The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-22 00:00:00

HOUSEHOLD SUFFRAGE.

Mr. HUME said that in rising to move this ques-
tion, he thought it was one well worthy the serious
consideration of the House. He had endeavoured in
vain to obtain a day for bringing forward this motion
last Session. Had he been enabled to do so
it might have prevented what had since taken place.
He had endeavoured to obtain from the House an ac-
knowledgment that some further measure of reform was
required to satisfy the people of this country, and they
would not be content under the present circumstances
if her Majesty's Ministers would not consent to
some change which would be satisfactory to them.
He had no hesitation in stating that in his opinion Re-
form ought to go much further. The suffrage ought to
be made as extensive as possible consistently with the
safety of the institutions of the country, in order that
the greatest amount of suffrage might be given to the
people. Representation was a very excellent invention,
by which the people might he present by their delegates
to do the business which affected them. He found that
in former days the number of electors was very extended
indeed. He believed taxation did not take place in
this country until the people gave their sanction
to it. It was said that taxation and representation
should be co-equal. They originally were, but now
they were not ; and under a system of taxation so
grinding as the taxation of this country—under
a system which pressed so heavily on the poor,
and so lightly on the rich—he could not con-
ceive how any man could be satisfied. The
governing power ought to give the relief which the
people demanded, and it was on that ground that the
Reform Bill was brought in in 1831. He could not
conceive anything more consistent with the conduct
of the House on the occasion than it should follow
up the objects then contemplated, and if those changes
had not been obtained which were absolutely nc-
cessarity, it was the duty of a reforming Government
to endeavour to carry them out. He believed
that very few Gentlemen had directed their attention to
the actual situation of the representation at the present
time, but if he could arrest the attention of those who
were Reformers in 1831, he thought they would go
along with him in saying that the object of the Reform
Bill was to remove the nomination that then existed,
and to change the system that gave such dissatisfaction,
and to alter the mode which then existed, by which in-
dividuals nominated the Members of that House, and
thereby took the whole political power, not only from
the House of Commons but the Crown. The Crown
then was much more dependant on the House of
Commons than at present, because it was then de-
pendant on the party who could pack that House.
Although a great improvement had been made in the
system of elections, it was still a nomination unfair to
the people at large, and almost as bad as it was in
1793. If the object was, as was stated by the Noble
Lords who had introduced the Reform Bill into the
Houses of Lords and Commons, that there should
be a fair and a full representation of the
people, he would ask any man to say whether that
object had been effected by the present measure ?
Fearing he might be supposed guilty of a mistake,
he would reed what had been stated by Lord John
Russell when he introduced the Reform Bill into
Parliament :—" He proposed that the people, by
this measure, should send their real representatives
into that House to consider their grievances, and attend
to their desires, and by that means they would identify
the House with the people of the United Kingdom ;"
and the Noble Earl in the House of Lords, had
used identically the same language, adding that
the measure, he felt no doubt, would prove one of conci-
liation. The avowed object of the Reform Bill, as stated
by its introducers, was to extend the basis of our elec-
tions, to give satisfaction to the people of the three
countries, and to give confidence to the Government.
He would ask had those been the results of the Reform
Bill. He for one was prepared to go beyond household
suffrage, but now he was anxious that the House should
take one step towards attaining the general object.
household suffrage was quite consistent with the
ancient Constitution, as had been admitted by every
one who had written or spoken on the question. In
introducing the Reform Bill into the House of Lords,
Earl Grey quoted a passage from Locke upon Govern-
ment, in order to show that household suffrage was
the ancient right of voting. He (Mr. H.) wished to
show that the colleagues of the Noble Lord (Lord
John Russell) sanctioned the Bill, not as an in-
novation, but as a restoration to the ancient
rights of the people. He said it was a return to the
old system of scot and lot voters, with a limi-
tation to 101. The attempt had failed—the num-
ber of voters in the country were too small to give
satisfaction to the people, or to give a lull, fair,
and free representation of the people in that House.
The Committee on the Cirencester case in 1793 re-
ported to the House that every male person of full age
should be duly registered, and entitled to vote at elec-
tions. In another case, that of the Pontefract petition, it
was held that any person who had resided six months in the
borough previous to the election should be entitled to vote.
That would show the House that he was not seeking for
any innovation, but merely endeavouring to renew an an-
cient right. He regretted to say that the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, had not
on all occasions advocated the extension of the principle
of the Reform Bill—at one time he had certainly been
in favour of it, and another time had stopped short. On
Feb. 6, when he (Mr. H.) had charged the Noble Lord
with having forgot the original purpose of the Bill,
and the Noble Lord had addressed the House as
if early recollections had got the better of him.
The Noble Lord was reputed to have said, " the in-
tention of the Reform Bill was to give a fair repre-
sentation of all parts of the country—they wished
to give a preponderance to no party over the
other, and he had more than once stated that
he had taken a certain number of counties, and
an equal number of manufacturing towns, to share
in the representation." That was stated by the
Noble Lord in answer to the charge made against
him, that he had stated the intention of the Reform Bill
was to give a preponderance to the landed interest.
He (Mr. Hume) supported the Reform Bill with all its
defects, because he believed the Government would
carry out a greater extent of Reform, particularly when
they had such lamentable proof of the evil working of
the Bill, by which the fair voice of the electors
could not be obtained. He was warranted in
calling on the Noble Lord to carry out what he
promised, as the Reform Bill had failed in securing the
objects for which it had been introduced, and he was the
more warranted in doing so, seeing the claims now put
forward by the unrepresented mass of the country. The
Noble Lord on a subsequent occasion stated that accord-
ing to the ancient constitution of the country no man
ought to be taxed who had not consented by his repre-
sentative to the imposition of that tax.—(Hear.)
The meaning of the Slatuti de 7'allagio non conceden4
was that no free man should be taxed without his consent
through his Representatives—this had never been dis-
puted. Did the Noble Lord in making that statement
mean that no free man should be taxed without being
represented ? if so, he had no right to complain of the
millions of unrepresented who now called upon him to ful-
fil his original promise ; he was bound in honour and justice
to do so, as they had been disappointed in every promise
that had been held out. In making this statement he had
no desire to undervalue the present change, which, how-
ever, required the protection of secret voting to the pre-
sent electors. He would quote the opinion of Mr. Tan-
cred, who, in his work on the system of repre-
sentation in England, said that the original system of
voting in England was regulated by the tenure of property
without limit as to the value, every freeholder having a
vote, however small his holding. This was also confirmed
by the authority of Mr. Hallam. This was the ancient
practice of the Constitution, and to make the voters in the
boroughs and counties co-existent with the inhabitants
paying scot and lot, and this practice he wished to revive
by his present motion ; he would also go further, and extend
the franchise to those who were occupying portions of
houses, provided they had occupied them for a year, and
had paid the rates, for which purpose he would make
provision in his Bill. This would secure to them the in-
telligence and respectability of those upon whom this
country depended—he meant the artisans and also the edu-
cated classes, many of whom were in lodgings. He hoped
he should hare the support of the Hon. President of the
Board of Controul, who had formerly advocated a much
more extended Pystem of suffrage, because he considered
it but fair that they should call for the assistance of those
individuals who had made these principles the stepping-
stone to promotion. He hoped he still maintained those
principles, and if so, that he would, if he could not give
him his vote, at least state the circumstances which pre-
vented him from doing so. Having stated what their expec-
tations were, he would now show what had really taken
place ; he was ready to show that the demand for household
suffrage would give satisfaction to a large portionof the corn-

munity, it would be an intermediate step to education in the
country, and he lookel forward to the time when so de-
sirable an object would be obtained. He had read that
day a large number of petitions presented to that House,
from which he felt warranted in stating that if they now
came forward and granted that which he now asked,
household suffrage on an extended scale, they would put
down that demand which some thought too great, and
which the Chartists were now endeavouring to enforce.—
( Hear, hear.) In order to see what grounds there were
for the extension of the suffrage, he would direct the atten-
tion of the How:: to a statement that had been laid on its
table, by which it would be seen what the representation was
after the passing of the Reform Bill. By the census of
1831, it appeared that the population of England was
13,000,000, of that number there were 3,199,000 males of
twenty years and upwards; and the electors were 619,000,
being one in every five. In Wales the population was
860,000 males, above 20 years of age 194,000, and the
number of electors 37,000, being one in five. In Scotland
the population was 2,300,000, the number of males above
217 years of age 549,000, and the number of electors
64,000, being one in every eight, while Ireland, having a
population of 7,700,000, and 1,867,000 males above 21
years of age, the number of electors were 92,000, being
one in 20; and since that period, it must be remembered,
a considerable increase had taken place in the population
The numbers had increased in 1835 and 1836, but still
though the electors appeared large upon the returns-
-956,000, still he thought he might strike from that num-
ber 300,000, at all events 200,000, for those whose names
appeared on the register twice. In London alone the
actual constituency was not above 13,000, though upon the
register it appeared to be 18,000—no less than 5,000 ap
peared on the register twice. Was that then a full and
fair representation of the people. Give them household
suffrage, and there would be a considerable increase. In
Manchester, in 1634, there were only 8,400 electors,
while there were 12,700 inhabited houses. In Lambeth
there were 154,613 inhabitants, 29,079 inhabited houses,
16,405 101. houses, but only 4,435 electors. Finsbury
and the Tower Hamlets were in the same situation,
Again, he found that Cheltenham and Salford, hav-
ing a constituency of about 3,054, returned only two
Members of Parliament, while six Members were
returned by boroughs having only 1,259 registered elec-
tors. No man could say that this was a fair state of re-
presentation. The same anomaly existed also in Ireland.
Again, in the counties it was the same. In England there
were five counties returning ten Members, with a registered
constituency of only 16,296 ; while other five counties, re-
turning also only ten Members, had a constituency of
80,500 electors on the register. The same anomaly existed
in the county representation of both Ireland and Scotland.
Surely that was neither a full nor a fair system of repre-
sentation ? Ile had made an analysis of what the House
was now, and he was sorry to say it did not appear to be
any better than it was in 1793. He found that 331
Members, a majority of the House, was elected by 157,492
electors, or one-sixth of the registered electors. Was
that a system with which the people of England ought to
be contented ? They would not be Englishmen if they
did not grumble when they had such good cause, and he
hoped they would never be less.—( A laugh.) It was a
difficult matter to say to what extent the constituencies
would be augmented if household suffrage was granted,
but taking the census of 1831, he found there were
3,000,000 inhabited houses, arid his calculation was that
it would add about a million and a quarter. The people
were earnest in their desire for an extension of the suf-
frage, and had considered the repeal of the Corn-
laws of no consequence as compared with this question.
He thought they were wrong, but it proved how keenly
they were alive to the grievance which pressed on them.
When they saw the House upholding the few at the
expense of the many it was natural that the
unrepresented should feel it as a grievous burden.
When they found that 72 per cent. of the taxation fell
upon them, and that the rich paid but a trifling part of it,
was it not natural that they were dissatisfied and called for
a change ? In his opinion the Throne would never be
more safe than when it was based upon the affections of a
people, having a voice in the election of those who were
to make the laws they were to obey. He was afraid that
the peace of the country would be endangered if they did
not take up this question in a spirit of conciliation to the
great mass of the people. We had always legislated for the
rights of property, which be thought an erroneous
one. He would, therefore, move for leave to bring in a
Bill to amend the 2d of William IV., ch. 45 (tbe Re-
form Bill).

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE seconded the motion.

Lord JOAN RUSSELL said it did not appear to him
that this question had very considerably excited the atten-
tention of the House, and could nor very much wonder at
that when the proposition of the Hon. Member was not
that we should endeavour to establish a system of repre-
sentation on which we might securely rest, but that we
should take an intermediate step, to establish something
which in the course of no long time was again to be
changed. According to the statement of the Hon. Mem-
ber, one person in every five had now the power of voting,
and he then proposed that one in every three should have
that power, and if that was agreed to, a fresh motion would
be afterwards made for a reform of the representation as
he had amended it—a fresh application to the House to
change so narrow and limited a constituency. But there
was a demand from a great number of persons that the right
of voting should be given to every male person of full age
throughout the country. If that was the real state of the
public feeling, the real question of the House to
consider was, whether they would stand on the present re-
presentation, or adopt the proposition made by those
calling themselves the advocates of the People's Charter.
The lion. Member said that gentlemen might attempt to put
off the right of voting ; but that the people must finally
obtain it ; but if any one was putting it off, it was the Hon.
Member himself in making such a proposition as the pre-
sent. There might be grounds for maintaining the present
system, but there was nothing more likely to cause irrita-
tion than to propose household suffrage, and tell the
people that they were not fit for universal suffrage. He
would now go through some of the points on which the
Hon. Member had founded his proposition. The Hon.
Member had stated various reasons for extending the Re-
form Bill, by showing that there was a very extensive.
basis for our representation. He then went on to the ques-
tion of equality. If this was an evil it was one which was
apparent on the very face of the Reform Bill. When 16
boroughs were annihilated of course there still remained
many places represented which contained from 4,000 to 5,000
inhabitants. But the Hon. Member said when the Reform
Bill was introduced that it exceeded his utmost expecta-
tions, and would meet the general approbation of the
country ; and now, because he had found out what
appeared on the face of the Bill, he was anxious
to make the charges. The Hon. Member's plan, however,
would give no satisfaction to those who were the most
anxious for a change, and he (Lord J. Russell) did not
think that any plan based on mere numbers would give
general satisfaction. The Hon. Gentleman's plan was
totally incomplete. If-he proposed household suffrage
in boroughs he would introduce a great deal of bribery;
and if he proposed to divide it into districts a great change
would be required in the system. He had only one re-
mark to make, and that was as to the amount of taxation
and burdens under which the country laboured. The
greater part of those burdens were necessary, for the pur-
pose of paying the debt of the country. If they had a
Parliament elected by Universal Suffrage, one of the first
proceedings would be to relieve themselves from the legal
burdens which now existed. He (Lord J. Russell) always
said, when bringing forward the question of Reform, that
he did not wish to bring it forward as a question of distress
or prosperity, but he always believed that there would arrive
a day when numbers would say they were disappointed by
the Reform Bill, and would seek further changes.
If after establishing a new system of representation by a
great struggle, they went on to change the system, it would
be the means of shaking the confidence the people now
had in the institutions of the country. He should give his
direct negative to the proposition of the Hon. Member
as he should to any proposition founded on a similar basis.
Mr. GROTE said, in spite of the want of interest and
inattention to which the Noble Lord had alluded, lie must
make a few remarks on the present subject. He thought
the Honourable Member for Kilkenny had done great
service in bringing forward the statements which he had
done; and he would ask the Noble Lord whether such
statements were likely to raise the present system in the
estimation of the public. The topics urged by the Noble
Lord were those adopted by the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Tamworth, when the Reform Bill was
brought forward, and if the Noble Lord had been then
in his present state of mind, he must have gone out
against the Reform Bill.—( Hear, and a laugh.) If the
Noble Lord was ready to take his 'stand on the doctrine
of finality, it ought to be applied to all subjects, and then
they might close their doors against all discussion.—( Hear,
hear.) What argument had the Noble Lord adduced to
show that the persons proposed by the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny were not worthy to exercise the franchise ? If
there was no good ground against them, they had a right
to complain of not having been included in the Reform
Bill. He (Mr. G.) respected the Reform Bill, for the
rights which it conferred, but he did not respect it for the
the rights which it withheld.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member for Kilkenny alluded to many of the defects of
the Reform Bill, which the Noble Lord did not dispute.
If the Noble Lord admitted defects, was that not a good
reason for re-modelling the Bill?—( Hear, hear.) He
could have wished the Noble Lord to have entered more fully
into the question of extending the franchise to householders.
It surely was desirable that the electoral body should coin-
cide as nearly as possible with the entire people, and the
franchise ought not to be given to one man and withheld
from another merely from caprice. The great body of
householders under 101. were men who discharged the
obligations of private life with as much fidelity as others,
and instead of having an interest in defrauding the public
creditor, a great portion of them would be the greatest
sufferers by such a step, and be felt confident that no such
proposition would meet with approbation or acceptance
amongst them.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to their
want of intelligence, there was no class of persons who
took so much pains to cultivate their minds as the
industrious classes, and he could see no ground for
pronouncing a 101. householder to be more worthy
of the elective franchise than an occupier of 6/.
He thought it would be becoming in the Noble Lord to
expunge these anomalies, and not let them be enduring as
the solar system.—( Hear.) He would not enter into the
question of universal suffrage, to which the Noble Lord had
alluded, because it did not belong to the present subject.
He desired to reason this merely as a proposition to admit
householders under IN., as no good reason could be offered
why they should not be admitted, and nnder this conviction
he supported the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. D'l SRA ELI thought that the Honourable
Member in his speech had confounded the House of
Commons with the people of England. The House of
Commons was not the House of the People, and;never was.
—( Hear, hear, hear.) If the House of Commons was
the House of the People there would be no use in having
another branch of the Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) The
Honourable Member for, Kilkenny when he talked of the
people, referred to the electors of Kilkenny, and the Hon.
Member for the City of London, when he spoke of the
people, thought of his constituents.—( Hear, hear. ) The
Hon. Member for Kilkenny had talked of representation
and taxation going hand in hand.—( Hear, hear.) Where
did he find that maxim laid down ? Did he find it in

EVENING EDITION._

Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights ?—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member had no defined idea of what represen-
tation meant. The principle of representation did not
necessarily include election; there might be representa-
tion without election, as well as election without repre-
sentation.—( Hear, bear.) The Church of England was
represented in the House of Lords by the Bishops, but
no one would say that the Bishops were elected ?
( Hear, hesr. ) In his ( Mr. D'lsraeli's) opinion. the
Honourable Member for Kilkenny, was as ignorant of
taxation, as he was of representation.—( Laughter). He
could not find out what was the foundation on wh►ch the
Hon. Meinber based his motion.—( Hear, hear). Many of
the arguments that had been put forth by the Hon. Mem-
ber for London, were extremely ingenious, hut they had
no sound basis. Perhaps Hon. Members would
wish to follow the example of Prussia (Great
cheering) but if they did so, they would have
Normal Schoolmen fur Legislators.—( Cheers). All
these things might be very well, but they were
none of them within the English Constitution ; and the
question for the House was, whether or not they should main-
tain the English Constitution. When they talked of the House
of Commons being the House of the People, they were at-
tacking the English Constitution.—(Laughter, and cries
of " Hear, hear.") He was not anxious to enter into any of
the provisions of the Reform Bill, but when he found Hon.
Gentlemen taking their positions against the English Con-
stitution, he could not remain silent.

Mr. WARD said that the speech of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Maidstone contained two truisms—first, that
the House of Commons was not the House of the people—
( Cheering)—and secondly, election and representation were
not synonymous.—( Continued cheering.) On that ground
it was that the Hon. Member for Kilkenny had brought
forward his motion. He regretted that the motion should
have been submitted to so thin a House, because he felt
convinced that had the Hon. Member adhered only to the first
part of the motion, there would have been a much fuller
House. Many Members would have been prepared to have
gone along with him in that, but they could not accede
to the species of household suffrage which he had pointed
out. For himself, he (Mr. Ward) would go along with
the Han. Member for Kilkenny, and support him in a Bill
to amend the representation of the people. He would go
farther—he would support him in a Bill for the introduc-
tion of household suffrage; but he could not go to the ex-
tent which the Hon. Member had now proposed. The
Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, had taken the same ground that he had done
for the last two years, that of adhering to the finality of the
Reform Bill, in short he had created a new school of
politicians, who were called finality men. The object of
the Reform Bill was to put an end to the packed jnries
that had hitherto sat in that House, and it was to that jury,
created by the Reform Bill, that the lion. Member for
Kilkenny now appealed, for the purpose of seeing whether
the juries in that House could not be further improved.
The Reform Bill; and he was sorry to say it, was
not the Reform Bill that was introduced into that
House by the Noble Lord—it was a Bill muti-
lated in its most essential parts—it was a Bill
into which inconsistencies had been grafted by the oppo-
nents of the Noble Lord ; yet such a Bill, they were told
by the Noble Lord, was to be considered final.—( Hear,
hear.) It was against that principle the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny now called upon them to give their vote.
The franchise, as it at present existed, was too nar-
row. It was necessary, for the preservation of the in-
stitutions of the country, that it should be extended.—
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord alluded to the
universal suffrage question. With respect to that, he must
say the worst spirit was going abroad—hatred and envy
were breaking out among every class, because they consi-
dered they were shut out from the representation.—( Hear,
hear.) He was afraid that it would be very difficult to
control the spirit that was going abroad, unless it was done
by carrying some motion like that which had been made
by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny. Hon. Members
might laugh at the ideas of physical force—he knew it
might be put down, but he could not look forward without
great apprehension to the evils that might be inflicted by
attempts of that kind.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He trusted
that the motion of his Honourable Friend would receive
that consideration to which it was entitled on the part of
the House, and if that time was not now come, he believed
that it shortly would do so, when the subject would be
forced upon the consideration of the legislature.
Mr. P. HO WARD thought the Reform Bill ought to
be maintained in all its legal principles, though it might
be altered in its details—in his opinion the Reform Bill
had
_upon the whole been successful.—( Cries of " Oh.")
Lord J. RUSSELL said a few words in explanation.
Colonel SIBTHO RP had no desire t• get her Ma-
jesty's Ministers out of the scrape into which they bad
fallen.—(Great laughter.) But the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Kilkenny was so undefined and opened
a door so wide, that he had made up his mind not to vote
on the question at all.—(Laughter.) Having said thus
much, be would leave it to the Whigs and Radicals to do
what they liked with the measure.—(Laughter.) The
Gallant Member then left the House.
Mr. O'CONNE LL said that an air of ridicule had been
thrown by several Hon. Members upon the present subject.
Although it might be a subject that some Hon. Members
chose to treat in that way, it was not one that would be so
treated by the people. What was the state of the country
before the passing of the Reform Bill ? Why seats in that
House were private property, and were sold exactly in the
same manner as cattle in the stalls of Smithfield.
The intention of the Reform Bill was, to alter
the power of legislating by nomination. The people
abroad felt that there was a master class who bad
votes, and a slave class that had none.—(Great cheering.)
They excluded the artizan, whose property consisted of his
strength and vigour, and admitted those into the -House
who bad not so great a right to be admitted as those they
excluded. If Members opposite did not get up cries upon
religious subjects, and did not go into the boroughs with
then• purses well filled, would they have their benches as
they now were.—(Hear, hear.) This state of things
could not last ; and if the wild ravings of the Chartists
had not fortified them in their abuses—if they had not pro-
claimed principles which every one must abhor—if they
had not threatened them with physical force,instead of ap-
pealing to the common sense of the country—they had not
become exclutionists like some persons in that House,
there would have been a sober steady voice of the English
people declaring that the existing plan of representation
was formed on a ludicrous basis.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He had made these observations because he had felt it to
be his duty to protest against the mode in which this
debate had been conducted, and on behalf of the people Of
England, Ireland and Scotland to call for an extension of
the suffrage.__( Hear, hear.)

,
Mr. ANDREW WHITE said that he had lately pre-
sented a petition from Sunderland in favour of household
suffrage, and he cordially supported the motion of the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny.
General JOHNSON said that he had many years ago
stood up in that House in favour of universal suffrage, and
he begged to state that he had not changed his opinions.—
(Hear, hear.) He should therefore give his vote in favour
of the motion.

Mr. T. ATT WO OD said that although he was perfectly'
certain the great mass of the people of England did not
entertain those unjust and evil thoughts which a few mis-
guided:persons did, yet he believed they were determined
to accomplish a great change in that House, and he (Mr.
Attwood) would stand by them, but- they would pot
resort to any illegal measures.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
It was true that much injury had been done to the cause
of Reform and good government by the improper lan-
guage that had been made use of. That language bad
alarmed the timid, and bad offended the prudent, the wise,
and the patriotic, but it had not discouraged the bold, the
generous, and the brave.--( Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
The Reform Bill could not be a finality Bill, and had it
not been for the intemperate language that had been used
the demand for universal suffrage would have been more
general than it now was.—( Hear, hear.) As an honest
man, he must confess that if called upon to vote for the
abolition of the Reform Bill altogether, and to return to
the old system of rotten boroughs, or to go on as they had
recently done with the present House of Commons, he
would rather vote for the former; becauce he knew of ee
generous or manly feeling that had been entertained to the
great mass of the people of England.--( Hear, hear.) The
present House might represent the Aristocracy, it might
represent the landowners, but it no more represented the
working classes nr the Commons of England than it re-
presented the Commons of China.—( Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
Mr. HUME replied. He differed from his Hon. Friend
the Member for Birmingham, that the old boroughmonger;
ing system was to be preferred to the existing system 0;
representation, because that House had passed some good
measures, and all he wanted was that they should go op.
until every abuse was swept away. He wished that all
Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side had followed 01!
example of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lincoln, an
had quitted the House.—( Laughter.) Those on his (Mr.
Hume's) side of the House could have determined the,
question very well between themselves.—(Renewee
laughter.)
Stangers were then ordered to withdraw, nd the Hoes°
divided..
The numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

Majority against Mr. Hume's Motion —35 e
Mr. FRENCH then rose to move an humble address
presented to her Majesty, that her Majesty would y;
f
graciously pleased to direct measures to be taken 'of
securing to every province in Ireland the advantages b,
railroad communication. The Honourable Member 0„/.
served that, since the year 1817, the sum of 6,590,00.v0i
had been voted by that House for public works, of 011100
sums na less then 6,250,000/. had been expended lie
public works in England, and only 250,0001. on I' 0,
works in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) Want of internal Otbo
munication was said to be one of the great causes of try
miseries of Ireland, and yet three-fourths of that 6)1111
were to be excluded from the benefit of railroads. be
An HON. MEMBER here moved that the 0005-but
counted, and strangers were ordered to withdraw,
there being more than forty Members present,
t act'
Mr. FRENCH resumed—He quoted several el-rbere
from the Report of the Commissioners to show that tiol,
were large tracts of country in Ireland, almost 05etit if
from the want of the means of communication, and !'"hoiate
railroads were established it was impossible to eA'calancl
,
what the trade of those very tracts might be. In 'l3l;cere
railroads were made by private capital. because tlicYabso.
considered as safe speLlations, but in Ireland it was ~„ the
lutely necessary that that spirit should be fostered 'Jro the
national resources. Let them look at France, %/hcocting
national funds had been used for the purpose of conrosia,
the Mediterranean with the ocean. Look at „jar'.
L',o7where St. Petersburg was connected with the 0,--
Look at Holland and every nation in the civilised cans of.
they had all made great exertions to increase the 'waited
transport from one place to another. Had the_Yolations,
till private capital had been invested in such sr' pcters-
Holland would yet have been a swamp and
burg an inland town in place of an Imperial cow,
fact railroads were at the present day as necessaryr
hear.;
men roads were in the infancy of society.—( Elea to he
He moved that an humble address be preseuteracioosiy
Majesty, praying that her Majesty will b
pleased to tl.rect measures to be taken forescgcuriog to
,

'~ f
y~
~~

,