The Sun. — London, England, 1850-03-01 00:00:00

ii th e m.o . , let e , ed eition of what hi s H oe . F r i en d hi mse lf had their bands, for the purpose ef carrying free trade. He et that of serfs and bondsmen; and therefore sub- had no part in that movement, though he was com 13;ies. ° that discontent which he conceived at present mitted to gaol, and subsequently tried at . Lanceste d r th„ His 3 e t Z i atn "ng a large portion cif our tax-raying popu- by a special jury, and after eight days acquitted; an lion- Friend had very truly said that, if three of the jury, w il l: were magistrates, and who entered the box strongly right to proceed upon the principle of giving the declared that they d ihouhradvoting to all who were indirectly t,ixed, they prejudiced against h r i e m m , stated that their pre evey m opt universal suffrage; far it was evident that invited as en ir yremoved by the result, and die ember of the community contributed to its in- him to dinner. He would support this eet ta • taitted ri°ll, he still contended fir the Charter; as for But his HOP. Friend said he ad- motion, though . r the of that principle would be elan- the Reform Bill, he regarded it as a mockery , a delusion. und adoption wish to , would produce results which he should not a snare. l e , t ,_ witness; and be was therefore desirous of limit- be elected by the free will of the working classes and all ‘Bsuipplication "so that every man of full age, and ' classes in the country. They . placed their hope on the t oo beeteenetto any . mental or legal disability, who shall transient contentment which arose from the present It h ens tee resident occupier of a house or part of commercial prosperity; but .. the day would come when hav e b e as a lodger for twelve month., arid shall something more than petitions would be sent to that le ti re , _”a duly rated to the poor of that parish for that House t) do justice to the working classes. No . people ee , s , so atiall be registered an an elector, and he entitled to were more intelligent than the much r ur r in p prepared fir r representative in Parliament." Now, he (Sir tion of this country, who were b Pon t i o e n said, that even with that qualification, the pro- political change than the population of Paris, or any been ti t t i Qf his Hon. Friend gave up what had hitherto other city in the world. It was not . he who, ring the f he ist .invariable condition for the elective franchise — agitation for the Reform Bill, carried about pictures sa Last Y, the polies possession of some property or other. The the King with . his . head downwards, and a bloody axe usual the essarily lint see a his Honourable Friend would enforce would to cut it off with—it was not he who advocated setting the People's Charter, imply the possession of any property in I fire to Bristol. He advocated point of 11 % sense of the word. His Hon. Friend did not whole and entire, and never would abandonone p tor tees t t h s . m e otion to householders, for he proposed to ex- it. .He thanked the Hon. Member for Montrose hoe s franchi s e to lodgers occupying a portion of having brought forward this measure , . and however the d e i n s „.. -"Y way whatever, and not merely to persons Hon. Member might revile h him in that House, an Rite , a portion of a house in the mode which would abuse him and his party, his motion , stand by that party, !Od or 'Ott to the elective franchise at present. Any and although he supported Poo r wo wh ,° might get himself rated to the relief of the always be " The People's Charter, and no surrender." t egist er n ' d be entitled to have his name placed on the Mr. P. WOOD remarked on the dexterous manner in that the without any proof that he had paid his rate; so which the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the "en, 4 _ 4 ner of a h ouse cou ld b y means o f l o d gers Home Department had answered the speech of his Hon. so tete ,. n umber of fi ct i t i ous voters w h o m i g h t h ave pa id Pos sess " , and who might have given no proof that they Friend the Member for Montrose, for by means of a h q hi s Y d " Property. H e confessed he did not see cross-examination, he had endeavoured to show that the u l tsti of ! ' 1011 • Friend should oppose an unlimited even- object of the motion had some similarity to the People's mc 's , ke r : s fr anahise, and why he should not go with the Charter. He was singularly fortunate in being followed ;pol e - uer for Nottingham (Mr. F. O'Connor) the by the advocate of the People's Charter, who had en. On. I,7 l gth of universal suffrage.—(Hear.) His deavoured to ` B ,oo o , s ' l end had said that out of a population of thoe t in the United Kindgom there were only Friend. 80 0 000 he (Q . electors, striking out the double voters. Mr. F. O'CONNOR—Not at all. tet uro G•Grey) found from the latest Parliamentary Mr. P. WOOD—He was, however, prepared for this )1 414 14, 1 11 P° 11 that subject, that out of about 4,500,000 by what took place last year. But where was the re tst°l. P r - i -es in England, there were 944,000 electors. His semblance? His Hon. Friend propOsed that every man 'ght of lid said that he was prepared to extend the of full age, and not subject to any mental or legal dis ket' h ow - Toting to ladies• and he (Sir G. Grey) did not ability, who should have been the resident occupier of a 40 te sos h ia Hon. Friend could, upon the principle which house or part of a house as a lodger for twelve months, k t telte o. Ted, refuse it to them. His Hon. Friend had and should have been duly rated to the poor for that s IC the Refarm Bill in a very different spirit from time, should be registered as an elector. He then went ;Id s e s i;* o 7,„e . mher for Bolton (Sir J. Walmsley), who on to shorten the duration of Parliaments to three years, staf set (au. G. Grey) understood him, appealed to the and made the proportion of representatives . more con tP sis o n oi Y, results of that measure as a reason why sistent with the amount of population and property. sfb ti‘ t e proceed still farther in the policy of progress. What was the motion of the Honours le em er e m it th,. ll * t F r iead, on the other hand, had complained for Nottingham ? He called upon the House to gi ell ' Ll ' ef °tln Act had not attaiced the object for recognise the great principle that labour is obi t s h s ‘.d been been framed, Now he (Sir G. Grey) the source of all wealth ; that the people are the „'Prt; uld not believe that there was a growing dis- only legitimate source of power that . the labourer s 'etea te 43ll , be the increase in population and the should be the first to partake of the fruits of hin own , - ,,Petaqo 111 the number of electors under the industry; and that taxation without representation is e - l/iti ee li d of the Reform Bill, but he felt tyranny, and should be resisted. He then went on to *abe t that there was a growing increase in the assert that those principles were embodied in the People's k e laileti o af electors in proportion to the increase of Charter, annual elections, universal suffrage, vote by et its 11etors,)1' He found from the Parliamentary returns ballot, equal electoral districts, uo property qualification, hot He divisions of Lancashire the number of and payment of Members.—(Hear, hear.) Now he sup -47,3iti- which in 1833, immediately after the ported the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for l e 4 ,632 s ut the Reform Bill, had amounted Montrose, because it was diametrically opposed to such i 835 ,47 6! ead increased in 1837 to 27,455, and in 1846 propositions —( Hear ) — because , instead of being founded S t 4 th e c lr in other words, that between 1833 and on abstract rights and principles, it dealt with existing w tit traber had more than doubled. He found that institutions, which it sought to improve by reform.— sai e h . eat Rid le. In 1 .0. mg of Yorkshire the number of electors, (Hear, bear.) lt would be infinitely more satisfactory to th 7 to 2 r 3 had amounted to 18 , 05 6, had increased in him, and he felt sure to the House in general, if . her th at ,: l h s s h t° 7 6, and in 1846 to 36,165; showing that Majesty'e Government, instead of so frequently telling e " I t doubled, during the same period. He found them what they inot like in the way of reform, would Nti coo , l 'ertiool the number of electors which in 1833 be kind enough tot ell them what they did like. But tt o llti ii, t 11 6 4 ,d to 11,200, had increased in 1837 to 18,818, how their having a Reform Bill for Ireland was a reason Nina, to 27,046 He found that in Manchester why they should not have one for England was a species - --eer 6, had ,of electors, which in 1833 had amounted to of Parliamentary logic which he could not comprehend. p e ' B 4l, Ztnereased in 1837 to 11,185, and in 1846 to He supposed, however, that as in the case of Chancery ef e t4he se ' - ' s °ve these facts showed, at all event', that the reform, the experiment must be first made in Ireland. Not at . I ° ' that class which his Hon. Friend had spoken one of the Right Hon. Baronet's observations had the ahles Bata treated as serfs and bondsmen had been slightest reference to the motion. But they were ; t he so u s ); their own honest exertions to raise themselves told that they must take int o . consideration . the known t p u leh of society , and to attain to certain rights opinions of the Mover. Now, if the motion were brought ._ . er e 11 . 114 .111 8 . TT " ' once a stimulus to and a reward of indus- forward by a leader supported by a large party, entirely t t t c Oot ~,..°llourable selectivead spoken of those who bound together by some great political principle, he tee r:,° l Bess the franchise in terms could understand that in such a case it required great et a beil e a u excited his (Sir G. Grey's) surprise. powers of abstraction to take the motion apart from t s late di v e d his H onoura bl e F r i en d did not w i sh to t h ose c i rcumstances . B ut i t was very diff eren t i n tb e i t Zeti b e putent among the working classes, and he case of a motion like this, which was simple in itself', t aYed that no such discontent at present ex- and although the Hon. Member for Montrose had told I But If they 431. 4 4. • were placed in the position in which them candidly that he himself would-go further still, he -.e riend t eat Lob o had stated discontent among them would et the same time confessed that his supporters were not h k e eaat t: matter of surprise, and would, in fact, be. of the same mind. He had no party pledged to all the f t , laid th 'er of duty .—( gear, hear.) His Hon. Friend definite details of the People's Charter, or any such pro hlolnie _at all those who did not possess the elective position.—(Hear.) How were the tro propositions n o.bare serf* and bondsmen—that they had no ceived? • The motion of his Hon. Friend was supported ts 7 s tet .` e Qe benefits of the laws of this country—that by 82 Members of that House, while that of the Hon. tld s hittl : h u t t of the pale of the constitution, and that Member for Nottingham found only 13 supporters. Was Vlati of to pay the taxes voted by a House in the it fair then to impute to those 82 Members the advocacy . beli,,q , .G r , w l ro Members they had no voice. Now be of the People's Charter, which tbey had repudiated? tiali; a tt tb s . "' asked if that were true? For his part he Was it sufficient for them to go on year by . year with a isy ti e 14 n tkey shared in the . benefits . of our . laws; Government which contented itself by opposing measures hi. the other country in which the artisan en- for reform, and bringing in no measures to . remove ? those s ei ,g , the taunts protection for life, property, and liberty difficulties which" they admitted to exiet ( Hear, to, sl 4e.e rit ish empire. He should say that these hear.) During the vacation a pleasing rumour was aostio“titatetZliable blessings conferred by our laws and afloat that the people were to be no longer disappointed th e of th e u pon all classes of the community, and that of their just hopes of having a voice in the Legis 4rtirctitiool whether electors or rah were in lature but it them, evaorated when her Majesty's Speh was 41 C I hvi ascribed b his Hon. Friend. is Hon. laid before and turned out to . lan simply a redress e a11 ° 4 4 . 1. of u stated that he derived one great argument in of the grievances of Ireland. He rejoiced sincerely that tl ttlti o hi s motion from the nature of the the representation of that country was to be increased os which yt h e i o , nicn they were about to grant from 40,000 to 250,000; but did the Government con qto or nabitants of New Zealand and of the ceive that they could any longer resist a similar expae tla/) ink Good Hope. Now he (Sir George sion in this country ? Was it wise to wait till they h i t o th e 41 the House if there was any analogy be- were driven to it by some formidable convulaion?— tlits e , ll ; th a e t t 4 , i te , of this country and that of the Cape (Hear, hear.) He himself had always kept aloof from keti t l°, l 3 4 - r eu ln , duee them to adopt here the same . con- taking a . part in itinerant agitation. He was anxious 1 , 44 11 r„, " they were about to grant to that cotonyr to remain so, but how . difficult was it when such a bOon ' 1 ,.0 'Pet c '- ' n e tobered that in the Cape there was to be was held out to agitation at all times. Mr. Fox in the l°s w e b:?,elk e r k e,i,....basedon the representative principle. debate on the Triennial Bill said he feared no improve- Ne e , s ' e ate so is ett .s rlon. Friend whether he was prepared ment would be carried for the people till they had arms chamber for the in their hands; and Sir J. Mackintosh said the same j_t ord " 8 111 country an elective 4 UkiE thing. One who knew fear as little as any man, except t es e g. Q i . ts ,e - - ss l should have no objection.—(A laugh.) that he feared that which . might bring disaster on his l t diee continned—Well, then, let the House country, the Duke of Wellington, declared . that it was 'N l4.4l lff t -4' his Hon Friend had no objection to uni- the dread of civil war which drove him to grant Catho „ has rt... . . e to e t t shat he had no objection to extend the lie emancipation.. Who doubted that it was the revo hap POin,""lon; that he had no objection to adopt lution in Paris in 1830 which produced the Reform Bill, which `0 the -3 of the Charter ; and that he had no objec- tie ( a 4 ° l ttt, establishment of an elective House of Lords. of revolution through the agency of political unions, il litj'tieo d ear. ) lie certainly did not think that his which he, though tempted much more at that time I ttp d t ilat would be a safe guide for them to follow by youth, refused to join. Then came the corn- Ltle ss - .s h? tb ° ,, ce s a s aLon s He thought . that they had . . better law. That agitation was commenced, not by the cotton i o s ts W i rticiples of their ancient constitution.— interest, to whom all free-trade measures were attri tteatt kid 11 regard to the ballot, triennial Parlia- buted by some Hon. Members, but by a member of the ;It is had 3 ,ome other topics to whioh his Hon. aristocracy, the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. At „Ate s '. o to ot i n 'Y incidentally alluded, he (Sir G. Grey) first he was not listene . d to; b . ut . at length a course of 'le i t% a ilot be advisable that he should then agitation took place different in its character from that llt e , leati os n Y discussion of their merits. But there was which preceded the Reform Bill, and one more marked o ties iti u t to which his Hon. Friend had frequently by logical argument, which finally brought conviction to k s, l4 /1 4 .s r taie e ll Pugh he (Sir G. Grey) had not been able the minds of the people. Still that House could not be hi t -"is real intentions with respect to it—he brought to concur in a measure of total repeal till they . 1 1 th he question of electoral districts—upon were driven to it by a famine.—(Hear.) Looking to I. llli tl tl e (ll4lv ott ahati to offer a few observations. His Hon. what had passed on the continent such a course was tae ,2 1 or o Part cf his speech had disclaimed any in- neither wise nor prudent; and this, in his opinion, fully kOti tl 4 4 of 11.4%blishing electoral districts; but all the ar- justified his Hon. Friend in bringing forward his motion ~eetiPoint e Icon. 401 1. Gentleman who had seconded the in a time of comparativ . e . peace.—(Hear, hear.) It was Oth e n ,. to electoral districts as the only mode of said there were no petitions, and no doubt there were 4 tt i r Gr e ,',uJeetion s of the present system. Now he many more petitions presented the other night in favour n os el eet l) held that the division of the country into of repealing the attorneys' certificate duty than had been ihttataltstolsal ,districts, returning equal numbers of presented in favour of this measure; but surely the eliteds arnament would be the destruction of the Government and that House would not take this as a ,essettv:tetttieolt:irlie_Lonstiiution. It would deprive . us of proof of indifference on the par's of the people. The t,,eind we at present enjoyed of having all great reason why he supported the motion was that he be e t qousvaried interests of the country represented f e ared that the course which they were pursuing might re li c of . Ile was not prepared to say whether, in have the effect of throwing the people into the arms of siga s latd dears, some c h ange ought not to be effected the Honourable Member for Nottingham. He should 74 te iti ll t pa rts the numb er of Members returned from always most deeply regret to see them placed under such OF al of the country, but he believed that the a leader; for, without imputing any unworthy motive ett s le t ?' tbr t s °ral districts would either render it to him, he most grossly deluded the people by the ab- Lr^tini;,n e u tu s e number of Members in that House street principles which he endeavo . ured to instil into f au beyond the limits which would leave their minds with respect to taxation, representation, feet, teer body them to discharge the functions of a deli- and the right to resist, leaving to the people ttl l tt les the oo ° r that it would deprive many important to decide in what mode that resistance hiss hould be offered. tt t sall et atiot untry of their fair share of our system of —(Hear, hear.) The measure of Hon. Friend, on 4„ 41 , h Bl ,ituti os Now, he did not wish to maintain that the contrary, was perfectly consistent with our constitu b`tlittievee,,of that House was perfect ; but he cer- tion in every respect.—(Hear, hear.) It was the natural ti t !r t it ad mit ulat the Reform Act had not failed. That growth of our constitution, adapted to the habits of the hip ot ,. t i ed into that House representatives of people, the laws under which they had lived, the system Co mm r.4 ' ° us towns, who had conferred great ser- under which they had been governed, and the direction grates tided itiderunity at large by the mode in which which their minds had take . n. It was . the fate o . f cut e ~,4 0t p r . 4 the deliberations of the House ; but and-dried constitutions to fad. The wisest le a isle of !ti l t 3 try'" v 43 ' Pared to sacrifice to the wishes of those antiquity were not framers of cut-and-dried constitu lit.,lee b the other important interests of this lions, but ref amers. Solon, when he was asked, " He . tve I tt i ' the' t iks eft e "eved that the House, as at present con- you given the people of Athens the best constitution I„.t.j..hPopwa_Peble of deliberating on questions affect- possible?" replied, " I have given them All the best l t4l bat , s r nghts in a liberal and enlightened spirit. I constitution for them . ' —(Hear, hear .) me del )01,1, 4 1e fresent before them a Bill for largely ex- constitutions, from those of Plato to those of Lord e` o t tOlee t i o at tellise in Ireland—(Hear, hear)—and one Bacon and Sir T. More, would be most egregious failures te ‘ all a t th, jr n a to the motion of his Honourable Friend if put to the test. Jeremy Bentham . had the . same mo th 11 y s i l l'ese ot assenting to that motion that evening nomanie , and fancied he could ship off constitutions to 0 4Lro s 41 ,,a4bl e great barrier to the progress of 1 the Brazils just like a cargo of goods. An . attempt Nt:4 other em in eu se.eures, prominent among which was had been made of late to frame a cut-and-dried con -ooest p ro sion of the franchise in Ireland, and stitution for New Zealand, but like dried flowers it Nti 4l tios Pr ese Pnat tls of a practical and useful cha- took no root in the earth. He had been asked if tl,,oftl irlt before th t , Qa t parliament ' for improving the he was a Republican. He was not one who thought te st e %s at*, tu-ountry._(Elear, hear.) The conside- either a Monarchy or a Republicgood in the abstract. fiat e nsures "sures should be indefinitely postponed All depended on circumstances , He believed that no. te c kt4, si a s to be plunged into an sgitation - for a thing would fit this country hut King, Lords, and Com te% eft thou Ye Reform Bill. He did not think that mons. But look at the United States—what could they itb en to % ra sp Waste their time in profitless discus- be but a Republic? What motives hid they for a Mo ils' N ot t,he ss -- h e r s t 0 universal suffrage and the six narchy? But so long as we had rulers . who would con tetltaatt!cal e lter, While they could devote it to sound duct themselves like our present Sovereign—so long as 41 111 "t N, I 0 1 13 t o Satires of legislation. He had stated we bad an aristocracy wise enough to know the time for ‘4l l :,h e j a ss. asio nc tli e motion as be had stated them' on concessions, even against that which they themselves .. al irat' p lie hoped the House would refuse to might think right and just—so long as the constitution k Ni tt a .uve j o h Y w° end to lay his . measure on the table, - *as carried on . with . that . degree of . good sense and sound t tn a l teti o e ot give their sanction to - a Propo- ' judgment, which, in spite of manifold defects, still cha- Sqt e s 11 re et ,,, l Viet opposed to that on which our racterised the general mass of our gentry, so long should h !t %te a d and which, if adopted, would create wei be - safe tinder a government of King, Lords, and tp„,l" - 'an tes P tt ei' s ,t l toY overriding every other power in Commons.—(Hear, hear.) The question then came tli e Zeoij sh; t o eved that the establishment of a pure whether it would be unsafe to intrust a much larger !itZlit w ortt l i l °tule would be inconsistent with the number of the people with the elective franchise ? ~Ys 04 4 7 ou ght /1 g of our constitution; and es ho (Hear, hear.) The principle of his Hon. Friend's men- Nivl4l o " of N i no be thankful for living under the sure was not universal suffrage, but that every man of 4 3 Pr o g, Lords, and Commons, which, in full age, and not under any mental or legal disability, ° lt et hi ai d be , „ •s t „,,' Re,. endangered by the adoption of the with a qualification of residence and rating, paying soot (6, t o 4 , *tend, he hoped that they would and bearing lot— h to taat motion. ' l ')e, :41 s - Sir G. GREY-.-Payment is expressly excluded. n s. e a oa ts . said it appeared to him that Mr. P. WOOD did not mean to say that his Hon. t o th e , • ( hit set nsistency in the speech of the Righ. Friend intended to make his system an engine for Col the wh o lecting taxes. "This, hoivever, was a matter of detail. If _ Whol e , oompliinel that that motion went The qualification was insisted on. His Hon. Friend's totele t :tet e4 th:t of universal suffrage, while he proposition was the same, in fact, as that laid down by n s‘ a• .P s i ess it fell far short of such a system. a very great lawyer, and one much referred to by Hon. ts ti , i m'uti ost the , Member for Montrose bad not Members on the other side—namely, Blackstone, the t t hi ts , a terra Pleasing to the Right Hon. Ba- only difference. between k 4 ) l aad adroitthethem being as to the amount of ' t ot 1 41 the principle and lick the Bill into the qualification. Could things remain long in their 4lt the e •Y forgot present position? They had 4,500,000 of grown-up I..th e the • st, ce the progress which public opi- men, of whom about 900,000 had votes, includin the i le att e , o 2 _ t h . ad made more progress double votes—he would call it 1,000,000. Was it t g ei be t,:o e ,;k. % Zees i n Zs of other country than perhaps Montrose country in the world. supposed that the remaining '3,500,000 would • long re ql4ooei b er for Is, es had animadverted on t,,k;ttraiethriufeeacehtfiaueldeurhsrigmedto show main tranquil 'under this exclusion?—(Hear, hear.) W as any part of his the development 'whiCh bad . taken place in the the people to violence. genre of the people during the eighteen years which had thou d ince the pauing , of the Reform Bill , to - bd. r turnedQf elapsed C e nothieg of ?. §iuce tun' Aey had builto 1p TIVE _ITSU 3 N, T.LOWIYON, appeared', 1,50 churches. He should be very much ashamed if the result of that had net been to do some thing towards the education and improvement in the ha bits of the great mass of the people. Our national schools educated 1,000,000 children, and the dissenters wore not behindhand in their efforts, according to their means. They had had the 10th of April quoted almost ad nauseam by their opponents. Why should they not be allowed to use it now in support of their views? Still he knew that on that day ix the neighbourhood of that very House there were hundreds of workmen who, though they took no part in the meetings, still refused to be sworn in or act, as they said, against their order. Now, this was the fouling which he wished to see removed. He wished to see English - society no longer broken up into seetions.—(Hear, hear.) We ought to be thankful that we had a gentry, commerce, a race of industrious mechanics, and hard-working labourers. These be wished to see associated together in each county and town, and not an excluded class, endeavouring to force from an excluding class a recognition of their rights. The grand principle of our constitution had always been locality, and this was engrafted in the measure of his lion. Friend in the provision requiring a twelve months' residence. It was owing t.) the long habits of local self-government and obedience to municipal control that this country had not desecrated the cause of liberty by violence. It was these old, sturdy Saxon elements of freedom which were always working at the bottom of our system, as the Saxon language still lived in the nomenclature of all our political insti tutions. He believed that the effect of his Honourable Friend's measure would be to consolidate all interests and produce a friendly feeling between the landlord and tenant, and between the employer and the employed ; and this feeling would be still further developed by the ballot. Finally, did the House think that this country was in a safe position with reference to the basis of pro perty in our representation. The common argument on the other side was—you are going to give all to num bers and nothing to property ; and yet, bad it not, been said that 6,000,0001. of property were represented by one half of the House, and 78,000,0001. by the other half ? (Hear, hear.) Talk of repreigintation based on property —why, it was a delusion.—(Hear, hear.) Ii those in telligent and industrious classes, for whom - education had done so much, would no longer be content to hold a subordinate position, what would be the feeling of those who were placed in a more fortunate posi tion, and had more time for reflection, at such a dis parity ?—(Hear hear.) He knew constitutions were not matters which could be brought to mathemati cal formula, and this was the reason why he re jected the charter. But he was not bigoted to this particular measure. It was the wish of its ad vocates to prevail. on the Government to take up the subject, for it was not themselves but their principles which they desired to bring into power. Neither Sir S. Romilly nor Sir J. Mackintosh lived to see their im provements in 'the law carried into effect; but carried into effect they were though by other hands. So the principles of the Hon. Members for Wolverhampton and the West Riding came into power, though they did not. The Reform Bill, which began with minorities of 30 and 40, had become the law of the land. On these grounds he felt confident that the principles involved in the measures of his Hon. Friend would ultimately prevail.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. H. DRUMMOND - could - not say that he con- curred in the.sentiment expressed in the able speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend, in which be said that he bad equal admiration of talent, no matter how it was ap- plied. He (Mr. Drummond) had also great respect for talent, but he must except its application in many in stances. When his Hon. - Friend, reiterating _an obser vation that had been made the other night, said that he was sorry to see one class set against another, he, thought he had made a remark which tended to sepa rate those classes more than they were. His answer wa=, that there were a.set of professional agitators, who were going through the country inflaming the passions of , the country by false declarations that the landed interest of the country were using the power they possessed for centuries to injure trade and manufactures, and enhance their own position. He maintained that the charge was false, and he would maintain it there, where he would be met if it were true.—(Hear, hear.) But now, with reference to the motion, he was s o rr y th a t th e Noble Lord, after what be had said in years past, did not fulfil the rumour that they had heard respecting the enlarge. went of the franchise, and he must say that he regretted also the Hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the present motion had mixed up, the considerations of the franchise with other matters, so to prevent his (Mr. Drummond) giving his humble support to it; for he was sorry to say, not only would the present motion be car ried, bat much worse motions.—(lienr, hear.) Sooner or later, every word of the present motion would be carried.—(Hear, hear.) They were coming to the rbsp ing time'of the seed they had long since sown. The Hon. Gentleman , who brought forward the motion re minded the House that for 150 years the Whigs had been teaching them that the people were the only source of legitimate power. The Whigs had been always the promoters of agitation until they got into power, and then they generally turned out good Tories. It might 'then be urged that no other political measures were -possible in that country, seeing that their enemies denunciated them. DWI Hon. Gentlemen forget that that party had defended the , murder; of the , King, and the mutiny at the Nore? And there was not an enemy of the public peace throughout Europe that they did not defend now. —(A laugh.) When they got into power they wreaked their vengeance upon the party by whom they had been kept out, and in order to do that they did not hesitate to violate the constitution. They turned the throne into a president's chair, and that was all Queen Victoria sat upon now.--:(ticar, hear.) After all the concessions that were supposed to have been made to them, the people were as diicontented as ever. The Reform - Bill had proved a failure. Why? Simply because the i s-, ple expected from the Reknit Bill more than any Act of Parliament could do. If there was another Reform Bill passed to-morrow the people would be just as discontented as ever. They were, in his opinion, going altogether wrong. Last year they were very angry with 'the Chartists. They were not now so very much in love with them, ne vertheless they sent the head of their Reform League to go hand in hand throughout the . country with the gen tlemen upon whom they now turned their backs.—(NP, no.) What, had they not been together at Aberdeen and other parts of the country? :And now they would not permit that party to come betwixt the wind and their-nobility.-(Hear.) One of their chief supporters had told them very frankly that the King, Lords and Com mons was the greatest humbug that ever existed. The Hon. Member for Manchester (menial his eyes at that as it he were astonished, but it bad been distinctly stated that the electoral divisions were incompatible with Lords and Commons. It was quite clear to him that the ques tion before the House was not upon the carrying of the present measure that day or to-morrow, but the real question was as to the establishment of a, pure demo cracy.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. F. O'Connor.) Why, it was not desired by one honest man. The object was the establishment of a pure democracy, and he might re mind the House that last year the Hon. Member for Manchester held up the conduct of the people of France to them as an object worthy of their imitation. And what was that? Six hundred thousand armed men that were there alone preserved the public peace, and that would be maintained no longer than while their soundest prin ciples crept in the dark. So long as the unarmed masses were divided against each other, so long was it impos sible that their could be anything but universal carnage and confusion. Hon. Members opposite probably did not wish that; but what signified their wishes? If they had not sufficient sense to see before their noses, he could net help it. Did they believe that the Whig party did not see it, and that their policy was to stave off any successive step as long as they could? He believed there was not a man of that party who would not do his best to prevent the consequences that would result—he be lieved there was not one of theni that had not as great a dislike to confusion And bloodshed as himself. He was :only pointing out what would be the necessary result of the present policy. They wished to estab lish a universal system of equality. Did not all nature tell them that such a thing did not exist? Did they not find that all nature and allintelligent beings ranged themselves in order? and if they would only learn wis dom from the ant, they might .bainstructed by their system of mutual dependence and their mode of govern ment. What they know of the celestial hierarchy that was not order under order?, And were they not, attempting to confound in one greet chaos not only all thle institutions of that, but of other countries? He re g*tted that the Government had not taken some initi ative step with respect to the present question, because he was satisfied that ultimately these measures would be carried.— (Hear.) 'Air. ROEBUCK said the House and the country were indebted to the Hon. Member-for Montrose for bringing forward the present question at the present time. The Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford had reminded the . House that they, were now in a state of public calm, quiet, and comparative comfort The question was, therefore, brought before the House simply on its own merits, unassisted by excitement out of deers, and, 'he had hopel, unresisted by J prejudice within.—(Hear.) The question„as _stated by the Hon. Member for. Mont role, Was simply this--that they had from time to time made alterations in the representation — they bad in crlased the li l mober of electors - and he proposed to in crase them still further. How had he been met by the Right Hon. Gintleman ? Why ' the Right Hon. Gen tleman said, " You are 'departing from the principles of the constitution—you are about to make a chamber ,of representatives so entirely representing the democratic principle that you will overturn the whole constitution of the country." He thought he lied dealt with the pro position of tqtfoit.' Member foi. Montrose very much like a nisi pries Ilieyer.—(ATatigh.) He had not met it fairly or in front—he had gone round about it, and carped at it, and cavilled at it. He had said that it was opposed to the principles of the British constitution. Now it had been his (Mr. Roebuck's) fate to search after that British constitution, but be had never yet found it.—(Hear.) But he had met a case in which a change been made in therepresentation and in the con stitution by the Noble Lord at his right band—(Lord J. Russell). The objection taken.to the Noble * Lord's pro position was, that he was going to make the representa tion depend upon money—upon the possession of a 10!. freehold. It was urged that that was a principle wholly unknown to the British constitution, but that was not acceded to by the Noble Lord. He proposed his mea sure, and itovps,carried. What did, the Hoe: Me m b er f or Montrose now propodel Did he controvert the principles w of the British constitutiPli,hich he took to be that th ere should be 'a body speaking in the name of the people, and making laws for them. They had a King, Lords, and Commons, who, according ,to the theory of the consti tution, were said to represent the whole of the people of England. He would admit that they represented most faith'f'ully . the pitssions,:the - prejudices, the ignorance, and 11. Ple idod qualitieS - Of th e people of t nglancl an4,heAlki 4 E YEN ING, MARCH 'TiITIBSO not support the present motion for a change because ho did not believe that the present House so represented them. Why, that House was, in 1850, very much what it was in 1830. lie did not understand the propositions of his Hon. Friend, which he had borrowed from the Noble Lord, that taxation and representation should go together. When the Noble Lord propounded that theory, he was as far from the truth as his Hon. Friend. His ground for demanding an alteration in the franchise was, that there existed a large body of shis fellow-coun trymen wbo fancied themselves aggrieved because they were not represented.—(Hear, hear.) In 1830 they were a larger and a more powerful class than they were at present The House was, be thought, bound in justice to listen to the claims of that unrepresented ' class, who then came to the aid of the middle classes and assisted them in the struggle. There was much said of the burdens of that country, but as regarded the work ing classes they were not of so, much importance. lie believed that on investigation they would be found less than those imposed on the people of America or most other countries. But that was not his ground. What he desired was, that there should not be in any large mass of the , population . of that country the feeling of discontent that now existed. If the labouring classes were not treated fairly they would soon be induce 1 to listen to bad counsel, and to adopt it. He was of opinion that there was both peace and security in good govern ment, and that they enjoyed that security in England. A man could go from one end of the country to the other, not armed, but simply defended by the power of the law. He was protected by the invisible domi nion of the law, and that without any direct appeal from himself. When his Right Hon. Friend said the labouring classes had no protection from the Govern thent, he made a great mistake. All classes enjoyed protection—the people governed themselves by their own good intelligence. His Hon. Friend had used the word " serfs" as applied to the labouring classes. Now when Ole people felt' themselves robbed of what others pos- Isessed they naturally felt th emse lves injured, and ac icepted a name; and sometimes, too, they acted upoi a feeling of the injustice they experienced. The Right lion. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had told them that the ;House was made up of a variety of interests, with the preponderance of a particular power. The Noble Lord lhad told them what it, was. He said he wanted a pre. !ponderance of the landed aristocracy. Lord J. RUSSELL—No, no; I never said that. Mr. ROEBUCK spoke only from the published re ports, and was sorry if he had misrepresented the Noble 1,4,0 rd; but he thought he should be able, if he stepped ,into the library, to produce something like these very viords. He would ask him whether such was not the object of the Reform Bill he had proposed? They had seen wealth enormously increasing from the spread of their commerce and manufactu z res, and the Noble Lord 'found he could not exclude them: The Hon. Member ;for Surrey, who was in the , habit of callingaspade — a . spade, had said that the opposite party had wreaked their .vengeance on their political opponents, by whom, they had been so long kept out of rower, He meant - that when they came into power, on the shoulders of excite ment, as it were, they bad wreaked their Vengeance ou the Tory party, by so shaping their measures as to bring in representatives of the landed interest.—(A ;Voice— " The mercantile interest. " ) Not at all: The Right Hon. Baronet - had told them that they ought not, by 'enlarging the franchise,,to destroy the combina tion of interest that. thitt House,rapresented. ; Sir G. GREY—I said the House at present repre sented all the great and varied interests of the, country. Mr. ROEBUCK—WeII, then, all he asked of that House was' to have such confidence in the people of this Country as to allow them to vote for their representatives. ..--;(Hear, heir.) Was it not too much to have the Right Hon. Gentleman getting up and threatening them with confusion and destruction if they only had 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of enlightened 'Englishmen saying, " I vote aye or nay?" Did the Right Honourable Gentleman mean to say that they were not intelligent ? Why he was always one of the first to get up and praise the humbler classes of the people of that country. Praise them, was the Right Hon. Gentleman's doctrine as long as they Pleased; but give them power, , and he is frightened at them directly,—(Hear, hear.) He'(Mr. Roebuck) vowed that he was not frightened . at them; he believed them to be an exceedingly sober, calm , and considerate race. They were not like the people across the .water--they knew how, to govern themselves; and they had, what was never seen elsewhere, except in Belgium, a regard for the decisions of the majority they yielded to th em w h en duly and properly proaouncedi every country in Europe, and did not b e t a k e them selves, as they had seen in to fighting when they were in a minority.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman had said Whom do you mean to enfranchise? Lodgers, in., deed!" But that was a most unfair way to put the question. His Hon. Friend :had said—first, he wanted men untainted by crime; next, he must have them dwelling in a particular locality for twelve months either as lodger or occupier. But that was not enough—they must be able to ascertain who they were, to know them, and distinguish them, and therefore registration was introduced. But he went a step father, 'and said they must not have it.let of vagabonds —a most appropriate name—they must be actually rated to the relief of the poor, but his Hon. Friendhaving some experience of the vexatious working of the rate-paying clause, did not require previous payment of the rate. Now mark-the disingenuousness of the Right Hon. Gentleman, who said it was not desired that, -they should pay rates, and they were to have twenty ierions ,on the books, not one of whom would pay the. poor-rates. Was that in genuous—was that fair tobis Honourable Friend? The Right Hon. Gentleman shook his head, but he (Mr. Roebuck) maintained that he was dealing with his ar gument more fairly than the Right. Hon. Gentleman had dealt with the Honourable Member's. The: Right Hon. Gentleman had said that all wealth arose from labour, but he confessed he had seldom heard so much error in so few words. The motion of his HOD. Friend had been termed universal suffrage, and those who op pose 1 it fancied that 'what was called the labouring classes would preponderate in point of numbe rs. They said, give them a vote, and th e ir representatives would preponderate in that House; that they would have an undue influence in the state, and ultimately do away with the House of Lords and the Queen. .But who we re the labouring classes? Was the little shopkeeper, toil ing from six in the morning till nine at night, constant!) , moving about, and charging 100 per cent. because his business occupipd so much of his time—was he a labour ing man? Was the man who lived in a 91. house one of the labouring class, while he who lived in a 101. house was not? He wanted to- know if the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford was a labouring man?—,(A laugh.) He laboured ail day and the greater part of the night? Was he then a labouring. man? Why the distinctions of class in tbat country were Hee the shade across a sheet of paper, beginning with one colour and passing into another by such nice tints .that no one could tell -where one colour ended or the other began. Could any man point out the prec ise distinction between the poorest labourer who_ gave his hart work for the smallest pittance, to the highest intellectual labourer in t4ti Legislature of the country? Could any man draw the line clearly? He thought they were frightening themselves with a name.—.(Hear, hear.) They calledas different as possible; i n fact it was an idle bugbear, which the e soonerrae b y theythge s ameot rid of the better. Never did na me w h ose i n terests were which the Hon. Member for Surrey sneak a truer word than when he said all that would come to pass. He said with and he was anxious that i hm t i sh , at n t u h ld the time not must come, come in whirlwi n d , storm, and confusion, and that it should be accepted as a growing, living ma nifestation . of the power and vitality of the British con stitution.—(Hear, hear.) It was an object with them to take care. that the populatio n arou nd them should not be stirred up into an ar me d ma d ness , i ns t ea d o f b ec oming an improved and intelligent people. He wished to see the hand of good-fellowship held out to them—that they should not keep 'them down, but help them up—that they .should aid them by education, and show them that tney wore really their friends. In that spirit he accepted the proposition of his Hon. Friend. He . had that faith in the, expansive power of the.constitutiod, and in :the mi g hty e ffect of the great discoveries of modern times--of printing and the steam engine, and the increased means o f com munication, that the time would come when th ere (should not be a human the_sense of the . Right lion. Gentlemai. being in the land . who would not feel himself quite equal—that terrible word - 7with.every other, but not in men now equal in the eye of the law? , Not at all. Out of, four and a half millions there .was: only one million right . to .vote; but he (Mr. Roebue* who had the power of voting feipireieptatiees in that But were all House; they considered it a degradation - pot to have the all his l ife . for any human being. thing they would find was that had 'never voted in lit Got, although ' thes e . men considered it a degradation to be deprived of the they would neglect to vote, if the right was given them to-morrow, the first make use of it. But that 'was no answer to - him. Dis content was in that class and they ; should get rid of it Was there ever so conservative an assembly asahat arising out of univer sa l su ff rage at the time of the last Fren c h --- revolutione universal suffrage that was propounded by the democrats o f F ranco , ex peutini that they wou ld have things all th e i r own wa y? Ihe Right Honour able the P res id ent of the. Board of Trade shook his head; but he (M r . R oe b uc ir) knew what he mea n t.— (A laugh.) He meant to intimate that the people of France were different from the people of England. There appeared to be a general impression that the peopl e o f that country wer e no t t o b e trusted with power. He thought it was a mistake to say that the middle classes of, the country- shared in that opinion. By bringing for ward this question year after year, they ought not to be taunted by the failure of their efforts in that House out' cf the attempt to press the questios still on the attention of Parliament, and to make the middle classes thoroughly understand that there was no danger whatever in en dowing the large section of the , labouring population with that power which they themselves possessed. Re collecting all the antecedents, they ought to be very care ful and anxious to confer upon them that franchise which they asked, because they had enabled that House to force from the aristocracy of the country the Reform Bill.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord himself must know that they forced that Bill on the House of Commons as well as the House of Lards.—(lieer, hear.) It was idle not to call that Measure a revolution. It was a revolution, and a very beneficial r e volution.—(Hear, hear.) , Th e Hon. Member for West Surrey shook his head. That Hon. Gentleman, however, contradicted everything and everybody.—(Laughter.) colleagues. —(Hear, the Th a t was a revolution that was brought about by a strong f?dling out of doors—a feeling that was kept up, maintained, and cherished by T th h e e N N o o b b le le LLnorrdd needand his ncit hear.) fact, as the time had long' passed by. If ever there was a revolution, that, he repeated, was one. He certainly never wished to see rep ea t e d i n t h at country such an attempt to drive the vessel so near the rocks. In a few hours more they might h ave f oun d themselves in a violent revolution, Instead of a peaceful one. He therefore entreated th e e Noble L or d an d t h e House to be careful how they res isted .so long ag a i t ol l e desires of the people—of those wh ose demaride er buret; just, and teaionable..--arear, heir.) Lord J. RUSSELL.—Sir, before I address myself to the motion of the lion. Member for Montrose, I feel it wi it be necessary for me to say some words respecting the motives and the conduct of those who had brought forward the Reform Bill. The lion. Member for West Surrey has chosen to say—not an original observat'on on his part, although he is not wanting in originality— that tke Whigs in power immediately became Tories, and acted upon that principle, which he thinks the right one, upon which every Government ought to act. But it is somewhat difficult for him, after making the remark, to :show that the bringing forward of the Reform Bill tallied with the principles of a Tory Government. The Hon. Gentleman, therefore, hits on the ingenious device of inventing the motives that actuated us, and says that the Reform Bill was brought forward by the Whigs to wreak vengeance upon their ties. Now a more unjust remark never fell from any lion. Gentleman. But the Hos. and,Learned Member for Sheffield, in giving us a warning of the danger of resisting this MelStllo, charges us with a resistance for a series of years to * very proposition for a reform in the representation of this House. Why, Sir, the plain truth is,this—thist, f a series of yeses, I myself had brought forward and had voted for motions having fur their object a refine in the representation.—(Hear.) But if I feel it sone - what necessary to vindicate myself from this charge, I cannot at the same time refrain from saving a few words in defence of that chief under whom I had the honour for so many years to serve, and under whose auspices the Reform Bill was brought forward and ultimately carried. Lord Grey throughout his political life had brought for ward many propositions for :reform.—(Hear.) In 1810. being then a member of the House of Lords, where re • form was not likely t 6 be a very palatable or favourite topic, Lord Grey declared that, although his original plans had been modified—although his ardour had some whale abated by age and experience —yet, even in those dap, when Reformers were few, and those gene rally much calumniated and run down, he was still convinced of the justice of those opinions which he held in respect to reform. And after all this we are now to be told that we brought forward that great measure for the mere purpose of wreaking vengeance upon our foes. That may be a very ingenious device of the Hon. Mem ber, but anything further from the real history of the fact could not be stated or imagined. Well, Sir, I will now come to the immediate question before the House. And I must say I think that my Right lion. Friend has been somewhat ill-treated by those lion. Members who followekhiro, in`-accusing him of misrepresentation Or a misconstruing of the motion of the lion. Member for Montrose. The Hon. Member for Montrose had himself stated that he was in favour of tee principle of that which is called the People's Charter; that every man should have a votes and he further said, he conceived that those who had not votes were absolutely slaves. He therefore proposed that not only occupiers of houses, but lodgers should have votes on being rated. Well, my Right Hon. Friend says that that is evidently a franchise disjoined from property—that the constitution of England hag hitherto united, though not in every case, property with the right of voting, and that this proposition of the Hoe. Gentleman would, if carried, cause a great change and iunovation on the constitution. If the Hon. Member for Montrose proposes only to admit every man that is an occupier of a house, and a lodger who is rated, what be comes of his assertion that every man who has not a vote is a slave? Either he is making a motion so eaten sive in its nature that but a very small class can be re garded in the light of what he calls slaves. or else he is making a motion that proposes to give but a restrictive suffrage. In -that case hi leaves a large number of the people in the so-called state of slavery. I understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that if his proposition be carried; out of the 4,000,000 of adults in Great Britain 3,000,000 would have votes. If that be the case, this ' cannot tbe the restrictive franchise referred to by the Hon. Member for Oxford. If, on t h e other hand, it is the restricti ve franchise, like scot and lot voters under the ancient laws, the lion. Member fir Montrose will lose the benefit arising from the delivery from slavery of the great body of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Member for Sheffield says he does net find, fault with the present re presentation; but, ccinsidering‘that a great number of the population are excluded from the franchise, in order tQ content them he thought they-should be allowed to vote. Now if that is the ground upon which you are proceeding, unless you give the franchise fully and com pletely to adult males, you will altogether fail in your object.—(Hear, hear.) If the franchise was to be ex tended as far as the Hon. Member for Montrose calcu lated, when he said 3,000,000 .out of 4,000,000 world possess it, then I think it would be much more painful to individuals to see-.that out of four adult males, three of them had the right of voting, and one of them was ex cluded. This would be considered a still more unfair exclusion than any that at present existed. In respect to the question of taxation and representation, upon which the. Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield says that the Hon. Member fir Montrose has f illowed me in error, I must observeethat I do not think either of us are in error upon the general principle of the constitution, although I may be of another opinion as to the practice. I apprehend, Sir, that many of the declarations so often made were to this effect,,that the King did not from ancient times, since the commencement of the representative con stitution, levy taxes by his own authority as Sovereign, bat called the representatives of counties and boroughs together to take their assent, which assent Was considered to be that of the people at large, and therefore, from the ;beginning of our representative history, with one small exception, the principle was, that all taxes should be levied with the consent of the people. It is quite another question whether the ge neral maxim was true—namely, that every person sub• ject to taxation had a direct voice in the representation. It is quite evident at all times of our constitution that great numbers, though not subject to taxes and affected by the taxation of the country, had, notwithstanding, no direct vote in the representation. And when Lord Camden declarei that taxation without represeltation was a tyranny, he did not deny the right of the House of Commons to tax the people of England and Scotland, although a great number of the population to be affected by such taxation had no votes at all for Members of Parliament. But what he meant was—that in proposing a tax upon Americas when America had no representa tives in Parliament, was plainly and obviously a tyranny, and a violation of the great principle of the constitution, which was taxation and representation.— (Hear, hear.) 'I, therefore, deny that there is no truth in the validity of the principle of taxation and representation. I deny also, that it is meant to be carried literally into effect as regardi all persons that are subject to taxation. It is only meant that the House of Commons, being really and veritably the representa tives of the people, shall grant in their name the taxes and subsidies to the country. If I am right in this general maxim I think I shall not be wrong in asserting that we did not deviate from the principle of the constitution in the proposition we made in the Reform Bill.—(Hear.) We were of opinion that the time was come when a re form in the representation was necessary, and that the people could not consider themselves fairly represented while a green mound and a town destroyed by the sea some centuries ago :sent representatives to the House at a time when the great seats of manufacture—Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield —had no members in Parliament. Believing that the time was come when this unreal re presentation would no longer be tolerated, we proposed that there should be such a change as would oblige the representatives of the people more directly to reflect their opinions in this House. But we did not propose to destroy all that then existed, for we gave to certain boroughs the right of' sending members to Parliament, where a body of electors, though small, would still be found to return them here. We believed, as it was'well stated by Lord Hol land, ;in a letter having reference to the constitution in Naples, that th e a tt empt to ma k e a constitution for a nation, and to believe that it would be all at once fitted fee it, was as absurd as thinking of building a tree or manufacturing an animal. The Hon. and L' arned Gen tleman says that in framing this Reform Bill we endea voured to create a preponderance in favour of the landed aristocracy, and that I had avowed such to be oar ob ject. Now I must say it certainly was our object not to make any unfair distribution of the new representation. And while we proposed that many towns not hitherto represented should send members to this House, we like wise proposed that many counties possessed of large po pulations should send additional representatives here. In doing so, we distributed fairly the representation. I was asked towards the end of that Bill whether it was true that I utterly discarded the landed interest, or some such phrase, or as Lord Ashburton styled it, whether I had not taken from the barley field and given to the coal field? So far from that I said that the effect of the measure would bo rather to give the landed interest a preponderance. I did , not say that it was our inten tion to give such preponderance to the landed i nterest, but that that interest was so strong -in he country that this fair representation of the people would end in giving that preponderance. I should have thought it most unjust if I proposed a considerable number of manufacturing towns for representation with out taking into consideration the growth in the wealth and people of the counties, although they might be agri cultural. The Hon. Gentleman's proposition to-night begins by slating that every person, although he may not pay any rates or taxes, yet if he be a lodger in the house he should have a right to vote. Now it appears to me, in the first instance, that if my Hon. Friend at tempts to carry out that object by . a Bill, and if such Bill become law, it would be open to innumerable frauds. I cannot conceive, how any means could be adopted to prevent any number of persons being placed on the re gistry as rated householders, although , according to the present law, they could have no claim to be placed there. Supposing the owner or occupier of a home in which there are /six or seven lodgers—the owner is rated, and pays the rate—the other lodgers are not rated, and have nothing to do with the payment of them. Well, accord ing to the Bill of the Hon, Member, they may be all rated and placed on the rate-books upon their own de mand. They would be under no obligation to pay the rates—the obligation would still devolve on the occupier. I own it does appear to me that this is as near universal su ffrage as a plan that does not prof ess t o b e one of universal suffrage can well be.—(Hear, bear.) The lion. Gentleman himself has avowed that he is in favour of the People's Charter; and in all the public meetings of which we have seen an account, the Hon. Gentleman and the lion. Member for Nottingham have avowed the same objects and the same views. —(Hear.) If that, then, be the case, how am I to distinguish the Hoe. Gentleman's proposition from that which the Chartists hitherto have made?—(Hear, hear.) But then the Lion, and Learned Member for Sheffield says, e Why should i you distrust th e p eop l e ? Wh y not h a ve confidence i the whole body o f th e peo pl e ? And why not A dm itto vote far M em b ers o f P ar liament?" — ( it may seem ver y ungenerous in me to say li tthaart.) Now, I do not feel confidenc e i n th e grea t body of the people; and this, too, when it is d ec l are d by the on. and Learned Mem berli for Sheffi e ld, th a t when the working classes are praised by one' side of the House we are always sure_ to other. Now, . .5.1 r, I timit. echoed? on - the admit that the conduct of the working classes is de serving of our 'praise, and that, too, upon every oc casion that we have had an opportunity ,of judging of their general conduct; but going from that conduct ; should it follow that a suffrage almost universal should give to them the power of electing Members of Par liament, and that if they had that power their choice would always be a wise ono?—(Hear, hear.) Am I to say that become they are deserving that the consequence should be that they should elect the Mem bers of this House, by whom are to be determined all questions in relation to thiagreat empire?—(Hear, hear) —that to them should be intrusted the preservation of our constitution and of this empire, in the direction of which this House has so great a part?—(Hear, hear ) Candidly, I must say that I think they should not; I be lieve that they would be misled, and I have seen inst feces that induce me to think so. There would be found one man telling them that 30,000,000/. of taxes were paid for a debt that was nova national-debt —that they would be right in not paying it; and that they might get rid of those taxes by refusing to pay that debt. I think that a man telling them this would get followers and sup porters, and thus have a seat in this House. I believe, too, that persons might obtain favour amongst them by pro posing the repeal of the new paor.la se, and restoring the old poor-law—that law which was fast leading to a social revolution in this country. I believe that dee trines such as these, and others, would, with the classes to whom you propose to give the suffrage, have great weight and influence.—(Hear, hear.) If such, then, are my opinions, I cannot support the proposition of the Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear.) But, then, we are rept-of/died with the measures on this subject thst we have proposed. The Honourable Member for Oxford ays, " You have brought in a Bill respecting the Irish franchise, and the constitution for the Cape laid down principles which do not differ much from that which the - Honourable Gentleman proposes." With respect to Ire land we have brought forward a Bill which, if it passes in its present shape,'will give 250,000 votes to 2,000,000 'of an adult population—that is,which gives to the people a less_number of voters in proportion to the population than that which the people of England and Wales now have.—(Hear, hear.) If that, then, bo so, that Bill is no precedent for the measure of. the Hon. Gentleman.— (Hear, hear.) With regard to the Cape, the state of its population and the franchise to be given can form no grouad for such a motion as this. Any representation given to a colony such as the Cape will be a representa tion for the colony only—it will have nothing but the concerns of the colony to manage. It is not like the great Imperial questions which come before the House of Com mons here. The representation here is totally different from that which would suit such a colony as the Cape. The next part, then, of the Honourable Gentleman's proposition—having given a vote, or the right of voting nearly to all persons; having made it that which Sergeant Talfoard had well said, when he said "that this was a household suffrage, not for everybody who held a house, but for everybody that a house would hold."—(Laugh ter.) The Hon. Gentleman next states what is the alte ration ho would propose as to the cities and boroughs that should send Members to this House. Now, lam bound to say that the Hon. Gentleman's explanation on this, as on other occasions, has been very unsatisfactory. —(Hear, hear.) I can very well understand the plan of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, and as laid down in the Charter, which the Hon. Member, I believe, has signed and assisted in drawing.—(" Hear," from Mr. Hume.) By that it was proposed that the country should be divided into a certain number of districts, -each having 40,000 or 50,000 persons, who should have a representative. Now, I think that would be very in jurious, and less like a national representation than that which now exists. When we were making the Reform Bill we endeavoured, in preserving the ancient boun daries and ancient cities and boroughs, to give a fair representation to the whole. Now, I say that when you come to apportion the representation you would be obliged to consider the case of the counties. Hera- you have 100,000 people collected in a manu facturing town, and you say they must have two Members to represent them, but here, where there are 200,000 people in a county, you say they are not de serving of a representation of four Members. Now, what is the state at present of the representation? There is Nottingham, - with 53,000 persons, sending two Members to Parliament; and North Devonshire, with 170,000 persons, has only two Members.—(Hear.) There is Leicester, with 50,000 persons, having two Members of Parliament, and South Devon, with 200,000 persons, sending no more Members to Parliament. There is Oldham, with 42,000 persons, and two Mem bers, and Dorsetshire, exclusive of the boroughs, with 170,000 persons, sending no more Members to Parlia ments- than Oldham.—(-Hear, hears)- If then we come to inequalities in the representation, and you say there are great numbers of persons in the manufaeturing towns who are not represented in proportion to the population, 'yet I-say that before the small boroughs are destroyed, I do 'not 'think that your object will bo attained by destroying the boroughs connected with the agricultural counties. Wolverhampton, Bradford, Stamford, and Kidderminster, with a population of 198,000, send twelve Members to Par liament; and South Devon, with a population that is 12,000 more than all these towns together, sends only two Members to Parliament. If then we are to fight the question of inequality, let us fight it upon true grounds. Adopt the plan of the Hon. Member for Not tingham, and divide tte country into districts—give an equal number to boroughs and counties.—(llsar.) But the Hon. Gentleman does not propose that; he takes up the question of the great towns and small boroughs, but yet I never heard of a remedy for the inequality pro posed by the Hon. Gentleman which would deal equally with the counties and the towns.—(Hear.) I have upon otter occasions stated my reasons for think• ing why a representative from the large towns and divi sions of counties would less represent the people than the divisions which at present exist. I do not believe that any other result would follow from the proposed change than to increase the division amongst classes. between the agricultural and manufacturing interests. I think that the representation of the smaller towns with agricultural districts around them tends to smoothen those differences by the Members they send to the House of Commons. If we are to change this—then let there be a fair and Equal p'an of representation pro posed; let that plan be explained to this House, and let not the Hon. Gentleman, now for the third time point to the small boroughs and the large towns. Sir, when I brought forward the Reform Bill, I stated what boroughs I thought, and I named them, should be disfranchised, as well as what counties and what-towns I proposed to give the representation to. I laid the whole case fairly before the House and the country to judge of it.— (Hear.) But the Hon • Gentleman's plan always gives me the suspicion that he desires to give not a prepon derate, but an almost exclusive weight to the great towns of this country.—(Hear, hear.) Ho would not treat fairly the whole population by dividing them into manu facturing and agriculurists.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gen tleman talks of the labouring classes as if he wished to make a distinct class of them—as if we distrusted them, and would keep them at a distance.—(Hear.) I differ altogether from that view. So far from the workir,g classes being a slave class, they have, in my mind, in estimable privileges—they are secure in their persons and their property; and if the poor man be injured I e is as sure of having a fair trial before his country as the highest man in the land—he has the security of the law and of our free constitution.—(Cheers.) _ Such, too C am sure is the feeling of that class. We have never seen any other sentiment &clan d by them than that "we are a free people and have the full enjoyment of our liberty."—(Cheers.) I appeal to any one who has ever heard the popular feeling expressed, if it is not so? and nothing, I am sure, can bo more different from the feeling that they are living in a state of slavery. —(Hear, hear.) There is not a republic in the world which opens such a field to every honour and every distinction as this monarchy.—(Loud cheers.) Here a man may rise to the highest honours in the state; ho may rise to the greatest power in the state; he may become a Minister in this country, however humble may be his origin, and in that situation he may advise his Sovereign as to the policy he should pursue, and the measures he ought to adopt; he may rise to the highest - position in the Church or the law, he may become Arch bishop of Canterbury or Lord Chancellor, and as such he may take rank before the Duke of Norfolk and the highest noble in the land.—(Cheers.) They possess every pri vilege, their properties and their lives are protected, and they have a fair field open to their ambition—they are a free people, and they are not the less free bemuse they have not votes given to them to enable thorn to elect persons who may have the direction of public affairs in Parliament.—(Hear.) Though I entirely differ from the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, and though I muss giie it to-night, as I would at any time give it, a dis tinct negative, yet I do not hold that a 101. valuation is absolutely necessary, or must be always permanently re tained; and having stated that opinion I may be asked why I have not come forwardi the present session and prpposed such an amended measure for reform as I may consider advisable. It is my opinion, and that of my colleagues to whom I submitted this question, that it would not be advisable in the present session to put aside all other questions in order to raise the queston of the franchise, which must lead to long and protracted debates, excluding every other subject, and leading, I fear, to many angry contests.—(Hear, hear.) I considerd that, of late years, we have made very great changes with respect to our commercial policy, and these changes are matters of discussion in this House, and, still more matters of discussion in the country.—(Hear, hear.) My opinion is that the sentiments of the country should be allowed to be matured and settled upon these questions, before we place before the country that which must cause great excitement, and could hardly be settled without great divisions of parties. I believe that if WO in addition to that which has caused angry debates through out the country—the question with regard to our com mercial law—that if we added to that another question, the we might do a serious injury to the inte rests c country.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that th is ' Parliament is equal to the determination of subjects of great i nterest, which might be passed as law, for the benefit of the country; but no long lime had been passed for the ex t ensionao Id u elapse once a measure of the suffrage, until a md comp l a i n t would be m ad © tha e t le t e h te e d pre b se y nt n ll ll ouse wh o o f Commons had not be en m i g ht be entitled to vote for representatives. I believe it is more for the interest of thi s country that the Parliament should continue t, G ive S t e attention to the subject brought before it, than if we rushed into a contest on Parliamentary reform. —(Hear, hear.) There are, too, other considerations which I think may well induoe us to collect further in formation, and that open to us further reflection, before we bring the question of extension of the suffrage before the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has alluded to great changes on the continent of Europe in the last few years. These changes are not without .their lessons. The first lesson—and we are told of, it by Honourable Gentlemen in favour of the motion—is, that we have seen governments which. might have altered their institutions—which might hate granted popular representation—whichmi ght' ha*? all Owed the people an enlightened press, and might have introduced measures which would have prevented alrio-, lute power from interfering with the liberty of the:, people unjustly, and that, having lost the time which they, should have devoted to such objects, were overwhalmek with the tide of popular fury which they had incurred. But another lesson has been taught since governments have been overthrown, or disturbed in their course. We have seen in three countries in Europe, the cause of liberty endangered, and the cause of good governments injured, by those who came forward in the name of liberty and of democratic government. We have seen in Italy a -venerable Pontiff, whose good intentions and benevo lence no one can doubt, obliged to fly from his capital. We have seen that capital stained with the blood of WS Minister, who had been assassinated; and we have :seen. the wild establishment of a republic followed by a foreign bombardment and a foreign occupation.—(Hear, hear.) We have seen in Germany various changes, from the extr, me of despotism to the extreme of democracy; we have seen universal suffrage given and withdrawn, and a substitute - adopted, which was 'borrowed from ancient [ Rome. by which the votes cf 100 of the richest men are equal ti the votes given by 1,000 of the poorest. We hive seen this substitute for the evil of universal suf fray.e. We have seen in France, when a demand was r ee ,! e fir the extension .of the suffrage beyond the narrow limits of a Inv hundred thousands—w e have seen that followed by a republic, which appeared to the astonishment of ninety-nine out of every hundred inhabitants of France—(Heer, hear)—we have se en universal suffrage proclaimed and acred upon, and yet the new republic and universal suffrage openly reviled at once by the wisest and the ablest men, and at the same time by the poorest of the people.—(Cheers.) W e have men men endeavouring to remedy the evil that has bent brought upon them by surprise. I have been told, and many others have been told the same, that it is the opinion of the great mass of the people of France, that the present constitution is not suited to their habits and character, and that that constitution gaud be replaced by institutions of a different kind.--s(Hear.) Now it was no busineas of ours, as I stated when I was first asked by the Hon. Member for Montrose—it is no business of ours to interfere with any kind of govetn. went thatahe French nation msy give to themselres.... (Hear.) But it is our privilege, and we should be idiots indeed if we did not avail ourselves of it, to observe what is going on in Europe—(Hear, hear)—and to take coun- Isel from these events.--(Hear, hear.) I say then, that if the result of the first lesson of 1848 was "It is too late," the result of this second lesson is "Do not do too much, and do not go too far, without full delibera• lion." I say that we are in the happy position that we have not a constitution toseek,—(Cheers.) The 'Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) says that he has always been looking for this constitution, and has not been able to find it.—(Laughter.) Why, that, in fact, is our happiness and our advantage--that we have no written constitution, but that every English man " knows his rights, and knowing dares maintain;" and that no person would venture to deprive an English.. man of that liberty which, notwithstanding the Hon. Member for Montrose, he knows that he hay, sad he values it.—(Loud cheers.) Well, th en , if t h at b e the case; if we aro in the enjoyment of so muck liberty; if the people of this country, daring the years 1848 and 1849, have shown co much good temper, end, as the Hon. Member says, are now in a state of quiet, and contentment—l say that Ido not think it will be sae wise in us to pause and consider, and not to take 'the next step without further consideration as to what that step shall be.—(Hear.) That there is no very prevailing wish among the people at this time for these changes, and that the middle classes are, as the Hon. Member for Sheffield says, opposed to them, are certainly not con clusive reasons against those cbanges.—(Hear, hear.) It is very unadvisable to wait for a storm before we go to sea; but at the same time, if you lift your anchor and unfurl your sails in a per fect calm, you may be drifted against the rocks.—(Loud cheers.) I do not think, therefore, that in the present temper of the people of this country, it would be advisable for the Government of this country to propose a great plan for the extension of the suffrage.—(Hear, hear.) Whenever we do pro pose a plan, 1 think it should not be a substitute for the Reform Bill, but a supplement to that AO.— (Reiterated cheers.) My opinion is certainly that the Reform Act was _ adapted to the institutions of this country—was 'adapted to the wishes of the people of this country. I believe witta Hon. Gentlemen, that the people of 'dole country have, since the Reform Bill was introduced, made great advances in knowledge and in information of every kind.—(Hear.) _ I rejoice to know and to acknowledge those advances. I think that it is partly is consequence of those advances that they do not, as far as I can perceive, ahem any impatience at the present moment for a great political change; that they know the conflicts and even the dangers that must accompany any such change, that they are contented to wait till the wisdom of this House—(oh, oh, and laugh tcr)—shall decide that it is necessary to make a further extension of the suffrage; and that the 101. value shall be no longer the limit for the right of voting in this country.—(Hear, hear.) I think, therefore, if you decide against the motion of the Honourable Gentleman that you will be deciding against a motion which is in consistent with any right of suffrage that has hitherto existed in this country, and which would introduce into your representation a body of electors with whom you might find it was impossible to make the other institu tions of the state accord. I am supported in this view by the language that I tee is held at the public meetings which are professedly in support of the Hon. Member for Montrose. I observe that at one of them the Honour able Member for Nottingham rejoiced in the union that had taken place—(Laughter, and hear, hear)—and r. marked, amidst the great applause and laughter of the audience, that it was not enough to destroy protection, but that they mu.t destroy the Established Church and get rid of the " black blugs," which was the tame with which he thought right to denominate the clergy of the United Kingdom.—(Laughter, and hear.) The Hon. Gentleman cheers that sentment,—(Hear.) The Hon, Gentleman has united with those who are proposing this plan to- ight.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood) means nothing of the kind. He has f'l I quently expressed his adherence to the constitution of this realm, and his wish to preserve the monarchy and the institutions of the country. I have no doubt that such is his intention; but when the Members come to be elected under the plan of the Hon. Member for Mon trose, if sanctioned by Parliament, I rather believe, and I am inclined to think, that the lion. Member for Not tingham would be more likely to carry the majority with him on his plan, than the Hon. Member for Oxford on his.—(Cheers.) Be that as it may, this is a question of conjecture and uncertainty. My advice to the House is to prbfer to that conjecture and uncertainty the institu tions that we now have, bring prepared to amend them with regard to any of their detects, refusing to ally our selves with any obstinate rejection of what may be for the public benefit, but not adopting a course full of danger, full of doubt, and full of peril to our best inte rests.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. B. OSBORNE—The Noble Lord had described the speech and motion of the Hun. Member for Montrose as unsatisfactory, but the declartions just made by the Noble Lord were completely unsatisfactory to the sup porters of the Government. It was worthy of notice that all the opposition to the motion, with the exception of one amphibious politician, the Member for West Surrey, had come from the Treasury bench. Ile was one cf those who had indulged in the pleas'itg dream that the Noble Lord would have deprived his Hon. Friend of the necessity of making his motion by bringing for ward a measure to amend the representative system. In July, 1848. the Noble Lord not only disclaimed the doctrine t f finality, but expressed himself as totally dissatisfied with the state of the franchise.—(ll( ar, hear.) The Noble Lord would not put to sea in a storm. and he would not lift his anchor in a calm Were they to gather from this that the Noble Lord was waiting for a breezl-01. laugh)—and that it would not be until the excitement of a general election occurred that he would lay on the table of the House a Bill for extending the franchise?—(Hear, hear.) He did not think that such a course was calculated to place the Noble Lord in a very high position with the constituency uf this country. He was afraid that until the broad arrow of the Government were stamped upon the measure, it was in vain to bring forward a motion like the present. There were always people who said the proper time bad not arrived for measures of this kind. At one time it Ras said that you should never yield to popular clamour, and at another that you should not grant such a measure when there was popular apa thy'. But if ever there was a time when a Minister could add to his fame, and secure the best interests of his coun try, it was by bringing forward such a measure at the present moment. If he were not much mistaken, a cry was arising out of doors that would swell after the speech of the Noble Lord so that he would not have.to wait long fur the storm he had spoken.' of. Who wars the parties that were really promoting this agitation? - A supine House of Commons and a procrastinating Cabinet.—(Loud cheers.) ,The Noble Lord had given the House few-rea,oas for • the 'dilatory course he proposed to pursue—s course very different from t hat taken by his great predecessor, Mr. w h o laid its Pitt. c d h o w w were that raplof f ho L td o d rd i G ni r tl e a y te an re d fo Ju ra: : regretted s re at t i l e G d soe b vn e etrien d mn i m d e n tn o st t see in his place to-night the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), the succe ssor o i n f. his tLi positionthin country.—(A leaderas l laugh.) e What gr eat ari s tocratic wh a t did that Hon. Member say? lie said that Reform ssor of M partyr P i tt Associations and Anti Corn-law Leagues, and other com binations of the kind, were the consequence of the people haring to take the government of the country into their own hands; that if the Government would not lead tha people the people-would drive the Government.—(Hear, hear.) So it was now; and hence we had a set of agi tators getting up—(lronical cheers)—of whom the Noble Lord (Lord 'John Russell) was th e godfa ther.—(near, hear.) The Noble Lord himself; a few y ears alter the Reform Bill passed, expressed his dissatisfaction with the franchise. In 1837, when the Government was not quite so strong, and it was necessary to throw out these things to keep the party together (as it was called). ho said in his letter to the electors of Stroud that it 'would haves been difficult, bat not impossible, by means of the "freemen" franchise, to obtain the re presentation of the industrious, intelligent, and able mechanics, and ttat such a change in the character of freemen would do much to purify our elections and to strengthen the House of Commons. --(Hear.) But to come to a more recent period ; what came out before " Mr. Roebuck's Committee " on the Election Compromises? Why, that at Harwich 94 Tory votes cost 6,0001., and 84 Whig votes 2,oooL— (Hestr.)—at Nottingham, 529 Whig rotes cost 12 ,000/. and 144 Tory, ; 5,0001 ; at Lowers, 411 Tory votes co s t 5,0p01., and 407 Whig, 2,000 h; at Reading, 572 Tory ntei cost 6 0001. and 410 Whig votes 16,000rhear)—no, -that last was a mistake , the Whigs always , did thp:tbing cheapest--(A laugh)—it was 1,6001. Ia abt boroughs 3,796 rotes cost upwards of 53,360. palely.) (SirJ. Pakington) Last year the Hon,'' Member f or Droitsviek r had a Committee, and it was pro posed that Members should take an oath apivat bey FRIDAY''