now, "ever, things were totally c hanged—the essential was aelP e rtn the accident was land. When the Honour a4ll Gentleman brought forward a measure to do away be e „ the property qualification one of his arguments o et usat that House did not regard the sanctity of their tl They That was, he thought, a bad vston.- - ( War, bear.) encouraged the violation of oaths — th e y encoura g ed Ifi-. to break their oaths, and to find men no t g uilt y be "'V disapproved of their offences being visited with .» . i;i.:: .. rti l; Jl T Ji E capital punishment. If they did not wish to have let'll• Members violate their oaths, - let them appoint a Commissi'm such as had been appointed in the case of the St. Alban's election. If they had a standing Commission he thought they would soon find out what Gentlemen were without the necessary property qualification. Let there be a good ' Chancery lawyer and a good common-law lawyer on the Commission, and ho was bound to say that would make the Commission effective. If they had not that equality of pro perty they would have equality of power, and that wag as good. Where there were two animals, one of whom had got something which the other had not, they might depend up in it there would be a battle.—(A laugh.) If there were two men, the one rich and the other poor, unless the rich man had something to defend him which the other had not, there would be free trade between them pretty quickly.—(A laugh.) They must combine property and power together, for civi lised socie'y was constituted on the principle of preserving acquired preperty. What they were to provide against ' was not peaceable times. A ship was worth nothing that could only sa lin smooth water They must have a consti tution that would stand the storms. There always had been, and there ever would be, times when masses of starving people were to be found, and they might depend on it the severest moral anguish any man could endure was seeing his children starving and himse lf willin g to work and unabl to obtaireit. They might rest assured that the sufferings of Ugolino would not be lees keen if inflicted by a constitutional government teats by a Florentine despot. The interests of the landed and the other classes were amal gamating every day. For his part he desired to see the great estates and properties subdivided, and the number of small proprietors increased There was inherent in the nature of things something more permanent in land than in manufactures. Take the case of a labourer—no in tter whether he earned five shillings or five guineas a week, hi had no regard for anything beyond the end of the week—he eat and he drank the whole of it, and there was an end of the matter.—(Laughter.) The manufacturers only looked to their temporary profit; but landed proprietors tooked to the permanent value of their property, and were continually laying out something to make that value greater—( Hear, hear, and " Oh," from the Opposition ) though no doubt there were exceptions.—( Hear and a laugh, from the Opposition.) There was, at all events, this advantage attached to the system of rotten boroughs, that they facilitated the return of persons to that House when it was advantageous to have them. —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord lately at the head of the Government had recently been reproached with the basis of his Administra tion, and with some truth. But until Hon. Members had to form a Government they would not know the difficulty of doing so, for it was not enough to find the best man for an office, but whether some "enlightened" constituency did not prefer some empty chatterer. —(Hear, and a laugh.) He however did not want them to recur to the " rotten borough" system, but to suggest that if Ministers, as the servants of the public, were expected to come ex officio to that House whenever they were required (whether they had teezget, kn would be reaped without the disadvantages. Governments would be emancipated, and the formation of administrations facilitated. He con fessed, however, that if he followed the profession of a Re former, he sh• uld like to reform the House of Lords—(Hear, hear, from the Liberals)—which he deemed the weakest part of the constitution, and the one which required the most attention.—(Hear.) The power of this House bad increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished—(Hear, hear) — and he e anted to strengthen the Lords to withstand i (Hear.) He particularly wished to put an end to voting by proxy.—(Hear.) Then, again, he thought that no nobleman should have hereditary right to the peerage unless they had the means of supporting its dignity, for there could not be a greater misfortune in a country then a pauper nobility.— (Hear.) At the same time the Crown ought to have the power of creating peers for life, in order to raise to the Upper House men who were likely to be useful there, although they might not have the means of transmitting the income necessary tor the maintenance of the dignity. Sir P. WOOD said if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted the suggestion thrown out by the Noble Lord (Lord J Russell) of availing himself of Thursday nights for the purpose of carrying ote the business of the Govern ment— that night would not have been consumed with this discussion. than which, however (if the House were not t o be engaged upon the supplies) he could scarcely conceive of any more important. Now, he contended that they were called upon to ewer into the discussion by the declaration which had been delivered by the Noble Earl (Earl Derby) in another place, that the principle of his Governmsnt wand d and be to oppose a barrier to the power of demagogues, upheld the Monarchy against the democracy. Now what did the Noble Lord mean by that? What did be mean by so contrasting the principles of his Government with those of the Government he had succeeded? Had the late Govern ment at ail tidy •nced democracy in a bad sense? In a bad se se it meant insurrection. And there certainly had been two feeble attempts at insurrection in the country during the late Adiniiiietration• - one in Ireland under ..ar. S. O'Brien, and the other in England under—be would nit say whom.—(A laugh.) And both attempts had been pnt down, one by the energy of Lord Clarendon, the other by the vigilance of the late Home Secretary, sustained by the good sense and good feeling of large masses of the people. Democracy was a vague word, like " protection." (Liberal cheers.) It might 'mean total exclusion of the monar chical element of the Constitution, or it might mean merely justice to the people. Now on the continent there were two classes of governments—omitting cases of at a mi ll—in litary occupation, which lie did not call governments which these opposing principles were illustrated. In one class —in which was developed the high monarchical or des potic prirciple—in Austria or Russia, for instance, an here ditary sovereign, invested with an imaginary perfection, carried on the Government with such small counsel as he chose to call to his assistance, with what was con ceived to be a fostering and paternal hand, providing for the happiness of his people , w ho had nothing to do with the Government but to obey, and were not allowed to think for ' themselves, lest they should discover the imposture and exercise their power —the policy pursued by the Governments of this class being that whtoh was expressed in a single sentence once spoken by the Emperor Francis—" I do not want learned men, but good subjects," and any little unpleasantness that might arise being sup pressed by military force. • In the other class of Govern ments, to which our own belonged, there was an hereditary sovereign, with a representative assembly and an upper chamber, composed of persons, from their position, educa tion, and property , best suited for that dignity ; and the bulk of the people, instead of being prevented from thinking or acting for themselves, were encouraged and trained to do so by the municipal and parochial systems on which they had to regulate their local affairs; and thus they were edu cated for the more important duty of choosing those who should represent them in the Legislature. Now, the princi ple of the former of these classes of governments he consi dered the principle of fear; that of the latter confidence. — (Cheers from the Liberals.) And on the principle of confi dence in the people he advocated the enlargement of the franchise. He believed that it would be found soon by all nations that there was no basis on which Governme e nts cou ld rest except that of confidence in the peopl.— (Hear, hear.) Not merely in their affections, which might be influenced by passions and impulses, but in their political education —their power of thinking and acting and judging for themselves. and their appreciation of those hi g h moral and intellec tual q ualifications which ought to fit a man for taking a part in the government of the nation. Now, did the Noble Lord (Derby) mean to depart from this principle, or to maintain that it ought not to be exntended? Were we to have that mo st monstrous form of g, an oligarchical den ocracy, under which one million out of five millions of men alone had votes? Such ass stem would show a total want of confidence in the people; and no Go vernment could stand many months which should stamen mit the most fa'al error committed b y one of the great who ever held p o wer —that of declaring himself against a re-- form of the representation of the people. Our whole career was one of progress; and were we to stand still here, and here alone? The Hun. Member for Surrey said the sup porters of extension of the suffrage were obliged to admit that there was danger in it, and that the only resource wa e s in the good disposition of the people. But were peopl more dangerous within the pale of the Constitution than without it? Now, the Honourable been Gentlemen's it us tration of the starving •animals would have more applicable some years ago, before reform or repeal of the corn laws, as during the disastrous scarcity of 1817, or more recently in 1847, when bread, now to be had for sd. was sold fir lid ; and when he was able to tell the people " It is the ha nd of God, and y must bear it patiently," which he could not have said had the corn laws not been repealed. With regard to the ballot, all he need say was that his constituents wanted it, and that he had voted for it, and should do so again. It was sometimes said to those who supported the extension of the represet.- tat ive system, " Look at France !" He had looked at France, and consioered that the lesson to be derived from the cala mities-of ehat•couetry was to avoid the errors which had oc casioned them. Up to the revolution of 1786 the Govern ment of France Imo been of the despotic or paternal cha racter he had described ' • the people had no po litical instruc tion fitting them for the functions of government, or the ex ercise of the franchise; the nobility were exempted from tax ation under which the masses of the community were op pressed; and there arose at last a tremendous insurrection. since which the couutry had been in a constant state of of con fusion. Even un der Louis Phili pp e the principle cofidence in the people had not been acted upon ; the country was ruled from Paris by orders sent down to the prefects. Under the last portentous revolution, which had placed the President on—he was going to say his throne there was to be general voting or universal suffrage; there had not been a single public meeting held. Conceive of such a change in this country without a public meeting to consider it The fact was, however, the people of France had not been taught how to exercise political power, and had never known what it was to bow to a majority — (Hear, hear)—so that a minority found no better resource than taking up arms —( Rear, hear, an d lau g hter.) This, then, was th e example pointed to in order to deter us from us ex tteonddiongsoth. eif t ra p n ro c v h e is d e hlowWohnyse, unsafe et it w as aws ratthoeartatew;t wa r ning e g 2 t: waa dude large classes was at o l f v pe i o a p e l c e e thfwroim, and likely to try,our Constitution. l e representadtieosn.oA nd such a course Constitution. The of variance Reform Bill h a d remove d gross abuses Constitution,ohtedthietnotdooeeo o and adm because W hy proved its machinery; and its most ancient landmarks would have been swept away popular convulsion. It was said " Alt is now quiet and ya calm. neoorthttr withholdwo would raise that the was ques tionjast time e t h i to Catholic o s afy o conceded it . e of the representation?" why; s the el proper considered.peri period to do lt so; an d fatal at error emanc ipation • until the - Government which t had to confess t h a t t he y did so from fear of quences of longer refusing it ; and su ch would have the result of a longer_refusal of reform. The Constitu tion ought to be allowed to go on, and ex p and, and develops oPs it se lf : wherever there was life there must b e progress. Some persons had recently said they did not desire constant changes. But change was the natural result of the action of a living principle in a' state. What changes had occurred within the last twenty years—in everything except the re presentative system! The commerce of the country had been inordinately developed—( Hear, hear), —and so had ma nufactures.—( Hear.) .Whole towns had risen up; and to one of these (Birkenhead), which had not been in existence at the time of the Reform Bill, it was proposed by the late Government to extend the franchise. of which St. Alban's was to be deprived. Railways, again, bad everywhere given rise to new towns along their lines. And it was not only in material development that changes had occurred, but moral and intellectual education had greatly advanced; and the National Society, which some years ago bad only 400,000 scholars, now had upwards of 1,000,000. The increase of savings banks and mechanics' institutes led to the same con clusion. Why, then, was everything to progress except the representative system ? At the time of the Chartist attempt he knew a body of workmen engaged about that House, although they had promised to defend it, had declined to he sworn, not choosing, as they said, to act against their " order"—an ominous and remarkable expression. And what made them an " order?" Only exclusion from the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) Give them the franchise, and they would be transfused into the rest of the community. The for Surrey u e r s re h y a h v a io d g d e er o id p ed riee th i e pie lo/ i . n or 51. quTahlie filioca i . on i s era for be v r o principle, however, was not in the exact sum chosen, but in the choosing of any mum as a test ; and the 40s. free hold test was almost as old as Parliament itself. At the same time he should have dao objection to sole of the icY•al":4. LON DON, other tests suggested by the Honourable Member, coupled with residence he thought such a franchise would be good. He confessed, however, that he could not under stand, and he could never admit the principle of abstract right.—( Hear, hear.) The seconder of the motion had ob served that he could not comprehend on what principle such and such things were permitted in our Constitution. Why, we had not a cut and dried Constitution—(Hear, hear,) —but we tried to perfect it as much as we could by means of the existing machinery. they could have general prin ciple, however, although not abstract rights; and one general principle should be to trust in the people.—(Hear, hear.) It might be contended that, either from a want of education, or from their shifting their residence from place to place, or from other causes, portions of the community were unfit to exercise the franchise; but it would be a mon strous thing to say that there ought to be only a million and a half of voters in the country.—(Hear, hear.) The people of Belgium strongly resembled our own in two , essential particulars—in their conversance with municipal government, and in their attachment to religion. In the deep religious faith of the people of Belgium was found the best security for order and good government. He rejoiced that the present oi.cussion had taken place at this par ticular moment, although, on the other hand, the idea that any Bill on this subjeat could be passed this session was quite out of the question.—( Hear, hear.) In support of these annual motions of the Hon. Member for Montrose he had always declined committing himself to a particul,r plan-- ( Hear, bear) —wishing rather to affirm the general pr n ciple of reform; but he would vote for this or any other motion which was likely to lead to an extension of the franchise. He was now desirous that the Government would state, not on y what they did not like in the shape of re form, but what they did like, because a Government mea sure might be carried, whereas an independent motion might fall to the ground. He rejoiced at a past declaration of the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London on the subject of the franchise, but there was also the declaration in the Speech from the Throne this session, that the state of the representation was not satisfactory --(Hear, hear.) He did not think, in the teeth of such declarations, that any Government could long exist which opposed what appeared to be so essential a measure as reform in the Parliamentary representation, and any Government which might succeed the present would, he thought, whether they liked it or not, be compelled to bring in such a measure. If, at the next general election, the people pro nounced for such reform, he did not despair getting it at the hands of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. As yet we did not know how the country would deal with the questions of Maynooth,Protection,and Reform.—[An Hon. Hember—" Or with anything else"]—and, therefore, he still had hope in the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Without expressing any opinion upon those other measures contemplated in the speech of the Hon. Member for Montrose, he claimed to be allowed a free judgment as to any particular scheme of re form ; but he confessed he should be dissatisfied with any plan unaccompanied by the ballot. He would vote for the OrlSPirsArMli ec s i : .1e22!!!!),i1. 1 . 2 ,92v b enT:12 liament as was contemplated by the Hon. Member for Montrose, even were the first reading to be agreed on that night, it was not his intention to record his vote either for or against the present motion. Mr. NAPIER—Sir, in much that has fallen from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just sat down I en tirely concur; but I am afraid that if some of the prin ciples he has advanced are strictly followed out they must, in the end, lead to universal suffrage.—( Hear, hear.) Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have had an opportunity of hearing these questions discussed at great length and with great ability. I have heard them discussed by the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and have felt a high delight anti pleasure in hearing from him those sound constitutional expositions which have induced him to vote against those motions of the Hon. Member for Montrose, anti others substantially in the same category with them.—(Hear, hear.) 1 agree with the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen in his strictures on the despotism which prevails in some of the countries of the continent. I abhor such despotism, and also the licentiousness and anarchy which have taken root elsewhere; and I fully acquiesce in the praise he has bestowed on the British Con stitution for the admirable manner in which it adapts itself to the imperfections of mankind. But I think, Sir, there are other modes by which the tranchise might be usefully ex tended than by so essential a change in the principles of be onstitution as is now asked for.—( Rear, hear.) The question to be considered is whether the particular mode pro posed, of lowering the property qualification, is consistent with the principles of the Constitution, with the mainte nance of the Monarchy, and with the maintenance of that hereditary rank which we find in our House of Peers.— (He ‘r, hear.) I own it is a difficult question to deal with ; out I do not agree with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that after the 101. qualification of the Reform Bill, the people were precluded from acquiring a further tranehise.—(Hear, hear.) He says " we ought to have confidence in the people; we ought to rely upon their talents, industry, and virtue." Now, a-suredly every man by the exercise of such qualities may not only acquire a franchise, but may assist in hartno eising our free and happy Constitution.—( Hear, hear.) It is asserted that in our constitution as it stands there is mucu corruption, and that it must be got rid of. If it is to he got rid of, I du not think it will be by these extravagant plans oy these mete shifts and contrivances of the ballot box, but through the medium of education.—(Hear.) Secrecy is not congenial to the English character.—(Cheers.) A man may give his vote one way and pretend that he gave it another. To prevent conflict with his landlord, a tenant might avail himself of the ballot ; but should we hence have a better state of things? Again, do you think that by lowering the franchise you get into purer atmosphere?--(Hear, hear ) On the contrary, you multiply the power of these who tam per with the bad passions of the people • and then, where is your appeal to their confidence?—(Hear, hear.) I can understand a professional calling being a test of property, as also (as was thrown out in a previous de. bate) an investment. in a savings bank; but in that case it would not be an abstract question whether there ought to be an extension of the franchise or not, be. cause the franchise would be acquired by all thoaa whose industry brought it within their grasp..—( Hear, hear.) That some limitation is necessary is evident from the question frequently asked, whether ladies are to be excluded from the franchise - (A laugh)—but the main consideration is, should we not derange the constitution by introducing a lower pro perty qualification ?—(Hear, hear.) I am not saying I should be averse to an adjustment of the constitution; but I do say, that by lowering the property qualification you would extend the influence and the power of corruption— (Hear, hear)—and that you could not check that corruption by resorting to secret voting.—( Hear, hear) ) I say, let the exercise of the franchise be open and independent—(Hear, h q u e hear)— r i ? Q a t o d oni ns l i3t t. a oio s o. tusnhe,dretbo,huna hands o n std a wps l al place pe t d h tieth a s tiebgybnyi mere intelligence ;rpersons, lowering enromn numbers—that ef rasttheand de tpropertycountryh atypermit o u ip t n h u e ta m Pfoa t wi o re w rp ield it to the peril of those institutions and of that monarchy, which I trust will ever be bound up with the peace and prosperity of this country.—(Cheers.) Mr- ROEBUCK said that whilst he adopted the pre mises and conclusion of the argument of his Hon. and Learned Friend the late Solicitor-General (Sir W. P. Wood), he was altogether at a loss to account for his deter mination not to vote upon this question, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman having admitted that the subject ought to be entertained, and that this was the proper time for con sidering it. Twenty years had elapsed between the passing of the first Reform Bill and the proposal of the second of the Noble Lord the Member for London. At the former period the country was governed by an oligarchy be used the word as more significant than ar istocracy—but under the reforming hand of the Noble Lord that power had undergone a very great change. The landed interest was no longer the predominant interest in this country, for by the Reform Bill 9f 1832 a large portion of the manufacturing wealth of this country was admitted to the representation. But the Noble Lord evidently found that he had not .done enough by his first 'teform Bill that it was not sufficient to displace an oli- garchy—but that there were thousands in this country whose intelligence and morality —not their lands or the power derived from wealth—demanded consideration at the hands of the State. Supposing that to be the opinion of the Noble Lord, he (Mr. Roebuck) would say that what was wanted was a body of men who represented, first the intelli gence, and next the good feeling of the country. Did any body pretend to say that the intelligence of the country was wielded by those who possessed land—by those whom the Noble Lord (Russell) had represented as the " clay inte rest ?" It certainly was not land that represented the intel ligence of the people— An HoN. MEMBER—As much as any other portion of the community.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK continuing —I am sure this interruption must coat() from a person representing land, but I etill deny that t e representatives of land interpret the intelligence of the country. The men whom he( Mr. Roebuck) would en franchise were those who combined what was called manual and intellectual labour—instructed artisans, who, although possessed neither wnalth nor power, fulfilled all the condi tions of good citizens. It was these very men who were ex cluded f. om al. voice in the government of the country. He confessed he did not understand the doctrine of abstract right.—( Hear, hear.) He did not know what. it meant to say hat a man had a right to be represented, but of this he was certain, that, unless the intellectual classes were represented, there could be no good government. For the object is good government Those persons .ought to ne adopted into the constituency. He would show the House they were instructed, they were moral; and he would then ask who would refuse to recognise their claims? He was talking of instructed artisans. A t t nati of that class did not hve in a 10/. house; he lived in lodgings. This would be found to be the case in London and the great manufacturing cities. He wanted such a man to be a con stituent. He did not want him to be a constituent because the man would agree with him—it was ten to one he would not—but he wanted him to be a constituent, first, because he was a man who, by his honest industry, had gained his own position • next, becanbe he was an instructed Man ; and, third, because he was a moral man: On account of these throe a d o t d h e e a r e r c i I n a: a s l n the qualities, country; he and placed a h c e e d s a i h d i mon a such a n a e n w a i s t h anyh he was as worthy to be a • constituent as any Hon. Member in that House was to be a Member. Where was the man to tell him he was not?—(Hear, hear.) Was he to be told by the ng ere not to be deemed worthy of sending a poss essor of th E Ousa l n a d n f i of fro a m cres ev th er a y t t o h th ey er wh o o n m nt a r d y e all in that the distinguishes w orld; that they p b re a se f u n t u a n t d ive ia e . o n f th la n n r d n w nn e n re . demanded --but wa r tries ? Representatives of wealth were admitted , but was not wealth found which was ou la se nd R to e her country in the world, except not to be found in a n y 0! represen t a tive t o wthatnoHt A mer i ca —that body of men framed to endure labour, in other countries? But that obe dient to the law with all the power of mischief in their hands , placed before that House; he asked H on . M e mbers whether they ought not to be repre sented in that H ouse ? Yet this class, this who distinguished and yet obeying law implicitl y—were they to be excluded? It was those persons he now pegi, ccuntry from all countries,' by the pre sent law—by no inten tion on the art of the Lslature or on the part of those who composed the - law—but by accident —this class was excluded from the representation of the country; and he was not going too tar in asking the House to bring them within the roll of those who returned Representatives to that House. He had heard a great talk of democracy, and the dangers of democracy. He had heard the Noble Lord's . ( Lord John Rtissell) answer the other night to the statement made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Go vernment: that answer had not - quite satisfied Democracy, as he (Mr. Roebuck) understood the term, was equivalent, if he might use the Latin phrase, to rxpulus, as opposed to plebs. He did not want plebs to govern, as he did not want aristocracy; he did not want any section of the people to govern ; he warted the populus, which answered more to our word " nation"—he wanted the n a ti on to govern itself.—( Hear, hear.) As for the Noble Lord at th e h ead of the Government coming forward and saying he was opp ose d to Democracy, what did be mean ? Did he mean that ie this country the artisans had what were called Communist prin ciples? Not at all.—( Hear, hear.) The moment a man gained anything by his own labour, he might be depended upon to defend the sacredness of property—(Hear. hear)—he would be the man to come forward and say, "This is mine— it is the result of my own honest labour and of my own intel lect."—( Hear, bear) You will find no Communist princi ples received among the artirms of this country.--(Hear, hear.) As for the ignorant and benighted labourers of the agricultural classes, he (Mr, Roebuck) did not know what ,'~ .. ... (<a. EVENING, Fall) they might receive, for they were not educated—their edu cation hitherto bad not been much taken care of; but of this he was sure, that if you went into any of our large manu facturing towns, you would find the artisan, who was the manufacturer and artisan of his own fortune, would be the first to oppose himself to anything like Communist doc trines—(Hear)—and if a man could be depended upon he could, for the maintenance of what was called the sacred ness of property.— Hear, hear.) Then, where was the objection to this man ? What were the opposers of the mo tion afraid of?—( Hear, hear.) There might be a sort of personal antipathy to coming in near contact with men who had not hitherto had power; but when we came fairly to discuss what was wanted in a constituent boay, what was there in the proposal that should excite alarm? 'lhe real proposition was—as for the ballot and the other points, they were as dust in the balance as compared to this— that " every man of full age and not subject to any mental or legal disability" (but it did not rest there, or it weal be universal suffrage), • " who shall have been the resident occupier of a house or part of a house for twelve months, and rated to the poor of that parish for that time," should be registered as an elector. If it could be made out that the constituency proposed could lead to mischief, there would be an end of the case; but what was there in this to excite alarm ? True, there was a vagabond popu lation in every great community, and labourers who were living by their labour from day to day, and continually moving about ; but they were not included in this proposi tion. Where wee the danger of giving a vote to a resident ratepayer?—(Hear, hear.) It would be said, ‘• Oh, but he must have alt 1. house." The Noble Lord's (Lord J. Rus sell's) Reform Bill brought it down to 5i.; there were very few houses under 51. His (Jfr. Roebuck's) farm labourers, at 9s. a week, paid 51. a year. V, by should not Si. house holders vote? Then, in London and various towns there were lodgers, and among them there were the most educat d and intelligent men; why shoud not they be admitted? What was wanted was not only to give au ample represen tation to this country, but at the same time n. t to excite any jealousy or to do any injustice. Now among the intel ligent artisans you would find a strong feeling against the peculiar mark which the Legislature thought fit to consti tute a title to vote. There were thousands—he was going to say millions—of persons, who, being lodgers, were ex cluded from the franchise; but there was not a parish in which you would not find persons living as lodgers with men who were entitled to vote, and who were of a higher degree of mind and morality and everything else than their landlords.— (Hear.) He would not go now into the question of the ballot. He was surprised to hear the Attorney-Ge neral for Ireland (Mr. Napier) propound the exploded fal lacy that the ballot was un-English. Un-English.! Why, did the Right Hon. Gentleman ever vote by ballot at his club I If a Member were proposed for admission who from some social peculiarity was a bore, and whom the Right Hon. Gentleman wished to exclude from his club, he would vote in such a case by ballot; and yet he 'would not allow the same privilege to a man who was called upon to vote for a Member of Parliament, and who, while under the 4 ...person who dealt with him, or of a powerful neighbour, mignt _ pendent opinion. —(Hear, hear.) Then the Right Hon. Gentleman foisted upon us the wretched argument• that the ballot was un-English. He (Hr. Roebuck) thought we had done with all that long ago. He would be bound the Right Hon. Gentleman had voted by ballot in his club, and, if so, he begged him to reflect a little, and ask himself why he had done so, and why he did not say to himself, " I won't vote in this un-English way ; I don't like it ; it is not bold and open enough for me. I must tell Mr. A, whom I think a bore, that I shan't vote for him, that I shall exclude him secret voting any longer."-(A laugh.) But the Right from my club; and I won't submit to the degradation of lion. Gentleman wanted the influence over the electors which open voting gave. If not, let him say so, and then be (Mr. Roebuck) would acknowledge the argument and grapple with it ; but don't let him deal with the question by a sham. or tell the House about the ballot being un-English. Take a case. He (Mr. Roebuck) was a landlord, and he had an influence over his tenant. Now, what was that in fluence? Was it one proceeding from respect? . Was it the influence of a highly instructed over a less instructed mind ? No; it was the mere influence of a dominant will oder the will of another man. The landlord did not in such a case come to the tenant, and say, " I think you will find that Mr. So• an i-So Is not a good representative, because of his opinions," but he sent his agent. who had this message— " Tell the tenant that this is my will -if he does not vote as I please he must take the consequence." The Right Hon. Gentleman must believe one of two things—either he must wi-h to retain, by means of open voting, the sort of influence just described, or be must suppose that the elector would become demoraliseS by voting in a manner contrary to his expressed intention. Now this, he supposed, was what was meant by un-English ; the tenant, it was feared, would promise his landlord one thing, and do another. But why ,lid the landlord ask him at all?—(Hear, hear.) Nobody asked the Right Hon. Gentleman how he was going to vote at his club, because, in the fist place, it was considered that no one had a right to put such a question, and becaus", in the next place, the Right Honourable Gentleman would not answer the question it it were put. Take the case of a voter in a county. A Member was put up. Suppose he were the tenant, and the Right Honourable Gentleman the 1 mdlord, than whom nobody could be more opposed in poli tics. Give him the ballot, and he voted as he liked he voted against the Member proposed .by his Right Hon. Friend ; but take away the ballot, and let him stand exposed to all the influences which the landlord csuld bring to bear, and what was he expected to do? Why, to sacrifice any independent feeling of his own mind. This it wets which was un-English—(tiear)—that he should be coerced atutinst his will, and compelled to vote against his conscience. As to the Bill of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr tisme), when he recollected that there were small bo roughs, of which be could find a dozen—he might say 50— that should hardly have the population of one borough, which were yet net better represented than they, he en tirely agreed with the g re a ter part of hi s H on . Friend's proposition. The mind, however, could not help recurring to the last proposal for reform made by the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell), and cer tainly, of all the mischievous proposals that were ever pro pounded to this House, that which proposed to combine various small boroughs into one in order that they should have a voice in this House, thus conducing in every way to immorality and to the improper representation of this country, as the Noble Lord's measure did, was the most mis chievous.—(Hear, hear.) What would he the ins-mediate consequences of it? Why, that every so-called borough would be made proportionate to a small county. You would have in it an electioneering attorney, a committee, and a canvassing body; and, if the combined boroughs were five in number, you would have five attorneys, five committees, five canvassing bodies, an d fi ve separate establishments alto gether. That would b e fi ve centres of corru ption, of ex pense, and of un-English coercion. —(Hear hears) Any attempt to unite into o ne sect i on the smal l b oro ughs of this country, resuscitating th a t system by destroy i n g venich the Noble Lord attained his great renown, was th e most mis chievous attempt he had ever heard o f . Without going quite so far as his Hon. F r i en d did in his last pro p o sition, in the proposed proportioning of the representation to property, he would be quite satisfied with a large extension of the constituency of this country, with th e b a llot as a protection. At present he wanted t o know front the Governmeiat whe ther they would bring up on t h e political stage that portion of the population for whom h e f ound in the i r i n dividual ca pacities they were always expressing the mos t extraordi nary coneern.—(Hear.) H e di d not see how those persons oy were to be excluded from the repr esenta tion for any length of time, and he ventur e d to prphec that many months, certainly not many years, wou l d not elapse before some Mi nister of the Crown, more p resc i ent than the rest , of his col leagues, would perceive th at t h e peace of th i s coun try would be best secured by _giving to the intelligent artisans a voice in this House; and that we should find those artisans re presented here by some ne w R e f orm Bill, b roug ht in either by the Noble Lord the M em b er for the city of :Londou, or by the Right Hon. Gentl eman opposite, with, no doubt, the view not only fairly to se cure hi s own posit i on , b u t also to give to the constitution th a t security which cou ld only be given if the intelligence a n d morality of th i s cou ntry were equitably represented.— (H ear, D ivide.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER - -Although the subject does not appear to be so interesting to the House as one might have imagined--(Mi n i s t er i a l cheers) —I can not allow the present oppo r t un i ty to pass without trespass ing for a few moments upon it s attention. A n d, Sir, I shall endeavour to do that whi c h, so far as I have been ena bl e d to observe, has not yet been p ursued by any gentleman who has preceded me-not ev en b y the Hon. Member w h o b roug ht forward this resolution—f or I w i ll keep to the motion be f or e the House .—( Hear, hear. ) We have had from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman wh o h as just addressed you on e o! those dissertations which n o one can make more i nterest i ng than he can on subjects of a very abstract character; an d w e have had several Speeches f rom. other gentlemen, certa i n ly, on the subject of Parliamentary reform. But, it appeared to me that those speeches were mainly addressed, not to the motion upon the paper, but rather to that still more elaborate though evanescent proposition, which for a moment excited so much interest, but which, w i th a due regard for the Noble Lord the Member fur the c i ty of London (Lord J. Russell), I think Hon. Members oppos i te should have had the delicacy not to allude to. (Hear, hear, and laughte r .) Among those who have a dd ressed the House is the H on. and Learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Sir W. Page Wood), who delivered himself of a very elaborate speech, which was evidently prepared to sup• port a Ministerial proposition—(Cheers and laughter) - and one consequence of the tr a in o f hi s argument, and one con clusion at which he seemed inevitably to arrive, was, with singular inconsistency, the determination not to vote at all in favour of a proposition which for three successive years he had supported.--(" Hear," anti s te la ug h.) Now, Sir. when I look_ at the motion b e f ore t h e House, I see l our propositions contained in it. _ With a vi ew to place them succinctly before the House, I will "just recapitulate them. We have a proposition to bring in a Bill which is to extend the franchise, which is. to insure that that franchise, when it is ',exercised, should be taken by means of the ballot, which Is to secure a triennial election' of Parliaments,' and which is to change materially the proportion of representatives, so that they shall be made more consistent with the amount of population and property. This was the fourth proposi tion laid down for our adoption. I understand from the speech of the Hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion (Sir J. Walmsley) that the proportion of representatives which would be deemed more consistent with the amount of population and of property is, to use the language of that Hon. Gentleman, a redistribution which will diminish what he calls the territorial influence.—(Hear.) I am glad I am stating fairly the question before our consideration ; and I will now venture to make a few observations upon this fourth proposition, because it is a more novel topic, and one exciting perhaps the most interest. Well, I deny the position which is assumed by Hon. Gentle men opposite upon that point.—(Hear, hear.) I deny that the proportion of representatives is unfairly arranged in favour of that territorial interest.—(Hear, hear.) deny all the positions assumed in that pamphlet which has been lately circulated and submitted to Parliamentary criticism. The Hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion referred to some observations I made on a preceding night, when we were frequently told that it was a monstrous ano maly that a large town should return only two Members, and that a small and almost depopulated borough should be represented by the same number of Members. I reminded the House on that occasion of the fact that there were nces which experienced the same • •us e it) agricultural, or, if the Hon. Gentleman prefers the word, territorial constatue , that distribution of g n a tlem e e the representation whichfli interestimpugn, and towns. which ns. e their peculiar u r amveryl am giving no us orini f on n am ow they impugn because t o the case fairly. The in ow though I have others case instanced e previous night was one which, as it desirous of calling the attention of ar, ) I is a brief one, injus tice, y c r e , H i me f bj onee a a r n . injustice , lplu refer ef _ e in n t. o re aga r i d n, t upon the the House. Mind , be f ore particular circumstancesthe endeavour of laying the case myself entirely to confining the House. Yon say that the proportion is so arranged by the present system that of representatives. are not fairly represented in our con stitutionthe town population. tfaoirwiyhibcehfolre . e accuracy o the and I give no opnion upon the expediency of any statement. • in this House. I deny th fth self now to mere statements of fact. gislature, but confine myself f the House to the case of North Let me call the attention o invite lion- Members, while preponderance being gi . ven to country or to town in the Le- Cheshire—(Hear) --and I do so, to boar in mind the most advantageous instenoes MARC 11 which have been brought before our notice on the other side of the question—to bear in mind, for example, if they please, the case of Manchester and Thetford. In North Cheshire we have only two towns of great manufacturing ; importance—Macclesfield and Stockport. The total popu lation of the county is 249,000; the total population of the two towns I have just named is 92,000. There remains, therefore, as the difference between the two, 156,000. But while the two towns, with a population of 92,000, return four Members to Parliament, the rural constituency, with 156,000, return only two Members. Take the case of South Cheshire, in which there is only one town, that of Chester. The population of the county is 206,000, and the population of the town of Chester 28,000, leaving 178,000 of the popu lation of that county who are not represented except by the county Members. The town of Chester, with its population of 28,' 00, returns two Members to this House, while the rural constituency of 178,000 returns the same number.;-(Cheers.) I will take the case of South Derbyshire, where there is only one considerable town, The population of South Derbyshire is 166.000, and that of the town of Perby 40,000, leaving 1150100 of the rural population. That population of 40.000 returns two Members, and the rural population of 125,000 returns the same number. I will now take North Durham. It contains the important towns of Durham, Gateshead, South Shields, and Sunderland. The elitire population of North Durham is 272,090, including both the town population and the coun try poptilicien ; and this is an interestii g fact, that while the population of the towns is exactly the same as the county population, yet the population of the great commer cial towns I have named are represented by eix Members, while the purely agricultural population of 136,000—the other moiety of North I urham -are only represented by two Members.- (Cheers.) I might still pursue this. I will take the important county of Kent. West Kent has a population of 400.000: fi.l contains four great towns— Chatham. Greenwich, Maidstone, and Rochester, one of these towns having a population of 100,000. The popula tion of the towns is 169,000, and the remaining rural popu lation is 228,000, yet the urban population of 169,000 re turns seven Members to Parliament, while the 228,000 only return the two Members fur West Kent.—(Loud cheers.) Yes, but year after year we have been told that it is most unjust to the towns - that our representative sys tem is favourable to territorial influences, and that it is an artificial means of giving preponderance to the landed in terest. We never heard a tingle word of these extraordi nary circumstances. NVe have heard a great many contrasts made between the number of representatives returned by the great towns in South Lancashire and the smaller boroughs in the south of England, But no Parliamentary Reformer has yet condescended to favour the House with the more extended views • to which I have now alluded, views which I should hope will now be accepted as the result of a mere extensive and temperate experience.—(Cheers.) I will now appeal to that favoured region any mention of which is so favourably received in this House, and whose fortunes, commercial, Parliamentary, and political, are not only the subject of so many discussions in the House of Commons, but which is itself the theatre of so many .....,v..tatrinis. 1 Ile people of this part of the country are celebrated for their powers of statistical analysis.—(A laugh.) They favour us with the publication of tracts on, among other things, the profits that the colonels of regiments gain by clothing their soldiers, and they are ac quainted with the most minute details. But they have never called the attention of the people to these facts. -(Cheers.) Here is the case of North Lancashire. There are four consi derable towns in North Lancashire—Blackburn, Clitheroe, Lancaster, and Preston. The population of North Lanca shire is upwards of 460,000. These four towns out of that only take 143,000, leaving for the rural constituencies a population of 316,000. The four towns return seven Mem bers, and the rural constituencies return only two Members Hear, hear.) I will take the case of South Lancashire. It has a population of 1,1h00,000, under the new census. I will take all the towns, the noblest seats of modern industry —Aston, Bolton, Btiry, Liverpool, Manchester, Oldham. Rochdale, Salford, Warrington,' Wigan. The population of these boroughs is 1,000,000, being two-thirds of the whole population of the county, and the remaining third consists of the rural population. Yet the million of manufac turing population in this proud county of South Lanca shire are represented by fifteen Members, while the rural population, which is half as great, is represented by only two Members. I am sure the H. use have heard such long, frequent, and repeated complaints of the injustice done to towns, and the preference given to the agricultural interest, that they will not feel that I am abusing their pa tience by these details —(Cheere from the Ministerial benches.) I will therefore take the county of East Nor folk, in which their are two great towns. East Norfolk has a population of 250,000. Norwich and Yarmouth has a population of less than 100,000. Yet the 99,000 persons in the manufacturing towns and the seaport are represented by tour Members, while the agricultural population of East Norfolk, nearly double its amount, are only represented by two Members.—(Cheers.) I now approach Yorkshire, and that is the last county I will quote. I will first begin with East Yorkslaire. The East Riding has a population of -20,0 0, and contains two towns, one, Hull, a port of great importance. The town plspulation of the East Riding is 94,000, represented by four Members. The rural population, 126,000, are represented by only half that amount.—(Hear, hear.) The West Riding re mains, and if I were to seek an !instance to show that the distribution of representation is not made with any iiesire to promote or retain the preponderande of the landed interest, I should seek it in the West Riding, that is so frequently the subject of our discussions, There are nine considerable towns in the West Riding—Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Wakefield, and others. The entire population of the West Riding is 1,300,000. The town population is 5000.00, and the rural population aOO,OOO. The town population are represented by sist , en Members, although they are only 500,000 in number, while the rural population of 80C,000 are represented, not by sixteen Members, bat by two.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) This is a summary of what I have just stated. In South Lancashire among the borough population every 70,000 persons have a representative, and every 257,000 of the rural population have a representative. In the West Riding of Yorkshire every 32,000 of the population of the towns have a Member and every 400,000 of the agricultural population have a similar advantage.—(Hear, hear.) I know it may be said, and it will b• said, unless I answer it by anticipation, "You have made out a very good co lourable case in favour of your views; hut you have selected five or six important but partial instances.' Sir, I have an ticipated that objection, and I have tested the matter in ano ther manner, which it must be admitted is a fair mode. Here I have a catalogue of the population of every town in England which has a population of not less than 20,000. There are 77 towns in this list, beginning with Ashton and ending with York, with a population, many of them, much exceeding 20,000. They include almost all the seats of cern merce and manufacturing industry, and they include a popu lation of 6,200,000, who are represented by 138 Members. There are several towns which do not possess popu lations of 20,000, but which are considerable places, the seats of commerce, and which ought to be in serted in any list of the kind, although they do not pos sess populations of quite 20,000, such as Lowestoft and Lynn Regis, I have added about 30 of these boroughs to the 77 boroughs, all of which have a population of 20,000, rod some of them a vast and immensely increased popula tion. The population of these 107 large towns, and .tnctly borough constituencies, is more than 6,500,000, represented by 187 Members. The result of this analysis is the follow ing : - If these Members represent 6,500,000, about half the population, taking the population of the country at 17,000,000, that remaining portion of the community are represented by Members barely exceeding in number the Members representing this catalogue of towns.—( Hear.) I find that the population of these boroughs have 35,000 per sons to every Member of this House, and that the popu lation of the rest of England, the rural populalion, have 36,000 for every Member.—(Cheers.) So that, taking this complete and comprehensive view, when you come to a fair distribution of the representation between the land and the town population, you have only between each a differ ence of 1,000 in the proportion of the population.—(Hear.) In both cases, in the case of the urban and the rural and landed population, you have a less difference in the number of persons represented by each Member than has been quoted by Mr. Mackay. Whether you look to the town or country population, they are, therefore, more amply represented in this House than is laid down in the pamphlet that has been alluded to as the proper exemplar and type of represen tation in this House. Having examined this subject so far, I have arrived at a different conclusion from that of my Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. I think that his sta tistics, and the statistics of his school, are founded upon partial instances, and supported by fantastic combinations which convey erroneous impressions that do not justify the policy that he advocates.—(Cheers.) All the data upon which he has relied appear to me completely illusory, and, as the facts to which I have appealed are open to all, and may be found in the books in his library, I shall be surprised to find him main taining his position that in the distribution of the re presentation the town population is not justly treated in respect to a comparison with the country population. — (Cheers) It appears to me, Sir, that this is a position that can no longer be supported.—( Cheers. ) Going to the next proposition, my Hon. Friend asks us to sanction a resolution that the duration of Parliament ought not to exceed three years. Sir, I have no inveterate prejudice to shorter Par liaments. I have often said in this House that triennial Parliaments were always supported by the Tory party. That statement has been received with scoffing by lion. Gen tlemen opposite, who do not condescend to pay much regard to any other history than that in which they form such dis tinguished characters.—(Cheers and laughter.) But there is no doubt that the change in oar manners, which has in creased the business of the House of Commons, is an ele ment that must be taken into consideration when you wish to ascertain the proper duration of Parliaments. But, remembering what has happened here during the last f ntnight, I am filled with astonishment to hear the Re formers and Liberals come forward in favour of triennial Parliaments. What have they told us this year? One member of the Government is very anxious to bring forward a measure which he considers of the utmost importance for the security and good government of the realm. But what are we told? -" Why, you are bringing forward a measure in the last ybar of a Parliament!—( Cheers and laughter.) You would legislate in a condemned Parliament ! —(A laugh.) It can't be heard of. You ought to counsel the Sovereign to prorogue and dissolve the Parliament as soon as possible." But if in the last rear of a Parliament so much time is lost, we should have, it my Hon. Friend's proposition w ere adopted, duennial Parliaments—(A laugh)—and, if the old and favourite scheme of annual Parliaments were Parlia- again put forward and adopted, you would have annual ments, that is to say, condemned Parliaments—(A laugh)— and the Commons of England could never presume to legis late, because they would be dissolved, and would cease to exist in the very year they met. The thirds proposition of my Honourable Friend is the recommendation of the vote by ballot. Now, it is always the case that the man.. ner of taking the votes can never be considered as an abstract question. You must necessarily look at the votes you have to take. If you have to take a very large number of votes; or if you have, on the contrary, a very small number, the method by which you will recommend them to be taken necessarily assumes a different character. With a limited constituency the ballot may be a very con stitutional measure; but are Hon. Gentlemen prepared to accept the ballot on this condition? Well, 1 will assume that they are not prepared se to accept it, and that they would not recommend vote by ballot with the present con stituency.—(A cry of " No.") You are not ?—(Cries of " Yes," from the Opposition benches.) I have heard to night of an oligarchy, but I never heard of a more cunning and successful device to establish an oligarchy than to iliv a limited numbe r of p ersons with the suffr age , and to guard them from inspection, from criticism, and control on the part of the unenfranchised millions about whom we have heard so much—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.)l No, le do not believe fro m the s p eech es of my Hon. riend t . Member for Montr ose a n d other parties t onth n that side of the H ous e, that they sincerely desire to see he consti tuency vote by ballot. They always say present that of the franchise is a necessary concomitant an extension of the vote by ballot. —Clint', hear). But where do they draw the line?—(Hear.) Where is the line to be drawn, if the y admit that the franchise is • aright? If you sa y that you do not want to draw the line, and tell ns" I have submitted to thes e restr i ct i ons in de f eren ce prejudices of other to the P e rsons i"—if you w ish to have tun- 6,152 versal suffrage—without which, as far as political justice is concerned, I do not see how you can establish the ballot, because, if you have the ballot with a limited constituency, you commit a greater injustice upon the unenfranchised classes; but if you have universal suffrage you come to a new constitution—(Hear)—you have, in fact, the sove reignty of the people, which is the principle of the Ameri can constitution, so often referred to and panegyrized in this House. But the sovereignty of the people is not the constitution of England That constitution is mitigated and modified, but it is still the sovereignty of Queen Victoria (Cheers.) "But," says my Hon. Friend, " we must have the ballot ; we will no longer have fine spun arguments against it. We must terminate bribery and corruption." Now, I beg his attention to a paragraph which comes from an au thority :hat he will respect, because it is a Transatlantic authority, and proceeds from a country where the people en joy universal suffrage and vote by ballot. Now, this is the way in which the Governor of New York on the last occa sion addressed the Legislature of that intelligent state. This was a document which. doubtless, th-y would treat with the greatest consideration, for it was attended with all the circumstances which excited their respect and admiration. America, New York, the ballot—exactly what the Hon. Member for Sheffield wanted—self-government; and here is the manner in which the chief of the self-governed addressed the Legislature of no less a state than New York, when it last assembled,—" The alarming increase of bribery at popular elections demands your serious attention."—( Cheers arid laughter.) This is at New York, recollect, where the ballot is in force.—(t.:laeers.) The head of the State declares that bribery is increasing to an alarming extent, and de mands the serious attention of the Legislature.—(Hear.) I will quote some further extiacts trout the same letter f:om which I have read this passage. I will not mention the name of the writer, because 1 am about to quota only f tete, not opinions. e was once a Mernb,A of this House, and has filled important situations in the service of his Sove reign, and if I were to state his name, it would, I am sure, be received by gentlemen on both sides with universal re- spect. You now know that bribery is not prevented by the ballot, and 3ou will find that it does not prevent something else. "Individuals were not merely beaten from the polls, but were knocked down, beaten, and stabbed when proceeding about their ordinary occupations in open day in distant parts of the city.—(Hear, hear.) The police appeared to have been utterly inefficientt and the hundred thousand citizen sol diers, of whom the New York papers boasted so much, were content to remain at home (Laughter)—while a few gangs of ruffians commanded all the approaches to the polling booths, and in one instance destroyed the ballot-box."— (Laughter.) I find no fault with my Hon. Friend and others or recommending the adoption of a new mode of voting in this country. This is the land of free discussion, and every one is at liberty to recommend what he thinks best, but it is remarkable that in the instance of the ballot, as in that of the proposed new distribution of electoral power, the facts on one side only are stated—only a one-sided view is brou,rht before us, and only one class of considerations is urged upon our attention.—(Hear. hear.) I resume the narrative from the destruction of the, ballot-box. This last outrage upon tne freedom tot election has very naturally caused extreme irritation, and the Courier and Enquirer says that brutes must be met by brute force, while the Tribune is still more plainspoken. He says " that the scoundrels who thus trampled upon the highest privilege that a free man can enjoy, should have been shot like dogs by the freemen whom their hireling souls thus villanously insulted." — (Great laughter and cheering.) Now, I beg my Hon. Friend to observe that while, by the confession of no less a personage than the Governor of the great state of New York, the ballot does not prevent bribery, it is likewise perfectly . inefficient for the prevention of scenes of horrible intimidation, such as we cannot even conceive in this country, men being beaten and stabbed at the polling booth. - (Hear, hear .) My correspondent, for whom I know my Hon. Friend entertains personally the highest conside ration, gives some further inf , rmation respecting the influence of the ballot, and I must confess that what I am about to quote is really humiliating. "We understand that the Whig committee of the Bth Ward"—l ought, however, in justice to remind the House that the Whig party in America is not identified with the party in this country of which the Noble Lord opposite is the distinguished chief and hereditary ornament—" We understand that the Whig committee of the Bth Ward and other wards have offered 100 dollars to every man who can secure twenty democratic votes for the Whig tickets on election day."— (Cheers and laughter.) " This money has been partially raised by the most shameful extortions trom the office holders of the party. It is said that every policeman in the 14ig districts has been taxed fifteen dollars towards defraying the expenses of the election.—(Continued laughter.) By this means the Whigs seek to crush every in 4 ependent feeling in the voter, and to make him the mere tool of party With the money procured in this manner political hacks are sent to buy up the votes of the poorer, and yet more depen dent classes in those wards."—(Cheers and laughter.) This payment of 101 dollars to every man who can procure 20 democratic votes for the Whig ticket is certainly intolerable, and I have been particular in bringing it under the notice of my Hon. Friend, in order that he may employ the great in fluence he possesses not only in England, but on the other side of the Atlantic, in preventing democratic electors being bribed to vote for anything so bad as the " Whig ticket." — (Laughter.) All this iniquity is practised under the opera tion of that very system which my Honourable Friend says is the only means of preventing bribery, and which the Honourable Member for Bristol would persuade us to adopt as an infallible mode of preventing intimidation. — (Cheers.) I must quote one paragraph more, because it re fers to legislative authority. In the experience of New York, at least, the ballot has beets proved inefficient for the purpose of preventing bribery at elections; and the follow ing preamble and resolution have been presented to the As sembly :—" Whereas the use of money at elections, for the purpose of influencing and corrupting electors, is an in creasing and dangerous evil, and the bestowment or offer, promise or reception of money, or compensation in any form, should be made good and sufficient grounds for the challenge and rejection of a vote; but, whereas doubts exist as to the constitutionality of a law disfranchising an elector, there . fore, resolved, 'That the Committee on the judiciary be and are hereby requested to examine and report whether, in their opinion, a law conformable to the foregoing preamble would be a violation of any provision of the Constitution of this State.' " Let not our countrymen run away with • the idea that corruption is the necessary consequence of the old mode by which we give our votes in this coun t try.—( Hear, hear.) I believe it to be a growing senti ment in the conviction of Englishmen that corruption is the consequence of men not being properly brought up —(Hear, hear.) You may pass laws ostensibly to pre. vent corruption in countries where nothing is secret, or in countries where nothicg is open ; but corruption cannot be stopped by law; it can only be stopped by elevating the tone of the community, and making men ashamed of the thing itself.—(Cheers.) You must seek for an antidote to corruption in that direction and not in new-fangled systems of election. I say, further, that the tone of the community in which we live is becoming elevated. Every successive quarter of a century shows a decrease of corruption. No man who knows anything of the tone of public life a hundred years ago can hesitate to admit that corruption then ascended much higher in society than it does at present. You have driven corruption from the higher classes. In proportion as education extends, men become more pure, and when the same influences come into operation among the inferior classes you may hope to obtain a result which it is for the interest of all classes should be accomplished.—(Cheers.) I have noticed what I conceive to be my Hon. Friend's total failure to prove, that the proportion of representatives is not consistent with the different classes of population. I think I have shown that nothing can be more erroneous than the opinion so prevalent in a portion of this House and the country that the landed interest possesses an undue preponderance in this House. I think I have also shown, by reference to figures bearing official sanction which are open to everybody, that it is almost impossible to distribute the electoral power more justly than is done at present between the two great classes which represent the town and country. I also venture to think that I have offered my Hon. Friend some reasons for doubting whether as much corruption and intimidation may not prevail under a system of secret voting as we have ever experienced under the system which exists in this ceutatry.—(Hear, hear.) I have further given some reasons for supposing that my Hon. Friend and those about him should hesitate, with their pre sent constiteti,mal doctrines, to recommend short Parlia ments. - (Hear, hear.) I next come to the proposi tion, that the franchise ought to be very much ex tended ; and on this I have one observation to make. Viewing this question with perfect impartiality, I trust, I have been much struck by the great exaggeration which pervades the statements made by my Hon. Friend and his associates. I remember last session to have heard a dis tinguished Member of this House—one who is in the habit of addressing it with great ability, and with sufficient confi dence in his cause and himself-1 mean the Hon. Member for Manchester - ask this question ;—" Is the system to be endured in which only one in seven of the adult population enjoys the franchise?"—(Tumultuous cheering immediately foLowed this appeal; and " Hear, hear," from the Opposi tion.) Ay ; I say so. You cheered the sentiment then and you cheer it now. Is it true that only one adult male in seven enjoys the franchise? Here are the figures, let us ex ; amine them. This paper was prepared before the publica tion of the census of 1851, and it applies to the population census of 1841, which I have compared with the electoral lists of Great Britain for 1842-3. The proportions must evi dently be much about the same as they would have been if I had availed myself of the census of 1851 for the purpose of comparison. The electors for Great Britain in 1842-3 were 941,782, and the adult males were, in 1841, 4,961,045, which gives, instead of 1 voter in 7, 1 voter in 5, omitting fractions. —( Hear.) But from the 4,961,045 adult males some deductions must be made. For the army and navy abroad and in Ireland, and for the navy and merchant sea men afloat I deduct 169,650, which leaves the adult male population at 4,791,395. Then I deduct 35,000 for the army at home, 111,099 for the navy and merchant seamen ashore, , 74,149 for almspeople, pensioners, paupers, lunatics and prisoners, and 164,384 for domestic servants, who a ways excepted froM any scheme of reform. - (Heer, Then I deduct the residue of the population, 276,529 lir6,aeenadar our 4,129.566 . Thus, adul o t f pLopinul7a,tiiotnistonylitttlnes fimgourreestohna u only 1 in 4.—(Hear, hear.) . But I reduceTnliofficial s theins tead returns, demagogues, after what we have heard fromwill the further. Those bold statements of—.l must go Mem ber for Montrose—but the bold statements tue lion. of having dwindled down to this, tha t Ho n . Gentlemen I V, call them population of 4,129,566, which, as gives 1 in 4—l ask what am Ito regards the electoral hod* that the lion. Gentleman and and his riendal a w ve bil g e u t t h ea y n and urban labourers ?—(Hear, do with t h e e gria plain that only 1 in wish, under hear.) I have not yet her d . franchise, have any have the exercise of the franc spread over this c ountry--, any 1,435,412 peasantry system, to give (Hear, bear.) I never heard one bold then, assertion ...• • .", ki wi . well, .. if I deduct these labourers..sertion o f www 6 1 h ,,,,, re maining only 2,694,154, -my from 4, A129,56-.electoral body, is ich 88 regar,..s thp . 1 in 2 and a Erect 8 —Wear, hear.) a vote to ed t m l u t l e t ton from the statements But what diffe re ncets we have always enl a from the gat en ) What a difference heard on this of 86 or nearly 1 in • I—(Sear.bear where else! subject Wh re i f t or a m differeno made From those of **dons at Liverpool or any et Manchester and at Leeds! from the statements made who, tl during o re t the long lf What a diffFrence from in pamphlets !---(Hear, heat.) be world I—(Hear, hear.) In stead of one in seven , it is a vacation, have astounded the statements of those errsalititebsoorlauttoerlsylit what you says - - - ,000 of labourers, who n v g oca lt i b lproposed to enfranchise. not one of you have me, t h en, that the propositions be forelt appea rs to -- (Cheers-) crude, that they do not bring with them the House are d . investigation, are not in accor ance with facts, and even iusaclectudioi proof of d degree of research which the House has do not indicate ( b at expect in all matters of this kind. (Hear h ) , est. a rights o a that they are based on statistical errors It appars to n 3 more flagra nt than their political blunders, and that we cannot, w h a tever may be our opinion of the policy ream- men ded, approve of it, founded as it is on such erroneous and imperfect data.- (Hear, hear.) I am not one of those who think, that because I disapprove of a proposition brought forward in this immature manner, I tun bound tit oppose every proposition brought forward to remedy griev vances 'connected with the representation of the people.— (Hear, hear.) There has been very free criticism on the other side by the new supporters of the Noble Lord of the measure which he proposed when be was a Minister of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) I think a sense of decency, if nothing else, should have led those gentlemen to abstain from that unfriendly coarse.-(Hear.) Why they Om ier three or four hours have so severely criticised the witl."drawrn -I will not say the abandoned-proposition of the" kites Minister, Ido not pretend to understand. Sitting oulthe• same side of the House, meeting under the same root (Cheers) -combining and connci ling together for the same' object-(Hear, hear)-I should have thought that all these. considerations would have prevented the slightest allusion• to the su ject, and that they would have brought forward their own proposition without obtruding their reflectrons on the measure of the Noble Lord , with reg a rd to whi ch we , on this side, have always shown the most respectful silence.- (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I should have t h o u ght that gentlemen opposite would have considered the privilege they enjoy in having a high constitutional statesman on the one band, and the privilege they have on the other of bringing forward revolutionary recommendations and plane, and thatthey would not have deemed it their duty to enter, ,daring the whole evening, into a criticism of the late Goven.unent measure. -(Hear and laughter.) We had some allu sions made to a declaration on the subject of reform from the present head of the Government ; but 1 protest against con clusions drawn from mere anonymous paragraphs in news papers. I must say for myself and my colleagues that we do not consider an extension of the franchise to be sylony mous with the extension of democratic power.-(Hear, hear.) That much vaunted Reform Bill, wench ILO one has so much loaded with praise as the Hon. Member l e , cannot ( for Montr , se,-a hat wou ld that Bill have been I ask, but for the spirit an d energy of a St,anley ?--(Cheers.) %V l i n tt d h th ut at he remember-cud (Lori erby ! h is 13 allwrheo -orn has succeeded the in the Parliamentary h y s e at I MCP Old knows it- that it was that ih tliyid ua l who pr o p os ed a inOtioll e .N U C P iri t e Xtto Lord which added one-main to the C..tl•tituency of Great 3ritain. -(Herr, hear.) I tepu liate the assurtion el the Hon. Ge.dleinan unit ltis triei:ds, that we are a Par ty opposed to all reform unless we listen to propcss ie i the lns of" ki nd Dow before us. I will tell the Hon. Gentleman what we are opposed to-we are adverse to all new an d what proposals foanded on such erroneous calculations as th e pre sent.- (Cheers.) I tell him that if any project on this or any other subject is brought forward, I hope it will b e founded on more accurate data than the one before us (Hear.) What we are opposed to is tampering with thes.de positary of political power-to constant shifting and chang ing of the depositary of political power as the most injurious thing to a country that can be conceived.-(Cheers.) y on may talk of tampering with a policy, and there are few things worse; but that which is worse is, tampering wi t h the constituency of England.-(Cheers.) If there is to b e a change, let it be a change always called for by clear ne cessity-(Hear, hear)-and one which is calculated to giv e general-I will not say final-but general and permanent satisfaction.-(Cheers.) I ask, is the proposition of the Hcn. Member for Montrose, the whole facts on the statement of which it is founded I have shown to be utterly fallacione, is that a proposition calculated to give such general acad. permanent satisfaction ?-(Hear, hear.) The propozition of the Noble Lord at the head of the late Government, is that one calculated to give general and permanent satisfaction? The .Noble Lord will confess that, whatever be its merits, it was not calculated to give that general and permanent ea tistaction. The sense of the country and the House alike called upon him to withdraw it, and I am sure there is not one who will say that if that proposition had been brought fairly under discussion, it would have received the concur rence of the House.-(Hear, hear.) We cannot:sanction the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman or his friends. And may we not flatter ourselves that he will consider these things-. that he will investigate them, and calmly consider the im portanthave giveninform him, ation and that x from theothneerst year-it thewAth a lanticwhieb I health. spirit, and energy which I hope he will long enjoy— (Cheers) -we shall find him coming forward more temperate in his views and more careful in his arguments?-(Hear). Till we have propositions of a different character brought:fort ward I shall stand by the settlement made in 1831-(Cheers and counter cheers)-not because it was a settlement made a b g y a t i h o i s s t p o a o r r ty in fo tfae r asru o e ur interests-for on the contrary, it wag fault with nt b h u wt t he el i a this governed-(Hear, I rr anvern ' g e a me m de_n b t(, o ll ti we n an d ri ,c h to s a , that the elat 0_ na n h o a td t , thoseth e whocountry are bound t fi o n s dh how that under that arrangement the country has been misgoverned.-(Hea r , hear.) I n my op i n i o n, though many of the laws passed are laws I could not have approved, the arrangement has proved satisfactory and the preponderance of sentiment in the country is, that under it the country has been well govemesl.-(Cheers.) There is scarcely one of the great questions agitated in the country which, in this reformed Parliament, has not been met, and therefore wht n gentlemen come forward with new proposi tions, if they cannot show that the present construction of this House is calculated to favour misgovernment, and at the same time are unable to place before us any clear and eoherent scheme that promises a more ameliorative system, I must uphold the system that exists, though I believe it one that was conceived in no frivndly spirit to the Tory party.-- (Hear, hear.) But it is one by which remedial influences have been experienced under the good sense and support of the people of England, and under which our institutions have flourished-institutions which, I believe, are absolutely ne cessmty, not only to the preatness of this country, but to the freedom of the people.-(Great cheering.) Mr. H. BERKELEY, who was almost wholly inaudible from the buzz of conversation in the House, gave an expla nation relative to the ballot. He stated that he would re serve the more particular expression at his views till a future day, when be brought on his motion on the subject, as he ob jected to the ballot being mixed up with any other question whatever. The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to a disturbance in New York, and to the ballot-box being broken, but he would give the House another piece of infor mation from America, and that was, that in the southern, or aristocratic States of the Union, they were seeking to get rid of the ballot, because the friends of the abolition of slayery took protecti ,n under the ballot, and the enemies of abolition had no means of detecting their votes.-(Hear.) Mr. OSBORNE congratulated the House and through them the country on this, that whatever evasions or mya. tifications might have gone forth during the last week, upon one point the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been suffi ciently explicit.-(hear, hear.) Treading in the footsteps of the most illustrious warrior of the age, the Right Hon. Gentleman, after much circumlocution, had foi malty de clared the intention of the Government to abide by the Reform Act of 1831.-(Cheers.) He had announced that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to move on witq the spirit of the age - (No, no)-that they looked upon the Reform Bill as a final measure-that the old finality dodge was to be renewed, and that come what might the Govern ment would give no reform in Parliament.-(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said he would certainly give the . country no reform in this Parliament nor in the Parliament to come.-(Cries of " No, no," from the back Ministerial benches.) He knew it was the intention of those ardent Reformers who cried " no" to give the country a further meaeare of reform, but unfortunately they were not in the Cabinet. Let there be no mistake on this point, that the present Cabinet was satisfied with the settlement in 11131- (No, n o)-and that they would be no party to give reform a further trial. The Right Hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by attacking the speech of the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford-(No, no, and a laugh)-he bogged the Hon. Gentleman's pardon-he (Sir P. Wood) had not descended to that yet- he was the Member of a popular ct:nstitaency-the Member for the city of Oxford, and the Right Hon. Gentleman said it was a speech to be made upon the resolution to be moved by the Noble Lord. (Lord J. Russell); but he ( Mr. Osborne) would leave it. to the House, it the speech of the Chancellor of the Exche quer was not also directed to that very motion.-(No, no.) He would not weary the House by wading through the dreary mass of confused statistics which the Right Hon. Gentleman had thought it his duty as Chancellor of the Ex chequer to bring before them in order to show that the agricultural constituencies were not fairly represented, while boroughs and towns had a greater proportion of representa tives. But he told the Right Hon. Gentleman that, on his own showing, he was bound to bring in a Reform Bill to re move the injustice done to what he called the territorial in terest. But he had no such design ; he had omitted, too, all mention of Ireland _; and he (Mr. Osborne) feared that he was going to legisla te for that country on very di ff erent ------ principles. - (Oh, oh !) Without being enamoured of the motion of the lion. Member for Montrose, to map this eountry into districts. he was so far dissatisfied with the Bill o f 1831. which her Majesty's Government had pron ounced but to be final—No! no !)—that he would vote fo r it —.par ticularly tor the latter part of the propositi on, " that the proportion of representatives be made more cons i stent with t he amount t f population and property." Th e R ight Hon. R h i e gh w t is li he o d n. he Gentle man,wouldGentleman said he would make a colourable case ag ainst the ballot, and had referred to t h e r i ots in New York.takilineg the ed case e t o o f bie m ct eric to the America, pot select the American tariff, but take what was good in she constitution of ttn.t coutery.—(lronical cheers. ) Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer content with the way elections were carried on in this country ? Did he reme mber the ciao the Solicit of Harwich, the boro ug h f ur which • or-Gen eral (Sir F. Kelly) was a candidate , when ing, were ors carried away the e vitiated because t h e elect their perquisites ; and %yes it not or ious th at riots f,not hap pened in ail parts of England du • g election? ' - ' l3 hack as 1842, a Conani teeobt • rill- an the Hoe- Member for Sheffield had reported strong ly aieed the . tenet of bribery and corruption • and nothin g had en b e en y e t done to remedy Gen tleman that the evil. But 1:e could Rig httell th e Hon • the people were determined I the ballot. Both sides to have confessed that he be were to ha blamed for this, and he be traced back lieved, if this system of bribery we ain with the Whig to its source, it would be found t o , wh o were obliged to re party in the time of Walpo le, o pposing the influences sort to it as the only means o f If hear. ") The fact ( 0 ear, bearing aga i nst then ,,,....(cries . the desire of patting down s i n cere la was, neither party was ,. gi cere they would have adopted bribery, for if they ha d .. - .. so n protect the people, not only vote by ballot-09440.J corruption, but from intimidation, which from bribery and, c° ,l 2 'O s ' e . The Member for the University was more rite than ) made the old stereotyped objection of Dublin In . that it would endanger the Monarchy. What to this mon _, ... re d the Monarchy in France? Was it not that a had enua a ,,Rieeio,ooo had only 230,000 electors? And here nation °— ' his sarprise to hear the Chancellor of the ma st exPre es t ,h e „ -- ho , e define the Sovereignty of the country to be in Qu e en mu s ter ; and had the Right Hon. Gentleman been "t, - , ; - „ r that (the Opposition) side of the House, he would, 8 "' -- on have defined the Sove reign tY as consisting in no _doubt . and _Commons.—(Oh. oh.) The Right Queen, Lords, Commons.— ( 4 Honourable Gentleman had objeoted to the secresy of . the ballot. He ought to have been the last man in the House to have done 80, con sidering he was a me m ber of a Government which was shrou ded in secrecy The Maynooth cry was to be used as a claptrap to go to the hustings—(Hear, hear) . — and her Majesty's Govern ment would not speak their minds upon it, bat he, could tell them it would become a very serious question for them. —(Question, question.) The on. Member for Dublin University knew nothing of the efficacy of the ballot—he had no poor men to deal with who might be ewayed;by som e attorney, or by some one who could put the screw en hire s but the representatives of popular constituences knew wh a t those influences were.—(Divide, divide!) Why, had th ey not seen it stated in all the papers that at a late election the agents wrote to say that if the tenants did not vote for Mr. Frewen they must not expect the landlords to deduct from their rents? He could have wished that the motion had been put in a better form, bat he would vote for it now, as he had voted for similar motions before. If the Noble Lord and his party, who said they took office as barriers to demo. cracy, instead of talking of themselves as barriers—which were sometimes swept away by the waves of democracy would join Hon. Gentlemen on his aide of the House — (Ironical cheers and laughter)— in making a channel for the democratic wave, very sure was he that, so far from weak"' l o g Queen, Lords, and Commons, the Noble Lord, if be pro perly treated and IroPerlY trusted the people, would 12111 strengthening both this sad the other House of Parliament. Lord J. RUSSELL - Sir, I have so often addressed yon on the subject of the motion 130 W before the House, that I shall not think it necessary, neither would it be agreeable to the House, to go at any length into the several propositions which my Honourable Friend has introduced. It appears to me, Sir, the simple question is, whether the adoption of a Bill founded on the principles contained in my Honourable Friend's propositions would conduce to the good government of the country, and on that proposition I have come most clearly to the opinion that it would not conduce to the good government of the country.—(Loud cheers.) I believe that • it you had a di ff erent distr ib a tiou— which, however, by I not been chalked out by my accoarable Friend—but tine I R~