The Sun. — London, England, 1851-02-21 00:00:00

.-----•-"'----. .tent reason fur the Government not supporting his mo d 2 ion a/ e consid ere d , therefi re, that in bringing forward s otion in th e m i d dl e of February instead of the mid statedle J my he h a d overcome the chief object i on then b ead c bY the Government. The Noble Lord a the se the Government had frequently stated his`piion th a t i t might be desirable at sense time or other to gnd the suffrage. W e ll, the liwasure which he (Mr. e\ ! „i th e a s n 7 . as now p ropos i ng wou l d i n no way interfere future plan which the ' , Table Lord might have J ew. The plan ehich he had to propose web simple its nature, moderate in its terms, aed practical in its oper at i o f am e n, and ho thought it might be said to have this n mid they merit, that it would pave the way for the greet f e r e trusted comprehensive measure of reform which begth e 11° .° 11 se was to be favoured with by the Noble Lord proper time arrived.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe that the present Bill would interfere with rf'PY principle of the Reform Bill. It did not propose to ranchise one borough or to add a single representa tsetititiet:onl_l_it proposed to do was to remove some of the a e " aa lies that existed with respect to the repro to give the inhabitants of one locality utl e ci _ Bsl ne rights and advantages as wore already enjoyed " the sisme circumstaeces by the inhabitants of ;collier l acalit e .— Y (Hear.) He would not shock the 14 1 ire o f the Noble Lord by introducing the word t oll` on on the present occasion, or . by going into de- hieelectoral districts, which had beea called eeeved, discussions about squares and parallelo inagns." Neither would he discuss the question respect whiri ttb,e number of electors to each representative, nad also been called " arithmetical caleuletions;" a nd he trusted he might, on his part, be allowed to ex the'ts a hope that the discussion would not lead to re e e r about the dangers of revolutioa in connexion with to lin•-(Efear, hear.) The measure which he propo ed ,_rsubosit to the House was one so simple in its charac- I I that the most moderate and cautious reformer might 0 4 4 : sodopt it.—(Hear, hear.) It contained nothing tl ie euld at all interfere with those conditions which p s e tif ;°hie Lord last year declared to be essential to the sea 684 of reform. The Noble Lord on that occasion 4 1. " he had always considered it a condition in every e „, °134 , a-st condition which he thought had been happily beie-w-tehiiclih:ba3e IC ti Ptied with hitherto—that the representation of that ode in which it was constituted, the mode people elected their repro sentatives, should ofes e e°ll Patible and consistent with a monarchy and House weed s .. N _ 0 the present small and comparatively httifictint stren measure was at all events perfectly cun t() w ith things as they were, and would tend % o —. eh gthen rather than to weaken both the h° Y and the Hou s e of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) beat , pad that h e w h o h a d ma d e th e grea t est , eve,:e 'se 'a roost important social revolution which had P ta en effected in modern times would not object to te- t hose great anomalies which now existed with ieye to the .... repo, when could be sown - aet (li c ould be don e resentati thou wit incurring the slightest risk. Pre s — p eat ) hear.) He would likewise maintain that the b e , Was a m easure o f sound policy. It had often it ` s aid that th ey oug h t to exten d t h e f ranc hi se as f ar doin g Told po ss ibl y b e d one w ith sa f et y, an d th a t by so m od t ne Legisl ature wou ld b e more res p ec t e d, th e l aw dare d Pleallstly obeyed by the people, and propertyren • • ti ter . ,Ooubly secure.—(Hear.) He would ask could t amer °e any doubt of the respectability of, that vast and itita class who would be affected by this Bill? Was scent to this very class that a great part of the Govern ao„t'it owed their seats in that House ?—( Hear , hear.) He stib"'d seriously and gravely ask if a man was a better i4%,l4oectthwerh;_n he ( lived in one locality than when he lived PPosit Hear, hear.) He might here quote a very ' that extract from a document which had been sent 14 1, Very day:— tie s en s of thousands of men, in certain favoured locali tit., d istribut e d over t h e f ace o f t h e ki ng d om ( I b e li eve )0. ,distributed f or 1 850, f reemen i nc l u d e d, is 471,502), en of 10/ ele c ti ve franchise because they pay a yearly rent , seat_ and upwards ; and tens of thousands of men, i ts ;red ove r t h e remaining portions of the country, Yee t a:Prived of the elective franchise because they pay a re 11144 r ent of 101. an d u p w ards to 501. The test of th e ve te e fitness and due respectability to possess the iitti c ertain places, is measured by a rent of 101 but oes°4ler places by a rent of 50/. This distinction with % 4 difference is invidious, and manifestly unfair." tb e n ' l ght bring forward a vast number of cases to show lzutgreat anomalies which existed. He would take, for the att itu .ce, the county wh i c h h e represente d . H e found e ett . h ul the b orough o f Re i gate, one of the smallest be stir° in the kingdom, a 102 householder was repre liatitTh whereas in the large town of Croydon, which. S arre speaking, might be considered the capital short rre i, a man might rent a house just somewhat mete °f sole—he might transact business in the Itol e r a """s, and be well acquainted with all that was tire re- Seig e l ! " in the country, and yet be entirely u p thi g h .. t , : ll . len there was the case of a mechanic, who rei a h, r e la a house rented at 151. or 20/. a yaer, bank,who IQ; h ave a 100/. or 2001. accumulated in savings tti be r li e re t, si mply because he did not live in a town, would hPresented. Compare this man with an agricul bolikigijnorer, who might have a 40s. freehold, and who nand ..ensequently be represented.—(Hear, hear.) He a e "at help thinking that these were great anomalies felt husetehllipnce kid . -un trY Where we professed to represent property , and nothing else.—(Hear, hear.) He `ilia a stronger claim to the support of the House Acs f h s, t ,than he had last year, in consequence of the e tt t dtt-t:ssut h4f!t: Since A c.l been passed to extend the franchise to assear No man could regret more than he marred in its passage from that te nded u " a nd ba.ek w e a ire—(Hear, hear.) ball he con to th at the again.—(Hear, ar e t od same principle which had been applied % ant , the principle of placing the borough and te ad , t Y franchi se on the same footing, ought to be ex fees,:a",to Eng 4 .rd land also. The Noble Lord, in b r i ng i ng that Bill, said— f 14tChe Measure proposes to place the people of Irel an d se t i the to representation, in a position, n point of terai , . - s l goo . d as that ,cola te people of England and e pin bot t is founded to h„ principle that theyb e should treated as inferior to t , p. ()pie of England and See t h a t a dt but that they have a ri ' ght when England and Posai: h d possess a certain franchise, to be lilac , d in a hi es in that respect equivalent to both those . ' coup. So at ' i jlt that right they do not at present enjoy, and WI s r" the more does it become justice, does it become G r i- „ ° , 10 . to unite the people of Ireland with the people of aise l :tritai n , in showing, by equal treatment of both, titl ei Ving th em an equa l f ranc hise, you h a v e f u ll cen se:N.3;e In the manner i n w hich they will use th a t theT t Y and that f ranc hi se , a nd that they m a y h ave a ll Niaye eed eml which e x ists in any other part of the United esea e o the vi a l „ t nat had b een conce d e d to Ireland h e cl a i me d on :at LP of those who resided in the counties of England, 4; to that it would be aiding insult to g a t° , Say that the people of Ireland we . Fe. more .aa ti t-ts trusted in the exercise of the ;ranch' 13 arier, e People of England were.—(Hear, hear.) tie; `"e discussion of the Irish Franchise Bill, one Was , t e t , Strongest arguments adduced in its favour Is iew . "l- 14 . L the constituencies bad actually decreased. I /t ue S a kelsei,,„ 'unlight he could show that the county consti .Te °` England had decreased also. By comparing ege t , setoral register of 1536 with 1849-50, he found Il n as eset,7 B l a ! decrease in Berks of 1,039; Devon, 1.123; \t ~le d ;; Reretord, 319; Shropshire, 505; V r es - ' ,meat% L' l l Wiltshire, 585; and in Worcester, Cdr. ) But he might be told that he was going 184 aCic ° 3 a r i • He would, therefore, compare the register hat; - ;''to that 1850. By this comparison he found th- A . : was a decrease in Bedford of 415; Berks, esi e s'c i a, 1,753 ; Dorset, 843; Hereford, 1,088; - i i , 11 11% - '.,rel 998; Stafford, 1,577; Suffolk, 831; West "ore e 'L )4 Bt Westmoreland, 210; Wilts, 584; and in "taila-st,'"er, 1,3 79. —(Hear, hear.) Comparing the total ?tied cotinty electors in 1843 with that of 1850, he 46 1,4 1 31k‘ ill 1843 the number was 484,073, and in 1850 hewings~ a decrease of 22,666 in seven years, 41 ,000 boroughs there had been an increase of Pe : lie thought that these facts proved that if `teleSil'Ple which bad been laid down with regard to ois eut c Last s ess i on was a sound one, it ought to be 0%471 to the English counties—the rather that in the !nsioap,'"land the decrease of electors had taken place Aldled rh e a ,Popula.tion almost stationary, whereas in Eng oecresse had occurred among a population ra likieetiinereacing--(Hear, hear.) He believed that an Nitie s p i ta raight he r a i s ed, and very properly raised. t eate sas `"e measure , that it did not go far enough. He , a. " it - I,l"nd very well hearing the Noble Lord say— in 'ay oh i' r ,a is nothing in my opinion I ever held, or r' ° ' ol l I or N I W hold now, w hi c h would debar me from it h th e ”" satisfaction any plan by which the admission %ad thworking classes could be still further extendel, tate b4 sis widened upon which the representation teei htt -a aware that the objection to the smallness of his St til e W as a great objection; but he begged to say goped 'leisure was geed as far as it went; and e Itreaticre Noble Lord would support it on the same het h ai t a bat had induced him to bring it forward ; vie, to a loaf or a fragment of breed was better than s el l airle - a ‘i at all'_— (Bear, bear.) He thought he had a NI m: 1 ? on the support of the Right Hon. Gentleman oa a fasit be -r for Ripon, who observed, with great ability, etteer occasion— tie el ''we ass, considering the increase of the democra ete4-sent iu our institutions, that I see the greatest rey se f its erecting an immense superstructure on a net lik:l Aecteral basis. If that superstructure cannot stand t ow ces ti , e ztended electoral basis, I am sure that a 0ar ....(t4711 cannot long sustain it." roa n ar, hear.) Now, he thought the Right Hon. Ba it; de wou ld admit th at th e country h a d not d ecrease d i n foewr„ °cr atic tendenci es; an d t h e fi gures h e h a d b roug h t *Et, forward "net h ave shown him that the electoral basis , s ttle ter ne lderably narrower. — ( H ear, hear.) He thought, Moogh be might with very great fairness claim the t t h", °° . Baronet's support.—(Hear, hear.) He owned, its th ltt e iir e after all that had recently occurred, not only Whi ch ,1210 use, but out of it, particularly at an election Plitt 01 °, 4 1 lately occurred in not the least aristocratic the att,44gland—(Hear, hear)—he might fairly claim te , ePort of the Honourable Gentlemen who had ,reeent period supported protection, for he it Would be found that those who had only wry it tePtidiated the principle of protection would find t hey e a " ,„` li ngly difficult to re-obtain their seats unless s utra - ''P e ci''d to constituencies with an extended ssaett.'.---(Hear, hear.) Ile might say that he knew t estify l e n g of the farmers of this country, and could Wa s ' tens when they had once formed an opinion it h eeti Ty r , Moult to shake it. He knew that they had they ; t aught and tutored to cling to protection, that 1 1044 i?uld not be induced to give it up at a moment's atteavtlany one; and, though Hon. Gentlemen might teat, th Persuade them that it was not a question of eme ueY would continue to maintain that, if it was not beer.l of Protection, it must be one of rent.—(Hear, fr ee t i He believed that, much as they were opposed to Im aes r t ad, they would infinite prefer an open and !re ach ' foe to one that dealt up to the eleventh hour 114.131_ ,il.:lr:ouswkrei t Islv a t s he m m a . He rejoiced greatly at the akZitt..gatrisitire on behalfd)Member for of his Hon. party. • He rejoiced *vino measure completed the triumph of the Tien. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden). This was a cause in which he (Mr. King) took the liveliest interest, for he might here state that his father fought the battle of free trade single handed for many a year before either the Hon. Member for the West Riding, or the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), or even the people of England, had had their attention called to it.—(Hear.) He hoped that the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, with the enlarged views which he had recently adopted, would attempt to not coalesce with the electors who had been created under the 501 Chandos clause to answer a political pur pose.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted the lion. Member would go with them for an extended suffrage, and that they would no longer hear anything about what he be lieved he might say had now been partially renounced— he meant the re-establishment of the dangerous doctrines of protection, for he h&c' protectio❑ to be very much akin to Communism in its worst shape.—(Hear, hear.) Protection he regarded as the few taking from the many; and Communism, in its general acceptance, as ad taking from all. An attempt had recently been made to establish Communist principles on a largo scale ou the continent by that celebrated man Louis Blanc; and what had he done? He attempted on behalf of his party to obtein a loan of money from tne Government. The agriculturists had got their loan. M. Blanc had also attempted to obtain - relicf for his party—the very thing the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was now at ' tempting for his.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. King) hoped that a measure liGe the present, which might be shown to be one of sound policy and perfect justice, would not be refused by that House. Ile trusted that the day would not come when the people would find that it was only particular classes who could obtain a hearing in that House; when the law would cease to be a refute to the oppressed, and become, instead, the arm of the cp. pressor; and when it should be said, with truth, that that House had at its disposal false instead of equal weights and balances.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving in the terms of his notice. Lord J. RUSSELL spoke as follows:—Tbo Hon. Gentleman who has made this motion has done it, cer tainly, in a most effective manner, and has stated his case as fairly, and laid it before the House with as little exaggeration, either as to its merits or nature, as the Hon. Member possibly could have done. I must like wise say, as he stated at the commencement of his speech, that there can be no objection to the time of his making the proposal, and that the reason, which he says truly was a reason against the entertaining of his propo sal last year, is not a reason which I can urge on the present occasion. —(Hear, hear.) I will make even a further admission with respect to the nature of the mo tion itself. I think it differs from several other motions which have been brought forward for the extension of the suffrage, inasmuch as I do not think any reasonable objection can be urged against the class of persons whom" the Hon. Member proposes to include within the fran chise. I admit at once that they are . persons who, if intrusted with the elective franchise, would probably use it with intelligence and integrity—(Hear, hear)—and I certainly cannot pretend that there is any such supe riority in the inhabitants of towns over those in coun try parts as to enable me or any ono to say that the inhabitants of the towns who are invested with this franchise are distinguished by any superior qualifi cation over those not having the franchise in other parts of the country.—(Hear, hear.) But the question really is whether this proposal would effect an improvement in our representation; because I have always considered that this was really the important question which the House had to decide in respect to any proposition of this kind. I never could think with the Hon. Member for Montrose and others, that the chief point to be consi dered was, whether certain persons with certain quali fications should be entrusted with the franchise, and whether it was not a hardship, or, to employ a much stronger term, as the Hon. Member was accustomed to do, whether it was not a species of tyranny, to exclude them from the franchise. But I always considered, seeing the immense power this House possesses, seeing that this House represents the country at large, and that succeeding periods have increased its means of control- ing all (slier branches of the Legislature—l ia;e always considered that what was really important to this country was not so much that any particular persons should be enabled to vote at elections, but that the general result should be advantageous to the country, and that this House should fully and fairly represent the intelligence and will of the people.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if we consider the present poposal in refer ence to what has hitherto been the case in this country in regard to the franchise, it is obvious that the proposi tion is in manifest opposition thereto. Ther© has always been, till a very late period, this distinction in principle between the representation of counties and the represen • tion of boroughs, though not certainly uniformly carried out in every instance—the representation of counties was a representation by tenure, the persons voting there in consequence of their tenure, while the persons who voted in the boroughs voted by virtue of occupation, the one class being usually denominated freeholders, and the other householders, in whom, in the absence of any particular law to the con trary, it was decided by ancient authory that the right of voting existed. In the course of the discussion on the Reform Bill a proposal was made to make a very great change with respect to the representation of coun ties, so far as to admit voters who did not hold by tenure, being neither freeholders, nor having a tenure for any number of years, but merely holding by occu pation. The Marquis of Chandos, who made that proposal, succeeded in carrying it by the votes of many of those who were Retormers, and who, on that occasion, thought the Government which had pro posed the Reform Bill had been in error is not giving the franchise to that class. Lord Althorp at the time pointed out the objection to the proposal, but those ob j, ctions did not prevail with the Hon. Member for Mon trose and others, who thought it desirable to add this class to the constituency, and a decision of the House taking place in favour of Lord Chandos's proposition, the Government in the next Reform Bill introduced a clause in conformity with that decision; but I own I m) self never considered that was any improvement of our represeniatioi . I have always considered that, so far as it dimini died the power of the 40s. freeholders, it did, on the contrary, rather weaki.n and enfeeble than strengthen the independence of our representation; and, looking at this question not merely with regard to the ancient policy ot the country and the ancient division of counties and boroughs, but looking at it practically, I must say my experience with respect to these electors in counties has led me to observe that often a candidate might ask a farmer paying a considerable rent for his vote, and the farmer would say, " Whatever my wishes may be, it is impossible for me to give you my vote, considering the opinions and politics of my landlord, and therefore I cannot enter into the question whether I agree or disagree with your views." Such an answer have I myself and others re , ceived, while, en the other hand, upon canyassing some of the smallest and poorest freeholders, I have seen a de termination and independence on their part to give their votes according to their opinions, highly to their honour, and showing thus that their pcsition was more indepen dent than that of the others. Well, the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman is to admit a very large number of voters by occupation, and thereby exceedingly to di minish the power of that other valuable cla,s to which I have just alluded.—(lear, hear.) In looking over re• turns relative to the various counties of England, I find that the 501. ocupiers are at present in a minority, cer tainly, as compared with all the other electors who vote in great part by freehold tenure, but all by a tenure for some considerable period at least. In Berkshire the numher of 50/. voters is 971, and ell the other voters 4,270. In Cheshire the number of 50/. voters is 4,022; and the other voters 11,901. In Derbyshire the 50/ voters are 2,663, the others 10,208; and in Devon 4,920, the others 14,018. I do not know that I need quote any more of these particular instances, but in the whole of the English counties there are about 100.000 electors who voted by 50/. occupation, and 375,034 of all other kinds, the greater mass being 40s. freeholders. Well, then, if in addition to these you ad mit is the position of voters 350,000 others, who would have a right of voting as 101. householders, it is q u it e obvious that you would so deluge the 40s. freeholders as to diminish their importance in county elections.— (Hear, hear.) Now, considering the value of these 40s, freeholders—considering the antiquity of their privilege, and the importance that they should still possess the weight they have, I should be sorry to see a change made diminishing their influence in counties—(Hear, hear) — but beyond this I think that our object should not be to introduce that uniformity which the Hon. Gentleman rather recommends. His argument is nothing more than this—you have a 101. franchise in the boroughs, therefore have a 101. franchise in the counties. I have rather con sidered, the different times this subject has come before me, that it is an advantage that there should be various rights of voting, and that the same class of voters which carried the elections in one place should not bo the same which decided the choice of representatives in the other.—(Hear, hear.) I therefore think it would not be an improvement to introduce this uniformity. The Honouraule Gentleman says, and it is an argu ment which has been used by many persons, but it is not one founded on just observation ot things:—" You have given the right of voting to occupiers or 121. value in Ireland, and surely the occupiers in England of the value of 121. are as well deserving of the franchise as they are; and, at least, you ought to extend the fran chise in England so far." But the lion, Gentleman does not remember that in Ireland we have completely disfranchised that large class of voters, the 40s. free. holders; and when I said, in supporting the Bill for the extension of the franchise in Ireland, that I thought it most desirable to place Ireland on a footing of equality with England and Scotland in this respect, it was because I took into consideration the extinction of the 40s. es which the free holds, therefore I thoug h t it right to give that franchise to persons in Ireland , no doubt well qualified to hold it, the abuses 4O w s. hteienhurferalendchtiosenotrenewing there, would at the sam e t i me ena b le the mo o lrish i r otoesscoanistidheor peoplethat they ofE n es g e l r a e n d treated us with as and of Scot land. That result in a great degree has been attained. From the number given as the number of v oters i n the Irish counties, I should conjecture that they bore about the same proportion o: the populatico, or some thing resembling it, as the number of v oters in the English counties. But if you were to say, because we have done this we must introduce a eimiler franchise into England, then you propose a new inequality—b e s cause then you would have the 403. freeholders and voters of other teaures together with a 101. occupation franchise—because there are in the Irish counties 12/. voters, and no 40s. freeholders. I cannot think, there fore, that the proposed measure would tend to improve our representation. I would rather continue the variety now existing, and keep up the ancient distinction be tween the voting from freehold and other tenures in counties, and the household occupation in boroughs. The lion. Gentleman has said that I cannot say the pre sent is a revolutionary project, or one tending to any great democratic change. Undoubtedly I make no obarr a tint kiwi Nowt him; mud, thclllgil I Oink THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, ' t'sat his plan would be no improvement, lam far from saying that the :lass of voters which he proposes to create is a class from which we have anything to fear. But there is another question to which the Hon. Gentle man has alluded, and on which I will say a few words befora I conclude. Though I have stated that it is not advisable to adopt the present proposition, yet on other OnViODS I have stated that some extension of the franchise was desirable.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But the House will recollect that I did not think it an evil to have counties, and large cities, and small boroughs respectively returning Members to Parliamk nt, but that, on the contrary, if we had merely a representation of numbers, that then it was my opinion that this wealthy and intelligent country would not be so well represented as at present.—(Hear, hear.) With these opinions, I certainly could not be a party to that which some Mein bers of the House seem to wish—the entire abrogation of our ancient system, and a sweeping away of the Re form Bill, together with all other Acts and customs with which our representation i 3 connected. But Ido think it desirable to introduce a measure for some further ex tension of the suffrage, by which, as I have said, there would be an opportunity for the working classes to have votes at elections.—(Cheers.) Still, my answer to the Hon. Gentleman when he asks whether the Government are about to introduce any measure for the extension of the suffrage—my answer to him is, that we have not that intention. There are reasons both peculiar to the present time and general reasons of policy why I think such a course unadvisable in the course of this year. The peculiar reasons are, that it is absolutely necessary to commence this year with finan cial measures—that the attention of the House of Com mons must be immediately taken up with those financial measures, and that if any question respecting the alter ation.of the Reform Bill and the extension of the suf frage were introduced it must necessarily be postponed till a later period; besides there are certain questions re lating to the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery and relating to the general administration in Ireland, which I propose to bring before the House, and with which it is very desirable to proceed as speedily as possible. There are general reasons of policy like wise, which I partly stated last year, why it is not ad visable to proceed just now with a measure for the ex tension of the suffrage. It has always seemed to me, when great changes were introduced in this country, that it was desirable that we should, while the minds of the people were unsettled and unfixed as to the effects o I these changes, avoid very frequent elections, and the perpetual agitation of those questions in which the feel ings of the country were deeply involved. It is far 'better, after sufficient time has elapsed, and after discus sions such as those which take place in this House, that the country should have an opportunity of calmly and delibe rately deciding on the value of these changes. I have like wise thoughtovith respect to late years, that we have not had many changes in the legislation of this country; but `We have seen great political changes going on in foreign countries, and I have thought that anything tending to the stability of our institutions, anything that showed that we were proceeding quietly with the maintenance of our institutions, was an advantage to this country, and preserved us from many evils which another course might have entailed.—(Hear, hear.) But I can see no reason why, after this session has passed, there should not be laid before the House at the commencement of the next session a proposal on the subject of the ox t-nsion of the suffrage—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear") — and, if I should then be a member of the Government, I should feel it my duty to present my views on the ques tion to the House. I know perfectly well that those views are not such as will meet with the approbation of the HOD. Member for Montrose, and those who agree with him, but I have so often stated that difference of opinion existing between us, that it will create no sur prise in the mind of that Hon. Gentleman that I come to a conclusion different from that which the principles which he has from time to time laid before the House lead him to adopt. However, I think it desirable, seeing that it is now 20 years since the'passing of the Reform Bill, that we should after the lapse of that time consider whether there are not a great number of our fellow. countrymen not only fully qualified to exercise the suffrage, but whose exercise of it would tend to an im provement of the character of this House.—(Hear, hear.) For myself, I sun perfectly satisfied with the experience we have had of the Reform Act; I believe the repre tsoentthaotin people o since ot 1832 1 a rl4.e has_( beenla r ge—(Hear , ea r s h u e c a h r ) a — s t w o h g i c i give to tconfidence not have had in a House of Commons where the Mem bers for Old Sarum and Gatton had seats, and where no Member for Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham was present.—(Cheers.) I am, therefore, perfectly satisfied that the influence of that Reform Act has been salutary, and I believe that in any changes we make we ought to consult the spirit of that Reform Act, the temper and genius of the people of the United Kingdom, and that we should not attempt to construct on any other basis but the old foundations, endeavouring at the same time to add to the symmetry and convenience of the edifice. Mr. HUME said the Noble Lord seemed te complain that they were going on proposing changes from year to . year, but he was sure that no one who looked at the condition of the country could doubt that much of the peace which we enjoyed, while other nations were dis tracted and disturbed, must be imputed to the state of our representation having been improved by the measure of 1832. Now that we were in the enjoyment of peace, it was the duty of Parliament to see if they could not give more safety to the State by further concessions to the people. He saw no reason why one citizen should enjoy privileges which another did not. It was true he (Mr. Hume) had given his vote in favour of enfranchis ing the 50/. freeholders, but he had also been desirous of extending to them the protection of the ballot; and if, as the Noble Lord stated, this class of voters were under the influence of the landlords, the Noble Lord, who had refused them the protection of the ballot, must take the blame, and not himself.—(Hear.) Thera could be no better time than the present for enlarging the suffrage, seeing that it was a period of profound tranquillity. The suffrage was the right of a free citizen; and, if so, what right had the Noble Lord to deprive these 10/. householders in counties of the franchise? The Noble Lord, in opposing this motion, was blind to his own po sition and to that of Hon. Members who supported him. Mr. CO 3DEN had heard with great pleasure, and he was sure the country would participate in this feeling, the declaration just made by the Noble Lord, that he would propose next session a measure for the extension of the franchise.—(Cheers.) He only hoped that the country would give that attention to the subject which would enable them to secure a real measure of reform in our present most faulty system.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House remember the scenes that they had witnessed and read of during the last three or four weeks in the elec tions for some of the smaller boroughs—Falkirk, St. Albans, and one or two other boroughs with 300 or 400 deeoth these faue e edrc e si t en bi 9 ogrme r i anne s aol asns. more general e H noi bnti h e efil °mere polled, insignificant eotbe a icofrboe: hadoi d ouaos nunne boroughs hir h 6mmn: a , onoo t os rrhpoheewai.i than oc c urred transpired vh iolence, h op : 7,oothothe comparedoo of n p e opleti ntho seell t nauelrerc,eo dnivote r s. more co m bats an t Tst hidrunken ness,hoeeoi,n,cheoool whole elusion to which he had come was, that in these consti• tuencies of 200, 300, and 430 electors, with open voting, so much bribery, corruption, and intimidation took place, that these small boroughs ought to be utterly extir pated from our electoral system.—(Hear.) Ho hoped the Noble Lord would address himself to the task before him in the conviction that the country had been for a long time looking for some measure of reform—(Cheers) —and he believed that, after the declaration just made, the Noble Lord would be mistaking the sense of the country if he, or any one else who might be in his posi tion, did not bring in a measure commensurate with the evils of the present system, and one that should meet the wants of the people.—(Hear, hear.) He should not hare risen but for the promise just made by the Noble Lord; but he begged to offer a few remarks on the immediate question before the House. The Noble Lord admitted that the 101. householders in counties, whom the Hon. Member wished to bring within the pale of the constitu tion, were persons wholly unobjectionable in point of circumstances, character, and integrity. The Noble Lord also conceded that the 101. householder in counties was es good a man as the 101. householder in a large town. If, indeed, property were thy test of character, a man who rented a 101. house in a village or small market-town would generally be found to be in superior circumstances to the 10/. householder in a large town.—(Hear.) But the Noble Lord said he objected to the motion because it would be an innovation upon the system of votingby 40s. freeholders in counties; and the Noble Lord adduced the innovation upon that system of voting by the en franchisement of the 50!. tenants at will under the Re form Act as a reason why the House should not agree to a further innovation upon it by the addition of a 10/. constituency. But having given the 501. tenants at will a vote fur the counties, the Noble Lord had not shown how ho would increase the evil by giving a vote to the 101. householders. He (Mr. Cobden) con tended that it would give the people of counties a fairer representation than if the House stopped at the 501. tenants at will, and rejected the present motion. The Noble Lord said the 501. tenant at will was not so inde pendent a man as the 40s. freeholder. But it did not follow that the 10/. householder would not be a more independent man than the 501. tenant at will—(Hear.) A farmer who rented a farm depended for his subsis tence upon the employment of his capital in land. The landlord had great power over that individual, because by withdrawing the land from him, and the farmer being frequently unable to gain his living by any other calling, the landowner was withdrawing the means of living from him. But if the same landowner went to a market town and gave notice to quit to any shopkeeper who refused to vote for him, the man would say, "I can find another house ; I am a grocer, or a cheesemonger, and if you deprive me of this house I can get another, or, if not, another will be built fur me." Now, if they looked to those counti e s where the 404. freeholders had the most influence, as in the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire, they would find the representatives of those counties voting in favour of this motion; while the opposition to it would come from those counties where the influence of the tenants at will was preciominant. He was not sure that the Noble Lord would nut after all find it desirable to adopt the principle of the present motion in any mea sure he might propose. The Noble Lord might try the plan of grouping together country towns and small places ; but how would he group together into ii borough such places as he would find in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where, in an extensive valley, a continued series of mills, cottages, and houses might be found? But the Noble Lord might very easily give these places a vote fur the county upon the plan of his Honourable Friend olr. Locke King). Where the Noble Lord was compelled to leave out a town from the borough representation he must give the inhabitants a vote for the county. Take the case of Barnsley, th e seat of the hum manufacture of Yorkshire. That was an important town, yet it had no representative, while Pontefract, which was not half the s'ze, sent two Mem bers to the House of Commons. If they went to Ro therham, Dewsbury, and many other places in the ma nufacturing districts, they would find that they must either be grouped into boroughs, or else that the inha bitants must have a 10/. franchise for the counties. The Noble Lord had truly said the other night that the mass of the people of this country were determined to main tain our present commercial policy. And the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Gra ham) in that admirable speech—(Hear, hear)—made the same assertion, and it would find an echo through the country. But what was the case with regard to the representation? He would pass over the fact , that there was only a majority of 14 votes among the representa tives of the people upon a question upon which the mass of the people were unanimous. —(Hear, hear.) But let them look at the decision of the county repre sentation, so fir as the opportunity had been afforded of testing it. Take the elections for the last few weeks in Herefordshire, Glamorganshire, Nottinghamshire, Montgomeryshire, and the elections now going on in North Staffordshire and Bedfordshire. In those six counties or divisions of counties there could be no doubt that the mass of the people were just as de termined as ever to maintain free trade. But at all these elections there was not a free-trade candidate who had a chance, and why?—because the representation of the counties was not in accordance with the opinions of the mass of the people in those counties. The landlords and the tenants might be tolerably unanimous, but they con stituted only a small fraction of the population; and, so long as this state of things continued, there would be no security for the permanent enjoyment of free-trade, and great peril to the institutions of the country, from our inability to uphold this vital principle. Now, would the Noble Lord allow this great discrepancy to exist, — that while the great body of the people were in favour of free trade, so many Members of that House should continue to vote for dear bread, against a free importa tion of foreign produce, against the unrestricted export of manufactured produce, for low wages and high prices, —and to do all this under the pretext that they repre sented the counties? If there were no other grounds than this it would be sufficient to induce him to support the motion. His Hon, Friend had done a great service by bringing this motion forward; and not the least service that he had rendered was in having elicited from the Noble Lord the promise that we were to have a great extension and modification of our representative system. After a few words from Mr. P. HOWARD, in sup port of the motion, The House divided, when there appeared— For the motion ... 100, Against it ... 52 Majority . . --48 The announcement of the numbers was reoeived with loud cheers. On the motion of Lord SEYMOUR, leave was given to bring in a Bill to amend the Act for regulating the construction and the use of buildings in the metropolis and its neighbourhood. Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved fora copy of all peti tions on the subject of convict discipline and transporta tion which ha►e been presented to her Majesty, or to the House of Commons, from any part el Australia or Van Diemen's Land since the year 1845, with the number of signatures attached to each petition. Mr. THORNELY said the petitions moved for by the Hon. Baronet were seventeen in number, of which six teen were already printed. The motion was then agreed to. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland moved for and obtained leave to bring in a "Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Civil Bills and the Courts of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, and to transfer to the assistant barristers certain jurisdiction as to insolvent debtors." On the motion of Lord MELGUND, leave was given to bring in a " Bill to reform and extend tho School Es tablishment of Scotland." Colonel DUNNE moved for " A return of the names of naval officers, civil engineers, and other persons who have reported iii favour of or against the proposed plan for the Asylum Harbour at Holyhead, or that have re ported that Holyhead is not a suitable place for an asy lum harbour, and whose reports have been made or printed by order of Parliament previous to the intro duction of the Holyhead Harbour Bill into Parliament last session; distinguishing those who have reported in favour from those who have reported against such har bour; together with the cost of the same, as estimated by the several engineers referred to. And copy of any report or paper forwarded to the Admiralty in the year 1847, on the part of the shipowners of Liverpool and others, on the nature of the anchorage ground of the proposed asylum harbour at Holyhead, and signed by Captain James H. Christie and Lieutenant R. Sarsfield, R.N., together with the plan annexed therete."— Agreed to. PASSENGERS ACT. The House then went into Committee on the Passen gers Act Amendment Bill. The several previous clauses having been agreed to without discussion, on the last Mr. ADDERLEY suggested that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to cabin passengers as well as to steerage passengers, and complained that the former were in some instances subjected to unfair treatment. Mr. THORNELY said he had had great experience with respect to emigration to the United States of Ame rica, and from all he had seen he had no hesitation in saying that the cabin passengers were perfectly able to take care of themselves. The clause was then agreed to, the House resumed, and the Chairman reported the Bill. MILLS AND FACTORIES (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. The House adjoiirned at Nine o'clock. Mr. 0. Higgins paired off with Sir R. Peel in favour of Mr. King's motion for the extension of the franchise. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the V tes and Proceedings of the,lioule of Commons ) THURSDAY, FEB, 20. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 3) BILL. Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Ques tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time :" Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the tkiords " upon this day six months." Question put, " That the word' now' stand part of the question." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 46 • Bagge, W. Hamilton, Geo. A. ' Salwey; Colonel Bankes, George Hastie, Alexander -'. Smollett, A. Baring, Francis Hatchell, John ' Spooner, Richard Berkeley, Henry F. Hornby John ; Stanley, Edward Boldero, H. George .Tolliffe, Sir W. G. Stanstield, W. R. C. Broadley, H. Lacy, 11. C. Strickland, Sir G. Brotherton, J. Lawiey, B. R. Thornely, T. Brown, W. Lockhart, W. Turner, G. J. Childers, J. W. M'Gregor, John Verner, Sir. W. Cubitt, William Manners, Lord G. Welby, G. E. Duncan, Viscount Mitchell, T. A. Wigram, L. T. Duncan, George Napier Joseph Wortley, J. S. Einlyn, Viscount Patten, J. W. Ewart, William Pllkington, James Farnham, E. B. Prime, Richard Fitzrsy, Henry Ricardo, Osman Grosvenor, Lord R. Rice, E. R. TELLERS. Denison, E.' _ Christopher. R. MAJORITY—NOES. 102. Adair, Hugh E. Goold, Wnydham _ Osborne, Ralph Adair, B. Shafto Grace, 0. D. Pete, Samuel Adderley, C. B. Greene, John lt en dlesham, Lord Alcock, Thomas Guernsey, Lord Reynolds, John Austey, Thomas Gwyn, Dowel Rushout, Captain Sadleir, John , B .j. H. Sandars, George Barrow, Hamner, Sir J. Scrope, G. P. Bell, Jacob i I A aa r alr:r.wohr:l!: ~l: W. t, John George I Hall, ia i I S t i o r nm Hardcastle, J. A. Scully, Francis Berkeley, C. L. G. Headlam, T. E. Seymer, IL K. Blackall, S. W. Hill, Lord E. Sha to, R. D. Blair, Stephen Hodgson, W. N. . Smith, J. Benjamin Blake, M. J. Hood, Sir A. Smyth, Jk hn George Booker, T. W. Hope, Alexander': Stafford, Augustus Brentridge, Richard Inglis, Sir It. , Stanley, E. H. Chatterton, Colonel Jackson, William Stuart, John Clay, James Keogh, William '' Sullivan, Michael Cole, H. A. Kershaw, James Thompson, Colonel Collins, William King, P. J. , . Trelawny, J. S. Copeland, Alderman Knox, Colonel Vane, Lord 11. Cowan, Charles Locke, Joseph ' ' Waddington, H. S. Davies, D. A. Lushington, Chases Waddington, David Devereux, J.T. Lygon, Gen. I‘ . Wall, C. B. Divett, E. Meagher, Thomas, Walmsley, Sir J. Douglas, Sir C. E. Mahon, Viscount . Westhead, J. P. Duncuft, John Manners, Lord' j. Williams, John Edwards, Henry Milnes, R. M. 1 ' , Williams, W. Evans, Sir De Lacy Milton, Viscount( , , Williamson, Sir H. Fagan, William Molesworth,Sir W. Wilson, Matthew Farrer, James Monsen, William SVodehouse, E. Morris, David Fergus, John Wyvill, Marmadake Fox, Richard M. Naas, Lord Young, Sir John O'Connell, M. ,I, Fox, W. J. TELLERS. Frewen, C. H. O'Connor, - P earttlS Galway, Viscount Fuller, A. E. O'Flaherty, Anthony Mackenzie, W.F. COUNTY FRANCHISE. " - Th a - t sBThth - l ua be l e on a mtr v ot:, e sLitono. given ise in Counties in England divided : Motion made, and Question put, a b n ri d ng vv in ale a s ß th il e l t s o am m e ak as e th t e h F at ran in right of voting to all occupiers Boroughs, by giving the of tenements of the annual value of ten pounds.ra J " OR T I h T e y II - 0 4 us i!Es, 100. Adair, R. A. Harris, Richard Hall, Sir B. P no ri li n kin b n a e rte y gth , s 7 n l T ui j . a am j m . es Adair, Hugh E. Hamner, Sir j. Salwey, Colonel Alcock, Thomas Hastie, Alexander Anderson, Arthur Anstey, TC. Beetle, Archibald Rice, E. B. Bass, M. T. Headiam, T. E. Blake, M. J.Scholetield, W. Bright, John RumpberY, Ald. Bodges,uoward ': T. L. ii, Scrope, G. P. Btt, Reginald Jackson, William , Sidney Alderman Brown, W. seat i ng , Robert Blaney, Robert A. Kershaw, James B B r r o o c th k e le rt h o u n rs . tj,.John Butt, William Banbury, Edward Smith, Vernon Calvert, Frederic Langston, J. H. Smith, John B. Carter, John B. Lawless, Cecil Stanstield, W. IL Chaplin, W. J. Lennard, T. B. Strickland, Sir G. Clay, James Locke, Joseph Clifford, H. M. Loveden, Pryse Sullivan, Michael Cobden, R. Lushington, C. Tancred, 11. W. Tenison, E. IC. M'Cullagh, W. T. Thompson, Colonel Thicknesse R. A. C C o o l l l e i b n r s o , o l lt v a . , Sir T. Mackie, John Crawford, W. S. 111.0regor, John D'Eyncourt, C. T. art, Sir J. M"ragg Thomas Thornely, Thomas Drummond, Henry Mangles, Trelawny, J. S. Duncan, Lord m ang les, R. D. Villiers, F. W. Ellis, John Moffatt, George Wakley, Thomas Evans, Sir De Lacy Molesw orth, Sir W. w W a ar n s , le j 3 7 . . T S . ir J. Evans, William Moore, G • H. Swart, William Mintz, G. F. Williams, John Williams, W. Fagan, William O'Connor, Feargus Wilson, Matthew Forster, Matthew O'FlahertY. Antho ny weed, W. P. Fox, W. J. Oswald, Alex an der Gibson, T. M. rechell, Si r G. 'TELLERS. flu Granger, T. C. Perfect, Ro bert me, Joseph Ring, P. J. MINORITY—NOES, 52. Adderley, C. B. Proven, C. 11. Parker, John Arbuthnott, Hon. H. Grace, 0 . D• Power, Nicholas Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, Sir G. Ho Hilly, Sir John Baring, Sir F. Grey, H• IV' Ituesell, Lord John Barrow, W. H. H John Seymour, 11. D. Bellew, R. M. H Berkeley, Admiral Seymour, Lord Heald, a a w tc e li s c , l m 81, James Somerville, Sir W. Henley. . Blair, Stephen J. • W Stanley, E. Brernridge, Richard Hobhouse, Sir J. Stant on , W. S. Brockman, E. D. Hood, Sir A. Turner, G. J. Buck, L. W. Hernby, John Verner, Sir W. Campbell, W. F. ' • AV Knight, 1• . Williamson, Sir 11. Cowper, W. F. Labouchere , Henr y Wilson, jas James Craig, Sir W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Wood, Sir Chariot Duncuft, John Lewis, G. C. Dundas, Admiral Maule, Fes TELLERS. Dundas, Sir David Napier, Joseph Hayter, W. G. Elliot, J. E. Paget, Lord C. Hill, Lord M. Freestun, Colonel Paget, Lord G. Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial• office, from the Governors of New South Wales, New Zealand, the Cape of Good Liope, Oh ara L ope, st, kieltu‘ FEBRUARY 21 1 1851. THE PRECIOUS BUDGET. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMES.—Mr. Locke King brought on last night his annual motion fur the assimilation of the county fran chise to that of boroughs, and after a brisk little debate Ministers were beaten by a majority of two to one. Ur. King mustered a round hundred against the Ministerial 52—exactly one for each county in England and Wales. Now, really this is too bad. It is too bad that people who have been saying for years that something ought to be done, and who on the strength of the present Go vernment saying the same have not withdrawn their confidence from it, should bo put into this ignominious position—for every usual supporter of Government comes in for a share of its scandals. Think of the pro pais'er of the Reform Bill being beaten twenty year: after, two to one, on a question of reform! This comes of a man having once done a good thing—a circum stance well known to be ruinous to ordinary minds. Well was his Lordship christened Finality John. He is evidently one of those who worship the work of their own hands, as if many as great a man had not lived to see all his work scattered to the winds. He last year fully admitted the intrinsic merits of Mr. King's plan, acknowledging the strong claims of 101. house holders, and confessed that it was only a question of time. This language, in which we entirely concurred, had its natural effect on his 159 supporters, who all saw that the opposition was virtually abandoned, and that, for the future, they were to deal with the question as they might think best. The result was, that the ma jority of 159 dwindled last night to less than one-third, while Mr. King's compact and persevering century of Reformers remained exactly what it was last year, viz , one hundred men—neither more nor less. It is not. then, Mr. King that has gained ground, but Lord John Russell that has lost it. He was distinctly warned last session, both in the House and in these columns, that unless he should be prepared with a measure for comprehending some very important classes now wholly unrepresented, he would find many of his supporters leaving him in the lurch. All that he could then say was, that it was a question of time, and that the middle of July was too late to set about it. Mr. King has brought it on in the middle of February, and his Lordship is equally unpre pared. We think we have the greatest reason to com plain of this management, not merely because we are anxious to see something done in the way of reform, bat also because Mr. King has been allowed a more unqua lified triumph for his particular plan than we are ready to accord. The principle of admitting all the 101 house holders at present unrepresented to the county franehise, and of thus making the county the residuary legatee of all other constituencie, is a very sweeping one, and would require ; , some correction. In many, if not most, of our counties the landowners and farmers would be utterly swamped among a multitude of tradesmen, shopkeepers, and even artisans. Again, the proportion of 10/, householders is much larger in trading than in purely agricultural districts. In ten rural parishes containing ten thousand inhabit ants there may very easily be not more than a hundred 101 householders, allowing on the average a squire, a clergyman, four farmers, a shopkeeper, a publican, a blacksmith, and a carpenter to each. But in a town of ten thousand inhabitants there will be net far short of a thousand 101. householders. Should, however, the pro portion be 200 such householders to 10,000 agricul turists, and 800 of them to 10,000 i n habit an t s o f a t own , then Mr. King's plan would give the trading classes of the county four times as much representative weight as he gives to the agricultural classes, besides leaving the former in almost exclusive possession of the cities and boroughs now sending Members to Parliament. The plan would require at the very least that many large towns, and perhaps whole districts, should be made Par liamentary boroughs, in order that they might not prove overwhelming additions to the county constituencies. But, thanks to Lord John Russell, Mr. King has obtained a signal advantage for his naked proposition to make the qualification the same in county as in town. Such is our double complaint—first, that Lord John Russell has procured for his followers the discredit of resisting Par liamentary reform; secondly, that he has given a real advantage to a sweeping and unqualified measure. But last night's affair has in more respects than one a very ugly appearance. It is useless to con ceal that Government is losing weight both in. the House and out of it. There are rocks a-head of all sorts. To-night comes on the income-tax, which from the first we have protested against, for the Procrustean rule which it applies to the longest and shortest tenures —to the rent which has been paid a thousand years, and will probably be paid as much longer, and to the pro fessional or literary income which may cease to-morrow. Farmers, tradesmen, and almost every other class, object to the tax as it now stands, and their combined objec tions are likely enough to be expressed in the speeches and votes of this evening. That' impediment passed, then comes the window -tax, and Sir. Charles Wood's house-tax. The public, we are much concerned to say, does not appreciate the elaborate conscientiousness with which Sir Charles has endeavoured to carve out his sur plus amongst the numerous expectants or non-expectants of his bounty. The repeal of the corn-laws, and some other large measures, have utterly spoilt them for half-and half boons. We really think that Sir Charles might have retained the window-tax with better grace than he has proposed to " repeal " it. We cannot help it—no body can help it—the public has a certain way of view things, and its present feeling is very much that which Dickens describes in a large hungry family, which had been led to expect a Christmas pudding, and received ic stead five yards of flannel. As matters li)ok at present, there is not a little chance of this long-expected boon being sulkily refused, in the hope that somebody else will 'do the thing more handsomely,—in fact, as Peel would have done it. To some other measures we need not now allude more particularly, but it is evident that Ministers are not to be allowed so easy a timm of it as they have hithert ) enjo)ed, and that the fourth session, so fatal to the popularity of Governments and the constancy of supporters, is beginning to tell. At such a crisis we must call it an unpardonable blip to leave Mr. Locke King in possession of Reform, with a popular cause and a large majority. As to the promise of a measure next session, who can pretend to say how we shall all stand by that time? The announcement is like that of the Newgate Ordinary who promised to take the second part of his text next Sunday, though the persons be was ad dressing were to be hanged the next morning. The only difference is that in the present instance it is the preacher rather than the congregation that is in danger of losing his position. Whatever be the merits or demerits of the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is quite evident that it cannot pass in its present shape, and the sooner this truth is recognized and acted upon the better. Sir Charles Wood has very properly pressed the House to let him know the fate of his scheme as soon as possible, and we think he is not likely to be kept long in suspense. Sir Charles Wood calls upon the people of this country to make a great sacrifice, to submit for three years more, and thus to increase the probability of having to submit for ever, to a most inquisitorial and unequal tax, which used to be considered us a desperate resort, to be had re course to only in time of war. The fact that the income tax does not increase in proportion to the income shows that the sense of its injustice and the facility of eluding it offer temptations too grt at to be withstood, and that it is, in fact, debauching the conscience of the country. These inequalities and immoral tendencies Sir Charles is at no pains to remedy, but flings them before the House, to take or to reject in the lump, only re questing to be favoured with an early intimation of their opinion. The measure is too bad to be altered, there fore it must be passed as it stands. The income-tax was laid on by Sir Robert Peel partly to cover a deficit of ruinous amount, partly to give a trial to a new system of policy, which should remove the burden of taxation from the country to the owner of property, or make up for reduced taxation on the consumer by an increase of consumption. Sir Charles Wood claims to tread in the steps of his great predecessor, and how does he set about it? With a surplus of two millions, he devotes to the policy of Sir Robert Peel 412,000/., the sum which he estimates will be required to meet the defi ciencies occasioned by the reduction of duty on coffee, timber, and clover seed. Those, therefore, who look with an eye of favour on the policy of Sir Ro bert will see little in the present Budget to reconcile them to the re-imposition of an income-tax in a paltry imitation of the policy of their leader, which seems to remind them of its burdens and sacrifices without pro mising any of its magnificent results. But something must be done for popularity. Principle is a noble thing, but the greatest arithmetician, the most stoical calcu lator, must yield somewhat to expediency. Of all those who have clamoured against taxation, the metropolis has been the loudest against the window-tax, and therefore the window-tax is to be sacrificed. A more objectionable impost in a sanitary or architectural point of view can not be conceived, and, although its reduction or aboli tion contains within itself no revivifying principle. like that which has compensated by increased con sumption for the removal of so many burdens, it was so deservedly unpopular that the sternest dis ciple of Sir Robert Peel might well rejoice at its ex tinction. Here, then, if not strictly logical and con sistent, Sir Charles Wood was at least likely to be popular, and to gain golden opinions from :that very numerous class of financiers who view the merits of a Chancellor of the Exchequer from the commanding point of view afforded by their own hearthstone, and estimate the goodness or badness of his measures by the amount of his demands upon their pockets. But Sir Charles Wood could not be popular in a popular way. He took those who argue against the window-tax on account of its sanitary and architectural obliquities at their word, and most rashly assumed, that if these ob- jections to the tax could be removed, the tax itself might be retained. The window-tax, after all, he seems to have thought, is only a house-tax calculated ou an ob jectional principle; if I alter the principle I may retain the tax. No one was ever more mistaken. The ground on which the window-tax is' objected to is one thing; the ground on which it is disliked is another. If Sir C. Wood meant to carry out a system of finance founded on scientific and farsighted principles, he would not probably have meddled with the window tax at all; if he meant to court popularity he should have abolished it altogether. As it is, he has incurred much more odium than he would have done by steadily pursuing the reduction of those import and excise duties which narrow our hiraket., fetter our energies, and in terfere with our manufactures. The meetings held in London and elsewhere since the promulgation of this most infelicitous scheme sound much more like the first transports of rage and disappointment than of gratitude and satisfaction. The numerous class of persons who, renting houses free from window-tax at upwards of twenty pounds a year, find themselves compelled for the first time to contribute in this form to th e public reve nue, consider themselves, and with some justice, the vic tims of the system. They indignantly ask why it should be that on the occasion of a large surplus they should bo selected to mourn am id the general rejoicing, and the popularity which Sir Charles might hope to ban obtained by the remission of one-third of the window• tax is far more than counterbalanced by the cla morous remonstrances of the victims o the house-tax. Thus, whether we consider the Budget as designed to satisfy popular outcry, or to carry out a scientific finan cial operation, it equally fails to conciliate support. It gives a little to everybody, just enough to stimulate their appetite for more, and then to disappoint it. It is little necessary for us to add our voice to the general chorus of unmeasured vituperation, but we cannot help thinking that a great opportunity has been lost, or rather frittered . away. Small reducti ons lik e t h ese conta i ne d m the Budget could have been made in any year, but the existence of a large surplus, and the required re newal of the income-tax, seemed t o sugges t th e necessity either of remitting the income tax, or of purchasing assent to its re-imposition by some comprehensive financial measure. That op portunity has been let slip, and may not seen return. It is not f or littl e • a m end men t s o f little duties, for peddling alterations, which are just suf ficient to . show how muc h f urt h er t h ey oug h t to h ave been carried, that the people of this country are disposed to submit to a re-imp os i t i on o f t h e i ncome - tax. T he principle of that tax is l ou dl y con d emne d b y pu bli c opi nion, and will not be acquiesced in unless upheld by a Minister who offers to the nation a fair and reasonable equivalent. To carry out a great idea, to reduce our financial system to scientific and reasonable principles, it has been and would be submitted to; but those who ask for its renewal, with all its iniquities unabated, must show themselves able to employ the funds which it places at their disposal to a really profitable purpose. We would therefore counsel the Chancellor of the Ex chequer to take back his measure, and so to recast it as that it may meet the hearty approbation of, at any rate, some class of her Majesty's subjects. The present Budget, while it has encountered so many bitter enemies, has utterly failed te conciliate for itself even lukewarm friends. HER A.LD.—The British House of Commons is to-night to resume the discussion of the weakest, the most unjust, and the most impolitic financial scheme ever presented by any Chancellor of the Exchequer to the representa tives of the people. The first question upon which the House will have to determine is the continuance or non continuance of the income-tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us, and tells us truly, that this question must be disposed of before the items of his Budget can be considered, because his whole scheme is based upon the re-imposition of this odious tax. Let us add to this, however, that the question of the income-tax cannot be satisfactorily decided without considering the whole of the Budget, because it is to sustain that Budget that the proposal is made to re-impose the income-tax. This tax is suggested to supply the deficiencies in the revenue which other parts of his financial propositions fail to meet. It is because the ways and means of the Right Hon. Gentleman do not furnish sufficient te meet the expen diture of the country without recourse to this extraor dinary Assessment that it is proposed. The income tax is, in fact, the price which we pay for the rest of his financial measures. It is to sustain those measures that we are called on to submit to the tax. Were we asked whether those measures be worth the price, a shout of derision from the whole country would be the 'reply. Never was a proposal for raising the year's revenue so unanimously condemned by the press. All classes among the people are arrayed against it. By some singular fatuity of blundering Sir Charles Wood has contrived that his proposed remission of taxation shall be as unpopular as the imposition of new . tax- s. His boon of substituting a house-tax for the impost on win dows has excited a ferment fiercer than was excited last year by his proposal to retain the window-tax in its integrity. His reduction of the duty upon coffee and timber is declaimed against as another blow at our colo nial interests. In a fit of exuberant generosity, he pro poses to give to agriculturists their seeds duty free. Mr. Frewen, the Member. for an agricultural county, points out that this is but a contrivance still further to de preciate the value of the tillage of the soil. Nay, when the Chancellor's munificence rises to the height cf re lieving the agricultural interest from the expense of the support of lunatics, the representatives of that interest with one consent reject his prof fered gift as " a delusion, a mockery, and a snare." We suspect, then, that the country will hardly be willing to purchase such a Budget at the price of sub mitting to the income-tax. Unfortunate in windows— not singularly successful in coffee—a positive failure in timber—ridiculously breaking down in the matter of agricultural seeds—and absolutely pelted with ignominy from lunatic asylums —the ill-fated Chancellor will hardly shelter himself from popular indignation behind that rather unpopular individual the collector of the income-tax. Still, however, the representatives of the people have a duty to discharge that is of wider and more permanent interest than the mere condemnation of the Budget. It must now, once for all, be determined whether the machinery of the income-tax is to be a settled and permanent inst rument o f British finance. It is impossible to disguise the truth, that if the vote be now taken for the continuance of this impost, it is a vote that the revenue of the country shall be now and for ever hereafter raised by its means—each year's accu mulated precedent increases the difficulty of getting rid of it. Another renewal, and it becomes one of the insti tutions of the country. When is this tax to be refused, if not now? So lung as Parliaments agree to vote. it. Ministers will be ready to propose it. If, in a time of profound peace—of a financial surplus—of no unusual demand upon our resources—if, under such circum stances, Parliament at once accede to its re-imposition, when, or under what circumstances, will it be refused? Is it, then, argued that the income-tax is to be perpetual? To what class that is subject to its operation may we not turn for some almost peculiar illustration of its injustice? Indiscriminate, indeed, iu its oppr-ssion, it has so many forms of injustice that each 'Jerson can, with reason, be lieve that he is the victim of a separate wrong. The farmer complains that its mode of assessment upon him makes it nothing but robbery in form of law, the manu facturer and merchant that they are taxed for uroats when they suffer loss—the professional man bitterly feels the injustice of taxing his hard-earned gains equally with she in:erest of the miliionnire. Take any one of these classes singly, and contemplating that alone. we can almost fancy that each has a grievance peculiar to itself. The truth is, that the tax itself to each and all is one gigantic and universal grievance —a grievance resting upon two of its characteristics—its inequality and its inquisitorial character. It is under the show of equality most cruelly unequal. A tax of 3 per cent. upon the owner of an income of 1,000/. a year is a very different thing from the same proportioned impost upon the man of 3001. While the first may hardly feel it, it may de`,l prive the second—scarcely able to make both ends meet —perhaps of the means of educating a child—it presses upon the struggling tradesman with a severity to which the demand upon his opulent rival bears no assignable proportton—it clutches with remorseless and unrelen ing grasp the very class that can worst afford taxation — those whose ordinary expenditure just reaches their income. Taxes upon luxuries self-denial may escape. The tax upon income perjury only can evade. The man upon the verge of embarrassment it plunges into difficulty—the struggling man it crushes— the sinking ma's it pushes down. In the fact that no reduction in expenditure can evade it—eume persons fancy a merit—we see in it a great cruelty. The bed of Peocrustes was the most terrible invention of human torture. Still more cruel is the inequality of is opera tion upon professional income and ou real property. How much of the income of any professional man may fairly be said to be profit applicable to his own pur poses—how much of it income which he can be said to have to spend. Must we not first inquire how much of his income is of necessity expended iumaintaining a po sition in society essential to his professional gains ? Is the money expended on the carriage and horses of the physician any portion of his income in any sense in which income is a fair subject of taxa tion? Nay, must we not deduct from gains . depending on the precariousness of human life that portion of them which must be devoted to the sacred object of making provision for those who are dependent for their bread upon his earnings? Deduct these items from the gains income at any professional man, and the residue alone is at his own disposal. It is out of the gross amount that he must pay the income-tax, which yst is assessed upon a nominal sum of three, five times, perhaps ten times the amount of his available funds. We can but glance at considerations which ten times our space would not enable us fully to discuss. Even beyond its inequality —gross and palpable as is that injustice—we deprecate the inquisitorial character of this impost. We have been able, in some degree, to estimate the sensation produced by the plain and practical letter of "A Manchester Merchant," which appeared in the Morning Herald of Tuesday. Is it, we ask, to be endured that British merchants should be obliged to disclose to any men—to their rivals in trade—every secret of their part nership—every item of their ventures? Yet this the letter of our correspondent feelingly established the commis sioners had a right to demand. It is not the language of cant to say that this system is un-English. This pro its • nounces, in our mind, its severest and most truthful condemnation. There is a sturdy independence about the Saxon character that ill brooks this prying by Go vernment officials into the private details of each man's affairs. To the respect that legislation pays to that very . spirit of independence we verily believe we owe much of the qualities that give dignity to the English character. It' is a spirit that legislation may foster, but which the tax gatherer may break down. There is something abhorrentto it iu that inquisition which demands of you to subject all your concerns to any commissioner of reven r o uf e, If an Englishman's house be his castle—the ledtrguesive an English merchant should be subject to no :i n fer the oyes—no man should have a right to come dealings — the of his income—the nature of h is neg elehbour the purposes of taxation, and extort from his particulars of his livelihood—the s ecret of his gains. struggles of his honest poverty, a tax th:njust in its principle, Away, then,confession of the Ennogwlistheliln t its machinery. Let the H ous v e ide fur the revenue of the ty. consonant to our feelings cruel in its ope w r e ati s r a m y . Iviniqtisitoorficalomatounns- Minister that he must pmroore Let us say that there is , c a o u u d n ru try or b e y a to which the country has a one section of the House . for a determine resistance to the renewal right to look It is to the friends of the late Sir g so re m e e abre e t a o n :q of this impost. Robe: t Peel . Nineyears ago that statesman, high in theconfidence of his country, succeeded in imposing thes unpopular tax, when no one el se cou ld h ave d one so . But even he could not h ave carr i e d i t if h e h a d not pledged himself that it was impossed to meet 1. tempo rary exigency, and should not be converted into a per manent instrument of finance. Upon previous occasions men might believe its renewal temporary : the question now beyond doubt is, whether it is to be made perpe tual. Is the imputation to lie upon his memory that the country was cheated into the concession of this tax under false pretences? Is the pledge under which he obtained that concession to be redeemed? We have heard solemn and feeling perorations in which free-trade votes were justified as the preservation of sacred trusts confided to the sAmakers by the example of their de parted leader. We doubt not that OM were 4,4"fr0 but let us say, that the votes upon the income-tax l test their sircerity. Tha , t atesman obtained from the country the income-tax upon a distinct prom i se that it should not bo made a perpetual impost. Confiding in that promise, the country cheerfully acceded to its tem porary imposition. In a spirit of deep solemnity we ask, ht w ho i en ll ofi t uod h rfu o co s it : lh tr w ehi e h :p o have d? eefdpgharei s opinions, o n proclaimed vote fr t themselve s h e redemp tion ted wh st i a ch te , sm ev a e u n ca fr ll o s m on th t e he t m om to b, ke t e h p e inviolate. ADVERTISER. —The Premier and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are brothers in adversity. It is diffi cult to say which is most to be commiserated. They doubtless sympathise with each other. They may do much by reciprocating their compassion, to keep each other in countenance. Poor Lord John ! Poor Sir Charles ! " Sure such a pair," of legislators, " were never seen." It may seem unkind, bat the truth must be told. The sorrows of the Noble Lord and of the Right Hon. Gentleman aro but beginning. Sir Charles Wood will, this evening, have a foretaste of what is in reserve for him. The discussion, as the Parliamentary phraseology has it, " is to be taken" on the Budget to n'ght. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, conse quently, be this night's victim. The immolation of the Premier, or, rather, the commencement of the process, will take place next week, when the Papal Aggression Bill again comes before the House. From all we can see or hear, Sir Charles Wood will be compelled, before the clock strikes twelve to-night, to come, in his own mind, to one of two conclusions. He will feel that he must either abandon his Budget, or resign his situa tion as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ho had better make up bis mind at once to co the former. If be hesitate, the inevitable result will be, that he will have to do both. If he persist in his adherence to his finan cial abortion of Monday night, the penalty he will have to pay for his foolish pertinacity will be the loss of office. With himself will, of course, go his Budget. It cannot exist an hour after his official career has closed. If it were otherwise, we could understand those feelings which would lead him to cling to it with all the affection of a father. We can comprehend, that there may be such a thing in the Ministerial world, as a man having so devoted a regard for his offspring, as to inspire him with a heroism which would prompt him to sacrifice himself for the sake of a favourite measure. This eau not be so with Sir Charles Wood and his Budge:. Any attempt to save it from the destruction wtth which it is menaced will most certainly be ineffectual; while the very attempt to avert the impending annihilation, will necessarily involve his own official extinction. If he at once abandon his Budget—if he cast out and cast off his own offspring, he may possibly thereby save himself. But it cannot, under any circumstances, be saved. Its doom is sealed. The sentence of death is written on its forehead. A few weeks hence, and it will be in its tomb. It will have had but a brief existence. It has been born but to die. It has been ushered into the world merely for the purpose of being extinguished. The Right Honourable Gentleman to whom it owes its parentage will before many weeks, possibly before many days, have elapsed, have to act as chiet mourner at its funeral. Some persons are prepared to see Sir Charles Wood make an attempt to save his offspring from a vio lent death by indulging, should the House persist in its hostility to the measure—in the threat of a resignation of Ministers. We do not share in these apprehensions. We anticipate nothing of the kind. That is a game which cannot always be played with safety, much less with success. The trick is becoming stale. It will not do to be too frequently repeated. When resorted to on every occasion in which Ministers are thwarted, it loses all its effect. It may have been all very well to try the effect of the thing when Lord John Russell first found his Cabinet in jeopardy; but because it was successful then, that is no reason why it should be successful now. Each successive repetition of a menace of this kind diminishes its effect, until it ceases to have any effect at all. Two years ago Lord John Russell's threat of resignation inspired an un easy and a regretful feeling in the country, because it was hoped that the Noble Lord's Government would im prove as it went on. Wo have all lived to see, that un dignified expedient resorted to too often already. Be cause the circumstance of parties or the country were peculiar at the particular moment, Lord John Russell has, on more than one occasion, forced obnoxious mea sures down the throats of an unwilling Parliament and a reluctant people. But the time for carrying his pur poses by such unworthy and such unconstitutional means has gone by; the threat would make no impres sion now; it would not inspire an atom of alarm in the public mind. The Noble Lord would have the mor tification of finding that the nation no longer said, " Oh, pray don't resign." He would hear quite different language. On his ears would fall { the ungrateful words, "Do re sign, by all means. It is high time that you did. You ought to have done it long ago." We are aware that some of the friends of the Whig Cabinet—the in terested friends, for they have no other—say that no succcessors can be found to the present Ministry. That is all nonsense. The forsaken lover in the song con soled herself with the reflection that " there is as good fish in the sea as ever yet were taken." The same may be said in reference to Ministers. Terrible, indeed, would be the dearth of statesmen in this great country, if it could not produce twelve or fourteen men, equal in acquirements, capacity, and the other necessary quali ties for an Executive, as the present occupants of Down icg-street. It would not, indeed, be easy to meet with an equal number of persons, of average education, more imbecile or more incompetent than the Whig advisers of her Majesty. The Russell Ministry were feeble, tottering, and unpopular before. They were on the high road to disaeletion. l'he Papal aggression measure of the Noble Lord, and the Budget of the Right Hon. Gentleman, were all that was wanting to clap an extinguisher on them. These measures will only accelerate an event which was inevi table under any circumstances. Should Sir Charles Wood be so foolish and so disrespectful to the House, as to threaten that Ministers will go out in the event of his Budget being meshed, then we trust there will be found iu that as,,embly sum- one with sufficient spirit to reply to the menace, by telling them to " go," and not to stand upon the order of their going. but to go at once. The country, from one eked to the other, will echo the words. The nation, as with one voice, will say, " Amen." The Whigs will quit office unpitied and unlamented. They have, for a long time past, been barely tolerated. The Russell Cabinet has been a Cabinet of sufferance. The time has arrived when the country must have a mug Government—a Goverment which will reflect the opinions and promote the real interests of the people. POST.—When, in 1845, the then Prime Minister 'came to the conclusion that the interest and credit of the country rendered it necessary to demand from Par liament a renewal of the tax directly levied upon the income of the nation under the Act of 1842, for a further limited period of three years, the proposal was thought a matter of sufficient moment to make it a subject not merely of mention, but almost of direct recommendation, in the Specch from the Throne. Sir Robert Peel had, when first he made his "earnest appeal to the posses sors of property to remedy the mighty and growing eiii" by which the country was ala:med, end its enterprise re stricted, ,xprcssed his doubts whether, in three years, the .. . operation of the. new system of financial and commercial leg:slanon would produce such an effect on the revenue, as to enable him, et the expiration cf that period, to dispense with the direct end burdeoseme taxation to which, under the peculiar eircurnstances—cir cumstaeces which he hoped and believed to be ex ceptional—ha had asked the country to submit. Sir Robert Peel's doubts were the only portion of his coda of faith which were justified by events. In 1845, after three years of experimental finance, he found that it would be, we will not say impossible, but hazardous, to dispense with this adventitious and ex ceptional, at least so it was represented to be, aid to the revenue. Parliament and the country, advised by the Crown, and urged by the Minister, acquiesced in the proposed renewal. Tho income-Lax was extended for a further period of three years, the extension being ac companied with protestations from the people against the impost being converted into a permanent tax, and promises from the Government that this should be the last time of asking. Previous, however, to the expira tion of the limited extension, Sir Robert Peel resigned the administration of public affairs, and another Minister sat on the Treasury Bench, during whose tenure of office occurred the commercial distress of 1847; famine in Ireland, almost universal bankruptcy, and actual uni versal distrust in Great Britain, shook the credit and incoe p o oly r f u o te wf d htab a tee s ve a r resources of the kingdom till they tottered to their foun dation. It was manitest to the merest tyro in finance that the ordinary sources of revenue would not be sufficient to the occasion, and that it was not possible that the finance tune, Parliament Minister should do otherwise than ask the country to e n the demand on grant him a further lease of the income-tax. It was granted freely, frankly. tit ae tt ui t e h s e e.e s c r i protested that they circ t u h m e stl j t u n s c t e i s c , e an o d f they i 3 idea of this exceptional mode being g al system country. The r a e c p co u u di n a t te o d f e t m he ph u a r t g ic e s n il e y y t o h. f e the element reusing in re t v b e e nu fi e n Governments who have availed themselves of the impost party, or of ever whatever political opinions , ventured to defend the tax qua tax . Sir Hubert Peel, in 1842 and 1845, the hope, ahtotphee, operation a t t h i u e u have view. a2cskentowaleedigeegdle umnreemeehrevre.d and c o on ft fi h d e e newnt commercial gay?. Sir Charles Wood in 1848, held out to the country not tern would render the permanence of the income-tax un necessary. These were the promises, these were theunder taking, on the faith of which the possessors of property assurancemerely thrice answered, with unabated energy, to lobe call of the respective Governments. They responded trustingly, nobly. Has faith been kept with the country? Has either or any Minister made any attempt to fulfil their promises to the nation? We regret that to those ques tions truth compels us to answer—No. Sir Robert Peal chalked out for hi. own guidance and that of Parliament a line tortuous and leading to most dangerousr esults, but with a sort of plausibility in its approaches which seduced a large party. 113 assumed that there w re many taxes unduly restricting the access to commcdf ice 1 I consumer. It was evident tha t the on the part of the sudden removal of these taxes, whatever they might be, would diminish the revenue below the amount necessary for the current expenditure of the country; but he con tended that the increased consumption, consequent on increased ability from reduction of price, would,i n process of time, again fill up the measure of inco me t o the brim. To preveot, however, any possibility o fi euug ht while awaiting the rising of the to - be-fertilisicg stream,. he asked for, and obtained, a per-centage upon the. ree come of the People. To a considorablq extent his an ticipations were realivd: he found himself actually pos sessed, in 1 845 and in 1845, the last ye a r of his tenure of office, of a surplus almost, if not quite sufficient to enable him to dispense with the exceptional assistance of the income-tax. He —a had not, however, the moral courage to do justice and to keep faith with the nation. Moved up by a full-blown and frotby prtV4tity he Wtilgott to epenieue rtw i s isie of toniton—iko