The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-04 00:00:00

not. He would come next to the vote by ballot. With '
the present constituency he was opposed to the -ballot,
although, to avoid the charge of inconsistency, he had
voted for it. He now came to the most important of all
—equal electoral districts. He held in his hand a digest
of the several cities, towns, and boroughs in England.
An HON. MEMBER here moved that the House be
counted, but there being more than forty Members pre-
sent the gallery was again opened.
Mr. O'CONNOR was reading an analysis of the re-
presentation, showing its inequalities. He wished to
know whether they would stop in the present stage of
progress? He came now to no property qualification.
They had fifty-three Members for Scotland, the Mem-
bers for the Universities, and the prodigal sous of
Peers, all without the property qualification; and what
right had they to insist upon the property qualification
in other Members? No man could vote for a Member
without a qualification for those very Members who
were admitted to that House without a qualification.
Could anything be more absurd? He now came to the
last of his propositions, the payment of Members.
Twenty-six Members sitting on the bench opposite re-
ceived as much per annum as would qualify the whole
requisite number of Members. He had alluded to the
six points, and advocated the Charter, because he be-
lieved that with it as law there would be neither idle la-
bour, idle land, or idle money.—(Hear.) He believed
that the working classes were fit for the suffrage, and if
they obtained it they would use it properly.—(Hear.)
If ever this country should be driven to a physical revo-
lution, the press of this country would be answerable
for it. In his opinion the laws of the country should be
ever leaning to mercy, but they had so framed their le-
gislation in that House, that they placed the other
classes in antagonism to the working classes. He had
now proposed his measures, and the proposition coming
from one who had been prosecuted for advocating these
measures, he felt that they might have been brought for-
ward with a greater chance of success had they been pro-
posed by any other Hon. Member. He would conclude
with saying that he should ever be for the People's
Charter, and no surrender.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the motion.
Colonel THOMPSON said, as one of those who was
concerned in the modern origin of the Charter, he

;hought he should be entitled to blame if he suffered
motion to pass without expressing his opinion. As
to annual Parliaments, he was in favour of annual Par-

liaments, on the principle that merchants balanced their
books at Christmas.—(Hear, hear.) But as to one prin-
ciple advocated by the Hon. Gentleman, that of the pay-
ment of Members, he begged to say that that was no
child of the modern authors of the Charter, and he, for
one, was opposed to it. He was in favour of vote by
ballot and the extension of the suffrage, and he should
vote in favour of the Hon. Member's motion.

Mr. HUME thought that reforms, to be efficient,
ought to be in accordance with the feelings of the coun-
try, and it was on that ground that he was opposed to
the Chartists. He could not, however, understand what
odium the Hon. Member could be subject to, as he said
he was, for advocating the principles he had put forth.
The standing toast of the Fox party and of the Whigs
for years had been, " That the people were the source
of all legitimate power." And he could not, therefore,
he repeated it, understand how the Hon. Member uaild
be subject to any odium for advocating the principles be
had enunoicted. He would, therefore, support the Hon.
Member's motion upon general grounds, and he thought
the time would come when the Government would see
the necessity of altering the constitution of that House.
—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the working classes,
it fairly treated, would be found to be reasonable, and it
was lamentable that the men to whom this country owed
so much—the artizans—should be deprived of those
rights to which they were entitled. These men had be-
come Chartists from a conviction that justice had not
been done them, and he was anxious that the Govern-
ment should so act towards them as to make them as
satisfied with their condition as they were now discon-
tented.—(Hear, hear.) He asked the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) to do that which he had often advocated—to
do justice to the working classes, and to place them in
the possession of those rights to which they were justly
entitled.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL could not vote for
the abstract proposition of the Hon. Member for Not-
tingham, and which the Gallant Colonel and the Hon.
Member who had just sat down had stated should receive
their support. For his own part, there were only two
of the principles involved in the motion to which he
could give his support, namely—the abolition of a pro-
perty qualification, and vote by ballot. He was of opinion,
however, that there should bo a large extension of the
franchise; and considering the unsettled state of the
continent, it would be wise that the earliest opportunity
should be taken to give a large body of the people, who
were now excluded, the possession of the elective fran-
chise.—(Hear, hear.) He was ready to admit that the
Reform Bill, when it was introduced, was a large mea-
sure, but he thought it was unfortunate that a large and
valuable portion of the community—the working classes
—had been shut out of its operation; and be would ven-
ture to express a hope that the Noble Lord would ac-
quire the additional lustre of so extending the franchise
as to include that valuable class to which he had alluded
within its provisions.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. THOMPSON said, in mingling with his fel-
low-citizens out of doors, he found that a remarkable
change was going on among them. while inahat House.

on the contrary, every dispositionwiisliciwiCti; narrow
the rights of the people. From the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) nothing, be believed, was to be expected.
Every declaration he made of resisting every attempt to
widen the basis of representation was loudly approved
of by the great body of Hon. Members, and it seemed
but too certain that the Noble Lord was resolved to
abide by his declaration of November, 1837, that it was
his determination to abide by the Reform Bill of 1832.
There was no country in the world in which the suffrage
could be extended with more safety than in this coun-
try.—(Hear, hear.) The people of England are not, as
in the United States, scattered in different localities, but
are united together in their different callings, and are
anxious for their rights, which the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. F. O'Connor) implies. He would call
the eCention of the House to the monstrous anomalies
in the representative system, and would refer to the
Tower Hamlets, which contains 419,730 persons, and
which sends only two Members to Parliament, while 65
English towns, containing only 419,259 inhabitants, send
93 Members to the House. Again, he would call the
attention of the House to the many boroughs where cor-
ruption prevails, in consequence of which he saw the
same Members returned at every election. This, he
considered, would be put an end to if the people had
those rights which the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. F. O'Connor) contended for. He recollected that
the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) advocated, in 1841,
the necessity of suppressing corruption, and he consi-
dered that the same opposition to so vile a practice was
as requisite now as then. He felt fully assured that
there are among the people of England many who would
be fit and proper to sit in that House, and would be
worthy of the interests and affections of the people, for
many of those men are most intelligent, and deemed fit
to be entrusted by their employers with their property
to a very large amount. He would centrist Manchester
rcraid beents of the
tho cause
peoplo, of lay
and
and the other towns of England, that had been enfran-
chised by the Reform Bill, with Bury, Harwich, Hors-
ham, and
not
characteristic
hyamr
aeo Regis,
tio w
of which
ing on the table of the House piles of volumes, which
the h
rights teis
which tend to show the state of the country. He should,
therefore, support the resolution, hoping that it would
obtain the majority of the House.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that he considered that the
motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, (Mr. F.
O'Connor), was not based on any distinct grounds, but
was mere abstract, and theoretical. •When the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), said that the interests of la-
bour were sacred, he did not mean to oppose that axiom,
bathe did not see how his motion would advance the inte-
rests of labour. He should, therefore, oppose the motion,
because he did not think that it would tend to the be-
nefit of the people. or of the constitution.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. F. O'Connor) had referred to his name, as having
been attached to the People's Charter. Of that act he
should say that he was proud, because he believed that
the true principles of the Constitution were contained in
that document. He considered that the interests of the
people were not fairly represented in that House, and
also that further reform was requisite. P.Le should,
however, say that he would be glad if the Government
would give them an instalment of the modification of
reform, such as the extension of the suffrage, it would
be most acceptable. He should, therefore, support the
motion.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said that, as an honest man,
he could not coincide with the Hon. Member (Mr. F.
O'Connor), though he agreed with the Honourable
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). It was beeause he
felt embarrassed in consequence of his formor vote on
the motion of the Hun. Member (Mr. Hume) that he
arose to speak, and he therefore felt it his duty to op-
pose this motion. He thought the ballot would be an
admirable ingredient in the system of representation;
but though he was anxious for an extension of the
franchise, he could not consistently vote for the motion.
Mr. W. J. FOX said it was objected to this motion
that it was abstract proposition, and would tie down the
House from modifying it. It was only an abstract ques-
tion, as was every general proposition. He regarded
the motion as an assertion of the right of representation,
which was the great principle of the British Consti-
tution. To show how far this principle was carried
out, he would refer to a paper moved for by the Hon.
Member for Marylebone, which gave the population
and the number of voters in the various cities and bo-
roughs returning Members to Parliament. He would
take two groups of boroughs from that paper. Taking the
first fourteen boroughs which returned 20 members, and
the last nine boroughs in the list, which also returned 20
members. In the first group each member was returned
by 172 electors out of a population of 3'366; and in the
next group each member was returned by 7,083 electors
out of a population of 107,824. Unequal as this was-
with regard to persons, it was equally so with respect
to property. It appeared that the difference of property
represented was as between 6,200,000/. and 78,0001.
He advocated a change in the representation, in order to
make the people satisfied and contented, to remove these
gross inequalities, and to remove just grounds of com-
plaint.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on a former occa-
sion he had stated his views upon this question, and he
would not have thought it necessary to address the
House but for the allusion which had been made to his
opinions. The Member for the Tower Hamlets said
that ee would resist every effort which might be made
to effect Parliamentary reform. That was not a fair re-
presentation of his conduct. The lion. Member referred
to a speech which he made in the year 1837. When in
that year he, as the organ of the Government, brought
forward the Reform Bill, the introduction of that mea-
sure excited great enthusiasm among the people, and
great alarm in the minds of others who ev, re not
favourable to the Bill, who were leternamed to upset
it. There were others who, although favour-
able to a reform in Parliameo4 onteMined