The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

I [:cvtlr, ;61 0 $$ $.• ) 0 6 1 Rl' o f ion, 0 5 ' hone irly all th — ----- - G Nlght he had done his duty in brim;ing- the . tibiect , or,, ar d . i r ~,,.:,, „„ , i m .1;11,,, if, t,-; I:cu:.,er, ~. ''-t (l 6"e thernselve, to ali parts o. the plan. He merely • .5,4 ed them to go into the consideration of the present gate of the representation, and to endeavour to devise A e aris by which a full, a fair, and a free representation ) , t .. .the p•eople might be attained.—(Cheer.) The points ~".1 01 he had brought forward for the consideration of . 9e- iftl'' , e had recently, he was aware, Men into some ' l '4,l §eredii, as being contained in what was comnionly ~ .41 1e .d the Charter. That such was the case lie would 0 t deny ; but, at the same time, he did not wish to 'lettify 4 himself with any proceedings Which had taken 1 ace in relation to the Charter. Be was aware that . ' , `?zany of those proceeding's had clime great injury to the ' elt ,4se of Reform. He alluded to attempts to attain the • pects Sinuht by means of physical force and tumult. ate utterly ' repudiated all such attempts, and the first I. "whom r esolutio n of the delegates to 1 he had al ' laded was, that the object for their consideration should be •:: . the best measures for securing. by peaceable means, ii i t ) full, a fair, and a free representation of the people. It was Iss° l 3' by those means that he desired to carry his object. He . 51: led to create a moral power, which by a temperate, yet ''''eible expression of opinion throughout the country, should :i ll i e s cornplish such changes. He was bound to repeat that if "ere were any disposition to attack property, it was only be - ealise the property of the country arrayed itself against the t i c i Ple The moment they did justice to the people, the upo ile4t they showed a disposition to inquire how justice might be ''Plries they might depend upon it that the same security for tPerty that always had existed in England would return. ;11.. sufferings of the people are great, and those sufferings •Y ascribe - to unjust legislation. Their present demand for L e eform of that House arose in consequence of their refusal , Vnalre reasonable amendments in the Reform Act. Neither re Working class nor the middle class could effect this Reform 1 1 itself ; but if a complete union took place between these two ;•-elasses it would produce a power which it would be impossible ,•"° t.iti resist. It appeared that that union was now in progress. Both 1 asses concurred in the propositions that he 'laid before ,:i ii ! House. (Hear, hear.) These propositions were •°at, temperate, and free from all harshness. They had the IVoWer to answer this petition by taking into consideration the Srevances it expressed. He asked no more of the House. ~ !": b ad been said that the power of the aristocracy would be . langered 4 by a free admission of the people to political t ßower , On this point he should refer to the declaration of •:7 Noble Lord the Member for London, who assumed that tetion in a more forcible manner than he could do. He said ...twhile the aristocracy performed the important duties and 7..Nspensed extensive charity, both public and private, in their , 44 ierective districts, it was not in human nature but that their it.t4ttence should be very great. He would now call on the !Vernment to show its disposition to consider the present 4 9) Plication ; if they did not feel justified in acceding to the solutions, let them at least treat them with kindness. If the 'oble Lord the Member for London had been present, he ;. s hould have called on him, as a leader of the cause of the people, "7advocate the extension of their rights. He regretted that he „ . _''as not there, but he trusted that he should have his assistance `7 . 1,a future occasions He believed he had completed all he )i ' l'A to say in reference to the present motion ; in bringing it '' l,° eward he trusted that he had not offered any disrespect to '•` 4 3' party.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to bring it forward •itbout any aggravation of party spirit. He wished to do it a manner consistent with the prayer of the petition, which 4 xpressed the complaints of the people, and he thought they 441 1 a right to have those complaints heard. 14r. O'CONNELL seconded the motion. • The SPEAKER having put the question, ,Mr. WALLACE was satisfied, from being one of the o ldest Reformers in the House, that the time had come when those sentiments, which had been so ably worked out by the '. "on. Member bell re him ( Mr. S. Crawford), should receive the piousconsideration of the House and the country generally. pious the middling and the working classes were brought to :,et in more perfect unison, he must say the Reform Bill b ad a delusion, practised upo n th e country by those who . ad be en p ar ti es t o t h e p ass i ng o f t h e Bill ; an d among th ose 74 included Hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of e House, as well as those Members who ought to be,but were r, sitting upon the bench below him.— (The Hon. Member ' Members pointed to the bench generally occupied by the leading ulensbers of the Opposition.) He almost felt that he, with sincere Reformers, ought himself to have gone down into t eat place which those, whom he regretted to say were absent, r: ) aglit to fill on the present occasion.—(Laughter, and cries of Go d own. ") H e (M r . W . ) wou l d not go d own, b ut stan d ... , here he appeared on the present occasion to advocate the tights of the people respecting those points alluded to in s , le document which had been as ably brought forward, HAN in so mild and gentlemanly a tone, by the Hon. „wtember for Rochdale. He (Mr. Wallace) knew that he I. l= not speaking at the time of the night, at 11 or , si k o'clock, when those who fancied they could command :- 7 ,7 attention of the House generally rose—he was speaking ; t l ,'ne of the minor poets.—(Laughter.) Could it be i that the Reform Bill had effected the great mprove . R li?ts which had been expected of it ? Certainly not. e - s e i ‘e measure in reference to the franchise was absolutely ne totally for the public interest • his conviction of this was con • increasing. He had originally been an advocate pvote by ballot and triennial Parliaments; and recently had taken into his consideration the question of annual st a tliaments. He had not supported the Charter, and some his constituents had on that ground refused to support him. s t „ L itt he believed they would have come to his rescue if there had t;, lithe slightest risk of the Carlton Club money finding favour k the town which he represented. He was satisfied if they ltd annual Parliaments in place of septennial, that totally t j , erent measures of general finance from what the Right ;col. Baronet had proposed would have been brought for kese`ed• He . would not have ventured to propose such Eaf(s as had been submitted. He (Mr. W a ll a c e ) wou ld sa y, at he was nearly prepared to vote for annual Par 1/41i!rents s and for the proposition submitted to them that night ; et" if he did so, his course would be to inform his constituents, at if they were not pleased with his conduct he would re 'tape the trust they had reposed in his hands, and they might o the_representation to any one they pleased. He would tit vote for the motion, and then sit f o r seven years, without ! lir renewed concur, once. Would the Right Hon. Baronet, those behind him, follow such a course? He fancied not.. gave the, itotf..Gentleman who had brought forward this ion his hearty concurrence, and he could assure him he S ,iFt - *helly .agreedin the propesition he had submitted. t, Ras_ quite sure there was no property qualification necessary. it e Alembers for Scotland proved this. He defied En g la n d Ireland to show that they (the Scotchmen) were not as • for the representation as they were. He would like to see td, man get up and say that those sent from Scotland were their equals.—(Laughter.) He said they were as good men v., 1 43 , in that House, either Tory or Radical. There were lie Whigs amongst them to be sure—only one here and 7e Scotland knew better. They always had out-and-out 7, and no half-and-half Members.—( Loud laughter.) ki' r•BOWRING said he was unwilling to give a question 4 t. I ‘!ich extreme: interest and gravity a tacit concurrence. Zire could be no safety for any Government that did not rest . g., 1 the affections and opinions of the people. The great 4 t ijiNiple of representation was freedon of admission, and ex thtlien was the exception. He was aware that until some ti:lige should take place in the constitution of Parliament, Wee was little chance of obtaining a hearing for the advocates 4 band principles in the House of Commons, and 1,... Was also aware that that change could only be I 01; ht about by a hearty co-operation between tkl multitude and those who were somewhat, above , : 111 in society. Hon. Gentlemen opposite paid great atten bll to th e pet iti ons o f th e p eo pl e w h en it su it e d th em to d o sa,,. Hon. Gentlemen opposite attached great importance to 1;,7 Petition which had been presented in favour of the Income e from M anc h es t er , s i gne d by 24.000 p ersons . H e wou ld as k Zeeswas not a petition signed by millions of quite as great im trance ? The petitions of the unrepresented were in his Ilion entitled to more attention than were the petitions of a, represented. The represented spoke through their repre- Cdatives ; the unrepresented many, the suffering masses, suf- C s la.ff through the effects of evil legislation, had no means of r_Xlng their sufferings known, except by petition. There were 'Calents of danger in the present state of society—on the one Oel, they had the privileged few; on the other, the suffering i 7. On the one side, the agglomeration of property in the ta of a few ; on the other, millions possessing hing, yet suffering much.—( Hear.) This was a s s _ol state of things. If the multitude were entitled to those O r essions of sympathy which had been made use of by Hon. )7tiatlerrien opposite—if they had borne their sufferings with such ee and fortitude—surely the House was bound to pay at n to their prayers. What his Hon. Friend asked, then, Ci not to pledge themselves to the principle at once, but to s eder it. He (Dr. Bowring ) was satisfied that those princi st must ultimately be acknowledged. All that was wanting 'heir success was, that they should be detached from those .s i l l iftts of violence, and front those projects of ignorance with Ip t ,eb they had been mixed up. They had only to be exhibited s v oeir naked strength, and their naked truth to prevail. The Onsion of the suffrage had never been attended with an y R o ger i to property . W ere th e men o f E ng l an d l ess tj.thy to be trusted with the suffrage than the inhabitants of 4...nserland or Spain ; or were the fathers of the people of si` g erica less worthy than their descendants on the oth er s id e of v _ge Atlantic? Isfo danger had ever arisen from an extension tis t le suffrage. He could not look at an excluded man with -1,, f eeling as if he had done the man a wrong. He would ask, e t x 41 se one man was a little less opulent than his neighbour, 4 : he therefore to possess fewer rights ? He had heard the W ill Mr. Roscoe say that he could not understand how the Rd of universal suffrage could be repudiated by any man s til recognised the great Christian principle of doing to li tl l ra that which he would have done to himself. Yet so ts , II R,IY anomalous was the principle at present acted ILtnat in some instances they slid confer those pri. ts upon the poor. If they found a poor man in a aeon so degraded as to be influenced by their bribes or ter is by their threats, they let that man have a vote in return., k e t il repsesentatives to that House. His Hon. Friend had at 111, ed to his motion a proposition for securing to the voter i 5 Protection of secrecy. The Radical Reformers were de e" of securing the protection of the ballot, in order that 4 4 (Y man might have an opportunity of recording his free lieOnbiassed opinion. The present state of the representa tip, Wal indefensible. They saw small bodies electing the i„ e number of representatives as large ones. Small cities itOlesl an equal number of representatives as large cities, and ki s `l agricultural districts the same as large ones. His Hon. tend had likewise represented the necessity of shortening ,4 ,, ratinn of Parliaments. He (Dr. Bowring) had always ets bs in favour of annual Parliaments. It seemed an arrange ! 4 ' in conformity with the general course of nature, and 1 , kx Social habits. We settled our accounts from year to I , 7., We elected our municipal officers annually.—( Hear.) INSmon. Member for Greenock had been in the habit of re )k:ha'? to his constituents at the end of every year, and he sS o dt the less of this part of the question, as every Member sN r , a Pproved of the principle of annual Parliaments , had it in k w " power to acquaint the community of it. With respect .. atlity to the number of votes could anything be more de- Nile? Could anything be less defensible than that a thou persons in in one part of the country should exercise in that km as much political power as ten times that number in ano ' istrict? This seemed to him exceedingly indefensible. If ~thit s aid that their constitution should be made up of incon- St ell 3 ' and absurdity, so be it. But if they wished it to be con- I , t with public opinion, gathered out of the sources of public ) titi,.", --the entire community—let them make it consistent ‘s sa toat public opinion. No man would say that Scotland was slas:,,tePresented because the money qualification was not cc ,13,"; This qualification would exclude some of the best men 'a i i; e tiamer s t The man most fit of all to be a legislator might t i lles p ,,Y Possess a fortune; a calamity might overtake him to lk "ws and the next day they would decide that he ought not eve A a seat in this House. What was the deduction? that it `asy li4 his intellect, nor his mind, nor his knowledge, which e l l t i l estred to come to their assistance as legislators, but his letsi' There was nothing like common sense in this pro ,i_mtli;l• He concurred with the principles of the propositions, `Nsi i. e hosed the House would consent to consider them in eltls W ILLIAMS in 4 . W was not at all surprised at the indiffe • Nis k l aanifesred on the other side of the House towards this Zr eo lant question, when he saw how much the present system 744:tsentation marked out the great object which those k.,„, h ad in view, namely, to promote the interest of the ':ejaiie few at the expense of the industrious millions of O s tntry. Having had a seat in that House during the . 01. 0 ,K 1 'iod the Reform Bill had been in operation, he had Ni - ell r rtnnities enough of witnessing how incomplete that N i ? had been — that it had nst worked out one single "atl o l4 Which it had been professed it bad been intended it s ' according to the statements of Lord Grey in the House of Lords, and of Lord John Russell in the House of CoM:T one, on the introduction of that measure. Seeing the failure of that measure so complete, he (Mr. W.) had no hesitation in supporting the proposition of the 1-lon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford.) But he felt the deepest conviction that • no justice would be obtained for the people of this countr y until another Reform Bill was carried out to ills, full extent of the principle which had been cx pressed by his Honourable Friend (Mr. S. Crawford), I What had Lord Grey said upon the introduction of the Reform Pell in the House of Lords? He stated that the object of it was to procure for the people of this country a cheap and a good government. Had it obtained either one or the other of these two great objects? Good government meant good and just laws. Had those laws which were passed since the Reform Bill came into existence been founded upon the prin ciple of equal justice to the rich and to the poor ? He believed that if they examined almost every statute they would find some part of each formed for the advantage of the rich and the disadvantage of the poorer classes. Had the Reform Bill pro- ' duced them cheap Government? `,\ by the expenses of the present Government, and the Government for some years past, had been some millions more than they were the yesr preceding the passing of the Reform Bill. Lord John Russell, upon the I introduction of that Bill in the House of Commons, said, in June, 1831, that when he proposed to have a Reformed Par liament he proposed to have sent to that House real representa tives of the people, to deliberate upon their wants, and consult fur their interests ; to consider of their grievances, and to at tend to their desires. He proposed that they should possess, in fact, what they had hitherto not within theii grasp, the power of holding the purse-strings of their monarch. Laws would no longer be classed for particular classes ; they would no longer be passed by men who voted at twelve o'clock for what they had not heard a syllable about, merely because the leader of their party told them so to vote. Not one of those prophecies had been fulfilled. There was not a Reformer in the country who would not be perfectly satisfied with such a result. AU that was required was, that the Members of that House should really represent the people, providing for their wants, and consulting their interests--no one asked for a more extensive Reform Bill than that. He extremely regretted that the authors and promoters of the Reform Bill were absent from their seats in that House.—(Hear.) If there had been any party question under consideration they would have been in their places ready to carry out their purposes; but when the interest of vast masses of the people were concerned, they did not think it necessary to appear in their seats. He held in Isis hand a retu ii of the registration for the year 1840. From that return it appeared that there were five towns returning Members to that House, of which the aggregate constituency was 1,1,88 ; five was returning ten Members, with a constitu ency of 1,496 ; and twenty towns returning f,rty Members, in which the constituency was 6,258. Thirty towns were return- , ing sixty Members, with a constituency of 12,180. Manchester returned two Members, and possessed a constituency of 12,150. —(1-leer, hear.) There were forty towns which returned sixty seven Members, with a constituency of 14,180; there were seventy-four towns returning 121 Members, with constitu encies of 29,993. The West Riding of Yorkshire returned two Members, and possessed a constituency of 30,120. Now this was a perfect exhibition of the representation of the country. There were 61 Members returned by the same constituency as two Members. In another case, there were sixty-seven Mem bers returned by a less constituency than two Members. In another case, there were 121 Members returned to that House by a less constituency than two other Members. It was proved by this'exhibition that the Reform Bill had been a failure. They saw small constituencies, with vast interest and wealth, brought to bear upon them, in order to obtain seats in that House—in order to advance the ie' erest of a particular class at the expense of the rest of the community. They hail seen a vast system of corruption since the passing of the Reform Bill, but more perhaps during the last election than any preceding one. He would venture to assert that in the old time of the boroughmongering system, when seats in that House were sold, as was admitted by Lord Castlereagh, as open as the noon-day sun, the system was not more noto rious than it was at present. In the time of the borough mongering system individuals purchased their seats for a certain sum of money. Now the same individual could go to a small set of sordid electors and make a purchase precisely the same as under the old boroughmongering system. He believed, in fact, that under the old system they might have made a better bargain than with the present electors, who sold their votes to persons ready to sell their country. Was it to be wondered at when such a system was in operation—when it was so sorely felt by the great body of the people, that a feverish anxiety should exist throughout the whole mass of the industrious and productive classes of the country for a great and important change in the condition of that House. There was no diffe rence in the country as to that change. The only difference of opinion was as to the means to be employed to obtain it. The good sense of the country would point out the necessity of agreeing in the common principle, and acting together to ob tain the great end desired. He called on those who had the least interest in the possession of property to look to this sub ject, and make those concessions which, if delayed, would ul timately be forced from them. Mr. WARD said, there was nothing so disagreeable in that House as a one-sided debate. He could not impute the silence of Hon. Gentlemen opposite to an intentional slight. He was rather inclined to accept it as a sort of tribute on their part to the importance of the principle which had been advanced that evening ; and as a sort of proof of their consciousness, that however impracticable it might be in the present state of parties in that House to entertain such a principle, yet that principle was one of great importance, and they, there fore, left the Right Hon. Baronet to wind up the debate by some very courteous reasons, why he could not entertain the proposition. He (Mr. Ward) was willing, thus, to con strue their silence. He certainly should not offer the House any very lengthened remarks in support of the motion. The motion was brought forward in a moderate form, and in that speech, the temperate tone of which was acknowledged by all who had spoken, the Horn Member asked them to take into consideration the means of securing a full and fair representation to the people of England, which was its ultimate object. They had all discussed this question, before many of them had had an opportunity of voting on the ballot, which he had himself supported ; and he had also voted for triennial Par liaments, which he, on general grounds, preferred to annual. As to the question of qualification of Members, he had voted on the motion of Sir William Molesworth, for equalising the system in Scotland and England ; and if the interests of the working classes could be represented more intelligibly, and more satisfactorily by a working man, he should be delighted to see him admitted into that House, if he could he so by not requir ing a property qualification ; which in the case of men of good family there was a thousand means of evading, and which he considered to be no better than a fraud. He did not know that they could entirely dissever the suffrage from the posses sion of some property, but he wished to widen the basis of the present system, as a security against the dangers consequent on its present unsettled state. Virtual representation still pre vailed, though it was exploded as a system by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Homo Secretary, and the Noble Lord, the Se cretary for the Colonies, so long ago as 1831. They said that representation and taxation should be co-existent, while they taxed twenty where one was represented in that House. This was a great anomaly, if the question were pressed out of that House. He considered the question to be one principally of time. How was the franchise used now? Had the people, who were interested with it, proved themselves before the Election Committees to be so free from sordid motives of ac tion as that the people of the country ought to be satisfied to see the representation in their hands? A more disgraceful state of things than that which those Committees brought to light it was impossible for the page of history to unfold. He cared not to which side it was attributed. It was only a question of finding out, for both were guilty of it. When the question of the disfranchisement of Sudbury came before the House, he would certainly vote in favour of it. But he thought it very hard that the charge of corruption should be confined to that (the Opposition) side of the House. He thought that there was as much corruption in that House as in any constituency. There was as much corruption in a blue riband as in a couple of sovereigns.—( Hear, hear.) With one party the corn-laws, with another the sugar duties, constituted a sort of corruption. With respect to the suffrage, there was a strung organization among the people on the question, but that was owing to the want of kindness of feeling shown towards them atter the Re form Bill. The only remedy for such a state of things was contained in the motion now under the consideration of the House. He remembered, when the question of Catholic Emancipation was sought to be obtained, the opponents of that measure resisted it on the ground of the Catholics bring under improper g tidance, and that they would therefore make a bad u se o f th e power they would acquire. Mr. Canning, he remembered, in reply to those persons, said that whatever they complained of was a sort of idol worship which they would put an end to ; they would throw open the temple of the Constitution, and let them see the real divinity enshrined within. He would conclude by stating his inten tion of giving his cordial support to the motion of his Hon. Friend. Sir J. GRAHAM said that what had fallen from the Hon. Member who had just sat down, required that he should say a few words. From the great silence on the question which was observed on that (the hlinis:erial) side of the House, he feared that it would be supposed disrespect was thereby meant to the large classes of the community ; but he was sere he need not say no sueh thing was intended. That night they had heard universal disparagement of the Re form Bill on the other side of the House, and it had been treated with contempt and derision, and they were told that it was, in fact, useless. The Hon. Member for Coventry had entered into an analysis of the constituencies for the purpose of showing that the representation was unequal. Now, he did not come there to discuss abstract propositions. The real question, as he conceived, was, what was the form of Govern ment under which they should live? and he believed the peerage and the monarchy would not survive if weight were given to Members, to the exclusion of property. —( Hear, hear.) This subject was considered very carefully by the eminent men who had taken part in the Reform Bill, and admitting the dangerous extent to which aris tocratic influence prevailed over popular influences, they thought that in applying the correction they went to the utmost extent which was consistent with the maintenance of the ancient con stitution of the country. That was his own opinion, and he had seen no reason to change it. He honestly entertained that opinion then. He sincerely entertained it now, and, enter taining it, he could not recede from it. He was bound to listen to motions of this description with respect, but, he be lieved them to be fraught with danger to the existing form of Government. Mr. O'CONNELL said he had heard with some sur prise the Honourable Baronet's statement that, if the motion were carried, it would be followed by the destruction of the peerage, and the annihilation of the mo narchy. He was sorry to hear the Hon. Member use those words, because he remembered that he was taunted, as one of the Reform Ministers, with that very prophecy, though he then very properly repudiated the prophecy and derided the prophet. The Reform Bill had been hailed by the people, because they believed that it would secure to them real representation. That was the foundation of the speech of the Noble Lord, the Mem ber for the city of London. The people thought that although the franchise would not be universal, yet that it would give to the Members of that House the character of real representatives of the people. The Noble Lord began his speech by referring to the 25th Edward V., for the principle that no British sub ject should be taxed without his own consent, and he cited also the statute, " De tallayiq non concedendo," declaring that without the consent of the earls, barons, bishops, baronets, knights, burgesses, and other freemen of England, no money should be levied for the support of the State. He said it must be conceded that the taxation at pre sent was not placed upon that footing, and the object of the Bill was to remedy the evil. He (Mr. O'C. ) contended that the people had been disappointed, that the House repre sented apar titular class, and a particular class only, and that the object now stated by the Noble Lord had not been attained. Could there be any doubt but the people of England were di vidA into two classes ? A master-cla s s having votes in the choice of the representatives, and the slave-class who had no votes when returning Members to the House, who had no share in the making of the laws, who were bound to obey laws made by others; and whenever there were a class bound to obey laws made by others, no matter by what name that class might be called, it was, in reality a slave-class. No one could deny that such was the situation of the people of England. The master-class was a small one, the slave-clals was a numerous one. There were not above 20 per cent. of the male popula tion who had a right to vote for representatives in Parlia ment. There were 80 per teat. unrepresented, 80 per cent. of the slave-class. In Ireland the difference was still more dispro portionate. In the county of Tipperary there were four hun dred thousand inhabitants, and only two thousand voters. The slave.class amounted to 400,000, the marter-class to 2,000. Was that, he asked, to be the constitution a England? —(Cheers.) The Reform Bill had not effected the object-- (Cheers).— for which it was passed. Would they tell the people of England that they would not hold out a hope to them that these evils should be remedied ?—( Cheers.) tie wanted ' to know on what ground they gave a preference to the master class over the slave-class. At the time that the statute " De tallagio non concedendo" was passed, it was well to make the distinction of free men. At that time there was a class of slaves, actual slaves, slaves who were property. They said there were now no slaves, ne men who were the property of others. If they boasted of having abolished slavery, why did they continue a slave-class?—(Loud cheers.) The Right Honourable Baronet had said that at the time of the Reform Bill it had been determined that the representation should be based, not upon popu lation alone, but upon property. Was that so? What property had the freemen ?—( Cheers. ) What property had the freemen by birth—what property had the freemen by servitude? —(Cheers.) Was that representation based upon property?— , (Cheers.) But, then, there was the 10/. householders. Was the possession of such a house as that evidence of property? A man might be liable to 301. a-year rent, or 500/. a-year rent, and because he inhabited a house of that value they gave , him a vote, when, at the same time, by the very possession of that house he might be pauperised. There was the 501. tenant , at-will in counties who had a vote. He was liable to beturned , out of his farm at any time ; he hail no tenure whatever. Was that a proof of his property ? No; it was a proof his distress, and his servitude. It was ab surd to say that they adopted property as the basis of their representation—they had done no such thing. They had adopted a fantastical and uncertain test, which was not a test of property.—(Cheers.) They taxed every man, either di rectly or indirectly. There was no man so poor that they did not deprive him of some part of his property by taxation ; and as they took property from him, he had a right under the old Constitution—he had a right under the principle of represen tation—to a vote in the choice of representatives. Neither Nature, nor Nature's God, made this distinction of property between man and man. Under the feudal system, the aristocracy claimed to be of a superior nature. The present aristocracy did not dare to do so in words, and ought not to do so prac tically by legislation.—(Loud cheering.) The results pro duced by the present system were almost ludicrous. The county of Tipperary had 482,908 inhabitants, 2,468 voters, and it re turned two Members. The borough of Thetford had 152 voters, and returned two Members also. If they were to have property as the basis of representation, let them have it reckoned according to the rules of vulgar arithmetic. The West Riding of Yorkshire had 1,154,000 inhabitants, a'0,12 9 voters, and it returned two Members to Parliament. The borough of Harwich had 181 voters, and like wise returned two Members to Parliament. Was that representation based upon property ? Parliaments now lasted seven years. Why was that ?—(Cheers. ) Did they remember that the same transaction that transferred the ) Crown of England to the present Royal Family, at the same time gave the people a right to triennial Parliaments ? How had they lost that right? By the grossest violation of trust of which men could be guilty—(Cheers)—by the most unpar • ralleled enormity that could be committed.— ; ( Cheers.) The men who had been elected to serve for three years, of their own power prolonged the term of their existence to seven. He approved of triennial Parliaments from the conviction that annual elections became elections of course, and that it was more difficult to remove a man elected annually than it was to remove a person chosen for three years. There was another point which required iisvestigation—that was bribery— Had is not been acknowledged to exist, by both sides of the House and by the organs of both parties? If the Morning Chronicle admitted its existence to-day, it was only because the Times acknowledged it yesterday. He had heard the Right Honourable Baronet attribute its existence to large constituencies even more than small ones ; but however that might a be, there was no doubt that there never had been such bribery in England as had taken place during the last election. They were ascertaining it even through the dark medium of the Election Committees. And what was bribery? It was the worst social crime that could be committed, enhanced by all the horrors of perjury ? It demoralized and corrupted the people from one end of the country to the other. They were a religious people. During the last election there had been much spoken of the differences of persuasion between Christian and Christian. Great pro fessions were made of Christianity—where was it in reality ? Where was it when they called upon them to stop this enormous bribery ? It had been said that after the ballot had been instituted there would he more bribery than ever—that constituencies would be bribed by wholesale. But it should be remembered that that would be more difficult, and, in the next place, it would be a criminal conspiracy to which very few gentlemen would care to expose themselves ; while, at the same time, it would he almost impassible to es cape conviction. But it was well known it was most preva lent in small constituencies; and all he asked was, that they should do this to stop the practice, and in favour of morality ta give the ballot in great constituencies. Let them stop it where they admitted that the ballot would stop it. Let them give this one proof of the reality of their pro tessions, and not continue to talk of their religion without making out the morality it prescribed. He did tot mean to detain the House by speaking at any length on the qualifica tions of Members ; there was no qualification in Ireland before the Union ; there was none 'in Scotland; members of Uni ver,ities required none; the sons of Peers need riot have a qualification. lie touched upon these points because he was there to advocate as far as possible tranquil reform, and the quiet concession of principles that tended to the public advan tage. He knew what was called the Charter had given rise to a great deal cf doubt and some apprehensions, but the violence of the Chartists was not one that could last ; it had passed away al,o,eadas, and men were now taking a lead in this movement, who were incapable of involving themselves in any species of violence. His only object was to show that there was cause for inquiry ; they put the case as distinctly as they could, and he could not think that they would make such a preference, as it would exclude so large a number of the Eng lish people from their right of being represented in that House. He had cot mixed up other questions with it, but he might say now that they could not trust to the well-working of the pre sent system. Before the Reform Bill they were told that though the principle was faulty yet the system worked well. The reply to that was the enormous accumulation of debt, the long wars, and the burdens they had brought upon the country. The Reform Bill was tried, and it mitigated but little of the evils complained of ; and at the present moment the refusal to allow the people of England a fair share in the representation, was said by themselves to be the cause of the overwhelming distress which had reached them, and which was admitted and deplored by Members on all sides of the House. There was distress and misery in the land, and the people were deprived of their inherent right to representation. All they asked was for a Committee to inquire and to bring every fact distinctly be fore them; then they applied to the House either to continue the present system, if they found it preferable, or to give that remedy which they might find most desirable. Mr. WA KLEY regretted that he had not heard the speech of the Right ilon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De partment, and he was also sorry that the Right Hon. Gentleman's late colleagues were not present also. What were they to infer from their absence—from the absence of those who brought on the Reform Bill? They were placed in considerable difficulty in consequence of their absence, as they were not aware of their own strength. Were they favourable to the change or not ? He inferred from their absence that they were not. Well, we must fight that battle ourselves. Instead of a ses sional motion on this subject, there ought to be a monthly one. Was it not curious to see the state of the House on such a sub ject? Millions were reflecting on what was passing in that House, and were looking forward with anxiety to the issue of the question ; yet here they saw almost empty benches. They would infer from this that the House did not represent the feelings of the people, or they would not dare to neglect their business on such an occasion. They would not yield till they were driven to it by fear. The people said they were regardless of their feelings. They asked for redress ; if it was refused, the people would take it. It was only a ques tion of time. The very moment the people were resolved to have redress, they (the House) must yield, because they would not have the power to resist They thought that this was a question got up by agitators ; he could assure them they were grossly deceived, and they were sleeping on a volcano. The people attributed their distress to class legislation in that Howe Within the space of twenty.feur bows a fact had oc curred in that House to exemplify this, and a fact of that kind was worth a whole volume of his tory. He said that man that was not represented was a slave. He had all the authorities since the Revolution of 1688 in support of the assertion that they were slaves, anti nothing but slaves, because money was taken from their pockets without their consent. What had happened in that House on Wednesday evening ? A question had been brought forward, which involved the right of a rich man, arid dealt ruin to 500 poor people. The question was, with reference to a certain enclosure. The rich man said, " This is nay property"-500 poor people said " This is our property." The rich man said to the Government give me an office under your authority to dispossess these 500 poor people, and to raze their buildings to the earth. The propo sition was, that the House would see the evidence which was given between the parties before it come to a determination. That determination was by a vote of ll l to 30 in favour of the rich man, and they actually decided that they would not see the evidence upon which they were going to make a final de cision. Would any man tell him, that if there had been a pro per representation of the people, such conduct would have been allowed? Did they believe that the people were indif ferent to such conduct? Did they believe that those 500 people, who had been rendered houseless and hopeless, would have any respect for the laws of their country ? What answer could be made to such a statement as this ? On that occasion it was not requisite to go into all the points of the resolutions. lie was for shortening the duration of Parlia ments, but he was very doubtful whether annual Parliaments would be as productive of as much benefit as triennial Par liaments; but that was a question for future discussion. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had told-the House that an extension of the suffrage would en danger the monarchy. Why, then, they endangered the mo narchy by giving contentment to the people. Why, he always thought that the best security to the institutions of the country was contentment in the people. He warned them net to tam per with the feelings of the people. Let Hon. Members re train from laying that flattering unction to their souls, that the people would remain passive under oppression. He would con. elude with the words of Lord Camden, in 1776, on a motion for a repeat of the Stamp Act. Lord Camden said, "My posi tion is this, I will maintain to the last hour of my life that tax ation and representation are inseparable. Whoever taxed a man without representation committed an injury which, in my opinion, almost amounts to a direct robbery." Could this be disputed ? If its truth were admitted—and it must be ad mitted—how could they refuse to accede to the motion of his Hon. Friend? Millions in this country were unrepresented in that assembly. They asked to have a voice in the election of those who made the laws: The Government made answer and said, they should have no voice. He (Mr. W.) therefore, in the language of Lord Camdem, raid, "that if they bad no such voice they became slaves, and if they (the' Government) taxed them, they were committing a direct robbery." Mr. R. YORKE said, to show the effect of the present system of representation, one of the first things they heard of after the last election, was that fifty or sixty elections were to be disputed. In the last week circumstances had come under their notice relative to the Sudbury election. The Committee had unanimously advised the House not only that the election was bad and infamous, but so bad and infamous, that. the borough was unworthy of representation, and they had therefore unanimously suggested that it should be disfranchis, d. Again, that very day they had learned that the Committee sitting upon the Ipswich election had committed an individual for perjury, and that three individuals had been compelled before that Com mittee to acknowledge themselves rogues and vagabonds. This was under the present system.—(Cheers.) lie (Mr. Yorke) had no hesitation in saying fur himself that there were some details in the Hon. Member's motion, to which he (Mr. Yorke) could not give his consent. H e en ti re l y di ssen t e d f r o m the principle of paying Members, but he agreed to that of no property qualification. He should, however, support the motion. Mr. PROTHEROE thought that one great cause of the corruption in that House was the corruption of the electors themselves. He did not think that the present system, under the Reform Bill, gave so much encouragement to industry as the old system, as a msn under that system obtained a vote by ser vitude. .He considered that the 10/. householders were less corrupt than any other class. He was not one of those who thought that the rigkt of voting should be extended to every adult, but he gave his assent to the no qualification principle. With respect to paying Members, he thought no Member would ever be returned to that House without possessing the pre sent qualification. He should give his support to the motion. Mr. BERNAL said, that in supporting the motion, he did not do so with a view of seeking popularity, but at the same time he declared that the representation of this country was nything but a perfect system.—(Cheers,) He did not wish THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 22 1 1842. to accuse any Honourable Member of corruption. He was sure he could not do so upon Gentlemen opposite ; but those Hon. Gentlemen must allow that many persons, who supported the Reform not consider that they were supporting the doctrine of finality. The situation which he nad the honour of filling at the time of the Reform Bill, prevented him from having much to do with the discussion upon it, but he was free to confess that he never thought that measure was a final measure. How was it possible that in a country, like Great Britain, the law could always remain in the same state? He believed that the constituencies had never wallowed in so much political mire and degrading dirt as they had done since the passing of that Bill.—( Cheers.) When the balance of party was so small, great temptation was held out to persons to resort to means unworthy of any party. But he must say that he did net think the people of the country were alive to their situation. He did not think that generally they were aware of the import ance of their political rights. He was afraid that education had not spread sufficiently amongst the people. With respect to the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, he was not to withhold his support from this motion because he (Mr. Bernal) could not go the length of the Charter. He was not prepared to assent to the principle of annual Parliaments. He was not prepared to give the franchise to all adult males in the kingilimi, but he was oat prepared to say that the present system of representation was a good one. or that it was a _Macadamized road of legislation than which nothing could be better. The Right Hon. Baronet had talked of an extension of the suffrage endangering the monarchy, but the Right Honourable Gentleman must remember that there was an aristocracy in St. Giles's as well as in St. James's. Although he should support the Hon Me mber for Rochdale, still he did not go for the Charter. But they could not shut their eyes to the scenes which occurred at elections, and the question was, How were these things to be avoided ? He was not prepared to suppart an evil because it had existed for thirty }'ears; and although y Reform Bill had been passed, he al, no reason y should not go a step further. The s,lhthey the Right Hon. Gentleman said that they were nut to decide the representation numerically, but by property. Although he (Mr. Bernal) was not prepared to controvert this position, Net he did not see why the two should be blended. The nume rical power must force itself on the attention of Parliament. Now, he would ask, whether it was not better to grant what was asked, than to have it forced from them ? In, speaking on this motion, he wished to guard himself against misrepresentation. He was neither a leveller, nor he hoped an inconsiderate Reformer. He had considered the subject seriously, and although he could not wholly agree with the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, yet he thought it was better to remain in his place in the House, and state his sentiments.—( Cheers. ) Sir JOHN EASTHOPE, who was for a considerable time voice in which he addressed anxious to say a few words on t in he au i rl l i o b u le se thening t o said the he low w tone as this subject. He did not agree with the principles of the Charter, as it was called—he was quite prepared to agree in the principle of no other qualification being requisite than being elected by the constituent body. He supported universal suffrage, but with respect to payin g M em b ers , he thought it would be a long time before they saw t h a t.—(Laughter.) With respect to a division of electoral bodies into districts, he should vote for a Committee -of Inquiry. He must oppose the motion in the terms in which it was brought forward. He had not the slightest notion of conform ing to all the propositions that the motion contained. To some of them he assented, and when they were brought forward in a practical manner, as they would be in the motion that would soon be made by his Hon. Friend the Member for Shef field, he would give them his support. Sir C. NAPIER would not vote for complete suffrage or for annual Parliaments, though some of his constituents had commanded him to do so —( Hear) —yet he would vote for going into Committee on the motion. But he would vote for the no property qualification. As for paying Members of Parliament, if Isis constituents would give him a house in Portman-square, and a couple of clerks to take care of his papers, he should have the utmost pleasure in accepting these favours.— (Laughter.) But he did not see why the community at large should be called on to do for a Member that which his own consituency would not do, and, therefore, he would oppose that as a general proposition. The recent cases that had been laid before the Howe proved the necessity of some reform in constituencies. He earnestly hoped that the recommendation for the disiranchisement of the borough of Sudbury would he carried into practice, and by way of making the example more impressive, be hoped that those who gave bribes would be pu nished as well as those who took them.—( Hear. ) Mr. VILLIERS supported the motion for inquiry. There was nothing that was pointed to as a reason for the Reform Bill that his Hon. Friend could not now point to as a reason for the reform of the franchise, and he hoped, therefore, the motion would be agreed to. They had ten years' experience of the bad working of the Reform 131,1. Every instance of bribery, corruption, and intimidation proved this. His Hon. Friend did not ask tor annual Parliaments, or for complete suffrage ; all he asked for was inquiry, arid no one could vote against it unless he was determinel not to extend power to the people. Ile could not at all agree with the reasons of his Ilonourable Friend the Member for Leicester for opposing the motion ; and he thought that the Hon. Member for Rochdale had made out a strong case for the proposition he had addressed to them ; therefore he (Mr. V.) would vote for the motion, and he hoped it would meet with general support, as in agreeing to it no lion. Member would commit himself to any of the principles it advocated.—( Hear. ) Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Gentleman, the leader of the night, had stated, and no doubt truly, that petitions from a very large and important body of the community, couched in moderate and respectful language, on the subject now before them, had been presented to the House ; and he'( Sir R. Peel) should be most unwilling. however he differed from their prayer, to say anything, in the course which he should take that night, that could apppear like disre spectfulness or indifference to their feellngs.—( Hear, hear. ) He also must say that, having watched the political conduct of the lion. Gentleman himself, he had always given him credit for integrity and purity of motives. He (Sir R. Peel) should for that reason, and also because the Hon. Gentleman had that night addressed the House in moderate and temperate language, be sorry to treat with disrespect any motion made individually by him, and therefore he (Sir Robert Peel) should proceed, rather than content himself with a silent vote, to state very shortly the grounds on which he would give his most decided opposition to the Hon. Member's views; and if he avoided stating his reasons at length, it was because he bore in mind the warning of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that the House would have to discuss this subject once a month for several years to come. —(Cheers and laughter.) The motion was a peculiar one. It embraced several propositions, and then invited the House to go into a Committee to consider them. The Hon Gentle man who spoke last was very anxious that whatever they might do, they should at all events consider all the points of the mo tion ; but he (Sir R. Peel) apprehended that what the Hon. Member for itochdale wished was, a Committee to consider those questions for the purpose of bringing in a Bill with re ference to them, and not a Committee for taking evidence, and merely considering those m a tt ers. If t h a t w ere the bject of the Honourable Member for Rochdale, he (Sir R. Peel), considering that the House had already on their hands the Income-tax and the tariff, must regard this additional prospect of another Committee of the whole House, tot Ike evidence at the bar, as another most cogent reason for giving his most de cided opposition to the motion.—( Hear and laughter.) He could not, of course, account for the absence of the Noble Lord (Russell) —(Laughter)—but he (Sir R. Peel) recollected at this peculiar moment a prophecy he made some ten years since, that he apprehended the day would arrive when the most determined enemies of the Reform Bill would be found amongst those Radicals who then supported it, and that his vote would, at no distant day, be required todefend the Reform Bill against its former supporters.--(Cheers and laughter.) And with re spect to the Reform Bill, he would here quote and defend one of the wisest observations of the Noble Lord, that this country could not afford to have a revolution once a year, to make those enormous changes that were demanded in the representative system, and that, therefore, he was determined to resist these further efforts at Reform. —( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) The ground on which he (Sir R. Peel) now resisted the present motion was the same ground on which he made his prophecy ten years ago, when he refused to comply with the wishes of the people. When the cry was, in 1830, that the Reform Bill gave universal satisfac tion to the country—when it was demanded that the Bill should pass unaltered—that the people must have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—(Laughter)—when it was boasted of as the second great charter of the people, and as serted that from that time forth corruption would cease, that the working classes would be represented by Members who would give them perfect satisfaction, and that they would have good Governments, arid consequently that they would have no need even to wish for further 'reforms—when all this was said, he ventured on a prediction, and what the House had that night heard gave evidence to show that his prophecy was right. He believed, however, that the Reform Bill was not justly chargeable wills the grievous defects now complained of ; but of this he was certain—and the fulfilment of one prophecy justified him he thought in venturing upon a second—of this he was certain, that if the majority of those who supported the measures now proposed had their own will granted to them, that ten years hence they would find in them as many faults and disappointments as they now complained of in the Reform Bill. —( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He thought it quite clear that the majority of those Hon. Members who would vote for the Hon. Member for Rochdale ' were adverse to half of his pro positions.—( Laughter and cheers.) It was clear that if the majority opposite could prevail, we should have this result— an extension of the suffrage and triennial Parliaments, a rejec tion of the proposal to pay the representatives of the people, and vote by ballot.—( Hear, hear.) Now, first, as to the ex tension of the suffrage, observe the great limitations several of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite would place on the principle. The Hon. Member for Sheffield declared himself an advocate for an extension of the suffrage, but then he would connect it with property. Why, then he would maintain what he so often complained of in this eountry—a master-class and a slave-class ; the latter consisting of those who were taxed; but not represented. The Hon. Gentleman said that every man who was subject to direct or indirect taxation, and who had not a right to vote for the election of Members of Parliament, was in the condition of a slave ; and that, if you attempted to take his property without his consent, was guilty of spoliation and robbery. Yet the limitation he proposed to the franchise was directly at variance with this great principle. But this only proved that lie (Sir R. Peel) was right in his second prediction, that the a..esdTtthollaeht representation ought party' opposite would not, even if th e y had the power, make re presentationnv have only the assertiongu ara guarantee ehad f a t h o ela' be s idn c cd o u-pelreqinugia. for rto N h- v iee night ttshu co-equal a i r wi a niw t tt i h o eh n e itca , ahnxcasete:eom''n. whether direct or indirect. But their own principle would first of all operate against the fair sex—they were to be excluded altogether from the franchise.— (Hear.) This was the first check to their great principle, that according to the law of Providence and the law of nature, no person who was unrepresented ought to be taxed.—(Laughter and cheers.) Females were allowed to exercise the right of voting at the India House and other places, hut the principle of the Hoc. Gentlemen opposite would exclude them at once trom the franchise. But, according to their principle, every man of 18 years of age, being then liable to serve in the militia and to bear the burdens of the State, should, no matter what his education, be entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament. It must be so, if they argued accord ing to the law of nature an r the law of Providence.—(Laugh ter and cheers.) Therefore, every man of the age of eighteen, subject to taxation, direct or indirect, no matter what his edu cation, or whether he was a beggar or not.—( Laughter, cheers, and "No, no")—he begged pardon, bat he was right, for,was not a beggar subject to indirect taxation ?—( Chaers)—and, there to e, according to the law of nature and the law of Providence, he was entitled to vote, and, according to Lord Camden, it was a spoliation and a robbery to take a man's property without his consent. —( Laughter and cheers.) But then, if this, the tefun damental principle of the Hon Gentlemen opposite were true, why should we have representatives at all?--why should we have delegates at all ?—why should you take money f rom a man who was What was this, but sayingin but 1 give you re presentatives , and though a man was represented, you would give him reason to say-1 protest against thi s , yet , i n sp i te o f s practice, in mi _ II I °t disregard Y— (L y a o u u g r h op r in .) ions, Camden and truth, and in spite of the law of Providence and the law of nature, you make me pay.—(Laughter and cheers.) Now, still under the proposed law, there would be a slave-class. What confidence then, what hope had they, that their new law would last longer than two or three years? Were they not reducing to slavery, according to their own principle. all whom they excluded ?—(Hear, hear. ) He was glad to see that he was convincing Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(Laughter and cheers.) The Hon. Member for Sheffield was already clearly ashamed of his own Bill.— (Laughter.) New, take the t,uestion of triennial Parliaments. He had never heard Metre shabby arguments, than those ad vanced in support of that principle. The Lord Mayor of Dublin said he was in favour of triennial Parliaments, on ac count of the particular transaction which gave rise to the Sep tennial Bill. This would argue an abstract preference for the origin of the present system, which was the Revolution, than for the existence of a triennial system. The Honourable Member for Bolton, more properly, used astronomical arguments in favour of annual Parliaments. He said the earth makes a revolution round the sun once a year, the planetary system went through its orbit once a-year around tt. at great luminary ; and he added with some pathos that mer cha•its settle their accounts once a loan —(Laughter. ) There fore, on the Copernican and the mercantile systems, the Hon. Gentleman concluded that we should have Animal Parliaments. He, therefore feared that if the Learned Doctor set up an agitation against Triennial Parliaments his astronomical arguments would shake the new system. Next, the proposition for payment of Members, would be as suredly scouted on the other side. The Gallant Commodore said that if the inhabitants of Marylebone would find him a furnished house and two clerks, he would thankfully accept them, but he would not impose them on his constituents. Another point further to show the incoherent system advo cated by some of the Gentlemen opposite. The poor man would say, I don't want to be represented, but I want to sit in this House to represent my fellow-workmen while you represent the rich", and I want you to enable my fellow-workmen to elect me. But I cannot do this if I must be at the expense of going to London, and give up the shuttle or the spade; therefore, all I ask is thatlthe affluent in circumstances should pay to enable me to sit in the House in behalf of my fellow-workmen. But several of the Hon. Gentle men opposite would not allow this ; if the plan now proposed was adopted iu a modified shape it would be appealed against, as well on account of a perfect representation as as on ac count of defective franchise—in short, the defectiveness of the principle of most of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, as com pared to the desires for whom they avowed to speak, showed that if he ( Sir R. Peel) should be in the House ten years hence he would have to defend this law against themselves as he now had todefend the Reform Bill. On their own principles of of reason and nature they must disappoint the majority of the working classes, and there would be as loud a cry as ever of a master-class and a slave-class in the country. Again, the Hon. Member for Rochdale proposed that England, Ireland, and Scotland be divided into electoral districts, each to return a Member to Parliament. The, result would be that that each district would become a manufacturing borough in a short time. Corruption would prevail as much as it did before the Reform Bill, and the influence of landed property would predominate. The next proposition was that Members of Parliament should have no qualification. But he need not recapitulate them. The disunion of the opposite party upon these alleged great principles was confessed by the Hon. Member for Coventry, when he said they agreed in the principles, but differed as to the means, and he ( Sir 11. Peel) agreed with the Honourable Member for Leicester, it would be futile to go into a debate upon such premises, and, however alarmed he might be at the alleged bribery and corruption, and bribery of election and franchise, he must oppose the motion. If he was asked what would best satisfy the people of the country, his answer would be, that the House ought to manifest that desire to ameliorate the condition of the people by passing his Income-tax.—( Great laughter and cheers.) This would show that they wished to throw the burdens of the State on the wealthy classes. Let them, then, pass his Tariff, and they would prove the desire to promote the comforts of the mass of the people. Having done this substantial and intelligi ble service for them, they would dispense with the necessity of disturbing the Constitution by notions like the present, and of altering the representative system by a step which would dis appoint none more than those who, in carrying the measure, would gratify their present wishes.—( deers. ) He would advise those who complained of the absence of the Noble Lord, and who believed his financial propositions to be wise, to stay away—( Laughter and cheers)—that was if, upon the whole, they believed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Northampton, that his measures were likely to benefit the country. He asked them to retaliate upon the Noble Lord by staying away, and not lend themselves to any party combi nation. —( Loud and long continued cheering.) Mr. MUNTZ said that he hoped the Right Hon. Baronet did not include him amongst those who ought to stay away. —f Laughter.) As he had been one of those who took an active part in endeavouring to obtain a reform of Parliament, he could not think that the Right Hon. Baronet. ought now to complain if he asked for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill? Sir R. PEEL—You asked for it then. Mr. MUNTZ (in continuation)—He did net ask for it then, but he would ask the Honourable Baronet the Member for Dorchester, whether they had the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill?--( Hear, hear.) He asked him whether they were to have a 101. franchise, or whether they were to have it with many drawbacks?—( Hear, hear.) He asked whether they were to have a 50/. leasehold tenancy-at-will franchise ?—( Hear, hear.) He, therefore, contended that they had not the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. If they had the entire Bill, the state of the country would not be what it was.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman may have great sympathy with the wants of the people, but the great cause of complaint was, that the distress of the country was owing to not having a proper reform of Parliament. He had now mentioned the reason why he for one would support the motion of the Hon. Member. He entirely approved of the vote by ballot, and he had no objection to the payment of Alem hers, becau.e he believed they would the better attend to the interests of. their constituents. He did net think that annual Parliaments would do any good, and he considered that trien nial Parliaments would be sufficient for every good purpose. He was not prepared to go the whole length with regard to the suffrage. He thought it was a subject for serious considera tion, but he was of opinion that a very great extension of the suffrage was necessary, and that it would not only be for the benefit of the people at large, but for the interest of the aristocracy themselves.—(Hear, hear.) It was his opinion " that coming events cast their shadows before," and no person ought to be more interested in looking to those shadows than those who had the conducting of the Govern ment; and the debate of the night was one of these shadows.— ( Hear, hear.) He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would seriously consider how far it may be within his power to comply with the demands, of the people. He should, for the reason lie gave, vote fur the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. E. TURNER (who spoke amidst cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide, divide") was understood to say that he would vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, though he would not, after what he had seen take place at the annual municipal elections, vote for the system of annual Parliaments. Capt. PLUMIIIDGE said that he would cordially support the motion of the Hon. Member except the last seven lines. Mr. COBDEN said that the Right Hon. Gentleman had very ingeniously managed to mystify the very simple question before the House.—(oh, oh.) The question before the House was, whether after the people of the country—be spoke of the unrepresented portion—hat petitioned the House for the Char ter, they would go into a Committee without at the same time pledging themselves to anythirg ?—( Hear.) The difference between the Right Hon. Baronet and many Gentlemen on his (Mr. Cobden's) side of the House whodiffered from the people outside was, that notwithstanding that difference of opinion they were ready to consider the claims of the people. while the Right Hon. Baronet and his supporters would shut the door upon them, and would not condescend to give them any consideration.—( Hear, hear.) That was fairly the state of the case—that was the plain statement of it—but the Right Hon. Baronet mystified it and then slammed the doors of the House upon the people.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet predicted that if the object of the motion were carried out it would give increase to the power of the landlords, but the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester said that it would disturb the monarchy. Were they to be treated in that way with opinions as wide as the poles asunder?-- ( Hear, hear.) Were the people in those circumstances to be satisfied with the speculations of the Right Hon. Baronet ? How dexterous and amusing soever he might be, that would not satisfy the people in their present state and temper.— ( Cheers.) What was the condition of the people when they talked of the Reform Bill? They knew it did not improve their condition in any one resnect.—(Loud cheering from the Ministerial benches.) He found a sufficiently loud re sponse to that from the Hon. Gentlemen opposite.--( Cheers. ) But were the people physically, or morally, or intellectually better now than they were ten years ago ?—(Ministerial cheers. ) Were they not, in point of fact, a scandal to the whole of Eu rope ?—(" Oh, oh.") Was there any national education at all ?—( Hear, hear.) Were they not the only people in Europe without a national education ? Was there not more physical suffering in this country than in all the rest of Europe .'—(" Oh, oh.") And were these distresses and evils to be remedied by the imposition of an Income-tax on the industry of the trading classes of the country ?—( Hear. ) Would the country be deluded by such pretences ? The real question was, and they should not mystify what he said, was whether labour was to be re presented in that House or not. He would vote for the mo tion of the Honourable Member for Rochdale, on the ground that the labour of the country ought to have a full, fair, and free representation, and not from any abstract theory of giving the people other rights, but because it would insure to them a better state of living. The very instincts of the people would s give them better fiscal laws than they received from that House.—( Hear, hear. ) The misrepresented people were pining and starving, while hundreds of thousands of quarters of corn were locked in their bonding warehouses. That would not be case if the people were fairly represented.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the middle classes would now have as much interest in giving the franchise to the working classes as the working classes themselves. The middle classes found they could not ;lalit you. They tried you on the question of free trade. And ‘, hat was the conduct of the party opposite? They had succeeded by playing off one class against the other.—( Hear.) That was the policy that was too apparent to be misunder stood by any one who had a seat in that House. Something, had been said about danger to the aristocracy and the ino relly. The monarchy had been brought forward rather ostsmatiously upon that occasion. Now he denied that there was any anti-monarchial feeling among the people of this country ; but he said that towards the aristocracy, and towards that House, there prevailed a most intense feeling of hatred.— (" Oh," oh," from the Ministerial benches.) Well, if there were not such a feeling, where was the danger of giving the people the franchise? He spoke after a pretty extensive ac quaintance with the working classes ; and lie did say, that in the borough of Stockport, which he had the honour to re present, a most intense hatred would be found to prevail among the vast majority of the adult population against the legis lation of that House. They attributed their distress directly to the legislation of that House; they saw in their closed manufactories the effects of that legislation, and he believed they were per fectly right. But where was the danger to the monarchy? It was too bad to bring forward on such a subject as that the name of her Majesty, which was snore popular than any Sove reign who ever preceded her on the throne ; it was most unfair to bring forward her name, and to make the danger with w!sich she was threatened a reason for denying justice to her people.—(Cries of " Ilear, hear," and " Oh, eh.") He begged to remind Hon. Gentlemen opposite that the movement for a large extension of the franchise was not confined to men of desperate fortunes or of reprobate characters. He begged to remind them that there were men now at the head of that or ganisation who were equal to any of the aristocracy in moral power and moral worth. He begged to remind them that many of them were their equals in fortune. And where, he would ask, was the danger to the monarchy from these men ? Hear, hear.) There was one man in particular among the advocacy of an extension of the franchise, who had achieved for himself great distinction in another field, and who had surrounded his name with a halo of glory in another clime— one who had won for himself au honour Which Hon. Gentlemen opposite were now attempting to filch from him for their own parposes.—(Cries of " Name," from the Ministerial bunches.) He could have no hesitation in naming him—he meant Mr. Joseph Sturge.—( Laughter, and derisive cheers from the 111 inis- Serial benches.) Yes ; and those who worked with bins in the cause of the Africans, were joining with him now in work ing, out the emancipation of their poor fellow -countrymen, who were suffering, he believed, as much of privation and of misery at the hands of an aristocracy, as ever the negrocs did at the hands of their owners in the West Indies. Mr. JOHN ARTHUR ROEBUCK said, that he would only occupy the attention of the House for a very few moments. He should not like to allow the motion to go to a division without expressing, in a very few sentences, the mode in which he considered he was bound to act upon that occasion. When he looked to the institutions of this country, he saw certain rough methods introduced of attaining a particular object ; the object sought to be attained being that of getting that degree of intelligence in the governing body hich might enable them to govern the country in the manner most conducive to the general welfare. The mode hitherto adopted, as he had already said of attaining that end, was by • sletertniming roughly the claims of individuals by the amount of money which they might chance to possess, expressed as that be amount might in many particular ways. If a man were possessed of a 40s. freehold, if he had a 10/, house, then he would be deemed by the Constitutionof his country sufficiently intelligent and virtuous to have a voice in the re presentation of his country. That was the rough method by which they sought to attain the end they had in view. Now he was not about to find fault with anybody ; but he would addre s himself to the candour of Hon. Gentlemen opposite—to their knowledge of life, to the experience of their fellow men; and he would ask them if, in the common and ordinary busi ness of life, that was the best mode of ascertaining the merits of any individuals. Were Honourable Gentlemen opposite prepared to say that in the ordinary private transactions of life they would ask if a man had a 101. household franchise before they would trust him. in any one important business of lif e ? Did t h ey as k if h e h a d a freehold inheritance ? Did they ask if he had a 50/. lease of his landlord? No, they did no such thing. They judged by other means ; and be would ask of them this one question—it was a question which any man who had ever considered the interests of humanity, as connected with the views of Goveinrnent must have asked himself—he would ask whether there were not other means by which they could learn—by which they could assertain that degree of intelligence and of probity which was requisite for a participation in the business of Government ? That House had conferred the business of legislation upon cer tain classes in the country. They had excluded the labouring classes almost to a man from the franchise. He did not say they had excluded them altogether, for he hated exaggeration ; and he found it practised too much on both sides of the House. —( Hear, hear.) He did not say the whole, but he said that they had excluded a large portion of the labouring classes from any share of political power. Now he would ask the Right Hon. Baronet, who had a large experience of men—he would ask him if he had not met as candid, as far-seeing, as wise, as honest, as perspicuous minds among the labouring population of this country, as among its wealthier classes? He perceived that the Right Hon. Baronet nodded his assent. But the Constitution excluded these men from the franchise. Now he asked the Right Hon. Baronet if it were not a subject for inquiry to endeavour to ascertain whether these might not be admitted to the rights of the Con stitution?—( Hear, hear.) What was the distinction between the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet on that occasion, and that pursued by his Hen. Friend the Member for Roch dale ? He was sure that his Hon. Friend did not assume to himself any exclusive power of judging of mankind, and determining what ought to be, or what ought not to be ; but the only asked of that House, on that occasion to inquire if there were not means of admitting those moat deserving and industrious men within the pale of the Constitution? How had his Hon. Friend been met by the Right Hon. Baronet ? He was sorry to say he had not heard the whole of the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, but he should say that in the portion which he had heard he did not see much to admire, either as regarded the spirit, or the tone, or the manner in which he spoke upon the great ques tion. Now, when he said that great question, let him not be misunderstood—he did not mean to say that great party ques tion—there was to be no vote that evening that could shake the Tory power ; but there was to be a vote that would go to the heart of the labouring po pulation, and when they came to discuss ,that vote, when they came to ask of the Right Hon. Baronet and of the Government merely to inquire into. the political condition of the people of this country—for he did not wish to allude to the political state of the question—when they asked the Right Hon. Baronet to consider the political condition of the people, he would put it to that side of the House and the other--he would ask of the country, what they thought of the light tone of ridi cule, of that spirit of mockery, of that taunting disposition which had been manifested by the Right Hon. Baronet that evening? It was not a question, as he had already said, in which the power of the Right Hon. Baronet was at stake ; but there was a trial going on of his spirit, and his character, and his feelings as a leader among his fellow-men. and if he had not a sympathy with his fellow men; if he were bound to the chariot wheels of his party, if he were chained to them, then he was not the man for whom he (Mr. R.) took him. He believed there was in the mind of the Right Hon. Baronet a secret feeling of contrition for the course he was pursuing—that he was ashamed of the course his party was taking, and that he would willingly, if Hon. Gentlemen would only permit him, go into that inquiry in the liberal and candid spirit which the inquiry demanded. And who was there that would not say that that subject required a liberal and candid inquiry ? Who was it would say that our Constitution had fixed upon the best mode of taking the sense of the intelligence and the virtue of the community? They themselves acknow. ledged how imperfect were the means they had taken, when they excluded one large class which contained some of the most virtuous members of the State. The Right Hon. Baronet ad mitted that a large portion of the labouring classes were ex cluded from political power, and all that he (Mr. 11.) and his lion. Friend asked was, that going upon no political theory, the House should inquire whether there were not sonic means of admitting the working classes within the political pale without exposing to any risk any one of the ;peat interests. As tar as he could see the only interest that was endangered was the mono rily of political power possessed by the landed aristocracy. He ad mitted that an extension of the franchise would destroy , t he mono poly, but it would not destroy the Constitution. lie would ask the {louse if there was any danger to be apprehended to property by admitting within the pale of the Constitution the great body of the labouring classes? That was the question to be discussed ; that was the question at issue ; that was the ques tion which his lion. Friend the Member for Rochdale asked of the House to consider in Committee. His lion. Friend put forward no proposal, but he asked of the House to inquire— admitting as he did these people to be virtuous and en. lightened—he asked of them to inquire if there were no means of admitting them to a share of political power with safety to the community ? And what was the answer of the Right Hon. Baronet ? He had heard a large portion of the speech of the Right lion. Baronet, and what does the speech touch upon ? A dexterous debater the Right Honourable Ba ronet had no doubt proved himself to be ; the Right Honourable Baronet had turned the battery of the Hon. Member for Finsbury against the Hon. Member for Rochdale, he talked of triennial Parliaments, and comparing them with annual Parliaments, he enlarged on the benefits of the payment of Members. But they were not to be thus de luded from the point at issue. The point at issue was, whe ther the labouring classes might not be admitted to a participa tion in political power. The answer was " No," from the Ministerial benches opposite. And why ? Because of the al leged danger to property. But no extension of the franchise could so certainly endanger the security of property as that the Legislature should use its power for the benefit of a particular class, namely, the landed aristocracy. They talked to him of the mischief of a minimum of wages, and ho put in opposition to that their Corn. laws. The party opposite had power—the people had none. The party opposite talked of the danger to property ; and the people who suffered and pined under their present state, entreated, prayed, cried, demanded of that House simply to inquire into their political condition. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, cut jokes at their expense.—( Hear. ) lie told them of the revolutions of the planets with great sar casm and much point, no doubt; but he (Mr. Roebuck) did not think these allusions were relevant to the subject. He asked of them if that were the right way, when the people demanded of them a participation in that political power which they in that House were every hour using for their own benefit. He asked of them, whe ther that was the right way to meet the popular demand, when expressed in the calm language of his Hen. Friend? Was that the manner in which they treated the claims of a people, who, in the midst of their privations, bad exhibited a heroism, of which the class to which Honourable Gentle men in that House belonged, knew nothing ?—( Hear. ) He asked if this was the manner in which it was proper to meet the demands, the prayers, of the great body of the labour ing population of this country ? He must say that the labour ing population deserved the greatest, the kindest, the most intense consideration : it was their hands that had built tap the mighty power of this country ; by their virtue it was supported by their patience and fortitude it was maintained; they were their bretheren in spirit and in feeling; they felt within them selves a power equal to their own. They say they are our equals in virtue and intelligence, and when they ask for power at the hands of this House, they are met by a cold taunt from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He again asked was this decent, was this proper, was this worthy of a great statesman ?--( Cries of . 4 Oh, oh.") He wished to concentrate his responsibility.—(" Oh, oh !") They might cry "Oh !" he wished they would pitch it an octave higher—it would have just the same effect. He repeated that the Right Hon. Gentle man was the Minister, and on him rested the responsibility ; on his head, at the present moment, rested the great responsibility of the Government of England. He would go forth to-morrow with that responsibility upon him, and when the people came to consider in what way their demands have been treated, they would single forth the speech of that Right Hon. Gentleman, and if they felt any power within them, they would ask if it was not heartless, contemptuous, and disregardful of all the feelings of the people ? If such should be their inquiry, what must be the answer, but that the Right Hon. Gentleman had thus treated the sober, calm, prudent, and fair demands of the great body of the labouring population of this country.—(" Oh, oh !") He could not have a nobler ancestry, and he, like the Right lion. Baronet, should glory in it; but he hoped there would also be in his heart so much sympathy with that class, that he should not have turned round on the great body of his country men, arid deny them a fair share in the representation of this country. Why did they ask it ? It had been said because of the misery existing among them • he believed that some of the causes of that misery, laid muc h deeper than their not being represented in that House ; but they would never be able to read the people that lesson till they were actually admitted to th I Legislature. They would then see how much of that misery it was impossible to reach by legislation. They had been told that if the people were admitted to power they would destroy all that was good and benefi ial in the Consitution. He repeated it was presumptuous arrogance in them to pretend to such superiority over the work ing classes, when it existed not either in virtue, intelligence, or any quality which a human being ought to posseses.—(" Oh, oh !") By that cry they were signing their own condemnation, though they might imagine it an eulogium on their own virtue. Did they think it right, under such circumstances, to shut out inquiry ? If they did they would shut the doors of that House in the face of the labouring population of the country. Did they do it on the plea of. possessing more virtue,or more intelligence than they ?—(" No, no.) No ! then why did they do it? Their only answer was that they did not like to infringe on the peculiar monopoly which the agricultural community of this country enjoyed ; and they asserted that they who now held the reins of power ought to do the bidding of the agricultural despots of this kingdom.—(Hear, bear, and laugh ter.) They might answer him by their cheers ; but when the people came to know bow this question had been treated, they would come ,to the conclusion that this House did not possess all the virtue, or all the intelligence of the community. Lord STANLEY said,' though he believed that the vio lence of the Hon. and Learned Member, who had just sat down, was of itself almost sufficient to justify the House in the sight of the country, and a sufficient answer to a speech which contained no peat number of arguments, but princi pally consisted of one, repeated in various forms, and a great number of times ; and though he doubted not that his Right; Hon. Friend was quite prepared to take the responsibility as well as the undivided credit of that eloquent, able, and convincing speech—( Hear, hear)—Yet as stand ing in a somewhat different position, he (Lord S.) having been one of those who were parties to the introduction of the Reform Bill—little as he thought of addressing the House that evening, yet he could not avoid taking a portion of the responsibility of its views, iror reconcile himself to giving a silent vote in support of it. They were told that by the vote to which they were about to come, they should declare that all the virtue, all the intelligence, and all the public feeling of this country were centred in the middle and higher classes of the ealpire.—( Hear, hear.) They asserted no such thing. They denied not the humblest person the attribute of every virtue, and all the intelligence to which they might lay claim. The Hon. Gentleman said that those who supported the Reform Bill, laid it down that every person con tributing directly or indirectly to the taxation of the empire had an inherent right to enjoy, not the privileges of citizens, ' not the protection of the laws, but the exercise of the privilege lof returning Members to the Legislature. He only wished he could appeal to any of those who at th at p er iod acted with him.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He.only wished he could see one of that Cabinet of Earl Grey who brought forward the Reform Bill, and that he could appeal to them whether any such doctrine was broached by any of those who advocated that measure.--(Cheers.) What they had said was that the right of voting for Members of the Legislature was not an inherent right, but a privilege to be granted to such classes of the community as from their intelligence, sta tion, and education, were capable of exe rc i s i n g that privi lege wisely and safely. The question they advocated was • that the time at which the Reform Bill that time at which it was safe to break dos restitutions of the country for the purpose of sphere, and enlarging the limits within which had not hitherto been enjoyed. But at no time wf..fa - augttedi kA • ! that it wa s an i n h eren t r ight. That chan ge had giSecithituelf . greater influence to the Commons of England, for it was thought at the time that the measure was almost revolutionary. It gave representatives to Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, and Bath.—(" No," from Mr. Roebuck). If it did not give representatives to Bath, it took the nomination from ten or twelve self-elected individuals.—( Cheers. ) Manches ter, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield and Bath—(Hear, hear) — the great towns of the empire admitted to a large par ticipation in the legislative power of the country; the small and corrupt boroughs, those which were noto riously in the hands of individuals, and could be made a matter of barter and sale, excluded from the represen • tation. Tell him that the Reform Bill exercised no influence Over the legislature of this country. Tell him that it did not enlarge the influence of the Commons of this country. Tell him that it did not make a large and extensive alteration in the constitution of the country. Aye, it was called a revolu tion in the political history of this country. He had joined with Lord J. Russell and Lan Grey ; he joined the Whigs of that day, those who were not there on the present occasion. Ile joined with him in saying that it was not convenient to have a revolution once a year in that House. He joined with him in saying that it was expedient introducing measures to make them large at once, to let them be large and extensive ; and when he was connected with the Government of Lord Grey they made their measures large and extensive, because they were determined that they should be measures by which they could stand, knowing that it they made only slight concessions demands would be made upon them to which they could not accede. There were in that House fourteen gentlemen who were bound to adhere to the Reform Bill as a large concession. Those Gentlemen admitted that as much of the democratic principle as was consistent with the safety of the country was introduced into that Bill. Those Gentlemen formed part of the Cabinet of Earl Grey, and as one of those Gentlemen, he would oppose the introduction of measures so rude and ill concerted as that before the House—a measure, he would venture to say, not for the purpose of settling the country, but for the purpose of unsettling men's minds, and telling the people out of doors that nothing was fixed, or could continue. The Hon. and Learned Gentle man had told them that the present was a motior for nothing but inquiry—that was a most convenient doctrine for those Gentlemen who, agreeing in almost nothing, had agreed only in unsettling things as they were. The Hon. Member for Falmouth had said that lie consented to the present motion. Why did he do so ? Why, he had told them for the sake of the last seven lines only. The complaint made now was, that there was not a fair representation of the people, and therefore that it was the duty of the House to take the subject intc its consideration, but the seven lines clung to by the Hon. Alem her for Falmouth would exclude all the substance of the lion. Member for Rochdale's motion. The question of extending the right of voting to the adult popula tion, subject to no limitation.—( Hear.) The vote by ballot. The no-qualification of Members, annual Parlia ments, and all these things the Hon. Member for Falmouth ould exclude, but he said vote for the inquiry, for the sake of the last seven lines. They talked of voting for inquiry. What inquiry he would ask was meant? Was it at the bar of the House? Was it meant to bring forward any new evidence --any new facts, or did it mean an inquiry before a Committee of the whole llouse ? The truth was, the Hon. Gentleman wanted no inquiry—all lie wanted was the affirmation of a principle, he knowing perfectly well that he would not be enabled to find a sufficient number of Members to vote with him, in order to enable ban to wary it. Why, he would ask did not all these Honourable Gentlemen move for leave to bring in Bills ; let them embody in Bills the sepa rate views they entertain for the reformation of the representa tion of the people. If they did so what an anomaly of Bills there would be.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He believed that there would no one be found who would agree to their terms. Then it was asked, whether it was the intention on that - side of the House to cast a slur on the working classes of the country, to which he answered, Certainly not. Then it was said that all that was wanted was an inquiry as to whether cer tain parties were fit to perform the particular duties committed to then. Tell him ( Lord S.) of bribery and corruption; tell him of the want of intelligence; and then tell him whether they were to inquire of every individual, if he was fit to perform the duties of legislation. They talked about the inquisitorial nature of the Income tax ; for his part, he thought nothing was more inquisitorial than the inquiry proposed, the amount of which was, whether a party had iiitaligence enough to exercise the electoral franchise. He ( Lord S.) did not know who the grand in quisitor might be ; but (.f this he was certain, that nothing was mere absurd. The Hon. Gentleman said they applied a rough justice. They certainly (lid so in one way, because they stated that the privilege of representation should ne given to men of certain means and fixed state in tiie country, as they were the more likely to have that education and intelligence which fitted them for it. The higher and middle classes down to a certain point, be that what it might, were more likely to •be pos sessed from superior means and advantages given by their situation, of the necessary quality to fit them for represen tatives. He (lid net mean for a moment to say that they had more intelligence and virtue than the lower classes, but the education they had received he thought would enable them to act with more advantage to the country ; but what did the Hon. Member for Stockport say? Why, he said lie believed that the Legislature was the cause of all the evils, that it was the cause of the want and distress that prevailed in the country. Mr. COBDEN—I did not say so. Lord STANLEY—I am glad to hear the Hon. Member say that. Mr. COBIJEN rose to explain amid loud cr:es of " Order, order," and " Spoke, spoke." Lord STANLEY—If the Hon. Gentleman disclaims the statement, I withdraw it.—(Laughter.) Mr. COIIDEN—I will explain afterwards. Lord STANL EY—That's quite the Parliamentary course.— (Laughter and much cheering.) He (Lerd Stanley) heat d the Hon. Member for Stockport say that his constituents com plained hardly of the state of the representation ; that they did so front the state of poverty in which they were, and attributing it to the character of the Legislature. It was possible, there fore, under such circumstances, that the lion. Member's con , stituents were not the most impartial judges in the distress under which they laboured. They might suppose that mea sures should be passed for their release, which measure's, when they came to be looked into, might be most unwise. He would not enter further into a discussion of the varione questions brought forward by the Right Hon. Gentleman off o site. This only he would say, that if they desired to amend the Reform Bin, let them come forward honestly and tell what their proposition was, and how they meant to bring it forward. They were acting under responsibility to large classes of the community, ani they ought to beware, when they at tempted to extend the suffrage, le*t they would diminish th e independence of their constituenci ee . Whatever their propo sitions were, let them be brought forward distinctly. Let them enable the House at least to judge of them as a whole —as a measure ; but let them not continue to agitate the country by mincing for a Committee to inquire into that which was at present settled. Let them not seek to unsettle men's minds with a vague notion for an inquiry into the state of the representation, particularly when they knew that they could effect no object but to introduce new elements of discord—new elements of instability and uncertainty into ' different portions of the Constitution, which should be fined, certain, and secure. Captain PLUMRIDGE explained. He had stated his in tention to support only the last seven lines of the motion, whereas he was supposed by the Noble Lord to go the whole length with the proposition before the House. Lord STANLEY had only attributed to the Hon. Member an intention of voting in favour of the last seven lines of the motion. Mr. COBDEN explained that what he said in reference to the people of Stockport was, that they attributed their suffer ings to the present constituted state of Parliament. sir T. WILDE rose amidst loud cries of 4 , Divide." " Order, order." He said he wished to explain the ground on which he would give his vote on the present question. He did not feel that he could support the present motion, as he did not think it likely to lead to any practical good. It was un doubtedly a very popular course to apply to the House to enter into an inquiry ; but surely when the House resolved itself into Committee, it was not with a view generally of re ceiving evidence, and making a report to the public, it was to come to a resolution on a particular proposition. On such oc casions, the questions to be submitted to the Committee were generally pointed out. 'Tie present. proposition had a preamble which distinctly pointed out the matters to be submitted to the Committee, but it would be an idle duty for the House to pertOrm to go into Committee and hear speeches on a great variety of propositions. The object of this Committee was to take the opinion of the House on what was called the Charter. OM that subject he had made up his mind, and he did not think that. any useful result would come of such an inquiry ; and when such was the case, considering the present state of Par liamentary business, and the great need there was of despatch ing it With as little delay as possible, he thought it very inex pedient to proceed with such an inquiry at the present time.—(lle ar, hear. ) With respect to what had fallen from the Right lion. Baronet—whatever opinion he might have on the proposition before the House, there was nothing in his observations which could be construed into a slight upon the working classes. His lion. and Learned Friend had made a mistake in attributing anything of the kind to the Right. bionourable Baronet. With respect to the motion before the !louse he ( Sir T. Wilde) thought it right to vote against it, Sir R. PEEL thanked the lion. and Learned Gentleman lor the very just construction which he had put upon his speech. lie had stated that he felt that as a great body of his fellow-subjects had stated their wishes with respect to re form in decorous and respectful language, he could not tecon tale it to himself to give a silent vote; neith er wou ld hi s respect for the integrity and motives of the movers allow him to keep silence.—( hear, hear.) But he must say he thought it very hard if gentlemen would use absurd arguments, that he should not be at liberty to point. out their absurdity without being liable to the imputation that he was showing disrespect, not to the arguments, but to the labouring classes.—( Hear.) Mr. WALLACE rose to order. (Cries of "Order, order.") lie submitted that thi s was not explanation; he called upon the Chair to say whether it was so. lie (Mr. Wallace) considered that it was a seam d speech.—(Hear. ) The SPEAKER said the Right lion. Baronet was perfectly in order.—( Hear. ) Sir 11. PEEL said, surely if an Hon. and Learned tleman referred to a speech of his, a part of which he did noa which was not just, h e sentence, that he th oug h t hear, and put a cousti uction upon it was perfectly in order in correcting that misconstruction ; an d he was only going to add one single he showed more res pect for the labouring classes, by, notwith standing o his corrections, coming d o w n the re at five o'clo c k, and listening to every word of the debate, than if he had come— Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. This was another amidst.speech-- said-11 , is an till say i ng, Sir, that " fair (Lund cries of " Hear, bearamidst.which ai r R o b ert P ee l sat down. ) --(Laughter ) N otw i t h stan di ng w}tat has been said by Right li on. B aronet opposite, and. Learnedby the Hon. and words butter nuj ntiparsnips.' '., Gentleman below me, I agree i ts tine s tatement of the lion. Member far Bath.—( Laughter f r om the Ministerial benches.) Ido say, again, that I con ceive, in the statement of the lion. and - Learned Member for Bath, speech o f the Right lion. Baronet was derisive to the t l i a ' classes, and that it was not such a speech abtotu the labouring as the Right Honourable Baronet ought to have made. Thin Right lion Baronet alluded to the earth and the sun. (Great laught er .) The Right Hon. Baronet—(Cheers from the :Ministeriall b enc h es ) — ih e Ri g h t H on . Baronet—(Re uewcdebeers)—the Right lion. Baronet.—(Cheers and great laughter, which rendered it impossible for the Hon. Gentle man to proceed.) I really do not know why . I should no t have a hearing.—(hear, hear, from the Opposition benches. ) I do not wi s h t o t a k e u p mac h of the time of the house-1 was merely going to wake a few observations.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") I beg to state . that I perhap s h ave as much right to speak on this subject as almost a n y M em b er of this House. This question is said to be a Chartist ques tion. The house will probably recollect. an occurrence which took place in Monmouthshire.—(Cheers.) 1 believe I have always represented s ince I hav e been in this House popular opinions, and have always endeavoured to do my duty to the constituency that sought me out.—( Great laughter.) I was invited to become a Aleinber of Parliament, and I consented to accept the invitation.—( Renewed laughter. ) 1 do not know why this should be a laughing matter. I was going to state that I was invited to become the representative of my constituents in this House.—(Contintn: a • v N .1., :A A .." ' ''''. s . ,:i 1! • f.:7 . 4 . 1 54. 11 Y ik,.... •A\ tp,Si; •' ' 14 1 .: —*lsg