The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-21 00:00:00

JUNE 2f, 1848.

hear.) But we all know that the wealth of the country has
increased in a much greater ratio than the population :
what, then, becomes of the validity of the plea for political
change founded on the increase of taxation ?—(Hear, hear.)
The taxation per head in this country, in 1848, as compared
with twenty years ago, is greatly reduced in amount, but
there is another circumstance of importance to be taken into
account, namely, that there has been a great re-distribution
of taxation, and in every instance that re-distribution has
been in favour of the working classes of this country.,
Compare 1827 and 1847 with the two financial years of 1828
and 1848. The Customs of 1827 were under 18,000,000/. ;
they scarcely exceeded that sum in 1848. The Excise duties
in 1827 were 12,000,000/., they were not so much in 1848.
The stamps and taxes were nearly the same in both years.
There was an immense reduction in the revenue derivable
from the Post-office in 1847 as compared with 1827. There
was a reduction of more than 7,000,000/. in 1848 as compared
with 1828, aad a proportionate increase in the population of
this country. The rate of our Government expenditure
during the last twenty years, notwithstanding the immense
increase of population, commerce, and public wealth, has
been almost stationary ; the amount of our taxation has been
stationary. The popular pleas for reform are, therefore, slot
true.—(Hear, hear.) The pleas that have been, to-night, ad
7212145Ca711, repeated in every petition are utterly fallacious,
and it becomes those who offer those petitions to the House
to vindicate the accuracy of their allegations. We are
asked, in the first place, to increase the franchise. I lis-
tened with great respect to the Hon. Member for Montrose,
and I certainly expected to hear from the Hon. Gentleman
some principle laid down upon which the franchise was to
be
extended. Any person who proposes a change ought
certainly to lay down some principle on which that change
may be founded. I heard none from the Hon. Gentleman.
He told us that every man in England had a right to vote.
e talked about not confounding constitutional rights
with the rights of man. He did not, however,
show us the difference between constitutional rights
and the rights of man, but he said that a vote was the
right of a subject of the Queen. If it is the right of an
Englishman to have a vote, why is it necessary for the x
cise of that vote that the person should live in a
housee?"- (Hear, hear.) But then he must be of age, says the Hon.
Member. Again, he said that a person may be called up on
to serve his country, and not be more than eighteen
years of
age; and, therefore, he argued that every man twenty-me
years of age should have a vote.—(Laughter and cheers.)
if a man has a right to vote at twenty-one, I want to know
on what principle he has not a right to vote at eighteen ?
(Hear. ) The whole of the male population, says the Hon.
Gentleman, are liable to serve in the militia when they
arrive at legal age, and they must join the posse comitatus,
even when they are at school ; and, therefore, he pro-
poses this great change. But in doing so he has laid '
down no principle whatever. I cannot understand where
the line should be drawn. I observe in a debate not only in
"another place," but in another country, that some ridicule
was excited by a gentleman who advocated the rights of the
other sex to the franchise—(A laugh)—but as far as the
mere abstract reason is concerned, I should like to see anybody
in this House, who is the follower of the Honourable Gentle-
man opposite, get up and oppose that plan. I say that, in a
country governed by a woman, in a country where you al-
low a woman to form a part of the other estate of the realm,
English peeresses for example, where you allow a woman
not only to hold land, hut be a lady of a manor, and to hold
courts, where a woman, by law, may be a churchwarden—
(Laughter) I really do not see when she has
so much to do with Church and State, any one
reason for your withholding from her the right to vote.
(Hear, hear.) But the plan of the Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site at once disfranchises millions. Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site have spoken of the suffrage as " a trust." But Ido not
look upon it as " a trust" any more than " a right." It is
what everything in England is—it is a privilege.—(Hear,
hear.) It is created by law, as everything in England is
created ; the characteristic of our history has been, that it is
held out not as an odious exception, but as a general re-
ward.—(Hear, hear.) Well now, Sir, that brings us really
to the character of this House and the political order of
which we are the representatives. 'We represent the Corn-
mous, and the Commons are an estate of the realm. The
material of that estate is of course a question of policy, of
expediency, and it is perfectly open to anybody at any
time to discuss the question of what that order should con-
sist ; but it is an order, whether you make it a thousand or a
hundred thousand, or two or three millions, it becomes an
order, and a privileged order. The Reform Bill was a re-
construction of this order or estate of the realm. That was a
settlement most unsatisfactory to the House. And no one
can pretend that that settlement was carried with the full
support and sanction of the people of England.—(Hear. )
There is not tlib slightest doubt that if you had had universal
suffrage at that moment the measure would have been re-
jected. But you decided not only to have the Bill, and the
whole Bill, but nothing but the Bill.--( Laughter.) And
you got it. But when there has been a great settlement of
the question under such circumstances, is it unreasonable that
we, who agreed to it with reluctance, should insist that be-
fore any new scheme is sanctioned for the new settlement of that
great question, the newly-proposed construction should offer
a fair prospect of giving satisfaction to the people and se-
curity to the State?—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, 1 for one am
no advocate for finality; far from it. I cannot conceive that
there may not be circumstances or periods when we ought to
do that which which we have done for ‘OB years in this
country—reconstruct the state of the Commons. I acknow-
ledge that the last reconstruction, however unsatisfactory to
the lion. Gentleman and his friends, is, I believe, more satis-
factory to the nation than the plan which is brought forward
by the lion. Gentleman. Certainly, I cannot, in considering
this plan of the Hon. Gentleman, discover anything that
has a tendency to satisty the public heart. This is not at all
a project which is to enfranchise " the serfs of England" that
goes to the labouring classes, and says, " you shall take
your place in the political constitution of your country."
The Hon, Member for Montrose has brought forward a pro-
ject of which property, and property alone, is the basis.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I think that property is already
sufficiently represented in this House. I am prepared to
support the system of 1832 until I see the character and
constitution of the country occasion a new change.—(Hear,
hear.) Sir, in opposing the motion of the Honourable
Member for Montrose, I protest against being placed in the
category of those who advocate " finality." This proposed
change does not appear to me to be in any way adapted to
satisfy the wants of the age, nor to be conceived in the
spirit of the times. On this occasion I shall touch but
very briefly upon a second point, not because I have any
wish to evade that important part of the discussion—l mean
ballot. We shall have an opportunity of discussing that
question when the lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. 11. Berke-
ley) brings forward his motion. There is not the slightest
,;oubt that the adoption of the ballot in this country would
at once effect a very great alteration in the character and
habits of the people. And that I think would be a very
great evil.—(Cheers.) But before we argue the question of
suffrage and ballot, I am surprised that lion. Gentlemen op-
posite perpetually forget the immense element which, in dis-
cussions of this character, ought never to be omitted; and
that is the influence of opinion organized by a free press.
That is the best safeguard against corruption and intimida-
tion.—(Cheers.) You may have what laws you like, but
that is the means by which you can put an end to the intimi-
dation and corruption, as it eleyates the tone of public feel-
ing, and brings the influence of public opinion upon the
conduct of the great body of the nation.—(Hear, hear.)
Nobody can pretend that this is an age distinguished by its
corrupt practices; on the contrary, every Parliament that
has ever existed for the last fifty years has been less and
less corrupted.—(Hear, hear.) We have not, as was the
case seventy or eighty years ago, the Secretary of the Trea-
sury depositing a 500/. note in the hands of a Member in
the lobby for voting for a Ministerial measure, and then a
charge regularly made for such corruption under the title of
" head money,"—(Hear, hear.) All that was now asked
from the Right Hon. Gentleman who had filled that office
was " a pair."—(A laugh.) Sir, I shall not touch for a mo-
ment on the third point, short Parliaments. No one can sup-
pose that short Parliaments would occasion less expendi-
ture of the public revenue than long Parliaments. Moreover,
I shall net say a word against! the practice of triennial Par-
liaments, because it is a part of that old Tory creed which I
have consistently supported.—(Oh, oh, and cheers.) Did
not: Sir William Wyndham support triennial Parliaments
against a corrupt Whig Minister?—(Hear, hear)—and I:am
happy to see indications amongst the movements of the
people of this country which show that they are prepared
to rally round that part of the Tory creed. The only reason
why I object to it now is, that no Honourable Gentleman
has shown us the paramount necessity for a change.
But no one can for a moment suppose that the substitution
of a system of triennial Parliaments can have the least effect
on our policy or legislation.--( Hear, hear) And, there-
fore, I now come to the fourth point, which I admit is one of
very great importance. I allude to the proposition for elec-
toral districts. The Hon. Member for Montrose entered into
some details on the subject. I owe to the kindness of a gen-
tleman, who is unfortunately no longer a Member of this
House, my possession of the manifesto of the new party upon
that subject. Sir Joshua Wahnsley was so kind as to place
in my hands this publication, which he told me was the
manifesto of the new party.--( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I promised to give it as candid a consideration and attention
as possible. From this publication it would seem that the
county of Buckingham, which is said to produce an
annual rental of 674,0001., sends eleven Members to Par-
liament; whilst Lancashire, with an annual produce of
5,000,000/., sent only twenty Members to Parliament. Now
I admit that Buckingham has none of those great advan-
tages that attend the towns of the Manchester school ;
but Buckingham refused to pay the ship money, and car-
ried the grand remonstrance, and since the settlement of
our Parliamentary Constitution, in 1640, I believe Buck-
inghamshire has furnished this House with a series of
statesmen (Laughter) with a series of statesmen—
(Cheers)—such as have contributed more than the Members
sent from any other county to create the empire, sustain
the renown, and cherish the high spirit of the English
people.—(Cheers.) Buckinghamshire, however humbly it
;nay now be represented, has sent to the House of Commons
Hampden, Grenville, the elder Pitt, and Burke.—(Loud
cheers.) Now I ask the House, is it to be tolerated that a
population which, for centuries, have sustained the credit,
honour, and prosperity of England in such an eminent
degree, shall be destroyed for the purpose of adding to the
legislative importance of some great manufacturing towns,
born in a day, and perhaps vanishing in a day?—(Cheers.)
I see a great deal in these days about realised capital; but,
Sir, one of the most important elements in constructing the
suffrage of an ancient people is the realised experience of the
nation—(Hear, hear)—and to suppose that you can sud-
denly deprive a great section of the nation of those political
rights which they have exercised with honour and prospe-
rity to themselves and to the nation at large for centuries,
may probably lead to a civil war. Unworthily as Bucking-
hamshire may now be represented, I beg the House, in con.
sidering this question, to remember the great men through
whom it has heretofore had a voice in Parliament. Now, I
will show you who are the great men we are to anticipate,
from Manchester, for example. Here (said the Honourable
Gentleman, holding up Mr. Mackay's pamphlet) this is the
manifesto of the new party.
Air. HUME—That publication was printed before ever
any party was formed.
Mr. DISRAELI--That exactly confirms what was told
me by Sir Joshua Walmsley, that it was accepted and accre-
dited ; and, in fact, that this pamphlet was the origin of the
new party.—( Loud cheers front the Opposition.) The grea t
question which the new party had to deal with was, where
were they to get a leader?—(Laughter.) The doctrines of
the party had been laid down. Here is the pamphlet, by
Alexander Mackay, of the Middle Temple. The ideas
broached in it are, to be sure, strange and novel, but then
there is all the more reason that they should have an exile •
rienced leader. They must have a secretary—a managing
man—a whip for the new movement.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) We have the electoral districts all carved out, at
least upon paper. Manchester is to have seven instead of
two Members of Parliament. Now, only think of that.—
( Great laughter.) Why, Sir, since we have been in our
dreary opposition, there has been, no doubt, from many pecu-
liar circumstances, only one Member for Manchester.--(Loud
laughter.) My Right Hon. Friend has not said much either
as a Member of the Administration, or divested of that
position, although he has appeared in both characters during
the present session.—(A laugh.) My Right Hon. Friend
has been silent, or virtually there has been but one Member
for Manchester. There is difficulty enough at present. It
is hard enough to keep one Member in order. But, Sir, it
we are to have seven—if there are to be seven Richards
in the field—(Roars of laughter)—we must retire from
t tat goatest. Only think of saying to reply night after

night, and one after another, to these seven Manchester
Members.—(Renewed laughter.) Why, the bare idea over-
powers one. It would require one of the Parliamentary giants
of a bygone period to cope with so Herculean a
task. 13ut then Liverpool and Glasgow are to have the
same number. Conceive Liverpool and Glasgow each with
seven Members —( Lanhter)—all statistical Members.
(Roars of laughter.) And then Dublin is to have six. Now,
as there is always a petition against the Members for Dublin,
there will be constantly as a matter of course, six petitions
to be tried.—(Renewed laughter.) Well, then, Birmingham
and Leeds are to have five Members, and Bristol and
Sheffield four, and the metropolis is to return upwards of
forty Members.—( Hear, and laughter.) Such is a part of
the new system which we are called upon to carry out. This
new constitution is to confer as many Members for London
as all Scotland has at present, and the pamphlet asserts that
London is entitled to them in consequence of its populatiou
and wealth. The only objection to the new scheme is, that
when we get the men together, we may, indeed, have some-
thing called the House of Commons, but then, unfortunately,
this House of Commons will, probably, be neither able to
govern themselves nor the country, and the country would
not probably obey them.—(Hear, hear.) It is very easy
to form these plans, but their working out is quite
another matter. Why not go the whole length of
the Honourable Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox), and have
universal suffrage at once, for his speech led to that? We
have sufficient experience to know—recent experience—that
in a country, however civilised, however educated, when
you elect all the Members by universal suffrage. the people
may, after all that, laugh in their face.—(Hear, hear.)
What has happened in a National Assembly in a neighbour-
ing country? And Parliament is to be elected by this con-
stitution? Sir, I say at once, as it is the fashion to lay
down principles, that there is no such thing as governing
any European country, except by ancient and traditionary
influence, and great properties round which men may rally.
—(Loud cheers. ) These gentlemen may succeed—they
are doubtless sincere. I predict no results from their
theory which I do not think inevitably flow from it, but I
will again warn them that without traditionary influences and
large properties, it would be impossible to govern England
or any European country; and feeling in this manner, and
having experience to guide me, they cannot blame me if I
prefer the liberty which we enjoy to the liberalism which
is promised—(Hear, hear)—and think there is something
better than the rihts of man, and that is the rights of
Eng-
lishmen.—(Londeheers.) I have now attempted to demon-
strate that the measure proposed is crude, unsatisfactory, and
inefficient and does not, in fact, satisfy the real popular
longings
in this country.—(Hear, hear.)
show the House what is the real character and object of
g I have read—all Now, I want to
dthese measures--what they will lead to, and what are its
tisitiongers. Now, Sir—everything 1 have heard, and every-
the
mfly call it a popular movement—although they make
go to prove this fact—that although
concessionsthe in some points—though they may throw dust in the
House to observe
eyes of people—
less than yh
what
et t
th that,i class
sr
s thisa i
already
nothingadyd ne
a middle class I beg the
ass movement.—(Hear.) the
way of legislativewminoretnoer
enterprise. But do not let me be sup-
posed for a moment,. in anything lofthe middle classes,
as meaning anything disrespectful to
House more thoroughlyrespectful to them—no one in the
and their great achiven appreciates the urban population
what they have done for ents—l
am
well acquainted with
and I am opposed to any humanclass that,
nature and for civilization,
be predominant.--(Hear, hear.) from success, desires to
obligations to Honourable Gentlemen And we are under some
frank avowal—their ambition is opposite for their
hear.) They say the middle notcl concealed.—(Hear,
rior intelligence and wealth, and class
possesses supe-
superior, power. They tell us that jf ought to have
the north of England ought to govern thee country,
towns in
ing given us such fair warning of their intentions,9mitr. Hay-
mind them and the country of the consequences let me re-
former attempts in great legislative enterprises.Tof their
was the abolition of the slave trade, a measure thathe first
carried in total ignorance of the subject. That was your
first experiment at colonial reform. And the abolitionof our
slave trade ended in great disasters, and involved us in grthet
peril and difficulty, entirely from the crude manner invr-hieach
the affair was consummated. Well, next comes the Reform
Bill. I need not prove how they failed in Parliamentary
reform. The speeches on the other side of the house
to-night, and, indeed, the motion itself, clearly esta-
blishes
that failure.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, Sir, they
tried their hands at commercial reform, and carried it. It is
plain to any one that in that measure the interests of the
capitalists were completely studied, and the interests of the
labouring population whoolly overlooked.—(Hear, hear.)
Well, then the reform of the colonies was a failure—the re-
form of Parliament was a failure—the commercial reform
was a failure. Colonial reform has ended in colonial ruin.
Parliamentary reform has been, by your confession, a de-
cided failure, and as for the effects of commercial reform, I
have only to appeal to the pictures which you Tourselves
are continually drawing of the present state of England.—

(Hear, hear.) And what is the remedy for all this disap-
pointment ? A new scheme, which is to give seven Members
to Manchester and finance reform. The Noble Lord at the
head of the Government expressed his opinion that this is
not a popular movement. In that I agree with him. The
Hon. Member for Montrose says there was no agitation until
the Noble Lord said the people did not want reform, showing
the recent and unsubstantial character of the agitation—hav-
ing its rise in the captious expression of a Minister. But I
will tell the House how this affair has been arranged. In
consequence of the organization and agitation of England
by the middle classes a new profession has sprung up in this
country. The profession to which I allude was the result of
the organization necessary to carry out a great question.
Sir. a new profession has arisen, and that is the profession of
agitation.—(Cheers and laughter.) Well, Sir, when Hon.
Gentlemen cheer, do they deny my assertion? Do they
recollect the observation—
" Quemyes hominum secum attulit ad nos.
Grammaticus, Rhetor, Geometres, Pieter, Aliptes
Augur, Scheenobates, Medici Magi. omina novit
Grxculus esuriens in ccelum jusserie ibit."
—( Roars of laughter.) Perhaps 1 am wrong in saying that
profession is new to us. It is new to us. It existed in a
country, as this passage shows, as powerful, and, perhaps,
much more corrupt than England is at this moment. It is
this new profession, Sir, which produces what are called
"great questions," but when a great question is carried, it is
the ruin of the profession. (Great laughter.) The chairman
has no ehair to fill—the deputy-chairman cannot represent
his Hon. Friend—the committeeman has no business—the
pamphleteer has no pamphlet to write—the lecturer is idle,
and the orator is silent.—(Renewed laughter.) Therefore
the instant a great question is passed, the " profession" is
all anxiety to find out another great question.—(Ureiit
laughter.) I believe one of the most cruel things which the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for 'l'amworth ever did
was to have curtailed the labours of the profession too soon.
Before the ship collies into the harbour another should
always be looming in the distance.—(Cheers.) After the
last great exploit of the middle classes—free imports,
ludicrously called free trade—the " profession" felt restless
and hungry. The Hon. Member for the West Riding
having accomplished his purpose, like a great man, went
abroad.—(A laugh.) The profession should look about for
a new question—a great one of course—the one they turned
up was "perpetual peace," which they were fortunate enough
to bring forward just on the eve of universal war.—(Great
laughter.) It was a fatal mistake, and therefore, after one
or two foolish speeches, the question was coolly shelved.
And, Sir, the profession would have been at an utter loss
hut for this fortunate pamphlet.—(Laughter.) We have
now the great question of electoral districts, for the old ones
of extension of the suffrage were quite " used up," and it
was this plan of carving the country into districts that
gave a dash of novelty and zest to the whole thing. The
originators felt their way like the most delic ate artists, and
used the utmost finesse and dexterity, well knowing that
there was no kind of enthusiasm amongst the people for the
project. It is headed the "New Reform Movement." I may,
state that I take this report from a newspaper that is the re-
cognised organ of the new party, and avows itself to be so.
"New League Movement in Manchester.—lt is well known
that the members of the Anti Corn-law League have, ever
since the dissolution of that ;body, held occasional meetings
in Manchester." Did we not hear it constantly repeated
that the Anti-Corn-law Association was entirely confined
to that sole purpose? But now we see that, ever since their
last great success, they have been holding occasional meet-
ings, not knowing what to do.—(Laughter.) This is their
own account of the matter :—" Newhall-buildings, the
locus 9uo of which has already become famous, and the
site of which will hereafter be sedulously traced by the local
historian and the antiquary, is likely to have its celebrity
still farther enhanced by a new movement, of which a pre-
liminary meeting was recently held. It was attended by
Mr. R. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Mr. Kershaw, Mr. J. B. Smith.
George Wilson, Esq., the Chairman of the Anti-Corn-law
League, presided." The meeting which, we are told, was
private, and was merely preliminary, was intended to collect
the opinions of its members as to household suffrage, trien-
nial Parliaments, and equal electoral districts.—(Laughter
and applause.) It was ultimately agreed that a circular,
signed by the chairman, should be forwarded to all who had
supported the free-trade movement; that in this way the
public opinion might be obtained with regard to the points
under discussion. Public opinion, therefore, did not give
them the points—(Cheers)—with a view that decided mea-
sures might afterwards be taken by the public at large. The
following is the circular referred to :
" Dear Sir,—A number of gentlemen have met here to-day
to consider what steps should be taken to promote a more
cordial union of all classes of reformers in favour of an im-
provement in our system of Parliamentary representation.
They feel that increasing public expenditure and increasing
taxation are causes of the deepest anxiety, and they doubt
the possibility of any permanent remedy being applied
whilst the taxpayers are for the most part excluded from
direct influence in Parliament. I have been requested to ad-
I dress this circular to you to ascertain how far you think the
extension of the franchise to all householders, with the pro-
tection of the ballot, the more equal distribution of the elec-
Loralthep ower b means of electoral districts, mathe shortenin
of duration of Parliaments to a period not exceeding threeg
years, would afford a system of representation such as the
middle classes, now partially enfranchised, would generally
acquiesce in—(Laughter)—and which the unenfranchised
classes would accept as a substantial admission to their legi-
timate place in the Constitution. I shall be glad also to
know whether you think that at the present time a move-
ment is desirable—(Great cheering and laughter)—in favour
of the changes I have indicated, and if you are disposed to
co-operate with an association founded for the purpose of
promoting them. I shall be glad, also, to know what, so
far as you have ascertained, is the prevailing feeling of the
inhabitants of your town or district on the subject to which
I have referred.—(Shouts of ' Hear, hear.') The replies to
this circular will not be published—(Laughter)—and I will
thank you to favour me with an answer at your earliest con-
venience."
To this document there is appended the signature ofhaat
gentleman whomlwiellf notthe cwalelrddiseteinege d
would be a prostitution
would be offensive ; but I will say the well-knovrn George
Wilson.—(Hear, hear.) Now I have shown to the House,
at
srhi notorious, forfor thatt
documents,wit h theimt
the
eigwhay in are
testexawgigliecrhattihoens,equthoiteinggs theirfromg e
t e
up.—
wn
(Cheers.) But the remarkable circumstance in the present
movement is this, that it has not in the slightest degree
originated with any class of the people, even if the people
had been misled; for it is possible that there may be a po-
pular movement, and that movement an erroneous one.
But this movement is an erroneous one, and it is ra
fol) • ular —(Cheers.) The moral I draw—observing this
system of organized agitation—this system of playing and
faltering with the popular passions for the aggrandise-
ment of one too ambitious class—the moral I draw is this,
Why should the people of England be forced to find their
leaders iu these persons? The proper leaders of the people
of England are the gentry of England.—(Cheers.) 'Unless
they are leaders I see no reason why they should be gentry.
—(Renewed cheering.) It is because lion. Gentlemen are
negligent of their duties—it is because they are unmindful of
the duties of their high station—that this system of pro-
fessional agitation, so ruinous to the best interests of the
country, has arisen in England. It was not always so.
Honourable Gentlemen call themselves the country party.
That was the name once of an English party who were
the foremost to vindicate the popular rights. They
were the natural leaders of the people—the champions of
everything that was natural and popular. You may blame
yourselves, and yourselves alone, if you have allowed the
power which was entrusted to you by the constitution to
slip out of your hands, and to be exercised!for interests and
purposes other than the general good and the national

powre. When Sir William 'Wyndham was the leader of th
country party, do you think thitt he would have allowed any
chairman, or deputy-chairman, or hired lecturers, or pain.
phleteers, to deprive him of the hold he had upon the heart
and feelings of the people of England? Do you think that
he would hare suffered a measure to be brought forward
in this House as a class movement, and upon the avowed
basis of establishing for one class a predominance in
these lands ?—(Loud cheers.) Read Sir John Hinds
Cotton's speech on the motion for extending the suffrage
in the time of Sir Robert Walcole. He was one
of the foremost of the country party, and he never
thought of pairing off at halt. past eleven o'clock at night,
and allowing his country to be ruined.—(Cheers.) This I
must impress upon the minds of Hon. Gentlemen, that if we
are, as we may be, on the eve of troublous times—if it is
necessary that great changes should be made in the consti-
tution of the country, let these changes be effected by the
natural leaders of all popular movements—(Loud cheers).—
and then we shall find that these changes are not carried into
effect to accomplish the purposes of a middlieelass :Govan-
went, but the purpcses of an English Government--a
national Government—a Government of which we may be
justly proud and in which we may place full confidence. If
we are called upon to effect large changes, the power to
effect them will then still remain within the scope and
objects of the constitution. Because, notwithstanding the
sneers of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am not ashamed to tag
that I am ready to maintain the English constitution. I
do not mean by that merely the English House of Com-
mons, and still less any particular party in the House of
Commons, which some Honourable Gentlemen seem to con-
sider as comprising the whole of the English constitution._
(Cheers.) But I would carry into effect the chges that
may be necessary in the spirit of the English constitution--
that large and liberal spirit which would allow of all the
changes that are necessary, and yet would maintain the in-
stitutions of the country. I would not maintain the con-
stitution merely because it is swayed by an ancient mo-
narchy, mitigated by the power of a co-ordinate popular
estate, not because that constitution has planted the tree of
English liberty broad and deep in the land, or because it
is not dependent upon the will of an individual
or the caprice and passion of a great city, nor
would I maintain the constitution merely because it
secures due administration of justice, safety for person, and
respect for propetty—though these are all great and im-
portant considerations—but I would maintain it, because of
all existing politics, it is the constitution which most tends
to promote the happiness and elevate the condition of the
great body of the people.—(Loud and prolonged cheering.)
Mr. OSBORNE mov(d that the debate be adjourned.—
(" Oh, oh," and cries of " Go on.")
Mr. F. MACKENZIE asked if any arrangement had bee
come to for another night to continue the debate, as ha
found there was not another open night for it until the 19th
of July ?—(Hear, hear.) If, therefore, Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite adjourned now, it looked as if they were running away
from a division on their own motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUM.E said he did not wish to run away from the
motion, and appealed to the Government to give him an-
other night.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said in the present state of the
public business he could not comply with the request, bat
he had no objecettla that the House should go on with the
eebate.—(Cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN thought the Government must see that
this question excited one hundred times more interest than
the West India debate.—(" Oh, oh," and cheers.) He ad-
mitted there was a difficulty in having so many adjourned
questions,
t andund theerst
understanding
y remedy o
rby aresolution of h
h e thou gh t wouldt be House,
eithere,
by a act in
on the motion.
Ms.
debate was
ft
oo
rTI i
hmaedi
jtgo
aut
lhrl
nee
rlienwngtat, 1 is b
tuohtfe
nH
none oc
lne. a Arte
dloeomkf
obre
place,r
a' s
dspvaei
nse
icdohnet
adjourned nominvaAllystilDl FlEridmaEyNn,,esxt.l,AND.

Mr. C. ANSTEfrenewed his motion from yesterday, for
the papers connected with the dismission of the Judges in
Van Diemen's Land.
An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted,
and only 34 Members being present, the House adjourned at
a Quarter before Two.