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

SUN,

tension to revise or review the whole question. If it should
ever be the province of the Noble Lord to revise the ques-
tion, he (Sir J. Walmeley) would recommend him to take
into his serious consideration tha-, part of Parliamentary re-
formwhich he bad left out of his Bill—a part which, in his
(Sir J. Waltnslev's) opinion, was most important, as any
measure that did not include the protection of the ballot
Would, as far as he could judge. be lightly esteemed by the
People of this country. His first objection to the measure
of tee Noble Lord was founded on the disparity between
toe borough and the county franchise. No goood reason
had been alleged, nor did he think that any could
ee alleged, why the franchise should be 51 in a borough and
,4/. in a county, and unless Hon. Gentlemen were disposed
,Lo admit that the inhabitants of rural districts were less qua-
tided tor the exercise of political rights than those of boroughi,
he did trust that they would press forward for an equal mea-
sure of justice for the agricultural as for the manufacturing
districts. The proposition to enfranchise by means of the
I°B- direct taxation appeared to him to be a step in the right
direction, inasmuch as it recognised taxation to `le the basis
of representation—(Hear, hear)—and he trusted that that
?tinciple would be further carried out. But he could not
eole vi uponew. another eortion of the Bill with the same favour-
He conceived that tha retention of the rate-
Iwieing clause for the qualification of the voter was en un-
neitigeted evil, and he thought that the House would allow
that such a measure as the ratepaying clause had been a
traitful soutce of litigation, chicanery. and fraud, and
'that it had been an unnecessary restriction to the right of
Voting —( Hear, bear.) It might not be necessary to
increase the number of Members for large towns,
hut he could not conceive how the Noble Lord
could justify the retention of two Members to a small
andinsignificant borough, while he refused a Member to
large, populous, and important districts. Another feature
et that Bill to which he (Sir J. Walmsley) objected was,
that it did not remove nominati .n boroughs, which were a
crying evil.—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion, the interes sof
agriculture, commerce, and manufactures were identical, and
aeon this broad view of the question ought the electoral
!ower to be based. He had referred on a former occasion to
the numerous demands which had been made by the people
at various periods for enfranchisement. and he had pointed
cut the acknowledged loyalty and intelligence of the en-
franchised classes as evidences of their fitness for the exercise
of political rights. He had also adverted to the patience
and forbearance which had been shown by the people under
What he conceived to be very unnecessary and unjust
treatment, and subsequent thought had convinced him
that reason united with justice in demanding a recon-
struction of the electoral system. So far from perceiving
ally cause for apprehension in extending the basis of the
representation, he was persuaded that the; was the only
course by which they could remove the existing causes of
discontent, and the only means by which any Government
could ever obtain the full confidence of the people.—(Hear,
hear.) Twenty years had elapsed since the Reform Bill
Was introduced, and, with all its defects, there could be no
thr'est of the satisfactory results of that measure, which
folly acknowledged—the benefits of that Bill, he could not
shut his eyes to its defects. The evils of the nomination
bw„ roughs were only very partially removed. It was true
Fat titty-six rotten boroughs were placed in Schedule A,
but nearly an equal number were retained as a sop to the
Oligarchical party; tied, altogether the Reform Bill of 1834
Wee one of the most aristocratic measures offered to the
nation. The effects of the Chandos clause, in involving
the occupiers of the soil in a political serfdom, were fore•
told. There were 250,000 houses in England and Wales
!lone, whose occupants, although assessed at between
AO& and 501. annual value, were totally excluded from
itell share in the representation. Surely, then, they might
fairly ask for a revision of the system which twenty years
'perience had shown to be so ineffective for its declared
°°,iect. Within the last twenty years the population of the
Country bad considerably increased, its commerce had ex-
Pauded, popular intelligence bad been more widely diffused,
~ata our national literature had progressed. But, in broad
eentrast with all this, there had been no advance and no
improvement in our representative institutions Five-sixths
4f the adult male population of these realms continued to be
:Icluded from all voice either in flaming the laws they had
:(.). obey or in the distribution of the funds of which they had
it' contribute so large a proportion. A paper was laid upon
e'e table of the House two sessions ago, stating the number
relectors in the United Kingdom to be 1,050,1e7 ; being 1
30 of the population, or lin ' of the adult males. That
tve an average of 1,600 votes to each of the 656 Mem-
lets of that House—he said votes rather than electors,
e'ecause many electors had a plurality of votes
; un-
t different qualifications, and it was supposed that
the total number of electors did not exceed three-quarters of
'Million. Thus upwards of six millions of the adult male
tpulation by the existing system were kept without the pale
the Constitution ; and there was a grievous and unjust
410ni poly of electoral power in the exclusive bands of a
comparatively amad minority I,f the nation. He had said
that the total number of the electo a would give an aver-
age of 1,600 to each member of that House; but the real
fact was that 32) Members, or a clear majority, only
tePresented 430 electors each, whilst the minority re-
resented 2,729 electors each. Caine with 159 electors
ad the same power as Stockport with 2,400; and Man-
chesterll with 12,000 electors, or Marylebone with 18,010,
li;c1 no more weight in that Howe than Thetford with
10 electors, or Knaresborough with MO. These facts suffi-
tently demonstrated the way in which the influence of the
tger boroughs could be neutralised by marshalling the
PeWer of the smaller ones against them. He had said that
tee
representative system had made no advance, but he
„shoved it had actually retrograded ; 184 of our constituen-
t'ea had a less number of electors now than they had at
rner periods. If he were told that the gross number of
electors
h‘ had increased, he would reply that the increase had
;Can place in counties where extraordinary exertions had
tore
made for special objects, and in the boroughs which
included in those counties; and that the register for
the English counties showed a decrease of 13,600 electors in
fie Year 1849-50, as compared with the numbers in 1846.7
Was said that electoral power ought not to be based on
mere numbers; but in truth at present it was neither based
s'h
:numbers nor on property, nor on numbers and property
combined ; and indeed he could not tell upon what it was
based. The statistics given by Mr. Alexander Mackay, in
Paniphlet on Parliamentary Reform, and which he had
hoverh‘ heard controverted, showed that in the year 1811 the
amount of the poor-rate assessment of the country was
represented
Millions; and of that sum he stated that 7 millions were
in that House by 329 Members, and the remain-
teg 78 millions by 329 Members. What was the practical
eindencY of such a system? To render that House subser-
slit to the territorial aristocracy, and, instead of a real
ipresentation of the people, to make it a representation of
tee peerage, the army, the navy, the Church, and the Go-
2rtiment. The taxation of the country was levied unequally,
Wherever
tended to restrict the expansion of trade and commerce.
',,v_herever a barren rock was to be found among our colonial
asessions, a governor, lieutenant-governor, and a costly
staff of useless officials were saddled upon the public purse;
takeioas and sinecures were distributed with an unsparing
41,1" injurious,
; and a system of Church patronage was administered,
tb be believed, to religion as it was offensive to
these
consciences of a large portion of the people. To remedy
e,t,e evils—moral, political, and financial—his Honourable
Friend (Mr. Hume) had brought forward this measure of
4r,liamentary Reform ; and, believing it to be safe, 'erecti-
le, le- and constitutional, he should give the motion his
lMble but earnest support. There might be those who ap-
t,hended dangers and difficulties from a measure which
ttight to add five or six snillitms of the adult male popula-'
kr to the electoral registry of the United Kingdom ; bet
soetia part he saw no such dangers, nor apprehended any
e' difficulties. There was indeed a danger; but it arose
t'o°lll a very different source—from the refusal to do justice
ve teen who not only knew their rights, but knew their
Zjwer to enforce them. The present motion only aimed at
otecting abuses which time and a vicious system had pro-
h:.ed ; and the present period of comparative pros-
ltY and domestic tranquillity appeared to him eminently
cculated for the calm consideration and settlement
t
tt this important question. The only sounds that the
LI," heard of the injustice under which the per pie
,:eniured, or believed they laboured, were those of calm re-
monstrance and and enlightened reason •, but none might venture
continue.
Predict how long such a favourable state of things might
totoltinue. The burdens which the people now bore might
n become insupportable; the evils that they now endured
basses
ere long assume an aspect which might drive the
tooisses to desperation, and they might approach that House
to a temper which all must deprecate but none would be able
I, resist. Should such a time ever arise— which he prayed
VI wisdom of that House to avert—then they would see
teuen too late the political folly of treating with contumely
emejust demand of millions of their fellow-subjects. By
etnei
Y concession, to that just demand they would strengthen
the guarantees for public and popular content, because
the
taxes would then be imposed, and the laws made with
'Le concurrence and consent of all.
tikr. H. DRUMMOND said the excuse urged by
f the two
the
Gentlemen who had preceded him for bringing orwar
toe present question was that the country was in a state of
Itel4PthearatMembers ive tranquill
of itthy.at House back toGentlementheir constituents,
were anxtuents,
ious to
ked
eii! Yet they occupied a whole night in discussing a measure
ich could not possibly be passed. No less than six gentle
had brought for Ward measures for improving the repre-
;:ntation, but he trusted, coming in that shape, the Govern-
'l'3•l it would not fall into the error that had been committed
its predecessors, but that they would at once repudiate it.
e present measure differed from
Lord
others that it con-
titTen no principle. The Noble Lord in his Bill connected
te.: right of voting with a beneficial interest, of 10/. ; but
gli-dra, Was no more connexion between the right of voting
15' 10/. than there was between the right of voting and 9/.
41,3' 6d. The system was altogether absurd, and the wee-
ee,e- re contained no real principle. With regard to the weer-
of the elective franchise, he laid this down as a rule,
sad of as the only essential rule, that the exercise
ttn the franchise should be
He
with di.
toted
service to the State. He would include all
te„"°,° classes whose pockets the Chancellor of the Exchequer
"41 reach, all those whom the rate-collector called upon—
ad
to, ue would go further and say where a man was too poor
tempt the rate-collector or the Chancellor of the Exche-
4aer. it he had rendered service to the state—as,
,ofit a
soldier after his discharge, or a militia-man, he should say
on as entitled to exercise the right of voting. (Hear.)
Point had had an adventitious inaportance conferred
Po •
ti 11. it. although it had really nothing to do with the ques-
ts/I
to me—he meant the ballot. What could it possibly signify
lel;'''ltt how the electors voted, whether secretly or openly,
ktber standing upon one leg, or upon both ?—(A laugh.)
1'; seemed to him that that was a question that might be
tiehellY left to the constituents. He had himself special rea-
es"''' for preferring the vote by ballot, but he would not
to."'r enter upon that question. But they must bear in
est'd that when they added to the electors, as was pro-
did by the present measure, they did not add a similar
op' similar thing. It was not the mere addition of electors
e`ue same kind, but electors of a very different kind.
Wouldegiye an illustration of what he meant. He
Wouldtake the case of the savings banks. He found by
return which he held in his hand that out of 1,000,00 e
contributors in the savings banks there were only 2,000 who
g'lee 7 stied 2001. and upwards, while there were no less than
'°°o who possessed less than 20/. Let theni take that as
Pide or an illustration. In point of fact, when they had
emended the franchise as far as they proposed they would
akesent the poverty of the country, and the wealth would
et be fairly represented, but actually overborne. He had
nteard other Hon- Members talk of education as the basis
tefeerePresentation, but he could not see any connexion be-
fr:'ri reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the elf ctive
ee-enchise, Tue argument, however, showed that they had
lt;usidered the danger of extending the franchise, and try-
teie by indirect means, to correct the evil. Much bad been
ate" of the good old times and of the practice of the C0n-
•,4,! _
oft
",°n —the practice of that House formerly was that no
L'lnould sit in it unless he possessed a certain amount
pr `.4(1- Land was formerly the only means of possessing
Nl:lV—trade bei-g confined to the Jews, and after-
to the Lombards and the Flemings. Now,
"ever, things were totally changed—the essential was
aelPertn the accident was land. When the Honour-
a4ll Gentleman brought forward a measure to do away
bee „ the property qualification one of his arguments
oetusat that House did not regard the sanctity of their
tl
They That was, he thought, a bad vston.--( War, bear.)
encouraged the violation of oaths—they encouraged
Ifi-. to break their oaths, and to find men not guilty be-
"'V disapproved of their offences being visited with

.» .i;i.:: ..

rti l; Jl

T Ji E

capital punishment. If they did not wish to have let'll•
Members violate their oaths, -let them appoint a Commissi'm
such as had been appointed in the case of the St. Alban's
election. If they had a standing Commission he thought
they would soon find out what Gentlemen were without the
necessary property qualification. Let there be a good '
Chancery lawyer and a good common-law lawyer on the
Commission, and ho was bound to say that would make the
Commission effective. If they had not that equality of pro-
perty they would have equality of power, and that wag as
good. Where there were two animals, one of whom had got
something which the other had not, they might depend up in
it there would be a battle.—(A laugh.) If there were two
men, the one rich and the other poor, unless the rich man had
something to defend him which the other had not, there
would be free trade between them pretty quickly.—(A laugh.)
They must combine property and power together, for civi-
lised socie'y was constituted on the principle of preserving
acquired preperty. What they were to provide against '
was not peaceable times. A ship was worth nothing that
could only sa lin smooth water They must have a consti-
tution that would stand the storms. There always had
been, and there ever would be, times when masses of
starving people were to be found, and they might depend
on it the severest moral anguish any man could endure
was seeing his children starving and himself willing to work
and unabl to obtaireit. They might rest assured that the
sufferings of Ugolino would not be lees keen if inflicted by
a constitutional government teats by a Florentine despot.
The interests of the landed and the other classes were amal-
gamating every day. For his part he desired to see the
great estates and properties subdivided, and the number of
small proprietors increased There was inherent in the
nature of things something more permanent in land than
in manufactures. Take the case of a labourer—no in tter
whether he earned five shillings or five guineas a week,
hi had no regard for anything beyond the end of
the week—he eat and he drank the whole of it,
and there was an end of the matter.—(Laughter.)
The manufacturers only looked to their temporary profit;
but landed proprietors tooked to the permanent value of
their property, and were continually laying out something to
make that value greater—( Hear, hear, and " Oh," from the
Opposition ) though no doubt there were exceptions.—( Hear
and a laugh, from the Opposition.) There was, at all events,
this advantage attached to the system of rotten boroughs,
that they facilitated the return of persons to that House
when it was advantageous to have them. —(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord lately at the head of the Government had
recently been reproached with the basis of his Administra-
tion, and with some truth. But until Hon. Members had to
form a Government they would not know the difficulty of
doing so, for it was not enough to find the best man for an
office, but whether some "enlightened" constituency did
not prefer some empty chatterer. —(Hear, and a laugh.) He
however did not want them to recur to the " rotten
borough" system, but to suggest that if Ministers, as the
servants of the public, were expected to come ex officio to
that House whenever they were required (whether they had
teezget, kn would be reaped without
the disadvantages. Governments would be emancipated,
and the formation of administrations facilitated. He con-
fessed, however, that if he followed the profession of a Re-
former, he sh• uld like to reform the House of Lords—(Hear,
hear, from the Liberals)—which he deemed the weakest part
of the constitution, and the one which required the most
attention.—(Hear.) The power of this House bad increased,
was increasing, and ought to be diminished—(Hear, hear)—
and he e anted to strengthen the Lords to withstand i
(Hear.) He particularly wished to put an end to voting by
proxy.—(Hear.) Then, again, he thought that no nobleman
should have hereditary right to the peerage unless they had
the means of supporting its dignity, for there could not be
a greater misfortune in a country then a pauper nobility.—
(Hear.) At the same time the Crown ought to have the
power of creating peers for life, in order to raise to the
Upper House men who were likely to be useful there,
although they might not have the means of transmitting the
income necessary tor the maintenance of the dignity.
Sir P. WOOD said if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had adopted the suggestion thrown out by the Noble Lord
(Lord J Russell) of availing himself of Thursday nights
for the purpose of carrying ote the business of the Govern-
ment— that night would not have been consumed with this
discussion. than which, however (if the House were not to
be engaged upon the supplies) he could scarcely conceive of
any more important. Now, he contended that they were
called upon to ewer into the discussion by the declaration
which had been delivered by the Noble Earl (Earl Derby) in
another place, that the principle of his Governmsnt wand
dand
be to oppose a barrier to the power of demagogues,
upheld the Monarchy against the democracy. Now what did
the Noble Lord mean by that? What did be mean by so
contrasting the principles of his Government with those of
the Government he had succeeded? Had the late Govern-
ment at ail tidy •nced democracy in a bad sense? In a bad
se se it meant insurrection. And there certainly had been
two feeble attempts at insurrection in the country during
the late Adiniiiietration• - one in Ireland under ..ar. S.
O'Brien, and the other in England under—be would nit
say whom.—(A laugh.) And both attempts had been pnt
down, one by the energy of Lord Clarendon, the other by
the vigilance of the late Home Secretary, sustained by the
good sense and good feeling of large masses of the people.
Democracy was a vague word, like " protection." (Liberal
cheers.) It might 'mean total exclusion of the monar-
chical element of the Constitution, or it might mean merely
justice to the people. Now on the continent there were
two classes of governments—omitting cases of
at ami
ll—inlitary
occupation, which lie did not call governments
which these opposing principles were illustrated. In one
class —in which was developed the high monarchical or des-
potic prirciple—in Austria or Russia, for instance, an here-
ditary sovereign, invested with an imaginary perfection,
carried on the Government with such small counsel as
he chose to call to his assistance, with what was con-
ceived to be a fostering and paternal hand, providing
for the happiness of his people, who had nothing to do
with the Government but to obey, and were not allowed
to think for ' themselves, lest they should discover the
imposture and exercise their power—the policy pursued
by the Governments of this class being that whtoh was
expressed in a single sentence once spoken by the Emperor
Francis—" I do not want learned men, but good subjects,"
and any little unpleasantness that might arise being sup-
pressed by military force. • In the other class of Govern-
ments, to which our own belonged, there was an hereditary
sovereign, with a representative assembly and an upper
chamber, composed of persons, from their position, educa-
tion, and property, best suited for that dignity ; and the
bulk of the people, instead of being prevented from thinking
or acting for themselves, were encouraged and trained to
do so by the municipal and parochial systems on which they
had to regulate their local affairs; and thus they were edu-
cated for the more important duty of choosing those who
should represent them in the Legislature. Now, the princi-
ple of the former of these classes of governments he consi-
dered the principle of fear; that of the latter confidence.—
(Cheers from the Liberals.) And on the principle of confi-
dence in the people he advocated the enlargement of the
franchise. He believed that it would be found soon by all
nations that there was no basis on which Governmeents
could rest except that of confidence in the peopl.—
(Hear, hear.) Not merely in their affections, which
might be influenced by passions and impulses, but in their
political education —their power of thinking and acting
and judging for themselves. and their appreciation of those
high moral and intellectual qualifications which ought to
fit a man for taking a part in the government of the nation.
Now, did the Noble Lord (Derby) mean to depart from this
principle, or to maintain that it ought not to be exntended?
Were we to have that most monstrous form of g,
an oligarchical den ocracy, under which one million out of
five millions of men alone had votes? Such ass stem would
show a total want of confidence in the people; and no Go-
vernment could stand many months which should
stamen
mit
the most fa'al error committed by one of the great
who ever held power—that of declaring himself against a re--
form of the representation of the people. Our whole career
was one of progress; and were we to stand still here, and
here alone? The Hun. Member for Surrey said the sup-
porters of extension of the suffrage were obliged to admit
that there was danger in it, and that the only resource wae
s
in the good disposition of the people. But were peopl
more dangerous within the pale of the Constitution than
without it? Now, the Honourable been Gentlemen's it
us
tration of the starving •animals would have more
applicable some years ago, before reform or repeal
of the corn laws, as during the disastrous scarcity of
1817, or more recently in 1847, when bread, now to be
had for sd. was sold fir lid ; and when he was able
to tell the people " It is the hand of God, and y must
bear it patiently," which he could not have said had the corn-
laws not been repealed. With regard to the ballot, all he
need say was that his constituents wanted it, and that he
had voted for it, and should do so again. It was sometimes
said to those who supported the extension of the represet.-
tat ive system, " Look at France !" He had looked at France,
and consioered that the lesson to be derived from the cala-
mities-of ehat•couetry was to avoid the errors which had oc-
casioned them. Up to the revolution of 1786 the Govern-
ment of France Imo been of the despotic or paternal cha
racter he had described ' • the people had no political instruc-
tion fitting them for the functions of government, or the ex-
ercise of the franchise; the nobility were exempted from tax-
ation under which the masses of the community were op-
pressed; and there arose at last a tremendous insurrection.
since which the couutry had been in a constant state
of of con-
fusion. Even under Louis Philippe the principle cofidence in the people had not been acted upon ; the country
was ruled from Paris by orders sent down to the
prefects. Under the last portentous revolution, which had
placed the President on—he was going to say his
throne there was to be general voting or universal
suffrage; there had not been a single public meeting held.
Conceive of such a change in this country without a public
meeting to consider it The fact was, however, the people of
France had not been taught how to exercise political power,
and had never known what it was to bow to a majority—
(Hear, hear)—so that a minority found no better resource
than taking up arms —( Rear, hear, and laughter.) This,
then,
was the example pointed to in order to deter us from
usex tteonddiongsoth. eiftrapnrocvheisde
hlowWohnyse,
unsafe
et
itw asaws ratthoeartatew;t warning
eg2t:
waa
dude large classes
was at
ol
fvpeioapelcee thfwroim, and likely to try,our
Constitution. l e representadtieosn.oA nd
such a course
Constitution.
The of
variance
Reform Bill had removed gross abuses
Constitution,ohtedthietnotdooeeo o and adm
because W hy
proved its machinery; and
its most ancient landmarks
would have been swept away popular convulsion. It
was said " Alt is now quiet and ya
calm.
neoorthttr withholdwo would raise
that the
was ques-
tionjast
timee t
hi to
Catholic
o s
afyo
conceded it.
e
of the representation?" why;
s the
el proper
considered.peri period
to dolt so; and
fatal at
error
emancipation • until the -Government which t
had to confess that they did so from fear of
quences of longer refusing it; and such would have
the result of a longer_refusal of reform. The Constitu-
tion ought to be allowed to go on, and expand, and develops
oPs
itself: wherever there was life there must be progress.
Some persons had recently said they did not desire constant
changes. But change was the natural result of the action of
a living principle in a' state. What changes had occurred
within the last twenty years—in everything except the re-
presentative system! The commerce of the country had
been inordinately developed—( Hear, hear),—and so had ma-
nufactures.—( Hear.) .Whole towns had risen up; and to
one of these (Birkenhead), which had not been in existence
at the time of the Reform Bill, it was proposed by the late
Government to extend the franchise. of which St. Alban's
was to be deprived. Railways, again, bad everywhere given
rise to new towns along their lines. And it was not only in
material development that changes had occurred, but moral
and intellectual education had greatly advanced; and the
National Society, which some years ago bad only 400,000
scholars, now had upwards of 1,000,000. The increase of
savings banks and mechanics' institutes led to the same con-
clusion. Why, then, was everything to progress except the
representative system ? At the time of the Chartist attempt
he knew a body of workmen engaged about that House,
although they had promised to defend it, had declined to
he sworn, not choosing, as they said, to act against their
" order"—an ominous and remarkable expression. And
what made them an " order?" Only exclusion from the
franchise.—( Hear, hear.) Give them the franchise, and they
would be transfused into the rest of the community. The
for Surrey uersrehyahvaiodgdeeroidpedrieethiepielo/i.n or 51. quTahlie-
filioca
i.
oniseraforbevro
principle, however, was not in the exact sum chosen, but
in the choosing of any mum as a test ; and the 40s. free-
hold test was almost as old as Parliament itself. At the
same time he should have dao objection to sole of the

icY•al":4.

LON DON,

other tests suggested by the Honourable Member, coupled
with residence he thought such a franchise would be
good. He confessed, however, that he could not under-
stand, and he could never admit the principle of abstract
right.—( Hear, hear.) The seconder of the motion had ob-
served that he could not comprehend on what principle
such and such things were permitted in our Constitution.
Why, we had not a cut and dried Constitution—(Hear, hear,)
—but we tried to perfect it as much as we could by means
of the existing machinery. they could have general prin-
ciple, however, although not abstract rights; and one
general principle should be to trust in the people.—(Hear,
hear.) It might be contended that, either from a want of
education, or from their shifting their residence from place
to place, or from other causes, portions of the community
were unfit to exercise the franchise; but it would be a mon-
strous thing to say that there ought to be only a million
and a half of voters in the country.—(Hear, hear.)
The people of Belgium strongly resembled our own in two
, essential particulars—in their conversance with municipal
government, and in their attachment to religion. In the
deep religious faith of the people of Belgium was found the
best security for order and good government. He rejoiced
that the present oi.cussion had taken place at this par-
ticular moment, although, on the other hand, the idea that
any Bill on this subjeat could be passed this session was quite
out of the question.—( Hear, hear.) In support of these
annual motions of the Hon. Member for Montrose he had
always declined committing himself to a particul,r plan--
( Hear, bear)—wishing rather to affirm the general pr n-
ciple of reform; but he would vote for this or any other
motion which was likely to lead to an extension of the
franchise. He was now desirous that the Government would
state, not on y what they did not like in the shape of re-
form, but what they did like, because a Government mea-
sure might be carried, whereas an independent motion
might fall to the ground. He rejoiced at a past declaration
of the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London on the
subject of the franchise, but there was also the declaration
in the Speech from the Throne this session, that the state of
the representation was not satisfactory --(Hear, hear.) He
did not think, in the teeth of such declarations, that any
Government could long exist which opposed what appeared
to be so essential a measure as reform in the Parliamentary
representation, and any Government which might succeed
the present would, he thought, whether they liked
it or not, be compelled to bring in such a measure.
If, at the next general election, the people pro-
nounced for such reform, he did not despair getting it
at the hands of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. As yet we did
not know how the country would deal with the questions of
Maynooth,Protection,and Reform.—[An Hon. Hember—" Or
with anything else"]—and, therefore, he still had hope in
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Without expressing any
opinion upon those other measures contemplated in the
speech of the Hon. Member for Montrose, he claimed to be
allowed a free judgment as to any particular scheme of re-
form ; but he confessed he should be dissatisfied with any
plan unaccompanied by the ballot. He would vote for the
OrlSPirsArMliecsi: .1e22!!!!),i1.1.2,92vbenT:12
liament as was contemplated by the Hon. Member for
Montrose, even were the first reading to be agreed on that
night, it was not his intention to record his vote either for
or against the present motion.
Mr. NAPIER—Sir, in much that has fallen from the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just sat down I en-
tirely concur; but I am afraid that if some of the prin-
ciples he has advanced are strictly followed out they must,
in the end, lead to universal suffrage.—( Hear, hear.) Since
I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have had
an opportunity of hearing these questions discussed at great
length and with great ability. I have heard them discussed
by the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and
have felt a high delight anti pleasure in hearing from him
those sound constitutional expositions which have induced
him to vote against those motions of the Hon. Member for
Montrose, anti others substantially in the same category
with them.—(Hear, hear.) 1 agree with the Hon. and
Learned Gentlemen in his strictures on the despotism which
prevails in some of the countries of the continent. I abhor
such despotism, and also the licentiousness and anarchy
which have taken root elsewhere; and I fully acquiesce
in the praise he has bestowed on the British Con-
stitution for the admirable manner in which it adapts itself
to the imperfections of mankind. But I think, Sir, there are
other modes by which the tranchise might be usefully ex-
tended than by so essential a change in the principles of
be onstitution as is now asked for.—( Rear, hear.) The
question to be considered is whether the particular mode pro-
posed, of lowering the property qualification, is consistent
with the principles of the Constitution, with the mainte-
nance of the Monarchy, and with the maintenance of that
hereditary rank which we find in our House of Peers.—
(He ‘r, hear.) I own it is a difficult question to deal with ;
out I do not agree with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
that after the 101. qualification of the Reform Bill, the people
were precluded from acquiring a further tranehise.—(Hear,
hear.) He says " we ought to have confidence in the people;
we ought to rely upon their talents, industry, and virtue."
Now, a-suredly every man by the exercise of such qualities
may not only acquire a franchise, but may assist in hartno-
eising our free and happy Constitution.—( Hear, hear.) It
is asserted that in our constitution as it stands there is mucu
corruption, and that it must be got rid of. If it is to he got
rid of, I du not think it will be by these extravagant plans
oy these mete shifts and contrivances of the ballot box, but
through the medium of education.—(Hear.) Secrecy is not
congenial to the English character.—(Cheers.) A man may
give his vote one way and pretend that he gave it another.
To prevent conflict with his landlord, a tenant might avail
himself of the ballot ; but should we hence have a better
state of things? Again, do you think that by lowering the
franchise you get into purer atmosphere?--(Hear, hear )
On the contrary, you multiply the power of these who tam-
per with the bad passions of the people • and then, where
is your appeal to their confidence?—(Hear, hear.) I
can understand a professional calling being a test of
property, as also (as was thrown out in a previous de.
bate) an investment. in a savings bank; but in that
case it would not be an abstract question whether there
ought to be an extension of the franchise or not, be.
cause the franchise would be acquired by all thoaa whose
industry brought it within their grasp..—( Hear, hear.) That
some limitation is necessary is evident from the question
frequently asked, whether ladies are to be excluded from the
franchise - (A laugh)—but the main consideration is, should
we not derange the constitution by introducing a lower pro-
perty qualification ?—(Hear, hear.) I am not saying I
should be averse to an adjustment of the constitution; but
I do say, that by lowering the property qualification you
would extend the influence and the power of corruption—
(Hear, hear)—and that you could not check that corruption
by resorting to secret voting.—( Hear, hear) ) I say, let the
exercise of the franchise be open and independent—(Hear,
h q ue hear)— ri ?Qat
odoni
nsl
i3t
t.aoioso.
tusnhe,dretbo,huna
hands
onstdawpsl
al
place
pet
dhtiethas
tiebgybnyi
mere
intelligence
;rpersons, lowering
enromn numbers—that
ef
rasttheand
de
tpropertycountryh atypermit
o u
iptnhuetamPfoatwiorewrpield it to the peril of those institutions and of that
monarchy, which I trust will ever be bound up with the
peace and prosperity of this country.—(Cheers.)
Mr- ROEBUCK said that whilst he adopted the pre-
mises and conclusion of the argument of his Hon. and
Learned Friend the late Solicitor-General (Sir W. P.
Wood), he was altogether at a loss to account for his deter-
mination not to vote upon this question, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman having admitted that the subject ought
to be entertained, and that this was the proper time for con-
sidering it. Twenty years had elapsed between the passing
of the first Reform Bill and the proposal of the second of
the Noble Lord the Member for London. At the former
period the country was governed by an oligarchy
be used the word as more significant than ar-
istocracy—but under the reforming hand of the Noble
Lord that power had undergone a very great change. The
landed interest was no longer the predominant interest
in this country, for by the Reform Bill 9f 1832 a
large portion of the manufacturing wealth of this country
was admitted to the representation. But the Noble Lord
evidently found that he had not .done enough by his first
'teform Bill that it was not sufficient to displace an oli-

garchy—but that there were thousands in this country
whose intelligence and morality—not their lands or the
power derived from wealth—demanded consideration at the
hands of the State. Supposing that to be the opinion of
the Noble Lord, he (Mr. Roebuck) would say that what was
wanted was a body of men who represented, first the intelli-
gence, and next the good feeling of the country. Did any-
body pretend to say that the intelligence of the country was
wielded by those who possessed land—by those whom the
Noble Lord (Russell) had represented as the " clay inte-
rest ?" It certainly was not land that represented the intel-
ligence of the people—
An HoN. MEMBER—As much as any other portion of the
community.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK continuing —I am sure this interruption
must coat() from a person representing land, but I etill deny
that t e representatives of land interpret the intelligence of
the country. The men whom he( Mr. Roebuck) would en-
franchise were those who combined what was called manual
and intellectual labour—instructed artisans, who, although
possessed neither wnalth nor power, fulfilled all the condi-
tions of good citizens. It was these very men who were ex-
cluded f. om al. voice in the government of the country. He
confessed he did not understand the doctrine of abstract
right.—( Hear, hear.) He did not know what. it meant to
say hat a man had a right to be represented, but of this
he was certain, that, unless the intellectual classes were
represented, there could be no good government. For
the object is good government Those persons .ought to
ne adopted into the constituency. He would show the
House they were instructed, they were moral; and he
would then ask who would refuse to recognise their claims?
He was talking of instructed artisans. A ttnati of that
class did not hve in a 10/. house; he lived in lodgings.
This would be found to be the case in London and the great
manufacturing cities. He wanted such a man to be a con-
stituent. He did not want him to be a constituent because
the man would agree with him—it was ten to one he would
not—but he wanted him to be a constituent, first, because he
was a man who, by his honest industry, had gained his own
position
• next, becanbe he was an instructed Man ; and,
third, because he was a moral man: On account of these
throe
a do tdhe ea re
rci Ina:as
l
n the qualities,
country;
he
and
placed ahcee ds a
ihdi mon a
such
a naenwaist h anyh
he
was as worthy to be a • constituent as any Hon. Member in
that House was to be a Member. Where was the man to tell
him he was not?—(Hear, hear.) Was he to be told by the
ng
ere not to be deemed worthy of sending a
possessor of thEOusalnadnfioffroamcresevtherayt tohtheyerwhoonmntardye allin
thatthe
distinguishes
world; that they
pbreasefuntuantdiveiae.onfthlannrdnwnnenre.
demanded--but war
tries ? Representatives of wealth were admitted, but was
not wealth found
which was
oulasend Rtoe
her country in the world, except
not to be found in any 0!
representative to wthatnoHt
America—that body of men framed to endure labour, in other countries? But that
obe-
dient to the law with all the power of mischief in their hands,
placed before that House; he
asked Hon. Members whether they
ought not to be repre-
sented in that House? Yet this class,
this
who distinguished
and yet obeying law implicitly—were they to be excluded?
It was those persons he now
pegi,
ccuntry from all countries,' by the present law—by no inten-
tion on the art of the Lslature or on the part of those
who composed the- law—but by accident—this class was
excluded from the representation of the country; and he was
not going too tar in asking the House to bring them within
the roll of those who returned Representatives to that
House. He had heard a great talk of democracy, and
the dangers of democracy. He had heard the Noble
Lord's.( Lord John Rtissell) answer the other night to the
statement made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment: that answer had not- quite satisfied
Democracy, as he (Mr. Roebuck) understood the term, was
equivalent, if he might use the Latin phrase, to rxpulus, as
opposed to plebs. He did not want plebs to govern, as he
did not want aristocracy; he did not want any section of the
people to govern ; he warted the populus, which answered
more to our word " nation"—he wanted the nation to govern
itself.—( Hear, hear.) As for the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government coming forward and saying he was opposed
to Democracy, what did be mean ? Did he mean that ie this
country the artisans had what were called Communist prin-
ciples? Not at all.—( Hear, hear.) The moment a man
gained anything by his own labour, he might be depended
upon to defend the sacredness of property—(Hear. hear)—he
would be the man to come forward and say, "This is mine—
it is the result of my own honest labour and of my own intel-
lect."—( Hear, bear) You will find no Communist princi-
ples received among the artirms of this country.--(Hear,
hear.) As for the ignorant and benighted labourers of the
agricultural classes, he (Mr, Roebuck) did not know what

,'~ .. ... (<a.