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

EVENING,

Fall)

they might receive, for they were not educated—their edu-
cation hitherto bad not been much taken care of; but of this
he was sure, that if you went into any of our large manu-
facturing towns, you would find the artisan, who was the
manufacturer and artisan of his own fortune, would be the
first to oppose himself to anything like Communist doc-
trines—(Hear)—and if a man could be depended upon he
could, for the maintenance of what was called the sacred-
ness of property.— Hear, hear.) Then, where was the
objection to this man ? What were the opposers of the mo-
tion afraid of?—( Hear, hear.) There might be a sort of
personal antipathy to coming in near contact with men who
had not hitherto had power; but when we came fairly to
discuss what was wanted in a constituent boay, what was
there in the proposal that should excite alarm? 'lhe real
proposition was—as for the ballot and the other points, they
were as dust in the balance as compared to this—
that " every man of full age and not subject to any mental
or legal disability" (but it did not rest there, or it weal
be universal suffrage), • " who shall have been the resident
occupier of a house or part of a house for twelve months,
and rated to the poor of that parish for that time," should
be registered as an elector. If it could be made out
that the constituency proposed could lead to mischief,
there would be an end of the case; but what was there
in this to excite alarm ? True, there was a vagabond popu-
lation in every great community, and labourers who were
living by their labour from day to day, and continually
moving about ; but they were not included in this proposi-
tion. Where wee the danger of giving a vote to a resident
ratepayer?—(Hear, hear.) It would be said, ‘• Oh, but he
must have alt 1. house." The Noble Lord's (Lord J. Rus-
sell's) Reform Bill brought it down to 5i.; there were very
few houses under 51. His (Jfr. Roebuck's) farm labourers,
at 9s. a week, paid 51. a year. V, by should not Si. house-
holders vote? Then, in London and various towns there
were lodgers, and among them there were the most educat d
and intelligent men; why shoud not they be admitted?
What was wanted was not only to give au ample represen-
tation to this country, but at the same time n. t to excite
any jealousy or to do any injustice. Now among the intel-
ligent artisans you would find a strong feeling against the
peculiar mark which the Legislature thought fit to consti-
tute a title to vote. There were thousands—he was going
to say millions—of persons, who, being lodgers, were ex-
cluded from the franchise; but there was not a parish in
which you would not find persons living as lodgers with
men who were entitled to vote, and who were of a higher
degree of mind and morality and everything else than their
landlords.— (Hear.) He would not go now into the question
of the ballot. He was surprised to hear the Attorney-Ge-
neral for Ireland (Mr. Napier) propound the exploded fal-
lacy that the ballot was un-English. Un-English.! Why,
did the Right Hon. Gentleman ever vote by ballot at his
club I If a Member were proposed for admission who
from some social peculiarity was a bore, and whom the
Right Hon. Gentleman wished to exclude from his club, he
would vote in such a case by ballot; and yet he 'would not
allow the same privilege to a man who was called upon to
vote for a Member of Parliament, and who, while under the

4 ...person who dealt with him,
or of a powerful neighbour, mignt _
pendent opinion.—(Hear, hear.) Then the Right Hon.
Gentleman foisted upon us the wretched argument• that the
ballot was un-English. He (Hr. Roebuck) thought we had
done with all that long ago. He would be bound the Right
Hon. Gentleman had voted by ballot in his club, and, if so,
he begged him to reflect a little, and ask himself why he had
done so, and why he did not say to himself, " I won't vote
in this un-English way ; I don't like it ; it is not bold and
open enough for me. I must tell Mr. A, whom I think a
bore, that I shan't vote for him, that I shall exclude him

secret voting any longer."-(A laugh.) But the Right
from my club; and I won't submit to the degradation of
lion. Gentleman wanted the influence over the electors which
open voting gave. If not, let him say so, and then be (Mr.
Roebuck) would acknowledge the argument and grapple
with it ; but don't let him deal with the question by a
sham. or tell the House about the ballot being un-English.
Take a case. He (Mr. Roebuck) was a landlord, and he had
an influence over his tenant. Now, what was that in-
fluence? Was it one proceeding from respect? . Was it the
influence of a highly instructed over a less instructed mind ?
No; it was the mere influence of a dominant will oder the
will of another man. The landlord did not in such a case
come to the tenant, and say, " I think you will find that
Mr. So• an i-So Is not a good representative, because of his
opinions," but he sent his agent. who had this message—
" Tell the tenant that this is my will -if he does not vote
as I please he must take the consequence." The Right Hon.
Gentleman must believe one of two things—either he must
wi-h to retain, by means of open voting, the sort of influence
just described, or be must suppose that the elector would
become demoraliseS by voting in a manner contrary to his
expressed intention. Now this, he supposed, was what was
meant by un-English ; the tenant, it was feared, would
promise his landlord one thing, and do another. But why
,lid the landlord ask him at all?—(Hear, hear.) Nobody
asked the Right Hon. Gentleman how he was going to vote
at his club, because, in the fist place, it was considered
that no one had a right to put such a question, and becaus",
in the next place, the Right Honourable Gentleman would
not answer the question it it were put. Take the case of a
voter in a county. A Member was put up. Suppose he
were the tenant, and the Right Honourable Gentleman the
1 mdlord, than whom nobody could be more opposed in poli-
tics. Give him the ballot, and he voted as he liked he
voted against the Member proposed .by his Right Hon.
Friend ; but take away the ballot, and let him stand exposed
to all the influences which the landlord csuld bring to bear,
and what was he expected to do? Why, to sacrifice any
independent feeling of his own mind. This it wets which
was un-English—(tiear)—that he should be coerced atutinst
his will, and compelled to vote against his conscience. As
to the Bill of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr-
tisme), when he recollected that there were small bo-
roughs, of which be could find a dozen—he might say 50—
that should hardly have the population of one borough,
which were yet net better represented than they, he en-
tirely agreed with the greater part of his Hon. Friend's
proposition. The mind, however, could not help recurring
to the last proposal for reform made by the Noble Lord the
Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell), and cer-
tainly, of all the mischievous proposals that were ever pro
pounded to this House, that which proposed to combine
various small boroughs into one in order that they should
have a voice in this House, thus conducing in every way to
immorality and to the improper representation of this
country, as the Noble Lord's measure did, was the most mis-
chievous.—(Hear, hear.) What would he the ins-mediate
consequences of it? Why, that every so-called borough
would be made proportionate to a small county. You would
have in it an electioneering attorney, a committee, and a
canvassing body; and, if the combined boroughs were five
in number, you would have five attorneys, five committees,
five canvassing bodies, and five separate establishments alto-
gether. That would be five centres of corruption, of ex-
pense, and of un-English coercion.—(Hear hears) Any
attempt to unite into one section the small boroughs of this
country, resuscitating that system by destroying venich the
Noble Lord attained his great renown, was the most mis-
chievous attempt he had ever heard of. Without going
quite so far as his Hon. Friend did in his last proposition, in
the proposed proportioning of the representation to property,
he would be quite satisfied with a large extension of the
constituency of this country, with the ballot as a protection.
At present he wanted to know front the Governmeiat whe-
ther they would bring upon the political stage that portion
of the population for whom he found in their individual ca-
pacities they were always expressing the most extraordi-
nary coneern.—(Hear.) He did not see
how those persons
oy
were to be excluded from the representation for any length
of time, and he ventured to prphec that many months,
certainly not many years, would not
elapse before some Mi-
nister of the Crown, more prescient than the rest, of his col-
leagues, would perceive that the peace of this country would
be best secured by
_giving to the intelligent artisans a voice
in this House; and that we should find those artisans re-
presented here by some new Reform Bill, brought in either
by the Noble Lord the Member for the city of :Londou, or
by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
with, no doubt, the
view not only fairly to secure his own position, but also to
give to the constitution that security which could only be
given if the intelligence and morality of this country were
equitably represented.— (Hear, Divide.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--Although
the subject does not appear to be so interesting to the House
as one might have imagined--(Ministerial cheers)—I can-
not allow the present opportunity to pass without trespass-
ing for a few moments upon its attention. And, Sir, I shall
endeavour to do that which, so far as I have been enabled
to observe, has not yet been pursued by
any gentleman who
has preceded me-not even by the Hon. Member who brought
forward this resolution—for I will keep to the motion before
the House.—(Hear, hear.
) We have had from the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman who has just addressed you one o!
those dissertations which no one can make more interesting
than he can on subjects of a very abstract character; and we
have had several Speeches from. other gentlemen, certainly,
on the subject of Parliamentary reform. But, it appeared to
me that those speeches were mainly addressed, not to the
motion upon the paper, but rather to that still more elaborate
though evanescent proposition, which for a moment excited
so much interest, but which, with a due regard for the Noble
Lord the Member fur the city of
London (Lord J. Russell),
I think Hon. Members opposite should have had the
delicacy not to allude to.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Among those who have addressed the House is the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Member for the city of
Oxford (Sir W. Page Wood), who delivered himself of a
very elaborate speech, which was evidently prepared to sup•
port a Ministerial proposition—(Cheers and laughter) - and
one consequence of the train of his argument, and one con-
clusion at which he seemed inevitably to arrive, was, with
singular inconsistency, the determination not to vote at all
in favour of a proposition which for three successive years
he had supported.--(" Hear,"
antiste laugh.) Now, Sir.
when I look_ at the motion before the House, I see lour
propositions contained in it. _ With a view to place them
succinctly before the House, I will "just recapitulate them.
We have a proposition to bring in a Bill which is to extend
the franchise, which is. to insure that that franchise, when it
is ',exercised, should be taken by means of the ballot, which
Is to secure a triennial election' of Parliaments,' and which
is to change materially the proportion of representatives,
so that they shall be made more consistent with the amount
of population and property. This was the fourth proposi-
tion laid down for our adoption. I understand from the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion (Sir
J. Walmsley) that the proportion of representatives which
would be deemed more consistent with the amount of
population and of property is, to use the language of that
Hon. Gentleman, a redistribution which will diminish what
he calls the territorial influence.—(Hear.) I am glad I am
stating fairly the question before our consideration ; and I
will now venture to make a few observations upon this
fourth proposition, because it is a more novel topic,
and one exciting perhaps the most interest. Well,
I deny the position which is assumed by Hon. Gentle-
men opposite upon that point.—(Hear, hear.) I deny
that the proportion of representatives is unfairly arranged
in favour of that territorial interest.—(Hear, hear.)
deny all the positions assumed in that pamphlet which
has been lately circulated and submitted to Parliamentary
criticism. The Hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion
referred to some observations I made on a preceding night,
when we were frequently told that it was a monstrous ano-
maly that a large town should return only two Members,
and that a small and almost depopulated borough should be
represented by the same number of Members. I reminded
the House on that occasion of the fact that there were
nces which experienced the same • •us-
e it)
agricultural, or, if the Hon. Gentleman prefers the word,
territorial constatue ,
that distribution of
gnatlemee
the representation whichfli
interestimpugn, and
towns.
whichns.
etheir peculiarur
amveryl am giving nousorinifon namow
they impugn because
to
the case fairly. The in ow
though I have others
case instanced
e previous night was one which, as it
desirous of calling the attention of
ar,
) I
is a brief one,
injus-
tice,
yc
re ,Himef bj
onee aar n. injustice,
lplu refer
ef_e inn
t. o
reagaridn,t
upon the
the House. Mind, before
particular circumstancesthe endeavour of laying the case
myself entirely to confining
the House. Yon say that the proportion
is so arranged by the present system that
of representatives.
are not fairly represented in our con-
stitutionthe town population.
tfaoirwiyhibcehfolre .
e accuracy o the
and
I give no opnion upon the expediency of any
statement. •
in this House. I deny th fth
self now to mere statements of fact.
gislature, but confine myself
f the House to the case of North
Let me call the attention o
invite lion- Members, while
preponderance being gi.ven to country or to town in the Le-
Cheshire—(Hear)--and I
do so, to boar in mind the most advantageous instenoes

MARC 11

which have been brought before our notice on the other side
of the question—to bear in mind, for example, if they
please, the case of Manchester and Thetford. In North
Cheshire we have only two towns of great manufacturing ;
importance—Macclesfield and Stockport. The total popu-
lation of the county is 249,000; the total population of the
two towns I have just named is 92,000. There remains,
therefore, as the difference between the two, 156,000. But
while the two towns, with a population of 92,000, return
four Members to Parliament, the rural constituency, with
156,000, return only two Members. Take the case of South
Cheshire, in which there is only one town, that of Chester.
The population of the county is 206,000, and the population
of the town of Chester 28,000, leaving 178,000 of the popu-
lation of that county who are not represented except
by the county Members. The town of Chester, with
its population of 28,' 00, returns two Members to
this House, while the rural constituency of 178,000
returns the same number.;-(Cheers.) I will take the case
of South Derbyshire, where there is only one considerable
town, The population of South Derbyshire is 166.000, and
that of the town of Perby 40,000, leaving 1150100 of the
rural population. That population of 40.000 returns two
Members, and the rural population of 125,000 returns the
same number. I will now take North Durham. It contains
the important towns of Durham, Gateshead, South Shields,
and Sunderland. The elitire population of North Durham is
272,090, including both the town population and the coun-
try poptilicien ; and this is an interestii g fact, that while
the population of the towns is exactly the same as the
county population, yet the population of the great commer-
cial towns I have named are represented by eix Members,
while the purely agricultural population of 136,000—the
other moiety of North I urham -are only represented by
two Members.- (Cheers.) I might still pursue this. I will
take the important county of Kent. West Kent has a
population of 400.000: fi.l contains four great towns—
Chatham. Greenwich, Maidstone, and Rochester, one of
these towns having a population of 100,000. The popula-
tion of the towns is 169,000, and the remaining rural popu-
lation is 228,000, yet the urban population of 169,000 re-
turns seven Members to Parliament, while the 228,000
only return the two Members fur West Kent.—(Loud
cheers.) Yes, but year after year we have been told that
it is most unjust to the towns - that our representative sys-
tem is favourable to territorial influences, and that it is an
artificial means of giving preponderance to the landed in-
terest. We never heard a tingle word of these extraordi-
nary circumstances. NVe have heard a great many contrasts
made between the number of representatives returned by
the great towns in South Lancashire and the smaller
boroughs in the south of England, But no Parliamentary
Reformer has yet condescended to favour the House with the
more extended views • to which I have now alluded, views
which I should hope will now be accepted as the result of a
mere extensive and temperate experience.—(Cheers.) I
will now appeal to that favoured region any mention of
which is so favourably received in this House, and whose
fortunes, commercial, Parliamentary, and political, are not
only the subject of so many discussions in the House of
Commons, but which is itself the theatre of so many
.....,v..tatrinis. 1 Ile
people of this part of the country are celebrated
for their powers of statistical analysis.—(A laugh.)
They favour us with the publication of tracts on,
among other things, the profits that the colonels
of regiments gain by clothing their soldiers, and they are ac-
quainted with the most minute details. But they have never
called the attention of the people to these facts. -(Cheers.)
Here is the case of North Lancashire. There are four consi-
derable towns in North Lancashire—Blackburn, Clitheroe,
Lancaster, and Preston. The population of North Lanca-
shire is upwards of 460,000. These four towns out of that
only take 143,000, leaving for the rural constituencies a
population of 316,000. The four towns return seven Mem-
bers, and the rural constituencies return only two Members
Hear, hear.) I will take the case of South Lancashire.
It has a population of 1,1h00,000, under the new census. I
will take all the towns, the noblest seats of modern industry
—Aston, Bolton, Btiry, Liverpool, Manchester, Oldham.
Rochdale, Salford, Warrington,' Wigan. The population of
these boroughs is 1,000,000, being two-thirds of the whole
population of the county, and the remaining third consists
of the rural population. Yet the million of manufac-
turing population in this proud county of South Lanca-
shire are represented by fifteen Members, while
the rural population, which is half as great, is represented
by only two Members. I am sure the H. use have heard such
long, frequent, and repeated complaints of the injustice
done to towns, and the preference given to the agricultural
interest, that they will not feel that I am abusing their pa-
tience by these details —(Cheere from the Ministerial
benches.) I will therefore take the county of East Nor-
folk, in which their are two great towns. East Norfolk
has a population of 250,000. Norwich and Yarmouth has
a population of less than 100,000. Yet the 99,000 persons
in the manufacturing towns and the seaport are represented
by tour Members, while the agricultural population of East
Norfolk, nearly double its amount, are only represented by
two Members.—(Cheers.) I now approach Yorkshire, and
that is the last county I will quote. I will first begin with
East Yorkslaire. The East Riding has a population of
-20,0 0, and contains two towns, one, Hull, a port of great
importance. The town plspulation of the East Riding
is 94,000, represented by four Members. The rural
population, 126,000, are represented by only half
that amount.—(Hear, hear.) The West Riding re-
mains, and if I were to seek an !instance to show
that the distribution of representation is not made with any
iiesire to promote or retain the preponderande of the landed
interest, I should seek it in the West Riding, that is so
frequently the subject of our discussions, There are nine
considerable towns in the West Riding—Leeds, Sheffield,
Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Wakefield, and others.
The entire population of the West Riding is 1,300,000. The
town population is 5000.00, and the rural population
aOO,OOO. The town population are represented by sist,en
Members, although they are only 500,000 in number, while
the rural population of 80C,000 are represented, not by sixteen
Members, bat by two.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) This is a summary of what I have just stated.
In South Lancashire among the borough population every
70,000 persons have a representative, and every 257,000 of
the rural population have a representative. In the West
Riding of Yorkshire every 32,000 of the population of the
towns have a Member and every 400,000 of the agricultural
population have a similar advantage.—(Hear, hear.) I know
it may be said, and it will b• said, unless I answer
it by anticipation, "You have made out a very good co-
lourable case in favour of your views; hut you have selected
five or six important but partial instances.' Sir, I have an-
ticipated that objection, and I have tested the matter in ano-
ther manner, which it must be admitted is a fair mode.

Here I have a catalogue of the population of every town in
England which has a population of not less than 20,000.
There are 77 towns in this list, beginning with Ashton and
ending with York, with a population, many of them, much
exceeding 20,000. They include almost all the seats of cern-
merce and manufacturing industry, and they include a popu-
lation of 6,200,000, who are represented by 138 Members.
There are several towns which do not possess popu-
lations of 20,000, but which are considerable places,
the seats of commerce, and which ought to be in-
serted in any list of the kind, although they do not pos-
sess populations of quite 20,000, such as Lowestoft and
Lynn Regis, I have added about 30 of these boroughs to
the 77 boroughs, all of which have a population of 20,000,
rod some of them a vast and immensely increased popula-
tion. The population of these 107 large towns, and .tnctly
borough constituencies, is more than 6,500,000, represented
by 187 Members. The result of this analysis is the follow-
ing : - If these Members represent 6,500,000, about half the
population, taking the population of the country at
17,000,000, that remaining portion of the community are
represented by Members barely exceeding in number the
Members representing this catalogue of towns.—( Hear.) I
find that the population of these boroughs have 35,000 per-
sons to every Member of this House, and that the popu-
lation of the rest of England, the rural populalion, have
36,000 for every Member.—(Cheers.) So that, taking this
complete and comprehensive view, when you come to a
fair distribution of the representation between the land and
the town population, you have only between each a differ-
ence of 1,000 in the proportion of the population.—(Hear.)
In both cases, in the case of the urban and the rural and
landed population, you have a less difference in the number
of persons represented by each Member than has been quoted
by Mr. Mackay. Whether you look to the town or country
population, they are, therefore, more amply represented in
this House than is laid down in the pamphlet that has
been alluded to as the proper exemplar and type of represen-
tation in this House. Having examined this subject so far,
I have arrived at a different conclusion from that of my
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. I think that his sta-
tistics, and the statistics of his school, are founded upon
partial instances, and supported by fantastic combinations
which convey erroneous impressions that do not justify the
policy that he advocates.—(Cheers.) All the data upon
which he has relied appear to me completely illusory,
and, as the facts to which I have appealed are
open to all, and may be found in the books in
his library, I shall be surprised to find him main-
taining his position that in the distribution of the re-
presentation the town population is not justly treated in
respect to a comparison with the country population.—
(Cheers) It appears to me, Sir, that this is a position that
can no longer be supported.—( Cheers. ) Going to the next
proposition, my Hon. Friend asks us to sanction a resolution
that the duration of Parliament ought not to exceed three
years. Sir, I have no inveterate prejudice to shorter Par-
liaments. I have often said in this House that triennial
Parliaments were always supported by the Tory party.
That statement has been received with scoffing by lion. Gen-
tlemen opposite, who do not condescend to pay much regard
to any other history than that in which they form such dis-
tinguished characters.—(Cheers and laughter.) But there
is no doubt that the change in oar manners, which has in-
creased the business of the House of Commons, is an ele-
ment that must be taken into consideration when you wish
to ascertain the proper duration of Parliaments. But,
remembering what has happened here during the last
f ntnight, I am filled with astonishment to hear the Re-
formers and Liberals come forward in favour of triennial
Parliaments. What have they told us this year? One
member of the Government is very anxious to bring forward
a measure which he considers of the utmost importance for
the security and good government of the realm. But what
are we told? -" Why, you are bringing forward a measure
in the last ybar of a Parliament!—( Cheers and laughter.)
You would legislate in a condemned Parliament ! —(A
laugh.) It can't be heard of. You ought to counsel the
Sovereign to prorogue and dissolve the Parliament as soon as
possible." But if in the last rear of a Parliament so much
time is lost, we should have, it my Hon. Friend's proposition
were adopted, duennial Parliaments—(A laugh)—and, if the
old and favourite scheme of annual Parliaments were
Parlia-
again
put forward and adopted, you would have annual
ments, that is to say, condemned Parliaments—(A laugh)—
and the Commons of England could never presume to legis-
late, because they would be dissolved, and would cease to
exist in the very year they met. The thirds proposition
of my Honourable Friend is the recommendation of the
vote by ballot. Now, it is always the case that the man..
ner of taking the votes can never be considered as an
abstract question. You must necessarily look at the
votes you have to take. If you have to take a very large
number of votes; or if you have, on the contrary, a very
small number, the method by which you will recommend
them to be taken necessarily assumes a different character.
With a limited constituency the ballot may be a very con-
stitutional measure; but are Hon. Gentlemen prepared to
accept the ballot on this condition? Well, 1 will assume
that they are not prepared se to accept it, and that they
would not recommend vote by ballot with the present con-
stituency.—(A cry of " No.") You are not ?—(Cries of
" Yes," from the Opposition benches.) I have heard to-
night of an oligarchy, but I never heard of a more cunning
and successful device to establish an oligarchy than to iliv
a limited number of persons with the suffrage, and to guard
them from inspection, from criticism, and control on the part
of the unenfranchised millions about whom we have heard so
much—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.)l
No,le
do not believe from the speeches of my Hon. riend t
.
Member for Montrose and other parties
tonthn that side of the
House, that they sincerely desire to see he
consti-
tuency vote by ballot. They always say present
that
of the franchise is a necessary concomitant an extension
of the vote by
ballot. —Clint', hear). But where do they draw the
line?—(Hear.) Where is the line to be drawn, if they
admit that the franchise is • aright? If you
say that
you do not want to draw the line, and tell ns" I
have submitted to these restrictions in deference
prejudices of other to the
Persons i"—if you wish to have tun-

6,152

versal suffrage—without which, as far as political justice
is concerned, I do not see how you can establish the ballot,
because, if you have the ballot with a limited constituency,
you commit a greater injustice upon the unenfranchised
classes; but if you have universal suffrage you come to
a new constitution—(Hear)—you have, in fact, the sove-
reignty of the people, which is the principle of the Ameri-
can constitution, so often referred to and panegyrized in
this House. But the sovereignty of the people is not the
constitution of England That constitution is mitigated and
modified, but it is still the sovereignty of Queen Victoria
(Cheers.) "But," says my Hon. Friend, " we must have the
ballot ; we will no longer have fine spun arguments against
it. We must terminate bribery and corruption." Now, I
beg his attention to a paragraph which comes from an au-
thority :hat he will respect, because it is a Transatlantic
authority, and proceeds from a country where the people en-
joy universal suffrage and vote by ballot. Now, this is the
way in which the Governor of New York on the last occa-
sion addressed the Legislature of that intelligent state.
This was a document which. doubtless, th-y would treat with
the greatest consideration, for it was attended with all the
circumstances which excited their respect and admiration.
America, New York, the ballot—exactly what the Hon.
Member for Sheffield wanted—self-government; and here is
the manner in which the chief of the self-governed addressed
the Legislature of no less a state than New York, when
it last assembled,—" The alarming increase of bribery at
popular elections demands your serious attention."—( Cheers
arid laughter.) This is at New York, recollect, where the
ballot is in force.—(t.:laeers.) The head of the State declares
that bribery is increasing to an alarming extent, and de-
mands the serious attention of the Legislature.—(Hear.)
I will quote some further extiacts trout the same letter
f:om which I have read this passage. I will not mention
the name of the writer, because 1 am about to quota only
f tete, not opinions. e was once a Mernb,A of this House,
and has filled important situations in the service of his Sove-
reign, and if I were to state his name, it would, I am sure,
be received by gentlemen on both sides with universal re-

spect. You now know that bribery is not prevented by the
ballot, and 3ou will find that it does not prevent something
else. "Individuals were not merely beaten from the polls,
but were knocked down, beaten, and stabbed when proceeding
about their ordinary occupations in open day in distant parts
of the city.—(Hear, hear.) The police appeared to have
been utterly inefficientt and the hundred thousand citizen sol-
diers, of whom the New York papers boasted so much, were
content to remain at home (Laughter)—while a few gangs
of ruffians commanded all the approaches to the polling-
booths, and in one instance destroyed the ballot-box."—
(Laughter.) I find no fault with my Hon. Friend and others
or recommending the adoption of a new mode of voting in this
country. This is the land of free discussion, and every one
is at liberty to recommend what he thinks best, but it is
remarkable that in the instance of the ballot, as in that of
the proposed new distribution of electoral power, the
facts on one side only are stated—only a one-sided view is
brou,rht before us, and only one class of considerations is
urged upon our attention.—(Hear. hear.) I resume the
narrative from the destruction of the, ballot-box. This last
outrage upon tne freedom tot election has very naturally
caused extreme irritation, and the Courier and Enquirer says
that brutes must be met by brute force, while the Tribune
is still more plainspoken. He says " that the scoundrels
who thus trampled upon the highest privilege that a free man
can enjoy, should have been shot like dogs by the freemen
whom their hireling souls thus villanously insulted."—
(Great laughter and cheering.) Now, I beg my Hon.
Friend to observe that while, by the confession of no less
a personage than the Governor of the great state of New
York, the ballot does not prevent bribery, it is likewise
perfectly. inefficient for the prevention of scenes of
horrible intimidation, such as we cannot even conceive in
this country, men being beaten and stabbed at the polling-
booth. - (Hear, hear.) My correspondent, for whom I know
my Hon. Friend entertains personally the highest conside-
ration, gives some further inf ,rmation respecting the
influence of the ballot, and I must confess that what I am
about to quote is really humiliating. "We understand
that the Whig committee of the Bth Ward"—l ought,
however, in justice to remind the House that the Whig
party in America is not identified with the party in this
country of which the Noble Lord opposite is the distinguished
chief and hereditary ornament—" We understand that the
Whig committee of the Bth Ward and other wards have
offered 100 dollars to every man who can secure twenty
democratic votes for the Whig tickets on election day."—
(Cheers and laughter.) " This money has been partially
raised by the most shameful extortions trom the office holders
of the party. It is said that every policeman in the 14ig
districts has been taxed fifteen dollars towards defraying
the expenses of the election.—(Continued laughter.) By
this means the Whigs seek to crush every in 4ependent
feeling in the voter, and to make him the mere tool of party
With the money procured in this manner political hacks are
sent to buy up the votes of the poorer, and yet more depen-
dent classes in those wards."—(Cheers and laughter.) This
payment of 101 dollars to every man who can procure 20
democratic votes for the Whig ticket is certainly intolerable,
and I have been particular in bringing it under the notice of
my Hon. Friend, in order that he may employ the great in-
fluence he possesses not only in England, but on the other
side of the Atlantic, in preventing democratic electors being
bribed to vote for anything so bad as the " Whig ticket."—
(Laughter.) All this iniquity is practised under the opera-
tion of that very system which my Honourable Friend
says is the only means of preventing bribery, and which
the Honourable Member for Bristol would persuade us to
adopt as an infallible mode of preventing intimidation.—
(Cheers.) I must quote one paragraph more, because it re-
fers to legislative authority. In the experience of New
York, at least, the ballot has beets proved inefficient for the
purpose of preventing bribery at elections; and the follow-
ing preamble and resolution have been presented to the As-
sembly :—" Whereas the use of money at elections, for the
purpose of influencing and corrupting electors, is an in-
creasing and dangerous evil, and the bestowment or offer,
promise or reception of money, or compensation in any form,
should be made good and sufficient grounds for the challenge
and rejection of a vote; but, whereas doubts exist as to the
constitutionality of a law disfranchising an elector, there-
. fore, resolved, 'That the Committee on the judiciary be and
are hereby requested to examine and report whether, in
their opinion, a law conformable to the foregoing preamble
would be a violation of any provision of the Constitution
of this State.' " Let not our countrymen run away with
• the idea that corruption is the necessary consequence of
the old mode by which we give our votes in this coun-
t try.—( Hear, hear.) I believe it to be a growing senti-
ment in the conviction of Englishmen that corruption is

the consequence of men not being properly brought up
—(Hear, hear.) You may pass laws ostensibly to pre.
vent corruption in countries where nothing is secret,
or in countries where nothicg is open ; but corruption cannot
be stopped by law; it can only be stopped by elevating the
tone of the community, and making men ashamed of the
thing itself.—(Cheers.) You must seek for an antidote to
corruption in that direction and not in new-fangled systems
of election. I say, further, that the tone of the community
in which we live is becoming elevated. Every successive
quarter of a century shows a decrease of corruption. No
man who knows anything of the tone of public life a hundred
years ago can hesitate to admit that corruption then ascended
much higher in society than it does at present. You have
driven corruption from the higher classes. In proportion as
education extends, men become more pure, and when the
same influences come into operation among the inferior
classes you may hope to obtain a result which it is for the
interest of all classes should be accomplished.—(Cheers.) I
have noticed what I conceive to be my Hon. Friend's total
failure to prove, that the proportion of representatives is not
consistent with the different classes of population. I think I
have shown that nothing can be more erroneous than
the opinion so prevalent in a portion of this House
and the country that the landed interest possesses an undue
preponderance in this House. I think I have also shown,
by reference to figures bearing official sanction which are
open to everybody, that it is almost impossible to distribute
the electoral power more justly than is done at present
between the two great classes which represent the town and
country. I also venture to think that I have offered my
Hon. Friend some reasons for doubting whether as much
corruption and intimidation may not prevail under a system
of secret voting as we have ever experienced under the
system which exists in this ceutatry.—(Hear, hear.) I have
further given some reasons for supposing that my Hon.
Friend and those about him should hesitate, with their pre-
sent constiteti,mal doctrines, to recommend short Parlia-
ments. - (Hear, hear.) I next come to the proposi-
tion, that the franchise ought to be very much ex-
tended ; and on this I have one observation to make.
Viewing this question with perfect impartiality, I trust,
I have been much struck by the great exaggeration which
pervades the statements made by my Hon. Friend and
his associates. I remember last session to have heard a dis-
tinguished Member of this House—one who is in the habit
of addressing it with great ability, and with sufficient confi-
dence in his cause and himself-1 mean the Hon. Member
for Manchester - ask this question ;—" Is the system to be
endured in which only one in seven of the adult population
enjoys the franchise?"—(Tumultuous cheering immediately
foLowed this appeal; and " Hear, hear," from the Opposi-
tion.) Ay ; I say so. You cheered the sentiment then and
you cheer it now. Is it true that only one adult male in
seven enjoys the franchise? Here are the figures, let us ex;
amine them. This paper was prepared before the publica-
tion of the census of 1851, and it applies to the population
census of 1841, which I have compared with the electoral
lists of Great Britain for 1842-3. The proportions must evi-
dently be much about the same as they would have been if I
had availed myself of the census of 1851 for the purpose of
comparison. The electors for Great Britain in 1842-3 were
941,782, and the adult males were, in 1841, 4,961,045,
which gives, instead of 1 voter in 7, 1 voter in 5, omitting
fractions. —( Hear.) But from the 4,961,045 adult males
some deductions must be made. For the army and navy
abroad and in Ireland, and for the navy and merchant sea-
men afloat I deduct 169,650, which leaves the adult male
population at 4,791,395. Then I deduct 35,000 for the army
at home, 111,099 for the navy and merchant seamen ashore, ,
74,149 for almspeople, pensioners, paupers, lunatics and
prisoners, and 164,384 for domestic servants, who
a
ways excepted froM any scheme of reform. - (Heer,
Then I deduct the residue of the population, 276,529 lir6,aeenadar
our 4,129.566.
Thus,
adulotf pLopinul7a,tiiotnistonylitttlnes
fimgourreestohnau
only 1 in 4.—(Hear, hear.). But I
reduceTnliofficial
s theinstead
returns,
demagogues, after what we have heard fromwill the further. Those bold statements of—.l must go
Mem-
ber for Montrose—but the bold statements tue lion.
of
having dwindled down to this, that Hon. Gentlemen
I V, call them
population of 4,129,566, which, as
gives 1 in 4—l ask what am Ito regards the electoral hod*
that the lion. Gentleman and and his riendalawvebilgeuttheayn
and urban labourers ?—(Hear, do with the egria
plain that only 1 in
wish, underhear.) I have not yet herd.
franchise,
have any have the exercise of the franc
spread over this country--,
any
1,435,412 peasantry system,
to give (Hear, bear.)
I never heard one bold then,
assertion ...• • .", kiwi. well,
..
if I deduct these labourers..sertion of www6 1 h,,,,, remaining
only 2,694,154, -my
from 4,
A129,56-.electoral body, is
ich 88 regar,..s thp .
1 in 2 and a Erect 8 —Wear, hear.)
a vote toedtmlut let
ton
from the statements
But what differencets we have always
enl
a from the gat en
) What a difference
heard on this of 86 or nearly 1 in •
I—(Sear.bear
where else! subject
Whreiftoramdiffereno
made
From those of **dons at Liverpool or any-
et Manchester and at Leeds!
from the statements made
who,tl during
o re t the long
lf
What a diffFrence from
in pamphlets !---(Hear, heat.)
be world I—(Hear, hear.) In-
stead of one in seven, it is a
vacation, have astounded
the statements of those errsalititebsoorlauttoerlsylit
what you says - - -,000 of labourers, who
nvgocaltiblproposed to enfranchise.
not one of you have me, then, that the propositions be-
forelt appears to
--(Cheers-) crude, that they do not bring with them
the House are d .
investigation, are not in accor ance with facts, and
even iusaclectudioi
proof of d
degree of research which the House has
do not indicate (bat
expect in all matters of this kind. (Hear h ) , est.
a rights o
a that they are based on statistical errors
It appars to n 3
more flagrant than their political blunders, and that we
cannot, whatever may be our opinion of the policy ream-
mended, approve of it, founded as it is on such erroneous
and imperfect data.- (Hear, hear.) I am not one of those
who think, that because I disapprove of a proposition
brought forward in this immature manner, I tun bound tit
oppose every proposition brought forward to remedy griev-
vances 'connected with the representation of the people.—
(Hear, hear.) There has been very free criticism on the
other side by the new supporters of the Noble Lord of the
measure which he proposed when be was a Minister of the
Crown.—(Hear, hear.) I think a sense of decency, if
nothing else, should have led those gentlemen to abstain

from that unfriendly coarse.-(Hear.) Why they Om ier
three or four hours have so severely criticised the witl."drawrn
-I will not say the abandoned-proposition of the" kites
Minister, Ido not pretend to understand. Sitting oulthe•
same side of the House, meeting under the same root-
(Cheers)-combining and connci ling together for the same'
object-(Hear, hear)-I should have thought that all these.
considerations would have prevented the slightest allusion• to
the su ject, and that they would have brought forward their
own proposition without obtruding their reflectrons on the
measure of the Noble Lord, with regard to which we, on
this side,
have always shown the most respectful silence.-
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I should have thought that
gentlemen opposite would have considered the privilege they
enjoy in having a high constitutional statesman on the one
band, and the privilege they have on the other of bringing
forward revolutionary recommendations and plane, and thatthey would not have deemed it their duty to enter, ,daring
the whole evening, into a criticism of the late Goven.unent
measure.-(Hear and laughter.) We had some allu-
sions made to a declaration on the subject of reform from the
present head of the Government ; but 1 protest against con-
clusions drawn from mere anonymous paragraphs in news-
papers. I must say for myself and my colleagues that we
do not consider an extension of the franchise to be sylony-
mous with the extension of democratic power.-(Hear,
hear.) That much vaunted Reform Bill, wench ILO one
has so much loaded with praise as the Hon. Member
le, cannot (
for Montr,se,-a hat would that Bill have been I ask,
but for the spirit and energy of a St,anley ?--(Cheers.)
%V lin tt d
hthutat he
remember-cud (Lori erby!h is 13
allwrheo-
-orn
has succeeded the in the Parliamentary h y seat I MCP Old knows
it- that it was that ih tliyidual
who proposed a inOtioll
e .NUCPirite Xtto
Lord
which added one-main to the C..tl•tituency of Great 3ritain.
-(Herr, hear.) I tepu liate the assurtion el the Hon.
Ge.dleinan unit ltis triei:ds, that we are a Party opposed to
all reform unless we listen to propcssiei the
lns of" kind Dow
before us. I will tell the Hon. Gentleman
what we are
opposed to-we are adverse to all new andwhat
proposals foanded on such erroneous calculations as the pre-
sent.- (Cheers.) I tell him that if any project on this or
any other subject is brought forward, I hope it will be
founded on more accurate data than the one before
us
(Hear.) What we are opposed to is tampering with thes.de-
positary of political power-to constant shifting and chang-
ing of the depositary of political power as the most injurious
thing to a country that can be conceived.-(Cheers.) yon
may talk of tampering with a policy, and there are few
things worse; but that which is worse is, tampering with
the constituency of England.-(Cheers.) If there is to be
a change, let it be a change always called for by clear ne-
cessity-(Hear, hear)-and one which is calculated to give
general-I will not say final-but general and permanent
satisfaction.-(Cheers.) I ask, is the proposition of the
Hcn. Member for Montrose, the whole facts on the statement
of which it is founded I have shown to be utterly fallacione,
is that a proposition calculated to give such general acad.
permanent satisfaction ?-(Hear, hear.) The propozition
of the Noble Lord at the head of the late Government, is that
one calculated to give general and permanent satisfaction?
The .Noble Lord will confess that, whatever be its merits, it

was not calculated to give that general and permanent ea-
tistaction. The sense of the country and the House alike
called upon him to withdraw it, and I am sure there is not
one who will say that if that proposition had been brought
fairly under discussion, it would have received the concur-
rence of the House.-(Hear, hear.) We cannot:sanction the
proposition of the Hon. Gentleman or his friends. And may
we not flatter ourselves that he will consider these things-.
that he will investigate them, and calmly consider the im-
portanthave
giveninform him,ationand that x
from theothneerst year-it
thewAth a lanticwhieb
Ihealth.
spirit, and energy which I hope he will long enjoy—
(Cheers) -we shall find him coming forward more temperate
in his views and more careful in his arguments?-(Hear).
Till we have propositions of a different character brought:fort
ward I shall stand by the settlement made in 1831-(Cheers
and counter cheers)-not because it was a settlement made
abgyatihoisstpoaorrtyinfotfaerasruoeur interests-for on the contrary, it wag
fault with
ntbhuwtt
he
el
iathisgoverned-(Hear,
I
rr
anvern'g
eamemde_nbt(,olltiwen
andri
,c
hto s a , that
the elat
0_ na
nhoatdt,
thoseth e
whocountry
are bound tfionsdhhow that under that arrangement the country
has been misgoverned.-(Hear, hear.) In my opinion,
though many of the laws passed are laws I could not have
approved, the arrangement has proved satisfactory and the
preponderance of sentiment in the country is, that under it
the country has been well govemesl.-(Cheers.) There is
scarcely one of the great questions agitated in the country
which, in this reformed Parliament, has not been met, and
therefore wht n gentlemen come forward with new proposi-
tions, if they cannot show that the present construction of
this House is calculated to favour misgovernment, and at
the same time are unable to place before us any clear and
eoherent scheme that promises a more ameliorative system, I
must uphold the system that exists, though I believe it one
that was conceived in no frivndly spirit to the Tory party.--
(Hear, hear.) But it is one by which remedial influences
have been experienced under the good sense and support of
the people of England, and under which our institutions have
flourished-institutions which, I believe, are absolutely ne-
cessmty, not only to the preatness of this country, but to the
freedom of the people.-(Great cheering.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY, who was almost wholly inaudible
from the buzz of conversation in the House, gave an expla-
nation relative to the ballot. He stated that he would re-
serve the more particular expression at his views till a future
day, when be brought on his motion on the subject, as he ob-
jected to the ballot being mixed up with any other question
whatever. The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to a
disturbance in New York, and to the ballot-box being
broken, but he would give the House another piece of infor-
mation from America, and that was, that in the southern, or
aristocratic States of the Union, they were seeking to get
rid of the ballot, because the friends of the abolition of
slayery took protecti ,n under the ballot, and the enemies of
abolition had no means of detecting their votes.-(Hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE congratulated the House and through
them the country on this, that whatever evasions or mya.
tifications might have gone forth during the last week, upon
one point the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been suffi-
ciently explicit.-(hear, hear.) Treading in the footsteps
of the most illustrious warrior of the age, the Right Hon.
Gentleman, after much circumlocution, had foi malty de-
clared the intention of the Government to abide by the
Reform Act of 1831.-(Cheers.) He had announced that
Her Majesty's Government did not intend to move on witq
the spirit of the age - (No, no)-that they looked upon the
Reform Bill as a final measure-that the old finality dodge
was to be renewed, and that come what might the Govern-
ment would give no reform in Parliament.-(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman said he would certainly give the .
country no reform in this Parliament nor in the Parliament
to come.-(Cries of " No, no," from the back Ministerial
benches.) He knew it was the intention of those ardent
Reformers who cried " no" to give the country a further
meaeare of reform, but unfortunately they were not in the
Cabinet. Let there be no mistake on this point, that the
present Cabinet was satisfied with the settlement in 11131-
(No, no)-and that they would be no party to give reform a
further trial. The Right Hon. Gentleman had commenced
his speech by attacking the speech of the Hon. Member for
the University of Oxford-(No, no, and a laugh)-he
bogged the Hon. Gentleman's pardon-he (Sir P. Wood) had
not descended to that yet- he was the Member of a popular
ct:nstitaency-the Member for the city of Oxford, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman said it was a speech to be made
upon the resolution to be moved by the Noble Lord.
(Lord J. Russell); but he ( Mr. Osborne) would leave it.
to the House, it the speech of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was not also directed to that very motion.-(No, no.)
He would not weary the House by wading through the
dreary mass of confused statistics which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had thought it his duty as Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to bring before them in order to show that the
agricultural constituencies were not fairly represented, while
boroughs and towns had a greater proportion of representa-
tives. But he told the Right Hon. Gentleman that, on his
own showing, he was bound to bring in a Reform Bill to re-
move the injustice done to what he called the territorial in-
terest. But he had no such design ; he had omitted, too, all
mention of Ireland
_; and he (Mr. Osborne) feared that he

was going to legislate for that country on very different
------
principles. - (Oh, oh !) Without being enamoured of the
motion of the lion. Member for Montrose, to map this
eountry into districts. he was so far dissatisfied with the Bill
of 1831. which her Majesty's Government had pronounced
but
to be final—No! no !)—that he would vote for it—.par-
ticularly tor the latter part of the proposition, " that the
proportion of representatives be made more consistent with
the amount t f population and property." The Right Hon.
Rhiegh wt
is liheodn. he Gentle-
man,wouldGentleman said he would make a colourable case against
the ballot, and had referred to the riots in New
York.takilineg
the
ed
case
et
oofbiemctericto the
America,
pot select the American tariff, but take what was good in she
constitution of ttn.t coutery.—(lronical cheers.) Was the
Chancellor of the Exchequer content with the way elections
were carried on in this country ? Did he remember the ciao
the Solicit
of Harwich, the borough fur which • or-General
(Sir F. Kelly) was a candidate,
when ing,
were
ors carried away the e
vitiated because the elect
their perquisites; and %yes it notorious that riots f,not
hap-
pened in ail parts of England du • gelection? '-'l3
hack as 1842, a Conani teeobt • rill-
anthe Hoe- Member for
Sheffield had reported stronglyaieed
the
.
tenet of bribery
and corruption • and nothing had en been yet done to remedy
Gen tleman that
the evil. But 1:e could Righttell the Hon•
the people were determinedI
the ballot. Both sides
to have
confessed that he be-
were to ha blamed for this, and he be traced back
lieved, if this system of bribery weain with the Whig
to its source, it would be found to
, who were obliged to re-
party in the time of Walpole, opposing the influences
sort to it as the only means of If hear. ") The fact
(0 ear,
bearing
against then,,,....(cries .
the desire of patting down
sincere la
was, neither party was,. gi cere they would have adopted
bribery, for if they had..-..sonprotect the people, not only
vote by ballot-09440.J
corruption, but from intimidation, which
from bribery and, c°,l2'Os'e. The Member for the University
was more rite than
) made the old stereotyped objection
of Dublin
In.
that it would endanger the Monarchy. What
to this mon
_, ...red the Monarchy in France? Was it not that a
had enuaa,,Rieeio,ooo had only 230,000 electors? And here
nation °— ' his sarprise to hear the Chancellor of the
mast exPrees
t,he „--ho, e define the Sovereignty of the country to be in
Queen
muster
; and had the Right Hon. Gentleman been
"t,-,;-„r that (the Opposition) side of the House, he would,
8"'-- on
have defined the SovereigntY as consisting in
no _doubt .
and
_Commons.—(Oh.
oh.) The Right
Queen, Lords,
Commons.— ( 4
Honourable Gentleman had objeoted to the secresy of
. the
ballot. He ought to have been the last man in the
House to have done 80, considering he wasa member of
a Government which was shrouded in secrecy The
Maynooth cry was to be used as a claptrap to go
to the hustings—(Hear, hear).— and her Majesty's Govern-
ment would not speak their minds upon it, bat he, could
tell them it would become a very serious question for them.
—(Question, question.) The on. Member for Dublin
University knew nothing of the efficacy of the ballot—he
had no poor men to deal with who might be ewayed;by some
attorney, or by some one who could put the screw en hires
but the representatives of popular constituences knew what
those influences were.—(Divide, divide!) Why, had they
not seen it stated in all the papers that at a late election the
agents wrote to say that if the tenants did not vote for Mr.
Frewen they must not expect the landlords to deduct from
their rents? He could have wished that the motion had been
put in a better form, bat he would vote for it now, as he
had voted for similar motions before. If the Noble Lord
and his party, who said they took office as barriers to demo.
cracy, instead of talking of themselves as barriers—which
were sometimes swept away by the waves of democracy
would join Hon. Gentlemen on his aide of the House—
(Ironical cheers and laughter)— in making a channel for the
democratic wave, very sure was he that, so far from weak"'
log Queen, Lords, and Commons, the Noble Lord, if be pro-
perly treated and IroPerlY trusted the people, would 12111
strengthening both this sad the other House of Parliament.
Lord J. RUSSELL - Sir, I have so often addressed yon
on the subject of the motion 130 W before the House, that I
shall not think it necessary, neither would it be agreeable to
the House, to go at any length into the several propositions
which my Honourable Friend has introduced. It appears
to me, Sir, the simple
question is, whether the adoption of a
Bill founded on the principles contained in my Honourable
Friend's propositions would conduce to the good government
of the country, and on that proposition I have come most
clearly to the opinion that it would not conduce to the good
government of the country.—(Loud cheers.) I believe that
•
it you had a different distribatiou—which, however,
by
I not been chalked out by my accoarable Friend—but tine