The Sun. — London, England, 1849-06-06 00:00:00

would now tell the Noble Lord that the people were more inclined to have the Right Hon. Baronet in office than him. With these observations he would conclude, by seconding the motion, in the assurance that, although there might be a majority of votes against it in that House, there was an overwhelming majority in its favour out of doors, and which he had no doubt would soon be made to tell within. Sir GEORGE GREY said, the Hon. Gentleman who bad just sat down had no reason to be surprised at the course Government had taken on a late occasion, for he must be aware that this motion, or one to a similar ef fect,,_ and which included the reform to which the Hon. ,Member had alluded, underwent an able and elaborate discussion in that House for two nights during last ses sion, and that the Noble Lord at the head of the Go vernment did then fully argue the question, and that the arguments he addressed to the House, and the opinions he then expressed, were sanctioned and adhered to by a large majority of that House on a division taking place. - -(Hear, hear.) If, therefore, the Noble Lord on this occasion should not address the House, no one could be mistaken as to his opinions regarding the question before it, these having been so fully expressed on the occasion alluded to.—(Hear, hear.) There were, how ever, it was true, different circumstances this Sear connected with the question.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Montrose had alluded to some of these, and bad stated that while this year there were no petitions in favour of his motion, last year there were large numbers, although he (Sir G. Grey) could not help ob serving that the greater proportion of those were in favour of the six points of the Charter, and not of the 11 °11. Gentleman's plan. They were, however, sense- What differently circumstanced, from last year, inasmuch as they had had twelve months' experience in other countries of something of the system the lion. Gentle- Man sought to introduce, and he could readily afford to join issue with him on the internal state and condition of this country, as contrasted with the state and condition of those countries on the Continent, which he seemed so anxious to adopt as his model.—(Loud cheers.) He Yea s not going to say a word in disparagement of those countries who were endeavouring to obtain their ancient rights, and the establishment of that liberty which may, Perhap s , have been too long withheld from them ; but when the Honourable Gentleman tells this House to look at them, and to imitate them in the system they were carrying on, then he answered that his first and most cherished feeling was one of unfeigned thankfulness that he lived under a constitu• tion, the strength of which had been tested at differs times, and under most terrible circumstances, but which had still stood the test of all assailants, and the value of which was felt and appreciated by the great body of the people.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman had said • that a large military force was kept up in this country for the maintenance of internal peace, and that they ought to have no military establishment other than that re quired for the protection of their colonies and for ex ternal defence. God grant that the time might come when it might be the case, when they would require no such force as alluded to, when no military would be required for the internal government of the country, or for the prevention of foreign aggression, and that the period would come when they might turn their spears into pruning-hooks, and their swords into ploughshares, and when they should learn the art of war no more—(A laugh) —but when the Hon. Gentleman said that those constitutions on the continent led to those revolutions which had taken place there, he was ready to join issue with him again, and to ask him whether he would be will - in to accept universal suffrage with the accompaniments of armed force which was to be seen in Paris, together with the other agencies, which during the last year had . been at work in France.—(Cheers.) Under the existing State of thin gs , th e Hon. Gentleman must know, that there was an overwhelming force of troops in France, and although • might not be important to allude to America, yet he found that even there it had been found _ n ecessary at New York to call cut a body of armed troops, for the purpose of clearing the streets of an as eernblage of r i otous p ersons , an d w ho had not succeeded in doing so until they were obliged to fire upon the mob, and se ver al p e rsons had been killed.—(Loud cheers.) Thus, even in America military were re required to preserve order. Mr. HUME.—They were not armed troops. • N OW COBDEN,—There is not an armed soldier in AOW York. Sir G. GREY.—There was - an armed force called out, they were ordered to fire upon the people, and several in dividuals had died of gun-shot wounds, which was a Su re proof th a t t h ey were an ar med force of some kind or other.—(H ear , hear, and cheers.) With r e g ard to What took place last year, there were several stations whe re military were placed, in consequence o f %, "',e small number of police in the distric t s • everuere the st a ti ons were situated; but no attempt had o been made to overawe the people by a military ean r _ee• He s h ou ld, h owever , like to know, were the • Gentleman allowed to bring in his Bill, how he I ,ould act wi t h regar d t o th e f ram i ng of the extension Would 0 1 f ausea of it. There was the motion, Lao. 4, on the paper N ot t t h i a n t gitm day, given notice of by the Hon. Member for h (Mr. O'Connor), and which was for the ena ctment of two additional points to that proposed by the Hon. Member. How would be do with these? It was desi ra bl e to h ave a d e fi n it e plan before them before they were called upon to agree to the motion, and there fore the necessity for explanation on that point. It was n ot at all reasonable to cause them to give up the consti tution they were living under, without having some i nformation as to what sort of one they were to get in exchange, or having some knowledge of whither such a Step would lead them.—(Hear, hear.) At most of the Meetings held on the subject of the Hon. Gentleman's motion, there was invariably a difference of opinion as to how far they should go, but in most instances they Went farther than the Honourable Gentleman. With regard to Lord Ashley's having given prizes at Exeter hall to the working classes of the community for the best written essays, he was glad to find that no Hop. Member had indulged in any disrespects ul remarks against that Noble Lord; and if the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) thought that the right of suff •age was due to those who excelled in those essays which were indi cative of sound reason, of intelligence, and of religion, he (Sir George Grey) begged to remind him (Mr. Hume) that women were the best essayists on that occasion, and that Lord Ashley particularly complimented them. — (Laughter.) And, therefore, if a necessary inference were to be drawn, it was that the women should obtain the right of universal suffrage as well as the male adults. (Laughter.) He did not mean to say that a finality system should be established, because those principles, or some of them, then advocated by the two Hon. Members (Messrs. F. O'Connor and Hume) might be requisite at Some future time, He thought that it would be well to Make those alterations which reason and judgment sug• gested, but he did not at all consent to give up the pri "ilegca and the blessings which the country at present , e n.loyed, as the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) seemed 14 1. 0 wish to do.—(tlear, hear.) It was difficult to "from the two Hon. Members what was to be the limitationMontrose of the suffrage, for the lion. Member fur i s liontros e says he is for having as a standard the popu lation, taxation, and education of the country, and also that the appointment of representatives be rendered more equal to the population. In fact, on that point, he no difference between the two Hon. Members (Mr. . e l e me and M r . F. O'C on nor) ; but in this point they 'Littered, because the Hon. Member for Montrose was !aPosed to e qua l e l ec t ora l divisions, while the Hon. e mber for Nottingham acted consistently in supporting !pal elector a l divisions; for if he (Mr. Hume) stopped short of his (Mr. F. O'Connor's) idea on that subject, argument (Sir George Grey) would ask him (Mr. Hume) what e l :guMent he bad or could adduce against equal electoral glv n i t. sion s , His (Sir George Grey's) opinion was that a tn il t 'l a system could not be maintained, because it would srtotally upset the whole system of representation as it at e . aeuL existed ; but should say that he would l eave de these two Honourable Gentlemen to settle the degree of equality or inequality.—(Hear.) Arrange omeof these t wo points he feared would involve the tare in inextricable difficulties, and would there forg.:si the p resent pre f er t h at t h at su bj ect were waived.—(Hear.) There were two more parts of the Honourabl e M em b er f or Montrose, s motion, to which he Meant to allude—the vote by ballot, and triennial Par liaments. With respect to the vote by ballot, the Hon. Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) spoke with soreness on the manner in which his motion on that subject had been treated, but he (Sir George Grey) should say that after seven years, since that measure had been introduced in the House, he did not think it necessary or expedient to follow him on the late occasion, for at the former period the motion was defeated by a very large majority of the House. lie (Mr. Berkeley) thought that he should give an apology, be cause in 1842 he (Sir G. Grey) voted for this measure, and in 1849 he voted against it, or in other words used by hi m (Mr. Berkeley) he had voted white one day, and o n another day voted black. But to that he should reply, that it was not necessary to retain one's ?pinion always on any ono point, for at the time he voted to favour of the measure he saw that the influence of the great masses of the country was directed in its •aveue, which was not the case at present, and he should add that he had stated at that time that he was very re luctant in giving his vote for the motion. Since then, it should be recollected, that a great change had taken place w i th respect to i nt i m id a ti o ns as elections, caused by the influence of public opinion. He felt it his bounden d uty, e on reflecting on the speeches of man y Hon. g tembers, and p ar tic u l a rly the Hon. Member for O ldham (M r. Fox) on that subject, to alter his opinion; and that on the prior o ccas i on , when he voted for it , it was as a member of the Government, and not as a member of the House With respect to Triennial Parliaments , the would have an opportun i ty o f g i v ing their opinion the secon d rea di ng of that Bill; an d h e therefore s hould not enter i n t o any d eta il on t h at ma tter, as he thought that the greater num b er o f M em b e rs present s eemed to ha ve no anx i ety on that subject. Th e H on . Member for Montrose said, iu the end of his speech, that this House does not represent the interests and feel ings of th e country; b ut to that assertionheshou ld reply that according to the present constitution of Parlia ment, it did represent the interests and feelings of the for country fairly and adequately; n e th h a a t d h seen andth e opinions of the p eo pl e fully expressed i their intere s t s p romo t e d by thecarr• sures through the j ust i n fl uence of their honest hoonef gstrefaeetlminegas-. He considered the people were the sole and only means by which great popular measures were carried through motion would tend Parliament, and that the . very much to embarrass, andPe(ree:ltteetnaetreoilisiderable danger did oat tot ose beneficial measures.— Mr. F. O'CONNOR said thet he intend to speak on that motion, but for the allusions by the Right Hon. Gentlem an (Sir G. G made to hi m Grey). And and when he had treated the H ouse with tragedies American farces, such as the French tragedy an d the farce, he see me d to have fargott on t h at the eireum a e e l andtances that led to the French revolution veereth vver re fusal of thos e ver y r i g ht s w hi c h th e p eop l e of , e now c on t en di ng f or , an d were b e t ter a b le to enjoy, because the people of France were so constituted that France,re:°lution was to be expected, for if they, the p eop l e of httd the right of suffrage and the other measures which the Honourable Member for Montrose advocated, they would not be led to physical revolution. But as France had been eluded to by the Right Honourable Gentle man (Sir G. Grey), he would ask him was France ever more tranquil than at present, or was there ever less probebility that that people would be led by demagogues for the accomplishment of new principles, than at pre sent? He perfectly coincided with the arguments of the lion. Member for Montrose, because he believed his mo tion was a step iu the right direction for the good of the country, yet he would have wished that he included two other important principle—namely, no property qualifi cation and the payment of Members. Reference had been made to America, but there, as well as in France, the members are paid, and when he saw the Right Hon. and lion. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bunches, who re spectively received their stipend, and who so pertinaci-. ously adhered to their office because they were paid, he would ask, why should not Members be paid ? He should next say that the arguments advanced by the Right Honourable Gentleman (Sir G. Grey), taken from the speech of the Honourable and Learned Mem ber for Reading (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) was rather for a greater extension of the suffrage than for depreciating it, as the Honourable and Learned Gentleman did not stop at household suffrage, but extended to the tent of the aipsy. He recollected that the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated at Bristol that the non electors should have a public influence over the electors in the right of their vote, and in that sentiment he per fectly agreed with the Noble Lord. But now that money is exerting its influence as much as then, he thougut the Noble Lord should take a retrograde move • went. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) had attacked the lion. Member for Montrose as not havin g any petitions to support his motion, but he (Mr. F. O'Connor) had determined that the Ministers should no longer have that as a handle or an obstacle to so impor tant a measure, for he would have petitions from every district throughout Englund for that motion, and show them what he himself believed, that the Emancipation Act, the Reform Bill, anti the free trade measures, were mere juggles, and that only for the working classes the Ministry could never carry those measures. Yes, he would appeal to men—the Chartists, who were never guilty of ircendiarism—men who never burned Bristol or Nottingham Castles—men who never took about in derision the portrait of their King, and men who were opposed to revolution; and he believed that they and the rest of the English people would send peti tions to that House from their respective localities—not a monster petition, to be subjected to a Petition Com mittee, but those for which they would severally avouch. He would, therefore, support the motion, as he believed it to be an instalment of the people's rights. Colonel THOMPSON said that he was ready to ad mit that this proposal bad not been brought forward in altogether the most happy and fortunate manner. It did not appear to him that the course of proceeding adopted was calculated to bring over to their side any great amount of Ministerial support, and he should be highly gratified if, upon further consideration, some sign could be given that those men who were in truth the representatives of the authors of one of the brightest, because the most successful, revolution that ever took place in the history of the world, were prepared to make some concession to what was manifestly the spirit of the age, and to take that lead which they should take in advancing the interests of this country along with those of Europe in general. Thera was not one-fourth part of the population of this country who did not believe that England was seriously interested in the general success of liberal principles throughout Europe.—(He r.) It was said it was sorrowful to see that those whom Heaven and nature had marked out as the leaders of this great movement, should not be found endeavouring to secure placing themselves at the head of the adoption of those liberal principles which were called for throughout the country, and he earnestly hoped that they would not be much longer found standing still in the great onward m o v e ment.—(Hear ' hear.) Mr. CAMPBELL said that he availed himself of the present opportunity to make a few remarks. He thought it must present itself to any mind of ordinary sagacity, that this subject was intimately connected with that which usually presented itself under the form of Char• tism. Was the object of this reform to precipitate the adoption of the Charter? The first task incumbent upon them was to identify this proposition with that of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, which was not the less in view, because of late much had not been heard of it. In fact he might say of its supporters, that dam tacent clament. There was no shutting their eyes against the fact, that the government of the majority would be the government of the British empire; but he was willing to make an argumentative concession of the ques tion. All that he wished the supporters of the motion to concede was this, that if even this proposi tion was calculated to Lenefit the country, at least, it was a proveition which could not be translated into law, which could not be adopted by the Legislature with out a long period of agitation and discussion. It amounted, in short, to nothing else than the transfer of power from one class to another, and such achangesho to the Houseuldbecautious and slow. Whatever energy now belonged of Commons, and whatever wisdom belonged to its lead ing Statesmen, should be devoted undividedly to the state of Ireland, which was demanded imperatively at their hands. It was only necessary to refer to the vast amount of literature, which embraced this subject, in order at once to b 3 convinced of this; the opinion alone of the late Mr. O'Connell were sufficient to establish the ground he had taken up. lie would submit to Irish Members that it behoved them all most seriously to beware how they became parties to any motion by which the energy of Parliament might be shaken, or its virtue jeopardised. The Right Hon. Baronet had proposed a scheme for the regeneration of Ir6laud replete with wisdom and prudence, and in that vast question there was a field for their labours which might far more profitably be directed to it, than employed in can vassing a subji ct, and in endeavouring to accomplish it, the very tendency of which was to shake the existing order of things, and to leave questions of great moment in a state of greater uncertainty than attached to them at present. In saying that much he was confident of having the feeling of a large majority of the people of the country with him, and persuaded, as he was, of its truth, he was most anxious that a more able debater than himself should take it up, and lay them before Par liament in the proper light. _He had not even heard the shadow of an anticipation of the nature of the objec tions that could bo urged against it. In another con jecture than that which at present obtained, he con ceived that it might be proper, and even advantageous, to inquire into the practicability of great constitutional changes. But whilst they had:great questions to settle— whilst they had great practical evils to redress—whilst they had great wants to supply—he would contend, and that, indeed, was the full extent of his argument, that an examination of the operation of the Reform Bill was too wide a question to he prosecuted with any prospect either of success or utility. The Honourable Member for Montrose, however, and his political partisans upon this question, not only challenged this question, but he came forward the avowed champion of democracy, con tending broadly that all men were alike entitled to the pri vilege of exercising the Parliamenrary franchise. For his own part, be thought it would not be difficult to esta blish a complete defence of the Reform Bill in its prin ciple, details, and results; and an inquiry for that pur pose ought, in his opinion, to be a complete answer to t h e motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose. The principle of the Reform Bill was, that the best form of Government was the representative assembly elected by the middling classes of the community. That principle was propounded 2,000 years ago by the greatest master of political philosophy. It had on many occasions re ceived the sanction of men of learning and ability, but had never, as he believed, been applied to the case of actual practice, until the Reform Bill was introduced. It was unreasonable to suppose that the lower classes could ever be sufficiently informed upon public affairs, to act with general wisdom as a body in returning Members of Parliament; and he need only refer to the events of the memorable 10th of April, for an example of the animus which must be taken to inspire the lower classes in a great political movement. But if the Reform Bill had not occasioned a complete representation of the middle classes, he would put it to the House whether that signal defect in it would not have formed a widely-spread topic of discussion at the general election of 1847, and at the large public meetings held all over the country, by which it was preceded. Oa a question of this sort, however desirable it might be on other occasions, rigid demon stration u as not, perhaps, the best mode of attaining the obj-ct in view, neither was it, perhaps, altogether attainable. Still he was quite prepared, were he called ehtoouthidety upon to do so, to investigate the principles of the two Charters, with as much scrutinising penetration as could be wished for by its warmest advocate. The Charter proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose was of a nature that would prove dangerous to the best interests of society; it was of too extensive a character, and ought to be listened to with great caution by the House. He could not but refer the House to the disorders and disturbances that had recently taken tEuropeanhose countries a countries, sou middle e i c o l g a s st,hat the they rea thsaadf safeguard d Place in several noin ed as m s i h dd o The House againstthere fore t ak s e u c c a h r edis thattu r i b t a d n i c d e s n . ot propo sition of the Hon. Member for Montrose. meant that the system of government which they now enjoyed ought, under no circumstances, to be changed for the Charter of the people, then he should say that he was for the finality of the Reform Bill, which implied a Government of the meldle classes—the safest and only secure mode of government they could have. He trusted the House would bear with him for trespassing so long upon its indulgence.—(Hear, hear.) He would not much longer trespass on its patience, but before he re sumed his seat he would implore the House, in the name of their institutions, in the name of the middle classes, in the name of order, and of everything which they valued, not to give its assent to the proposition of the Honourable Member for Montrose. The House of Commons would, he trusted, consult its own dignity, and not be led away from its interests and those of the country by any such propositions. Since the proposition mpeachment of the present was nothing short of a n House of Commons, since it invited them to subvert their institutions; and since the character and objects of the People's Ch a rter were not of a nature to p romote the - institutions, he must oppose welfare or stability of thase the proposition of the lion. Memb er, and in the name of freedom, in the name of rational liberty, in the name of all that was dear to the country, implored he the House to oppose it. Mr. L. KING doubted very much that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down represented the opinions of the inhabitants of the borough of• Cam bridge, for if he did, they must have become very much changed indeed.—(Hear, hear.) The motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose was now regularly, and he regretted to say, necessarily, an annual one—one which the satety of the country required, and he believed that there was no one more calculated to carry out its princi ples than the Noble Lord at the head of the Government (Lord John Russell), by whom the Reform Bill was in troduced.—(Hear, herr.) If in the great revolutionary year which they had recently gone through their country was not shaken, it was, he believed, because they were in advance, in the freedom of their institutions, of the pc: Tie of these countries over which the revolutionary movement swept. But if they wished to secure their in stitutions, and to render them of the value which they ought to be to the country, they would adopt the proposition of the Honourable Member for Montrose, and not suffer themselves to fall into the rear of other countries, now struggling for increased fr. edom. He warned them, if th e y neglected their opportunity, that they might regret it. He warned the House that ano ther Reform Bill was necessary—(Hear, hear)—that there would be danger in delay, and that it would not be wise in them not to listen to the voice of the people. He could state to the House, in proof of the necessity of reform, that while Reigate, with a population of little more than 5,000, returned one Member to Parliament, and while Guildford, with a population of little more than 6,000 returned two, making; between them three Members, Croydon, with a population more than double that of both those places, did not send a Member, and was not at all represented in that House. Now, with all respect for the 101. householders of Reigate, and with all respect for the 101. householders of' Guildford, he thought that the people of Croydon, forming a much larger po pulation, and not less intellectual, were quite as worthy of being represented, and that a system which did not admit of their being represented, and which gas so glaringly defective, required reconstruction. The people were dissatisfied, and they felt that injustice had been done to them in being denied the right of free citizens.—(Heir, hear.) Mr. NE WDEG ATE said the Hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. King) went far enough for the Mem her for the West Riding, though much too far for the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Campbell) who had justly complained that the time of the House was lost in discussing the motion, an opinion in which he (Mr. New degate) agreed, for the motion had somewhat the appear ance of a useless formality, for the Hon. Member for Montrose could hardly conceal from himself that, though he proposed to the House to undertake the re-construc tion of the constituency of the country, the Hon. Mem ber had already undertaken it in the association which met at St. James's-square, of which the Hon. Member for Bolton was president. They had, in fact, a Reform Bill going on out of the House, As tar as the mere en franchisement of the freeholders went, he (Mr. Newde. gate) had very little to say; but those who worked that point were the members of the late Anti Corn law League—namely, the Honourable Member for the West Riding, the Honourable Member for Manchester, the Honourable Member for Bolton, and Mr. George Wilson. By calling the attention of the House to the difference of tactics in respect of the two systems, an understanding might be arrived at of the motives of this body. In the year 1845 these gen tlemen objected to the constituency of Warwickshire in the registration courts; 17,000 objections were made to his (Mr. N.'s) portion of the constituency in those days; 23,000 objections were made in all These objections were supported by legal astuteness, and by an unscrupu leus use of the means at the command of those who made them. Their failure in North Warwickshire, he believed, disheartened them; out of 700 objections made to one parish, 12 alone were sustained, and the re• mainder were withdrawn. This induced the adoption of another system, which originated in Manchester; and from 90,000/. to 98,0001. passed through one office, that of Messrs. Sale and Worthington, for the purchase of freeholds in the west riding of Yorkshire and Cheshire. Twenty-seven persons were thus intruded on the representation of the west riding alone, who had nothing whatever to do with the county. The result of this system was stated by Mr. George Wilson, who said that the total of the county con stituencies of England was 445,630, of which 143,731 had been attacked—namely, one-third of the whole. Mr. Wilson said then the labours of the past year were, he was persuaded, only the beginning of another order of things. It was, therefore, a serious matter to fled that these operations, commenced by the Anti-Corn-law League, were renewedly avowed by the same gentleman. The Hon. Member for Manchester bad stated that not only the counties, but the boroughs were to be dealt with in a similar manner. The system of corrupting the constituencies now practised was tar worse than the old rotten-borough system. There was a danger in import ing strangers into the constituencies, because the Rouse might interfere; so the system now was to facilitate the purchase of freeholds for the purpose of qualifying to vote. The purchaser, who was in debt to the society for the instalments of his purchase, passed a bond—a personal security, not a mortgage, as that would dis quelify his vote. Until he paid up these instalments he was at the mercy of his securities, who might recal the money lent at any time in case of a contrary vote. It was true the purchaser might mortgage the freehold to repay the advances; but that would deprive him of his vote. Therefore his vote was for them, or it was no vote at all.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Montrose desired a change in the electoral divisions. This would include certain classes, and create a constituency perfectly corruptible. With respect to the vote by ballot, he (Mr. Newdegate) did not consider it any protection, while, on the contrary, he looked upon it as completely open to fraud. He was in America when the election of President took place, and for all the check placed on surreptitious voting by the ballot, he might have polled for that high func tionary if he had chosen. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not think that the country had any confidence in the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose, and he certainly should give it his decided opposition, Mr. BRIGHT corrected the Hon. Member's mistake, when he attributed the new mode of enfranchising the people to Manchester. It was devised in Birmingham by Mr. James Taylor, and the Anti-Corn law League had nothing to do with it. It was,'however, in his opinion, a most fortunate discovery for the country at large, as by its means numbers of persons would be brought within the pale of the constitution. Of this he (Mr. Bright) was quite satisfied, as a result of that discovery, that the Hon. Member and his colleague would not re present the constituency of Warwick in another Parlia• meat unless there was a great change in their opinions. The question before the House was one of the greatest importance. The whole of Europe was abandoning the old system of despotic government for a new one of re sponsibility. The proposition of the Hon. Member for Montrose was one recognised by the theory of the con stitution. It was, that the common people o England had as sole a right is that House as the other branches of the constitution. By Act of Parliament, however, five out of the six of the full grown men of this kingdom were excluded from all direct exercise of political power, and, as far as the middle classes were concerned, other arrangements rendered the representation, to a large extent, a sham. He (Mr. B.) denif d that the Re form Bill was a middle-class Bill; it it was, would the votes of the Members for Manchester be neutralised by those of the Members for Stamford, who were returned by the Marquis of Exeter. When he asked that they should be admitted, the answer would be that they were too ignorant to exercise the franchise judiciously, or that they were so vicious, many of them, as to be likely to turn their political power to purposes that would be destructive to the interests of the country. Now he (Mr. Bright) was not one of those who believed that it re quired much school learning to choose a Member of Par liament, but if he were, the posi ion certainly acquired 'no confirmation from what they had seen in the repre sentatives of the Universities who sat in that House. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was himself obliged to leave one of those Universities because he de. tcradned to adopt the course which he deemed to be ne cessary, and which every day of his life since he had found reason to know was absolutely neces sary; and the Right Honourable Gentleman who now represented the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goal burn) was supposed to sit in a most precarious posi tion—(A laugh)—not because he had neglected his duty here, but because he had endeavouree to banish from his mind those prejudices and antiquitated notions which lingered longest in our scholastic institutions, and had opened his mind to the consideration of those questions which the pressing necessities of the country demanded should be listened to in this House.—(Hear, hear.) The working classes had made great progress of late years, and there was abundant proof of it on every hand, in the circulation of newspapers ably written and most moral in their tone amongst them, and in the efforts they were making, especially in the north of England, to educate their children, and as adults to educate themselves.— (Cheers.) There could be no doubt whatever but the artizan of this country in the year 1849 was even a different being from the artizan of the year 1832—(Hear) —and even at that time his help was not disdained by the Noble Lord and Right Hon. Gentlemen, who called upon him to assemble and petition Parliament for the passing of the Reform Bill. He was quite satisfied that every class of the population was growing in intelligence and in the knowledge of those things which were most useful to enable a men to perform his social and political duties aright. But would it be said that the working classes were so vicious that they ought not to be ad mitted? No, there was not a man in that House who would venture to libel his countrytnen by iterating such a statement.—(Cheers.) They had no designs against the monarchy or the constitution ; their only designs were against the system which placed a ban upon them, and in spite of their intelligence, their progress in the arts, their industry, and ingenuity, they still shut them out from a participation in those rights and privileges ht w oe hi eb c le h aiiie t m h ; e ed citiaens of a fr ee coun try m i g ht b e ex p ec t e d If they thteyexcheapdt i th n e p f a r r a t n ic c u h l i a s r e o c a o s n e fi a d o e f d to irritation them, or regarded gn a p r rh a do s e s o d i t o i n af , so rt the enya most would om ta n intelligent,l to o o mu k t rnhoe a iapsc b ttir o pe u aaw t olxavnat i sietn n rndtttduh t hhpeoneedaut course osw o ahhu w uhroesdon n l eeme e n aiwtt e t:th i on g tbinehc h esyheE ntwheheveyorl where n o Ittv,h the franchise ne u de s h e iin f s u et l h ; ewi f ar o sm r same time least within the operation of any undue or improper infiuence.—(clear, hear.) The Noble Lord at the head of the Government said last year that the present system worked well, and enumerated the various excellent measures which had bean passed since the enactment of the Reform Bill. He (Mr. Bright) did not deny that the Reform Bill was a great advance. Under these circumstances it was a good and valuable measure; but such an argument as that was as good against the Reform Bill of the Noble Lord as it was against the present motion ; for the boroughmon goring Parliament had carried the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the Catholic Relief Bill ; and, lastly, the Reform Bill itself—and he did not know whether, according to the Noble Lord's argument, this was not a conclusive fact that even the Reform Bill was unneces eery. Did not the Noble Lord know that all the pro gress which had been made was a progress in accordance with the democratic element in the constitution, and not at all a progress in the contrary direction ? Sir Robert Peel passed the Catholic Emancipation Act; afterwards the Noble Lord passed the Parliamentary Reform Bill, the Municipal Ref ormßill, and th e Bill for the abolition of slavery; and then Sir R. Peel passed great changes in the tariff and the repeal of the corn-laws. But how were these measures carried? Twice civil war was threatened. An illustrious, member of the Right Hon. Baronet's Go vernment declared, in 1829, that the alternative was Catho lic emdueiptivu or civil war. Well, it was not a very wise THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE n, constitution which allowed things to come to that pass without providing a remedy. The Noble Lord carried the Reform Bill, and to enable him to do so, the con stitution was helped on by brick-bass, and the carriages of Noble Lords end H. n. Gentlemen, who opposed that Bill, were smashed over and over again in the towns and villages of the country. Well, he could not think that constitution to be the best which required such acts as these to give it a fillip.—(Hear, hear.) When slavery was abolished, it was notorious that an insurrection of the slaves in the colonies was deemed to be improbable. And Sir Robsrt Peel could not make an alteration in the corn-law until a famine occurred in Ireland, and thus removed all pretence for continuing that law. Upon the subject of the public expenditure, this House legislated as if there were no British nation, and tax paying was unknown within the limits of the United Kingdom; but if we had a House of Commons that fairly represented the people, there would be no one question so carefully and constantly discussed in this House as that of the di minution of the taxation which now pressed so heavily upon the people. Again, he would take upon himself to say that the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet had both been aware for years that the laws, with regard to land in Ireland, were in a most defective and mischievous state.—(Hear, hear.) He ( Sir. Bright) had not spoken upon any Irish questions during the last three or four years without mentioning that question ; but it was not until 500,000 of the subjects of the Queen bad been laid under ground by famine that the Minister dared to pro pose the measures which he had brought forward this year. Now, he (Mr. Bright) must say, that he had no respect for a constitution, or a system of Parliamentary representation, which required aids like these to keep it in motion. But the system, if it did not work well in this House, worked quite as badly out of doors. From 1836 there had been an incessant movement in all parts of Great Britain in favour of an ex:ension of the suffrage; and out of it had sprung Chartism—which bad proved frightful because, during its discussion, passions had been stirred up and false principles often inculcated, and ani mosities engender, d. There was no doubt of the fact that a wide-spread discontent prevailed in the country, amongst a large, intelligent, and it might be a powerful class in the country, and a hatred of the law which men sitting in that House ought to be the last to encourage and maintain.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord on a former occasion said that reform was not wanted by those out net doors. The Noble Lord referred to the comparative absence of petitions on the subject. He admitted the fact that the petition.; were fewer than usual, but the reason was to be found in the cause that operated to prevent the corn-law abolitionists from petitioning the House of Lords. They felt that the Lords had made up their minds on the subject, and that the only argument they would be likely to listen to was the argument of 1846, which was applied, and for tunately listened to.—(Hear, and cheers.) The Hon. Member for Warwickshire had given an excellent ad vertisement to the scheme for creating votes. He would tell the House that the plan was progressing rapidly; many towns had come into the plan. The plan was de scribed as a conspiracy by the Hon. Member for War wickshire, who said, according to the true interpretation of the constitution, such votes ought not to be created. Now, in reply to that, he would quote the opening of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, who, though opposed to his party in politics, was too upright a judge to allow that circumstance to bias his decision. Lord Chief Justice Tindal said, "the object of increasing the number of freeholds, so as to confer votes, was not against law, morality, or sound policy. It was one of the essential objects of the Reform Act, to enlarge the number of per sona who enjoyed the elective tranchise."—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bright) was of opinion that it was to be ap proved of, for a man to put by money to get a vote with. But he would advise Honourable Members and the Go vernment there was one circumstance not altogether o: a favourable character connected with this new plan, and which he wished could be avoided. The men who came forward to purchase these votes did so under a strong and intractable conviction that they were buying a right from which they had been unjustly shut out.—(Hear.) When those men came within the pale of the constitution in sufficient numbers to speak out, it might be they could prove themselves the victors, you the vanquished. —(Hear, hear.) It was better, therefore, to give these men their rights before exasperation or irritation had imbued their minds with dislike to the institutions of this country.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord would. not make poverty a reason for excluding persons from the pale of the constitution.—(Hear.) Ther, were 30,000.000 of people, with 6,000,000 of adults, and only 1,000,000 of electors; 5,000,000 of men, not slaves—not ignorant of the principles of government. and that government affected their material condition— not below that House in information on important sub jects—those 5,000,000 had asked year after year in vain for their rights. They stood about the hustings longing in their inmost hearts to be admitted to those elective rights which the constitution intended they should have. Ile had shown the House that the constitution was in capable of governing the country before very great changes were made. The Noble Lord said the peopl. of the country had great influence in that House. H. denied it. The titled classes alone had influence.— (Cheers.) Look at the Cabinets. If there was anything popular in the constitution of Cabinets they would invariably no: he chosen from one class. The constitution of that House was aristocratic, not popular. Of the fourteen members of the Cabinet seven were peers Lords Russell and Palmerston were not peers, but of the same class. There were four baronets, and one no, a baronet. These baronets were all connected with peers by blood or marriage.—(Hear.) Some day the Hous, would find out that the people considered this was wrong As the present system existed it was impossible e have a Cabinet so composed as that the interests of five sixths of the unrepresented should be regarded or attended to. A change, however, would not take place until the danger became so great that it could no longer be refused. He would ask whether the five-sixths of th, people who were excluded from the franchise were body of men for whom they hit neither respect nor con fidence? Why, where would be the greatness, the his tory of the past and future, and the security of this country, but for those who were denied the franchise? All sirtue, industry, integrity, morality, and religion, die not reside in the sixth, who are represented in that House. \Vas the constitution worth preserving? W ere the institutions worth encouraging which stood in fear of this class?. He was not the friend of order—(Laughter) —he meant disorder. He believed the party he was con nected with was the true Couservetive party in that House. He was not unmindful of the liberties and pri vileges which the country enjoyed, but he was satisfied that all the advantages that we enjoyed would be conso lidated by passing the present measure.—(Hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said a few words in explanation. I.ord JOHN RUSSELL—Whatever I may think of the motion before the Houee, yet I cannot enter upon the discussion of it without paying a tribute to the mo deration and fairness, to the total absence of bitterness of language, which marked the speech of the Hon. Member for Montrose in introducing it.—(Hear, hear.) For my part, I am happy to see him again amongst u in renovated health—(Ch eers )— an d , a l t h oug h I differ in opinion from him, I can h ave no d ou b t th a t nothing but the most - patriotic motives has induced him to bring the motion under the consideration of the House with a view to improve the representation and correct the defects of our institutions.—(flear, hear.) But with respect to that motion I must say that if there was much doubt and obscurity both in the past year and in the present year in the views of the Hon. Member for Montrose—if he came before the House telling us that he meant to give the franchise to all householders, but that who he meant by householders he was unable to tell us—(Hear, hear)—and that the old understand ing of the word " householder" as a man who held a house was not his definition of the word—if, I say, there was some obscurity about the proposal of the Honourable Member for Mon trose, the speech of the Hon. Member for Manchester has cleared it of all ambiguity—(Hear, hear)—and I ' think must have shown the House that, whatever might be the wishes of the Hon. Member for Montrose himself, whatever might be his respect for the ancient constitu tion of this House, and however he might reverence those forms which have enabled him to act no undistin guished part, and to confer n• small benefit upon his country, those who aid him, and in aiding overpower him —(Cheers)—have no limitation in their designs—that, to use the words of the Hon. Member for Manchester. they have no respect for the Constitution—(Hear, hear) —that they do not propose to stop short of admitting every adult male to the enjoyment of the franchise; and that, although this would not be obtained by the motion of to-night—although it would not be effectual in carry ing the six points of the Charter—yet that is the end to which the Honourable Member for Manchester is directing his efforts.—(Hear, hear.) In considering this proposition I must refer to what fell from the lion. Members for Bradford and East Surrey. Those Hon. Members having said they wished they bad seen me, as the author of the Reform Bill, taking a lead in this movement, I must refer a little to the considerations which actuated those who framed that Reform Bill. I should rather say, to some of the considerations ; because I do net intend to weary the House by referring to them all. It so happened that in the 1821 I brought forward an enlarged plan of reform in this House, and that in 1831, as the organ of the Government, I proposed a Bill which was carried, and the main provisions of which became the law of the land. In framing that measure our view was to found it upon the ancient constitution of the country, to consider what were the defects in the representation of the peop le in this Ho use, and to amend thsse defects in the spir it in which the constitution was ld wa a s gr t e o e am w e i n th d the various parts of our ancient, free, and o respect for that con stitution.—(Cheers.) originally so aas that framed. our Our object,amendmentsl i h k e e a w sr .h i ) s o e u , We were not If there was no independ ence the franchise, you among g us t I c i za:ti i t y u h t ( i ) o i n ;r 7g!: i d n n , We held that it was essential that stitution.—(Cheers.) those who had the franchise should be possessed of inde epnennedeinncethaendpienrsteolnlisgewnhceo. could have no expression of the public will.—(Hear, hear.) It' they had no independence you could not ob tain that which is the object of representation—the good government of the country. I was happy to hear Hon. Member for Montrose assert to-night that which I asserted last year—that the object of representation should be to obtain, not mere conformity to abstract rights, but the welfare of the community at large, and that therefore that system of representation which con tributes most to the good government of the country is superior to any theoretical plan of perfection which may be devised for the purpose by persons who are mere speculators. Such, then, being the object of obtaining independence and intelligence in the electoral body, let us consider for a moment in what condition we found the representation of the country, in both these re spects. We found in the counties a 40s. franchise, which as we thought it secured as much independence as it was possible to secure we retained. With respect to the towns, we found the ancient household franchise ifs existence, but, as in modern days it had beco me ply. thing bat an improvement upon the class of ancient burgesses,—the men of property and intelligence who formerly composed this class,—we thought that this kind of franchise required to be modified in order to enable us to obtain the object we had in view, And let me here observe, that much of the corruption which pre vailed in the constituent body in the time of the unre formed Parliament arose from the want of the intelli gence which is necessary, in a constituent body. For instance, take the question of the corn laws. If a man were eager for the maintenance of the corn laws, or if he were eagsr for their abolition, he would, of tours vote for the candidate who was most favourable to his particular views, whatever they w, re ; but, if a man had never even heard the question stated, and was entirely ignorant of its merits, and if one of the candidates before him was ready to bribe him, that man, being totally i n diff eren t t o hi g h er p o liti ca l con siderations, would necessarily be easily affected by the bribe, and would give his vote, not because he was convinced of the merits of the candidate, but simply because he had been bribed by him.—(Hear, hear.) I say, therefore, that I think intelligence is es • sentially necessary in a body of electors. Then next with respect to the arrangement of the representation. We found that in this respect there were very great de fects—those defects being chiefly of two kinds. A large number of the boroughs of the country were in the poi session of individual proprietors, and the persons sent here were directly nominated by those proprietors, and represented only those individuals. This was of course inconsistent with any n stions of popular representation. We found also that some of the great seats of manufac ture and commerce had no representatives at all; that Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and other large towns, were entirely without representatives ie this House. We proposed to correct those defects by cutting off more than teo members from the smaller boroughs, and supplying their places by conferring the representation upon the larger counties, the seats of manufacture and the po pulous towns of the country. But while we consi dered that those defects required to be amended, there was another part of the constitution which did not seem to us to be so defective as the Hon. Member for Montrose stated it to be at the time— I mean that part of which comprised the sending of re presentatives to this House by constituent bodies of various kinds—by large counties and populous cities, And at the same time by smaller boroughs which are not affected by the passions and excitement which usually take place in large boroughs.—(Hear, hear.) vow, for my part, considering the varied character of the people of this country—considering their varied oc cupations—considering how many men there are of great intelligence who take little part ordinarily in poli tical conflicts—considering how many men there are who give their labours to the world in the shape of works on political science, it may be, or who are conver sant with commerce, but do not enter into the agitations relating to the immediate political questions of the day, I certainly am of opinion that the country, taken as a whole, is far better represented by the varied kind of representation I have just mentioned than it would be if we had nothing but two large divisions—the counties sending agricultural Members and the large cities commercial Members, or representatives of the manufacturing interest. (Hear, hear.) My be lief was, and I still retain that belief, that, if instead of the present scheme of representation you were to divide the whole country into equal electoral districts, and to give fifty Members to the metropolis, and twenty-five Members to Manchester; and if in order to balance these you were to give a similar number of representa tives to the counties of Devon, and Sussex, and Norfolk, so far from your having a more complete representation of the country, you would have a much less complete and less perfect representation.—(Hear, hear.) You would, indeed, have a greater number of persons repre senting the interests of Manchester, but you would have, on the other hand, a greater number of persons repre senting the agricultural interest; and you would have few men not closely connected either with the one or the other, but who, from their great attainments, are well qualified to sit in this House, whose opinions would wave great weight in it, whose talents would add a lustre to the representation, and at the same time be most useful to the country.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gen lemma who spoke last alluded to the representatives for Stamford, and the influence which Lord Exeter is sup posed to have in that borough. I confess myself that, seeing the borough of Stamford has sent here a Right Ron. Gentleman whose long experience of public life and whose knowledge of financial and commercial sub jects are generally acknowledged, I do not think such a man out of place in this House.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and Hear, hear.") It does not follow that I agree with that Right Hon. Gentleman.—(An interruption.) I was not saying that the Members for Stamford were the the representatives of Lord Exeter. My belief is, that .1 the Hon. Member for Manchester wishes to destroy di aristocratic influence he must go further than he has yet proposed.—(Hear, hear.) It may be quite true that the Marquis of Exeter possess influence in Stamford, but show me a county where there is a man of great landed property, and tell me if that man does not possess influence in that county also? Do Hon. Gentlemen mean o destroy all such influence in counties?—(hear)—for until I hear some such declaration, I shall maintain that it Is far better that we should have a varied representation hat small boroughs as well as large cities should be presented—than that we should have only two sets if men representing two antagonistic classes of opinions. —(hear, hear.) In saying this, I have stated the ;rounds upon which I think the general alterations of the Reform Bill was founded; and it I have stated -hem correctly, it will be seen that they differ so en tirely from the proposition of to-night, that it is quite mpossible for me, or for any of those who took a Cart in framing the Reform Bill, and who still retain heir opinions, to adopt any such measure as that which the Hon. Member for Montrose has to-night proposed for our consideration. There is another very fifficult question with which we are not called upon to h•al to-night, but in which I may in passing allude. mean the question whether, in conformity uith the ;eneral principle of the Reform Act, which I believe o be a just principle, there might not be a greats r [lumber of persons possessing the suffrage than at pre. sent; whether, in fret, the working classes should not be admitted more generally to hold the suffrage; and whether, in the great towns, in the counties, and in the boroughs, there should not be another kind of franchise ntroduced, to enable them to vote for the representatives of such places.—(Hear, hear.) I stated last year my ,pinion in favour of such an extension. I stated various nodes in which it might be done; but the Hon. Gentle• .nan who makes the present proposition and his friends )ave always protested against any extension of that kind. Ever since I starated the proposition I have seen it treated with ridicule by those who hold the opinions of the Hon. Gentleman as a change which would not be at all satisfactory—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Bright)— and which ought to be derided, and not adopted. But he lion. Member for Manchester, who says that the working classes are entirely excluded from the elective -ranchise showed, in answer to the Hon. Member for Warwickshire, that this is not precisely the case, because, seeing that the possession of a forty-shilling freehold 4ives persons a right to vote, he stated that many of that class were now accumulating their industrial savings to uy Chief fr sz u h s o t c d e s , T a i nd h nd al showing read an that opinion such a project e late c t Lord was o n strict conformity with the policy of the Parliament of this country. If that is the case, then no class is ex eluded. When a working man has saved a sufficient sum to enable him to buy a freehold in his native county, there is no person in this House who will not say he is glad to see him enjoying the benefits of his industry and frugality.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman, indeed, in arguing on this subject said, that ho thought this a per body fair means of acquiring the suffrage; but he did not answer the Hon. Member for Warwickshire, who complained not of the practice of working men buying Freeholds, but of other parties lending them the money; and thus, while putting them nominally in possession of a vote, depriving them of all free will to exercise it.— (Cheers.) Therefore, I can only say again upon this subject, not considering this as the topic of to-night, and therefore not wishing to dwell further upon it, that there is nothing in the Reform Act, and nothing in any )pinion I have ever held, or in any opinion I hold now, which would debar me from seeing with satisfaction any plan by which the admission of the working classes could be still further extended, and the basis widened upon which the representation rests.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Montrose, in replying to my speech of last year, said that there had carried except a a t m t he risk of the people. Now, whatever truth there may be in this state meat with respect to Parliament as it stood before the Reform Act, I do not think the Hon. Gentleman quoted a single instance since the Reform Act, in which there was any such danger before a reform was carried.— (Hear.) He referred to the danger of a rising among the blacks of Jamaica, but that is a question entirely un connected with the representation in this House—this House having never represented, or was supposed to represent, the negroes of the West India islands.— (Hear, bear.) Therefore the only instance he quoted since the Reform Act was singularly inapplicable to the purpose.—(Hear.) But I cannot concur with him in the opinion that he gave, that this House had been slow to adopt reforms and changes which have been sanctioned by public opinion. Whether the changes we adopted were salutary or injurious, no one can deny that during the'seventeen years we have acted under the Reform Act there have been great changes made in a variety of subjects.—(Hear, hear.) Take the questions with re spect to the Church. There has been a settlement of the tithe question—a great restriction and limitation placed upon pluralities—the translation of bishops almost put an end to, and the holding of livings by bishops in commenda »s entirely abolished.—(Hear.) Next, with regard to the Dissenters. They complained they could not marry except in accordance with the rites of the Established Church—that they could not procure registration for their children except by going to a clergyman of the same establishment. That grie vance had been remedied. Then take the question of trade. flow many changes have been made with re spect to it? In the first instance, the China trade, which was a monopoly of the East India Company, has been thrown open to merchants in general. 'Then take the the Customs when the Right lion. Gentle man (Sir R. Peel) was in office. The corn-laws, which had subsisted for so long a times entirely abolished; the i changes in g and, but altered; other measures as to tradetrade adopted;whichnavigation-laws,ofCromwell Commons. I n sugar entirely changes were wise or not, I say, then, that whether__ which were required by alterations in our policy But then the Honourable Gen tlemanpublic opinion. Wm opinion has gone before says, pa with respect to those measures. Now, I wish the House d look to the election of 1841, and to those in they do show that the House has not been slow to adopt he would 'a Lancashire sending Members to vote against any towns' Lancashire particularly. Let him look to several of the alteration tax the eera - 14we. That this sh ldcm.- have h -gm so 1849. ' shows that up to this time public opinion was not pre • pared for the change which the House in 1846 adopted. My belief is, though I do not assent to the wisdom of the course the House took in so long delaying this change, that it was not behind public opinion in the course it took on that subject.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to many subjects in relation to religious liberty, as to the Roman Catholics particularly, does any one believe that universal suffrage would produce less feeling of reli gious bitterness and animosity that now exists among Members of the House?—(Cheers.) My belief is that Members of this House are far more liberal than the community in general are disposed to be.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman says the liberal and democratic ele ments of the country do not exist in the House, mere especially in the Cabinet, and that the feeling of the aristocracy entirely governs the formation of the Mi nistry. With respect to this subject—though I am afraid the Hon. Gentleman will think I am labouring under some strange delusion—my belief is that the people— that the humblest people, that the poorest people of this country, have no indisposition to the ari-tocracy.—(Loud and general cheering.) My helief is that the aristocracy is not and could nut be forced upon them, but that the aristocracy having, from the time it became a free country, most happily for its liberty and most fortu nately for themselves, felt a sympathy with popular liberty having even entertained popular prejudices when the people were prejudiced, and having stood up •for popular rights when those rights were attacked— my belief is, I say, that the aristocracy of this country has a strong hold on the opinions and affections of the people.—(Lnid cheers.) And, Sir, when we talk of the aristocracy, and of the members of different Admi nistrations, let it be recollected that many of the aristocracy of this day were the democracy of 50 years ago.—(Cheers.) It was said by a very clever person, whose opinions I have heard quoted in the House, Ma dame de Steel, when she came to this country and studied our manners and constitution a little, " I see now what is the difference between your aristocracy and the ancient noblesse of France. In that country the aristo cracy was the despair of talent, in this country itis the hope of talent."—(Much cheering.) These very words very well express in my mind the difference between one of those constitutional aristocracies which never admitted new persons into its ranks, and never gained new mem bers, and the aristocracy of England, which contains in many instances persons the sons and grandsons of those who were themselves the democracy of the country, whose fortune was of the very smallest and most insig nificant, but whose talents, we find by the credit which they obtained for the exercise of them, raised those per sons to a place among the aristocracy.—(Cheers.) And are we to be told th very next day, as it were, that those persons are to be put under ban and excluded from all share in the government of the country, — that they are not to enjoy any of the social distinctions of life ?—(Cheers.) What I have to find fault for with the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) and those who agree with him is, that they are so exceed ingly narrow-minded.—(Tremendous cheering from the Opposition benches.) Get them upon the subjects with which they are particularly conversant, and I listen with great admiration to their extensive knowledge and acute ability, but when we come to discuss large questions such as concern the fortune- of our empire, then I see that they have intellect and understanding bound up in such a narrow round—(The Noble Lord was in terrupted by a tremendous burst of cheering from the same quarter)—that it is quite impossible to get them to understand those great principles on which our ances tors founded the constitution of this country, and which we, their successors, humbly admire and endeavour to follow. The Hon. Member (Mr. Bright) spoke too of economy, and told us that nothing could be done in this House to obtain it—that motions for economy were refused and rejected, and that even the smallest reduction was not sanctioned by a majority. But, Sir, I think in this re spect the House and the country have very much come to the opinion if there is a strong disposition for re trenchment in the public mind that the Government is likely to listen to that opinion, and that having listened to it they are more likely to carry such retrenchment into effect in the manner which is conducive to the effi ciency of the public service, than by votes and discus sions debated in the course of some half-hour upon the estimates. The fact is, that since the estimates of last year were introduced, the navy estimates have been re duced nearly 400,0001., and there have been various other reductions. Therefore, though there have been no direct votes of the House cutting down the esti mates, yet the influence of public opinion has been brought to bear upon them, and they are now made more in conformity with public opinion than, as I must confess, they were when we presented them at the beginning of last year. But if this be the case, the Hon. Gentleman has no reason to complain of the want of economy which exists. The Honourable Gentleman, indeed, speaks always as if we were adding to the taxation of this country, and as if the people were bzrne down by an additional weight of taxation which it was impossible for them to bear. He (Mr. Hume) always argues in this way—we paid 50.000,0001. 10 years ago ; we pay 52,000,0001. now. There is, therefore, an additional taxation of 2,000,0001. But when be does so he really uses a computation which is unworthy of the knowledge we know the Honourable Member must possess on the subject. The real matter to be inquired into is, whether the same taxation is kept up, if there has been any addition to it, or if the taxes have been reduced. In locking to this subject I beg to refer the Honourable Gentleman to a paper of the taxes imposed and of the taxes reduced within the last 20 years, viz., from 1829 to 1847. I find the sum total is, that while 6.000,0001. of taxation has been im posed upwards of 17,000,000/. has bee :n reduced, making a balance of excess of taxes repealed over taxes imposed of 11,266,0001.—(Cheer5.) And, be it observed, in the course of these 20 years the population has been increas ing, the means and property of the country have been increasing, and, theretore, with 11,000,000/. less of tax• a tion, that which remains is imposed on a greater amount of population and property.—(Hear, hear.) There have been of late great complaints that taxes imposed on ar ticles of consumption of the people were maintained, and it was said there should be direct taxation instead. Now, let us examine this question. I find that of the sum total of taxes taken off, 7,500,000/. was taken off the Excise, and 9,500,0001. off the Customs, while 800,0001. had been imposed on the Excise and 2,000,000/. on the Customs, leaving a balance of 7,000,0001. in excess of duties repealed in the latter, and of 6,000,0001. in the former in the last 20 years.—(Hear, hear.) So facis it from being true, therefore, that the country is bureened and weighed down by an additional amount of taxation, that this House for the last twenty years, baying been employed in the same way for twelve years before, has been employed in taking off the load of taxation, and in diminishing the burdens of the people. But let me con sider the state of those taxes which are on the neces saries of life at the present period, and compare them with what they were formerly. I will take a speech de livered in this House 112 years ago.—(A laugh.) We have had since that time many wars, and more especially the last great revolutionary war, which caused this country to incur debt to an enormous extent, and there fore it may be supposed that taxes on the necessaries of life would be greatly increased. Here is an extract from a speech delivered at the period I mention:— " For my part, I do not know any one necessary of life upon which we have not some tax or another, except water; and we can put no ingredient I know of into water in order to make it palatable and cheerful without paying a tax. We pay a tax for air, and for the light and heat of the sun in the daytime, by means of our tax upon windows; and for light and heat in the nighttime by means of our duties up m coals and candles; we pay a tax upon bread, meat, roots, and herbs of all kinds by means of our salt duty; we pay a tax upon small beer by means of the malt-tax, and a heavy additional tax upon strong beer by way of ex cise. Nay, we cannot have any clean thing to put upon our backs, either of woollen or of linen, without paying a tax by means of the duty on soap, &c." Now, with respect to all those taxes, it is to be observed, that the duties on coals, candles, and most of the taxes here mentioned no longer exist., Adam Smith, writing some twenty years after, said there were four articles, necessaries of life, taxed in this country,—leather, salt, candles, and soap. Of all these there is now only one which bears any tax. I think these things are worth mentioning, because we hear it continually repeated that there are great taxes on the necessaries of lite, which our ancestors had not to bear, and that the people are now suffering under an additional weight of taxation. That two such great wars—the American and revolu tionary war—both of which I must confess appear to me to have been unnecessary—(Hear, hear)—should have rendered necessary a great load of taxation, is what I am compelled to admit, but it is what I am sure the Hon. Gentleman would not wish to alter, if the alteration re quired any breach of faith or any attack on public cre dit.—(Hear, hear.) And yet let him not be sure the plan he proposes would not have a great effect on that credit. I cannot forget when one of thoge great peti tions, signed I believe by some 3,000,000 or 4,000,000, was presented by the Hon. Member (Mr. Duncombe), the petitioners especially declaimed against the national debt, and asked the House to abolish it, on the ground that we were directly forced to incur and pay the interest upon it. Therefore, Sir, I don't think it so exceedingly safe, if this motion should be carried, that many of those admitted to the suffrage would not in their ignorance think they would be benefited by the reduction of those taxes required to pay t h e nationa l debt.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the g ist of this motion, and as to its main purpose of admitting every male of .full age to vote, I must say , frankly, that Ido .e object to giving every person a vote for Members sr be c rs a _of . t Le h y House of Commons—(Cheers) — in t he belief " n e re would, many of them, be easily affected b y P sentations and delusions, and that theyeliave not suffi cient political information to enable theta to make a right choice of Members—(Che e r s.) s. )'The Honourable in great body of their virtue and Member asks me if I do not be_ integrity. I entirely give credit to the the working classes of this country t i . for their virtue and integrity. I believe, from time to time you may enlarge the suffrage, that they will lot come , more and more worthy of the franchise; but, as far a, I can see and ob serve, I say that if you were at the present time to divide the whole country into districts, and give every man a vote, as the lion. Gentleman proposes, the peoPle would be liable to be misled by artful and designing', demagogues—(Cheers)—and that the representation of this House, so formed, would not conduce to the welfare and good government of the people.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member asked us to imitate that which is now going on in countries abroad, and on this subject . I must speak in the same spirit.as that in which it wss adverted to by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey). I by no means wish, as the Honourable Member (Mr. Hume) seems to suppose, to defend or to eulogise those Kings who have so long withheld from their subjects constitutional liberty; on the contrary, I have said in this House that my belief was, if they began after 1815 to admit their people to the enjoyment of constitutional liberty—if they bad framed those laws with respect to the press which would have enabled thei 'subjects to understand and discuss political matters inategd of being driyou to ape. culative works and wild theories as their models of government, that they would have taken the wise course, and that we should not have seen the con vulsions and tumults of the last and of the present year. —(Hear, hear.) But it is quite different to held that opinion, and to say I am anxious to imitate the present course of things on the continent. Nor do I think those nations mean to proceed in that advance which they were once so ready to profess.—(Hear, hear.) I see that with respect to the Prussian Constitution of last year, for in stance, universal suffrage was to be the established rule. We were left behind. Prussia had got to the top of the tree, and we n ere at the bottom, in darkness and igno rance. The Hon. Member said we should have followed. " Don't let us be behind Prussia," said he; " there they have got universal suffrage. Don't let England follow at such a distance in her wake." But what have we seen in the present year? By the Constitution which is now adopted the electors are divided into three classes—the r - chest and smallest class, who pay most; another more numerous paying smaller taxss, and a third very nume rous class paying the smallest amount O f t axes o f a l l. Are they all to have an equal right of suffrage? By no means.— (Hear, hear.) The 500 of the first class are to choose as many representatives to the Chamber at Berlin as the third class of 5,000 persons. What is that but another way of escaping from the evils of universal suf frage?—(Hear, hear.) Such a system would be totally new iu tins country. For my own part, I would rather ; obtain this full representation by the old and prescrip tive mode of the constitution. We have to see yet whether this scheme will succeed. While we see such a course of changes and transmutations in other coun tries, don't let us have the weakness, and childishness, and folly, to imitate them till they have at least fixed on something really good and legitimate. The lion. Gen- Oman wishes us to imitate the nations of the continent. I see, in the course of these changes, almost every great capital has been, for a certain time, in a state of siege.— (Cheers.) Paris,Vienna, Berlin, and Milan, have all been in that condition. And what is the case in a state of siege? No security for liberty, the press entirely crushed, ac cording to the will of some general commanding in the town. If any newspaper appears, hostile to the ruling power, or displeasing to the general in command, he goes off with some thousand or two of men able to enforce his orders, and says, " The town is in a state of siege, this newspaper shall not appear." Now, is that a state of things we should envy ur ought to imitate?—(Cheers.) Well, we enjoy some freedom of the press; we, who have each man every morning, according to his desire, the opinions he chooses duly set before him. One newspaper tells him the whole country is ruined by free trade—another tells the reader the country is ruined because we have not adopted universal suffrage. So long as each man has this luxury—(A laugh)—to read what paper he chooses, all of them agreeing that the country is ruined, in the first instance, and then having different opinions from which he may please himself as to the cause of that ruin, and to have his news paper presented to him at his breakfast table, don't let us have this state of siege, of which we have heard so much; and don't let us have seine general at the Horse Guards depriving every man of his newspaper.—(Cheers and laughter.) I would not have any imitation of those nations on the continent which are at present undergoing those transformations. I trust that a rational and temperate liberty may be the result of all their struggles. I am sorry to see their efforts beset by so many difficulties, and accompanied by so much bloodshed. But, so tar as I see, there are but three great countries which appear to stand, each ac cording to its constitution, in a firm and unmoved posi tion—the one where there is a complete democracy, namely, the United States, where none of the people .wish to change their constitution—where it is evidently suited to them; another in the opposite pole, the empire of Russia, where the law is fixed by the sole will of the monarch, but where order is preserved and general se curity for life and property afforded under the strict means adopted by the supreme authority; the third is the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain; and, so far as I can see, the people of this country are as much attached to the constitutional monarchy as the people of any country have ever been attached to the constitu tion of their own state. My belief is that it is the form of government suited to this people. My belief is that not a balance of forces, but a combination of powers brought about by monarchy, aristocracy, and demo cracy acting together, produces as much of liberty and happiness, as great a development of talent, as great en couragement in the practice of religious and moral duties as any constitution the world ever exhibited has pro duced. My belief is, that if you adopted th e sc h eme o f the Hon. Member for Montrose, as it is explained by the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), you would risk alt these blessings.—(Cheers.) Ido not think that you, the House of Commons, chosen by uni versal suffrage in equal or nearly equal districts, would long have peace in this House; and, if you had peace in this House by an overwhelming majority carrying measures of a democratic nature, you could not keep harmony with the other two powers of the state.— (Hear, hear.) In framing and proposing the Re form Bill, as I stated at the commencement, what we wished was to adapt the representation of this House to the other powers of the state and keep it in harmony with the constitution. That object, I think, after seven teen years' trial, we have attained. We have obtained a gradual progress of measures of-reform without convul sion, without fear, or risk of blocdshed. If you go on in the same course other measures will be adopted by Parliament, other measures which, being in harmony with the opinions of the people, will pass into a law in a constitutional manner, and without interruption to that constitution. I pray you, therefore, in the name of that constitution, not to adopt the measure now before the House, but to give it a decided negative. I believe you stilt be consulting the interests, and I urn firmly con vinced you will also be consulting the wishes and opinions of the people.—(Great cheering.) Mr. OSBORNE thought it could not have escaped the observation of the House and would not.ef the peo; le, that the opposition to the motion had come, with one exception, not from the hereditary en, mien (Ara( rrn on the other side, lut tiara the Gentlemen also now occu pied the Treasury bench. They had climb d into pow er on the credit of what. had been done by the Hon. Mernbtr for Montrose, and chose who Lad been stigmatised as men of narrow and confined minds. It was time that those who expressed so narrow and c •nfined ideas should be thrown over by those whom they stigmatised. The most remarkable speech of the evening was that made from the vicinity df the red box by the Hon. Member for Cambridge. His whole argument was drawn, I.ke a special constable's, from the 10th of April. The Hon. and classical Member when he referred to Arivotle for got that Aristotle had been persecuted by the Conserva tives of his day for his new doctrines. The Hun. Member's speech would have been more appropriate on the Miscellaneous Estimates. With respect to the speech of the Secretary for the Home Department there had, since the days of Julian the Apostate—(Laughter)—been no such conversion recorded in history. It was true, he said, that in 1842 he had voted for the ballot, but he had been converted the other day by the argu ment of tne Hon. Member for Oldham! Julian the Apostate had assumed the garb of a monk at first, but when he reached the Imperial throne, who; he took his place on the Treasury bench of his day, he voted against Christianity. The speech of the Noble Lord was a me lancholy failure. He app .sled to the Conservative fears of the old women. Not content with referring to the state of foreign countries, he brought in the subject of the national debt. In the book on the Engiish consti tution—that curious book wherein he said the constitu tion to which he now appealed had never been fixed—he stated that the national debt had been the great cause of the taxation of the country; and, therefore, that if des potism were to be established in England it must begin by destroying the national debt, the people, possibly, being willing to part with their liberties in exchange for a diminished pressure of taxation. How did such views tally with those now expressed by the Noble Lord? The attempt to terrify those sensitive persons the fund holders was a weak invention of the enemy. The Whig party were notoriously more aristocratic at all times, more anti-liberal in reality than those who avowedly opposed liberal principles. In the words of Swift, they "Forget the dunghill where they grew, And think themselves the Lord knows who" —(A laugh.) The Noble Lord said—and the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth cheered him at the time— that half the capitals of Europe were in a state of siege. Was the Noble Lord so satisfied with respect to his own Government, was he so confident that he could point to Ireland and say that at present it was not in a state of siege? The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended; the Alien Act had been renewed; and at this moment there were actually more soldiers in Ireland than voters. Was it not notorious that four prosecutions had been instituted against one newspaper, and that the Attor ney-General could not possibly get a conviction against Mr. Duffy? The more any plan was pressed, the more did the Noble Lord recede. He would propose none of his own, and therefore Hon. Members were obliged to vote for the plan of the Hon. Member for Montrose. If he (Mr. Osborne) might offer any advice to those men of narrow and contracted minds, the free-traders, it would from that be that they should make a stand, .separate themselves t , rwtsheilefhan their incu talentsbus on the and take hi c h w ould command. The Noble Lord would be left to de claim to empty party w t h h a e d position pro ved benches, while they were carried into power on the shoulders of the people.—(Divide, divide.) Mr. P. W. WOOD rose amidst loud cries of " Divide," and observed, that Hon. Gentlemen who evinced so much impatience might be satisfied in not having had much of their time consumed on previous occasions upon ques tions of reform. He was happy to see that her Majesty's Government had considered the present subject worthy of discussion. It was said that there were no petitions in favour of the proposed measure; but that circumstance could not ignore the existence of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of unenfranchised Englishmen, whose feelings were too sensitive to be indifferent to contemptuous con duct, and whose minds were far too acute to take sneers for arguments.—(Cheers.) Nobody bad grap pled with the motion; but the artifice which had been resorted to both by the Noble Lord and by the Right lion. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) was to assume that motion to be identical with the one brought forward on a former occasion by the Hon. Member for N. ttineham (Mr. F. O'Connor). But the two measures were dia -1 metrically opposed to each other. It aas cur ieus enough that in the debate on the Triennial Bill in 1792—which %%eta supported both by Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt—Mr. Fox (who was then in power) said, " that it was the fatality of this country that the Government would never move towards reformation till it was on the brink of destruction, nor until they feared that every man was about to take up a musket." That, also, had been uniformly the case with all the Governments on the continent, and bad been one main cause of those convulsions which were now taking place in almost every country in Europe.—(Hear.) It was said that there were no petitions calling for the measure; at other times when numerous petitions were presented, the cry was," Oh, this is agitation." He (Mr. Wood) was no agitator. lie did not approve of itinerant agitation. —(Opposition cheers.) Ile refused, in 1832, to join the Yvliticawl Union; and yet, afteg all, it WU the rtAitiCat