The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-07 00:00:00

THE S

mark, which I am sorry he introduced, on the past career of
a man who has since distinguished himself in a totally dif-
ferent walk, and who would be as glad to forget what hap-
pened in the potteries as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
He did that to prove what I need not give an example to
prove, that a very good poet may be a very bad politician.
—(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Now, the motion of my
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose is for leave to bring
in a Bill to give votes to householders; his object is, that
parties who not only pay taxes, but who also pay rates for
the support of the poor, shall have a voice in the election of
Members. Now, one of the first difficulties of those who op-
pose such a motion ia, that we are in reality acting on the
theory that that is the franchise in this country. It is an old
constitutional theory that the people do elect the members who
sit in this House. Now, is that a sham or a reality ? If
there be one thing more evident than another, it is, that
the people of this country do not like shams.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Government of this country were what is called a
paternal or a despotic Government, desirous of first educat-
ing the people, and then handing over to them political
privileges, I could understand the present position of
affairs ; but the theory of the country is, that
the people have political power, and there is no one
on whom is devolved the responsibility imagined by the
Honourable and Learned Member (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd)
in his poetical flight, to exist somewhere, of educating
the people, or preparing them fur the exercise of the
franchise. If there had been any responsible party, I think
the work would have been done long ago. Well, now, what
danger can there be in giving the franchise to the house-
holders ? They are fathers of families, they are the people
who fill our warehouses and our workshops ; and who will
be endangered by their possessing the franchise ? Wheu
our institutions are talked of, it is commonly said that they
live in the affections of the country. Are you afraid that
electors will be adverse to monarchical institutions? Why we
constantly hear that the Queen sits enthroned in the hearts of
of the people.—(Hear, hear.) I have no fear as to the result
of extending the franchise. I do not believe that it will lead
to any change in the form of Government ; and I sincerely
hope that if there is to be a change in the form of Govern-
ment, I shall not live to witness it, for the existing genera-
tion could not reap the fruits of any change of that kind.—
( Hear, bear.) I do not believe that the people of this coon-
country desire any change in the form of Government. Nor
do I join with those who think that if the people had the
wide extent of suffrage which is proposed, they would alto-
gether, or in any a great degree, change the class of persons
from which they select their representatives. I tell you can-
didly that I do not think it would make any great
change in that respect. The people would choose
their representatives from the easy class—the men of
fortune—as they do now. But I will tell you what
I think would result from the change of which I speak—
I believe it would bring not only the legistion of
this House, but the Executive Government also, into
greater harmony with the wants, wishes, and interests of
the people.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that if the people pos-
sessed household suffrage they would advocate a severe
economy in the Government of this country. I do not mean
to deny that a wide extension of the suffrage might
not be accompanied by some mistake, for the liability to
error must always exist where there are great masses of
voters, but I have a conviction that the electors would not
make a mistake in the matter of economy and retrench-
ment—(Hear, hear)—and I have an equally firm persuasion
that the taxation of the country would be more equitably
levied. Well, now I ask what are the two things which
are most wanted in this country at the present time ?
W hat are the two things which the wisest political econo-
mists, and the greatest philosophers, if they sat down to
consider the dangers and the destinies of this country,
would regard as the most pressing necessities of our day?
Why a great reduction in the expenditure of the country,
and a more equitable apportionment of its taxation. By
a more equitable taxation, I mean that the taxation
should be largely removed from the indirect sources from
which it is at present levied, and more largely imposed on
realised property. I believe that that is one of the objects
which the people at large would accomplish.—(Hear, hear.)
The very instinct of selfishness would induce them to aim
at this, and that is one of the things which is wanted for the
safety of the country. Now do not let any one misrepresent
me. I do not mean to say that all taxation should be levied
upon property—l would do no injustice to any one—but this
I do maintain, that you should relieve taxation on consum-
able articles by reducing the Custom and Excise duties; that
you should diminish the duty on tea, on coffee, and on wine,
and, if you possibly can, remove every exciseman from the
land ; and I believe that the selfishness, to designate it by no
higher name—the selfish instinct of the great body of the
people, would, if they had the power, and could bring their
will to bear on the question, lead to the accomplishment of
those objects which it is so desirable to have secured in this
country. Where, then, is the danger of giving to the
people of this country their theoretical share of political
power? We shall be told, as we have been, that we should
not settle the question by granting household suffrage. I
admit it. You cannot settle any question for ever by legis-
lating in 1848. Nobody can tell what another generation
will do, or what another Parliament will do. But will any
one tell me that if you include in the list of those who are
enfranchised the householders of this country, making the
number of voters from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000, instead of
800,000, that will not have the effect of greatly conciliating
the mass of the people to your institutions, and whatever dis-
affection might afterwards exist—and on that point I differ
from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just spoken
—that disaffection would not be se dangerous after you had
thus extended the basis of the franchisee—(Hear, hear.) I
do not think, however that the household test would produce
discontent. The household test is not a test of property.
Your present test is a test of property. It is a test of pro-
perty inasmuch as you say, .‘ you shall pay 101. a year, or
have no vote." The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
expended a great deal of eloquence on the subject of electoral
districts. When you approach this subject with a determina-
tion
to deal with it in the cavilling spirit of a special pleader
—singling out the isolated phrases or chance words of an
opponent, instead of treating the subect in a broad point
of view— it is very easy to raise an outcry and to pre-
judice the question.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and loud
laughter.) As I understand my Honourable Friend the
Member for Montrose, what he desires is, a fairer apportion-
ment of the representation of the people ; and when he said
that he did not want parallelograms or squares, separating
people unnecessarily from their neighbours I quite coincided
with him. Any Member approaching this question in a
proper spirit may deal with it without resorting to any such
disruption of ties. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman would
lead us to suppose that we are proposing to cut up some an-
cient landmarks, something which has existed from the time
of the Saxons. He forgets that the Reform Act cut up
counties into two parts, and enlarged all the boundaries of
the country,—( Hear.) I will meet him fairly on that ques-
tion, and I will undertake to show that what my Honourable
Friend wishes to do may be done without removing the
boundaries of a single county, or of a single parish. I
must here say, that I consider this question of the reappor-
tionment of Members to be the most important question
before us.—(Hear.) When you ask use whether I would
have a man vote at twenty-one years of age—whether
he should vote for six months residence or for twelve
mouths—whether he should be a householder or
a lodger—there is no principle which I can
fall back upon in order to assure myself that I am right in
my view, I agree with those who say that they do not
stand on natural right at all. I know of no natural right
that I have to vote for Members of Parliament. 1 have a
legal right, and of that legal right six-sevenths of my fellow
countrymen are now deprived; but I _know of no natural
right whatever. And if I wished to cavil with an advocate
of universal suffrage, I should deal with him as I once good
huinouredly did in private with one of the men who drew up
the Charter. This man urged me to support universal suf-
ovfefoatgpern making
einocinitiek, groundheinagndt if
elaws
by
h of principle. I said, " If it is a ground
the
whichbe
they
yt
aarlel should
governed,ha
have
whya
shouldeffice at ycohuurreefhusweatrdeoaellg a woman to vote or to serve the
"
favour of allowing women to We
vote,ll hbeutrtelfelie " I
propositionwas in
was
rejected."—(Laughter.) " Why, then," said I, "you are as
unprincipled as I am : you gave up your principle, and
adopted expediency." But to return to the question of the
reapportionment of Members. I say, there I have a prin-
ciple before me. I say, that whatever franchise you have—
with 101., 201., or household suffrage-..the representation
ought to be fairly apportioned. Now, what is the principle
on which you proceed? I will not take the principle of po-
pulation, because I am not one of those who advocate uni-
versal suffrage. I will take the ground of property, and
there is not a man in this House who can stand up and
say a word in defence of the present system. The Hon.
Member fur Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has alluded
in playful terms to the representation of Manchester and
Buckinghamshire, and he joked at the idea of Man-
chester having seven representatives. I must frankly
say, that judging from the qualities of the two men
whom Manchester has already sent to Parliament, I
should be very glad if we had not only seven such, but
seven times seven.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I want to
know from the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire; on what
principle he would propose to apportion the Memomfabuneperwhsesaortfasetr i
this
House. I will compare his own favourite county of Buck-
Inghamrentalghof
1,200,0001. The assessment on real property in Bucking-
assessed
the
Manchester.poor-rate atTh an ebo
annualrou
population of the former is
2h4aomxiscoli
oi e
that
hi is t 706f0t,
"e'
hlatterT 10,000. Buckinghamshire has
; I
eleven Members, Manchester two. Bear in mind that the
does not include
11
assessment in . the case of Manchester
the value of machinery. On the other hand, I admit, for I
do not wish to state the case unfairly, that the annual value
of land represents.a larger real value than the annual value
of houses. But when you bear in mind that in Manchester
! machinery is not valued, and when further you take into
account the enormous amount of accumulated personal
property in Manchester, which, though it is not valued,
pays taxation and sustains the commerce of the
country, I think you will allow that I am not misrepresent-
ing the matter when I say that Manchester has double the
amount of property to be found in Buckinghamshire. You
must also remember that while the labourer in Buckingham-
shire receives about I la. per week, the skilled opera-
tive of Manchester receives twice'that sum. This is not a
question, however, between the people of Buckinghamshire
and the people of Manchester.—(Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion to be decided is not whether the men of the former
should or should not have rather more power than those
of the latter. If the middle and industrious classes of
Buckinghamshire had rather more power than the same
classes in Manchester, the evil would assume a mitigated
form.—(Hear, hear.) But when I come to look at this
darling county of Buckinghamshire, I find that tke eight
borough Members are so distributed as, by an inge-
nious contrivance, to give to certain landowners power
to send their nominees to Parliament. I will undertake to
show that three individuals in Buckinghamshire nominate
the majority of the Members ; and if called upon to name
them I can do so. What is that but these three individuals
having the power to send Members to Parliament to tax the
people of Manchester?—(Hear, hear.) When this matter
was alluded to before. the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
treated very lightly and jocularly the right of Manchester
to send its fair proportion of Members to this House ; and
that jocularity was cheered with something like frantic de-
light. I venture to tell the House that that is the last time
that the argument can ever be so received. I stand up for
Manchester, and I say that it has a right to its Lair propora
tion of the representation of this country, taking as the
basis, not its property, and not its population ; and I ask
why should men who are engaged in ministering to the
power and greatness of the country in the four quarters of
the globe be deprived of their fair share of political powers,
aye. and not only deprived of their right, but mocked, jeered
at, and insulted by the nominees of landowners ?—(Hear,
hear.) Now, take my own case, and that of the West
Riding of Yorkshire. There is not a man of property
in this House who will not go away in favour
of a fresh appointment of Members as far as that Riding is
concerned. The annual rent is there 3,L711,000/. The an-
nual rent in Wiltshire is 1,243,0001.—0ne third of the amount.
They each return eighteen Members; but six of the boroughs
in Wiltshire are actually put down in " Dodd's Parliamentary
Companion," as openly, avowedly, and notoriously under the
influence f certain parties, who nominate the Members.
Why should not the people of the West Riding have the
same proportionate share of political power as those of Wilt-
shire? Is there anything about a Yorkshireinan which refl•
ders him less capable of taking care of himself than other men
are ?—(Laughter.) I hold in my hand a list of ten boroughs
each returning two Members to Parliament. On the same
list I have ten towns in the Asa Riding, whish do not ro-

turn any Member, and the place having the smallest popula-
tion in the West Riding has a larger number of inhabitants
than the largest of the boroughs returning two members. If
there was a fair apportionment, the West Riding would have
at least 30 members instead of only 18. This isnot a question
between the people of the West Riding and the people of Wilt-
shire. Whatever representation Wiltshire and Buckingham-
shire are entitled to should be secured to them ; it should
not be a mock representation, like that of Great
Marlow, where an Hon. Member owning 120 houses comes
in with his cousin, or like that of Aylesbury and other
places. Something has been said about Middlesex. Now
Middlesex is assessed upon an annual rental of 7,584,0001.;
Dorsetshire at an annual rental of 799,000/. They both
have fourteen Members. The amount of money actually
raised for. the support of the poor in Middlesex is as large,
within 61., as the whole amount of property assessed to the
poor in Dorsetshire, yet they have the same number of
representatives. Look at the rental of Marylebone-
-1,660,0001. a year is there assessed to the poor, being more
than the assessment in two counties returning thirty Mem-
bers? Will any one tell me that the metropolis is not en-
titled to its fair representation in this House, according to
the amount of its property ?—( Hear, hear.) I believe the
Noble Lord the Member for the city of London in his speech
intimated his doubts as to the propriety of giving to the
metropolis so large a number of representatives as they
would be entitled to upon a fair system of representation. I
am surprised to hear such an opinion Irons the Noble Lord.
I think he might be quoted as an eminent example,
proving that the people of London may be trusted
with the franchise to the full extent.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord has been elected in the city of London under
household suffrage. There is not a louse within the walls
of the city which has not a vote attached to it. Where,
then, is the danger of giving to the metropolis its full share
of political power? I believe that large cities, and the me-
tropolis especially, are inore qualified than any other part
of the empire to exercise the right of voting, because they-
generally comprise the most intelligent and industrious por-
tion of the peos le. The inhabitants of the metropolis are, I
conceive, the hardest-working people in England. Well,
now. when Hon. Gentlemen talk of a large community
sending inure Members, they have an idea that a great mob
is to elect the Parliament. My idea is that you make a
mob of your London elections, by making the constituency
too large. Take, for instance, the Tower Hamlets, with
420,000 inhabitants, and Finsbury with 200,000 or 300,000.
If you wish to give a fair proportion of Members to dif-
ferent parts of the metropolis, and to lay out the whole
of it in wards as you do for the purposes of the civic
elections, the whole would be more easily managed. And
do not be alarmed by the supposition that they would return
only Radicals; you would have some districts sending
Conservatives, and others would be more liberal. The idea
of danger from giving a fairer share of political power
is a chimera. I do not say that there should, on the whole;
be an increased number of Representatives; I think we have
quite as many in this House as we ought to have—(Hear,
hear)—and, therefore, I will assume that if you give a
larger number of Representatives in some places, you would
diminish the number in others. Wherever the power is, to
that power the Government will gravitate. The power is
now in the hands of the large proprietors in this House.
It is they who govern the country—it is they who
rule the Prime Minister of the day : and I say that if
the voice of the great mass of the people were heard in
this House, the Prime Minister might rely on the country
with more security and satisfaction.—(gear, hear.) Now
on the question of the ballot I will say very little,
because the ballot stands at the head of those questions
which are likely to be carried in this House.— (hear,
hear.) I mean to say that the ballot has the most strength
amongst the farmers and the middle class of people.—
(Cries of " Oh, oh !") It is not the farmers who say
oh, oh, those who do so are landlords; the farmers are in
favour of the ballot, for instance those of Lincolnshire.—
(Hear, hear.) The most ridiculous of all the arguments
urged against the ballot is that it is un-English. I say that,
so far from that being the case, there is more voting by
ballot in England than in all other countries. This is a
country of clubs, of literary societies, of charitable institu-
tions, and of popularly governed infirmaries and hospitals ;
and in all such institutions voting by ballot is constantly
practised: and when men who come fresh from the Carlton
Club. with the ballot-box ringing in their ears, and say that
balloting is un-English—when those who resort to the
ballot-box in order to shield themselves from a passing frown
—oppose the ballot on the ground that it is un-English—
when it is asked as a protection to the former, not merely
against the frown, but the tyranny of his landlord—l say
tkat such a course is preposterous. Something has been said
by the Prime Minister about preferring one year to three
years for the duration of Parliaments. Now, I think I could
suggest an improvement upon both. If you adopted the
system which prevails in municipal bodies, of letting all
serve for three years, and one-third go out every year, you
would thus have an opportunity of testing the opinion
of the country, and avoid those shocks and con-
vulsions you all so much dread. Now, one word in conclu-
sion, on a subject to which the lion, and Learned Member
and the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire have both re-
ferred. It has been complained that leagues and associations
are formed out of doors, and would be further encouraged by
this alteration. Remember that whatever has been done to
break down barbarism and abominations of every kind in this
country, has been done by leagues and associations out of
this House. And why is this so ? Because Manchester can-
net have its fair share of representation in this House, it is
obliged to organize a league which is heard through the
length and breadth of the land. This is the indirect way in
which Manchester makes itself felt, and will do so, by one
means or another, in proportion to the power which it ought
to exercise. Do you want to get rid of these league agita-
tions out of Parliament ? Why, then, you must bring
this House into harmony with the opinions of the
people. The abolition of slavery and other great
triumphs which have been achieved are your glory
and exultation at this present moment. But is it
not a most cumbrous machine--a House of Com-
mons, representing the people by a fiction ' • the people out of
doors obliged to organise themselves into leagues and asso-
ciations to do your work! There is a league or !association
at Liverpool, at the head of which, I believe, is the father of
the Right lion. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr.
Gladstone). The object of this association is to effect a
reform in our national expenditure. This House is, par
excellence, the guardian of the people's purse; its primary
duty is to administer taxation justly, and to take care that
expenditure is properly managed; yet here is an association
to compel it to effect that object. Now, Sir, it is not with
a view of overturning our associations that I advocate this
reform in our representative system. It is because I believe
we must carry out reforms from time to time by discussions
iu this House that I take my part in advocating this mea-
sure in this legitimate manner; it is because I believe it
must be so done, or else must be done as they do it on the
Continent, with bayonets and muskets in the streets.
Now I ant not an advocate for any such pro-
ceedings ; and I say that those Members who, having
a political standing in this House, 'advocate an
extension of the suffrage at this moment, are
the real security for the peace of this country.
So long as the great mass of the people see that there are
men here who are earnest in advocating a large reform like
this, they will wait patiently. They may want more ; but
if they believe that those are honest who are trying to obtain
thus much, in that belief we have a guarantee for the peace
and safety of the country which I value as much as any
Conservative in this Hotese.—(caeess,) Sir, my object in
supporting this motion is to bring to bear upon the legisla-
tion of this House that talent and those virtues which have
characterised the middle and industrious classes of this
country. For, talk as you will of classes-1 do net wish to
go into that question—but if you talk of your aristocracy
and your traditions, I must speak of the middle and indus-
trious classes; and I say it is to them, after all, that your
glory is due.—(Hear, hear.) The whole of what has been
done for the last 150 years Co elevate this country has been
the work, not of the Government, but of the middle and in-
dustrious classes, whether we look at arts, manufactures, or
commercial enterprise; and it is because I wish to bring the
virtues, the industry, the intelligence, and the frugality of
those classes into this House that I support the motion.
Mr. URQUHART said, that in looking at this subject
the country had now the advantage of experience, which
they formerly had not ; for on the great occasion when the
Reform Bill was brought before the House, they had hope
of improvement to induce them to proceed with the move-
ment, and could not of necessity have had any experience
as to the operations and proceedings of a reformed Parlia-
ment. The House had now the advantage of experience,
and taking that as his guide, he (Mr. Urquhart) was bound
to express his opinion that reform had not mitigated the
evils which it was introduced to alleviate, but had aggra-
vated them. The failure of the Reform Bill in producing
the benefits which had been expected to result from it, was,
in fact, the greatest which had ever been witnessed in any
civilized nation. It had been stated that, in a financial
point of view, the present House of Commons was useless,
and that was the ground which he urged for a new reforma-
tion of the representation ; but that argument went against
the lion. Member's own view, for it seemed that the re-
formed Parliament had not been efficient in carrying out
economical views. His (Mr. Urquhart's) opinion was, that
as a former reform had not reduced the expenditure or proved
advantageous in a financial sense, so the proposed reform
would, it carried, also be found ineffectual in producing fi_
nancial advantage. The fact was, that in the conflict of
parties which took place in that House, the advocates of
practical measures fell asleep, and forgot their plans of prac-
tical reforms and improvement. He saw opposite a great
advocate fur reform (Mr. Hume), who at one time was to
be found urging on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or at
the elbow of some clerk of some public department, make
reductions; but what has lie done of late to effect that re-
trenchment of which he was such an advocate? A great
deal had been said about a reformed Parliament, and
yet they had increased the expenditure of the country,
while the Tory and unreformed Parliament had re-
commended reductions ; and, in 1828, a motion in
favour of a reduction of expenditure was carried in an un-
reformed House of Commons, a Committee of Finance was
appointed, and the Hon. Member for Montrose said that it
was not a reduction of 15 or 16 millions merely which was
required, but such a reduction of expenditure as would leave
a surplus calculated seriously to reduce the national debt.
The Hon. Member added, that if the country did not effect
that reduction it did not know what it was about, and added
that a country must be mad which did not pay proper regard
to reductions, and which did not in a time of peace look to
the expenditure which would be necessary in a time of war.
That Committee was granted by an unreformed Parliament,
but what had been done of late by the reformed Parliament
to carry out these views ? He (Mr. Urquhart) would re
nrind Hon. Members that the economy which would apply
to individuals would apply equally to nations, and that
the same principles must regulate both. The reformed
Parliament had been spoken of as the friend of retrench-
ment, yet the expenses of the
country had in-
creased ; whilst Mr. Canning and „,„. Huskisson, in the
unreformed Parliament, were eminently the friends of re-
trenchment ; and the Right Honourable Baronet the Mem-
ber for Tamworth was in favour of a financial reform before
the passing of the Reform Bill. In 1835 the public expen-
diture was brought to a low point, but it had
continually increased since, until it now reached the
highest point to which it had ever attained in England,
unless in time of war. The Honourable Member who had
introduced this motion, and those who supported it, had
spoken of the will of the public having a proper influence ;
but to show in how far further reform would effect this
object he could inform the Honourable Gentleman that he
(Mr. Urquhart) tied spent a great portion of his life in
despotic countries, and he saw that what was often
mere declamation here was real there, and that nothing
of public importance was dune without the will of the
people in fact, that when they said a public Act was
wrong, it would be as impossible to maintain it, as it
would be wrong in this country to persevere in violating
the decencies of life against the good-feeling of the com-
munity. What had the Reform Government done in the
way of reducing the
expenditure ? No less then forty-
two millions had been lost up to the present day by
departing from the lessened system of expenditure in 1835,
and including the loss which had occurred from not adher-
ing to the recommendations of the Committee of 1817, the
loss in both ways up to this present day would be 80 mil-
lions. The expenditure had increased under the Whigs—
they had exhibited a deficiency while the Tories had a sur-
plus ; the Tories left a full revenue, and those who were now
in office exhibited a deficiency of nine mill:ons in three
years. He was opposed to the motion as one which was cal-
culated, if carried, to be detrimental to the interests of this

country, and to divert public attention during its discussion
from the real and practical good of the nation ; and in doing
so be firmly believed that he was a greater friend to the inte-
rests of the country in opposing it than those were who sup-
ported the motion. He looked upon the liberties of the
nation as sacred, and he thought that they could be only
preserved by not giving a preference or predominance of
power to any class in the state. He was opposed to this
motion, for he looked upon these additional reforms
as a means of extending the basis upon which some
of the usurped powers of Parliament were established.
It was no argument in favour of the measure that the people
of this country were in favour of it. There could not be a
more loyal population than that of the Channel Islands, and
vet they were not ambitious of sending Members into that
House. To remedy the evils complained of there was but
one course, and that was to go back to their duty as
representatives of the people, to refuse to assent to any
measure which was not strictly demanded, and not to suffer
a single penny to be expended unnecessarily. These duties
they had neglected entirely. Judging from past experience,
he considered that it would be worse than useless to pass a
new Reform Act, and lie therefore begged to move the
tollowing amendment :—" That experience has shown that
change in the constitution of Parliament has failed to obtain
the ends for which it was desirable. and with which it was
~riginally conjoined, viz., non-interference and retrench-
ment."

Mr. ANSTEY seconded the amendment, which he con-
sidered would have stood better if the word " desired" had
bee❑ inserted for " desirable" ; however, he would ac-
cept it as it stood. A more extensive measure than that
sow dreamed of had been submitted at the desire of the late
King to the Grey Cabinet, and it was the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government who had cut it down and
mangled it into the shape of the present Reform Act.—
( Bear, hear.) He had heard with great pleasure the state-
ment of the Honourable Member for the West Riding of his
motives and his views in supporting the present resolution
which, as the Honourable Member had stated, was only to
obtain chrap and good government. He could not help,
however, entertaining suspicion at anything coming from the
school of which the Honourable Gentleman was a member.
He found him "et dona ferentem," especially when he remem-
bered a speech which he delivered, in which he referred to
the example held forth by the United Slates of economy and
other excellent qualities, which, he said, should be imitated
by the Government of this country. "If," said the Honour-
able Gentleman, " these changes are said to be incompatible
with the maintenance of monarchy, then I answer, economy
and retrenchment, runt ccdum." For his part be would desire
that they should know the real object sought to be obtained.
They should not be told it was one thing, when ill reality it
was another. If the Honourable Member for Montrose
would bring in a Bill for the repeal of the Reform Act, he
would second the motion.

The amendment having been put,
Mr. L. RING asked the indulgence of the House for a
very few moments. lie should not occupy them by replying
to the two last speeches, the subjects and results of which
were equally ill. timed. He would rather refer to the speech
of the Learned Member for Reading, who appeared to have
forgotten the old principle of the law of England, that every
man who was taxed ought to be represented. Now since
the passing of the Reform Act the intelligence of those who
were not represented had increased in a most surprising
manner. Commerce, shipping, steam navigation, railways,
had all contributed to this great result. The central dis-
tricts of England were inhabited by a class of intelligent
men earnestly desirous to be admitted to a participation in
the franchise. For his part, he had no fear of admitting such
a class within the pale of the constitution. Such a measure
would do far more for the peace of the country than any
Gagging Bill introduced, even as he hoped the last was, as a '
temporary measure. What saved this country in 183'2 but the
Reform Bill? Contrast England with France now, and mark
the distincoion between the nations, the one which had passed
a Reform Act, whilst the other had engulfed herself in revo-
lution. He wished to see the principle of our Reform Act
carried out. The small boroughs must form the schedule A
of a new Bill. They were the disgrace and the laughing-
stock of the country. It was said that men of talent found
their way into the House by their agency ; but had not the
people an interest in returning the best men, and was it not
possible that selfishness and corruption found their way into
Parliament equally with talent through this machinery ?
The instances of corruption in these boroughs largely called
for an exension of the franchise. He thought it would
have been better if the motion had been confined to that
object. As he was called upon, however to say "Aye," or
"No," to a mere general proposition, he:had no difficulty in
giving his assent to it.—(Cheering.)
Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR said it was an admitted
fact that every new political party and every new political
question went through a certain ordeal. First, the leaders
were laughed at, then scoffed at, then reviled, then persecuted,
then their proposals were heard, then discussed, and after-
wards legislated on. This motion and its treatment by the
Prime Minister of the Crown gave him a guarantee that he
and his brother Chartists had not laboured in vain. The
speech of the Hon. Member for Reading had been much be-
praised. It had been called able, poetical, astounding, and
astonishing—(A laugh)—but it seemed to him to be a
speech based upon ignorance of the question. The Hon.
Member wanted education, but political rights must pre-
cede it. Enfranchise the people and ignorance would be-
come a crime; but do not keep the people in ignorance and
punish them because they were so. The Honourable Mem-
ber for Montrose said that this motion was the motion now
adopted by the majority of the working classes of this coun-
try. lie (Mr. O'Connor) should be unworthy his place in
Parliament if he did not give the flattest denial to the state-
ment. The majority of the people were for the people's
Charter in all its integrity. He cautioned the Member for
Montrose and the Government how they ventured to post-
pone the larger concession which the people required. Al
that had occurred in other countries had occurred in consel
quence of withholding the people's rights. Nevertheless-
though it did not go far enough, it was his intention to vote,
for the motion before them. He should do so, if on no
other ground, at least upon the ground that it proposed to
shorten the duration of Parliaments. He declared that, after
seeing how the time of the House was frittered away, he
should prefer annual Parliaments without further change, to
u •iversal suffrage with a septennial Parliament. Annual
Parliaments, universal suffrage, electoral districts, payment
of Members, no property qualification—all these, five out of
the six points of the People's Charter, had been in former
times features in the constitution of these re dins. Why
were they not again to be recognised? As to the agitation
by which the people ought to gain their legitimate aims, the
gentlemen on the Ministerial benches certainly had no right
to complain of it, since it was precisely themselves who, in
former years, to gain their ends, had taught the people agita-
tation, and set the example of the very class of language
which they now denounced as seditious. Those gentlemen
stood by the Reform Bill of 1832, that measure which had
wholly failed to fulfil the objects which it was announced to
effect, whose motto was "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform,"
and the delusive expectation from which was, high wages'
cheap food, and plenty to do, almost as great a bubble as the
" Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" jargon of our neighbours
across the Channel. Ho himself belonged to neither party,
to neither faction in that House ; neither to the aristocracy
faction on that side of the House, nor to the middle-class
faction on the other, the only difference between whom
was, that the former had deceived the people once, while
the latter had deceived the people twice ; he belonged to the
party of the people, and he would tell the House and the
Government, that unless the just demands of the people, of
the working classes, were conceded before long, Government
would find themselves all at once in the position of the
late French Government.—(Hear, hear.) Slot that this
sheuld be done by a violent revolution—God forbid I He
would heartily say, for he knew that the first shot fired in
such a contest would seal the doom of the working classes,
who would then be juggled here as they had been in France.
It was said that the working classes were not fitted for the
trust of elections. He regarded conduct as a most essen-
tial teat of qualification, and he should like to know
what could have been more exemplary than had been the
conduct of the working classes of England amid all the
grievous miseries which they had suffered for the last six
years. —( Hear, hear.) He should vote for the Hon. Mem-
ber's motion as better than nothing at all ; but he frankly
repudiated it as a settlement of the question ; and so long as
aught of influence and energy remained to him, that in-
fluence and that energy should be enthusiastically applied to
the attainment of the great object of his life—the People's
Charter. One class was set against another class, in order to
promote the objects of a third party. That species of tactics
was always resorted to in political straggles. The free-traders
had done so, by setting the middle classes against the work-
ing classes. He would take that opportunity of saying to the
Hon. Member for Montrose, that when, on a former evening,
he had taunted the Hon. Member with having withdrawn his
motion for reform, and the Hon. Member for the West
Riding had charged him with ferocity in so doing, he did not
intend to make any harsh observations, and he begged to ex-
press, his regret if he had done so, for he never intended to
show any ferocity towards the Hon. Member. But, in say-
ing what he did on that occasion, the Hon. Member for the
Weet Eliding had only pursued the course to which he (Mr.
F. O'Connor) hai already referred, and had tried to set the
middle classes against the working classes, who were in fa-
vour of the Charter. lie would now conclude, only observ-
ing that if it had not been the intention of the Hon. Member
to divide on his motion that evening, he should have reserved
what he had to say until he had heard the sentiments of all
those who were disposed to speak on the question before the
House. But as it was for the advantage of the cause that the
House should come to a division that evening he should con •
tent himself with stating that, as the Protection party had
adopted the cry of " No surrender," so he would take his stand
upon the Charter, and say " The Charter, and no surrender."
Mr. M. MILNES should detain the House only a few
minutes whilst he stated his reason for not supporting tke
new Reform Bill, at the same time that he was by no means
opposed to reform. His objection to the motion of the Hon.
Member for Montrose was the fundamental one that there had
been no grounds yet shown for the new reform league, or for
the agitation which it professed to create in the country. In
all organic reforms two things were necessary to inquire into
—the first, what are the evils which it was sought to re-
medy ? The second, whether there was any great or general
popular demand for that organic reform? Now
he did not think that a sufficient case had been
made out of great practical evils sufficient to show
that such a reform as the one proposed was neces-
sary. A reform might be required, and he had no right to
say, looking at the Corn-law League, and the successful in-
fluences which it brought to bear on the most distinguished
minds in that House, together with its signal
success, that agitation on behalf of reform was
not necessary or right. But there was a very
wide difference between the resolutions which
were before the House and the one specific grievance which
the Corn-law League sought to remedy. The motion of the
Hon. Member was to elicit the declaration whether the
people demanded organic change in the institutions of the
country, and whether there were such evils in the present
constitution of the kingdom as to require those organic
changes. He would not enter into the question of the suf-
frage. The most satisfactory view that he could take of that
matter was to regard it not as a right or a privilege, but as
a trust. The House, therefore, was bound to inquire whe
ther it was demanded by the people, and if so, how was that
demand demonstrated? Why should forty gentlemen con-
stitute themselves a committee in order to stimulate this
demand? The question of the suffrage was not one on
which the Hon. Member or his fellow-committeemen could
give any additional instruction to the people. They knew
all that they ever could know on the subject of the franchise,
and they knew, moreover, that if they went systemati-
cally to work in demanding it, the Parliament must at last
grant it to them. On the ballot he had already expressed
his sentiments in that House. lie had rather do
without the ballot. But at the same time, if the
people in any numbers complained of being coerced in the
exercise of their franchise, if the complaint.. made in the case
of the Stamford election were well established, he would not
deny that the ballot must be granted to protect the
. voters.lt had been said that there was something un-English the
ballot, and he must say that there was a degreeofopeennanhesies
in the social institutions of England which tended to
the people to dispense with the ballot; and ift h
highere mode of
practice of
open voting could be maintained, it was a
re-
cording their sentiments than the concealment
f
the
In the course of his humble political experience h e
ballot.never
witnessed any such intimidation as would, render it necessary
to resort to the ballot to protect the voters. But as the Hon.
e
Member for the West Riding had truly said, the real
that of electoral divisions.
question under consideration was
Neither the ballot nor the suffrage constituted the import-

ance of the present motion. He could not conceal from
himself that the transference of large numbers of voters
from the counties to the town coistituencies would be
productive of a great and a hazardous change—for by
&that means the influence of the counties would be trans-
ferred to the towns. The latter certainly had no right to
complain of the manner in which the Reform Bill had
treated them. And it would be well to remember that if
the country gentlemen were to be eliminated from the
House, there would then exist great and well-grounded
cause of complaint that landed property was not duly repre-
sented there. The counties would never submit to see their
Members transferred to the towns, without creating a great
sediment of discontent. Ho was aware that a gradual
change of this nature was operating in this country, as it
had done in the middle ages. But do not let it be too
sudden, and above all do not operate such a change merely
because forty gentlemen met at a club-house in St. James's-
square and said it must be done. Whatever might be said
of the constitution of the House, he knew that in the ulti-
mate resort it did represent the people, and he believed
there was no true demand for a greater representation.
It was true that a great preponderance was given to the
aristocracy in that House; but that preponderance was
freely given—it was given because the people liked the
aristocracy. There was no doubt the people of England
loved a Lord. There was no question that they' preferred
having an aristocracy. Take the instance of the Noble Lords
who sat in that House. Observe the habitual deference
which was paid to them.—( Laughter and ironical cheers.)
Did any one ever see a Lord put down in that place?—
(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) He never did; and if people
would persist in giving such privileges to the aristocracy,
they bad no right in that House to complain of the aristo-
cratic elements which it contained. For all the reasons he
had stated, he should not vote for the resolutions of the
Hon. Member for Montrose; nor did he think they were
called for. But he certainly did admit that the recent events
of the Continent of Europe might leave traces of their oc-
currence in England ; and that if in France, Germany, and
Italy a share of political power was given to every man, he
could not deny that au echo of those events might resound
throughout the land, and that they must be prepared to
meet the demand, and to accede in some measure to the
cry that would be sent forth for increased political privi-
leges on the part of the people. Ile thought that such an
agglomerated measure, as that proposed by the Hon. Mew-
bar for Montrose, could only encourage the people in falla-
cious hopes, and therefore he felt bound to record his vote
against IL

-Mr. S. HERBERT, who spoke in a very low tone of
voice, said that he was not about to trouble the House with
a very lengthy speech. His only reason for making any ob-
servation, was his anxiety to show that in the vote he was
about to give he was actuated by very different motives and
held different opinions from many with whom he
would retire into the lobby. He was not one of
those who believed that the present system of representation
was perfect, or that there were not many points in which it
might be atnended.—(Hear, hear.) But it was not neces-
sary to go deeply into that part of the subject, because it had
been already most clearly, wisely, and ably elucidated by the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had heard
with great pleasure that Noble Lord give up the doctrine of
finality- in legislation.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Herbert) was
one of those who regretted that when the representation was
altered the suffrage was diminished. He feared it had been
too much the habit to confound means with ends, and to argue
as if the objects of free institutions were to give the people
votes, not to obtain for them good government. whereas the
former was only an incident, the latter the real object and
end of such institutions. He thought they were bound to
ask themselves whether they had that system of legislation
which was most capable of carrying on the government of
the country; and secondly, whether their legislation was
such as to carry with it the sympathy of the great body of
the people. He regretted the abolition of many franchises
which had existed before the Reform Bill; for instance, he
regretted what was called the potwalloping qualification.—
(Hear' hear.) He thought it desirable that those classes
should be represented, as he believed that among other good
things it would go far to cure them of their hero worship.
The power of sending a man to Parliament would cure the
working classes of forming inordinate expectations, and their
representatives of the equally mischievous habit of making
fallacious promises.--(Hear, hear.) He wondered whether
the llon. Member near him, when he went back to his
constituents in Nottingham, after having been so long
in the immediate proximity of the Thames without setting
it on fire, as he had promised--(A laugh)—would be able
to give his constituents a satisfactory account of his back-
slidings. He would most likely find that a more diffi-
cult task than telling an excited people what he would
do if he only were in Parliameut.—(Laughter.) There was
one point connected with this motion which had not been
touched on before, but which, in his opinion, should
not be overlooked—namely, the effects which the introduc-
tion of similar measures had produced in neighbouring coun-
tries. The Hon. Member for Montrose had said that Eng-
land, which had been formerly in the van of all countries in
the adoption of free institutions, was in the rear; and the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government had with great
wisdom said in reply to that, " wait for the result."—
(Cheers.) Now, without waiting long, he would call the
attention of the House to a few of the effects which such
measures had already produced in France. The Hon.
Member for the West Riding had said that the
great object of extending the franchise would be to re-
duce the expenses. Had that been the effect in Paris?
They had increased their army by 30,000 men, besides
320,000 National Guards. They had, in fact, under that
peaceful democratic Government the greatest amount of men
in arms that had ever been known in the time of peace. Had
democratic government diminished jobbing?—(Bear, hear.)
There were the Ateliers Nationaux, which were neither more
nor less than sinecure situations for 100,000 men.—(Hear,
hear.) There had been, no doubt, sinecures before the re-
volution, but nothing like the enormous job of the ateliers.
The Hon. Member for Middlesex had spoken of family com-
pacts, and complained of the number of appointments
divided among persons rather curiously and inconveniently
related together.—(Laughter.) But things were much
worse in Paris. He had seen it stated that the editor of the
' National, M. Marrast, with his printers and publishers,
divided amongst them public emoluments to the amount of
40,000/.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in England, where the do-
mestic feelings were strongest, they would prefer that per-
sons bound together by the recognised ties of family should
enjoy the good things rather than that they should be scat-
, tered amongst persons wholly unfit through the interest of
sonic party above them. -(A laugh.) lie might ask the
Honourable Member whether he liked the manner in which
the secret service money had been disposed of by a
democratic Government.—(llear, heat.) Whether its '
disposal bad not given grounds for suspecting the
most eminent men in the country of that useamst
of all crimes, pecuniary speculation?—(Hear, hear.) Then,
for the liberty of the subject, that had been soon asserted
by carrying off the commander of the National Guards.
He might mention many other instances to show that experi-
ments, such as the Hon. Member for Middlesex proposed, ,
did not always lead to the results expected.—(Hear, hear.)
Then there was Prussia, a country in which, it intellectual
cultivation were to be taken as a standard, the people were
infinitely superior to the people of England. One of the
changes there effected by the introduction of democratic
principles was the payment of members, and the consequence
had been that the legislative body was rapidly losing all
respect in the eyes of the people.—(Hear, hear.) They
amused themselves in criticising the dress of their represen-
tatives, and making proposals that they should be paid by
taskwork, in order that they may get through their work
sooner. They were to be paid, it appeared, by the job, ac-
cording to the number of Bills, and no Member was to speak
against time for the sake of his 7s. 6d. a day.—(A laugh.)
He was proud to see the tranquillity of this country, know-
ing as he did that there were causes of disturbance in this
country as great as any that had exploded in France. He
had great hopes of the country, but not from the measure
proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose. He looked
for improvement from that House setting itself seriously to
consult the wants and wishes of the country, and from its
remedying those defects and abuses in its own constitution
which recent election petitions had rendered so painfully '
apparent. He should merely further say, that his object in
rising had been to explain that in giving his vote against
the present motion, he was not recording his opinion abso-
solutely in favour of cur legislative system as it now
existed.

Lord D. STUART rose amidst loud cries of " Question "
and " Divide." He congratulated the House upon one of
the results of the discussion that had taken place—namely,
that it had induced the Noble Lord (J. Russell) to get rid of
the principle of inality. The question was whether the
people required such a measure as had been proposed by the
Hon. Member for Montrose, and whether that measure was
supported by the people out of doors? Upon the first point
he thought, after the debate that had taken pace, there
could be no difference of opinion ; and as regarded the second,
he believed the vast number of petitions that had been pre-
sented in its favour, was a convincing proof that it was sup-
ported by the great bulk of the people of that country. He
regretted the attacks that had been made upon the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, because he thought the .
services he had rendered to the cause of reform, during a
long and active 'political life, ought not to be forgotten by
that House. Without affirming the absolute right of every
man to the franchise, it must be admitted that the principle
of the British Constitution was to extend the basis of the
representation as widely as possible; and the only limit was
that required for the safety of the state. It was said that
the greatest possible evils would result from the passing of
the Reform Bill; but they had now had considerable expe-
rience of its working, and up to the present time they had
seen no ill effects arising from it. During the last twenty
years taxation had been considerably diminished in this
country, and it had also been more equally distributed.—
(Cries of " Divide.") lie believed, therefore, that the Reform
Act had done some good, and he maintained that they ought
to go on in the same course. He was not for finality ; he
was for gradual progress ; and he believed if there ever was
a time when the people of this country might be safely en-
trusted with increased political power, it was the present
moment, when they were displaying so much moderation and
love of order in the midst of the revolutions which had of late
been agitating the greater portion of the nations of Europe.—
( Loud cries for a division.)
Mr. MUNTZ said it appeared to him that although they
had had many speeches that night upon the subject, the
real question had been very much shirked. The first ques-
tion which they really had to consider was, whether in that
House the people of England were fully and fairly repre-
sented; and the next was, whether, if that were not so, the
Hon. Gentleman below him, the Member for Montrose.vl,f,nl_i
cause the people to be fully and fairly represented. These
were the real questions. It was the opinion of manystilinat
Members that the present was a nursed agitation, and
to be entitled to any attention such an agitationhad made no
perfectly spontaneous. Well, he, for his oughta to be
communication upon the subject to
had voluntarily communicated with him,
his copnan.srdtti tiunefno
rtsm.
edThhiemy
hear, and
that they entirely agreed with the pa_roepaors,ition of the
llonourable Member for Montrose.—(n
might laugh if
laughter.) Honourable Gentle
intimatem in such a man-
nerthey pleased. They
to him that they might
believed he was telling them a
falsehood.—(No, no, order, and great noise.) The people
were greatly displeased with the present condition of affairs.
And it was the conduct of the Government on the property-
tax, and on the Gagging Bill, as it was called, that had caused
the present disaffection. But as to the constitution of the
House itself, let them look. at the number of Members that
had been unseated for bribery and corruption this session._
(Hear, hear, and " Leicester and r Derby.") He did not care
what party they belonged to. he fact was all he looked
at, and they need not tell him that those nho had been
brought forward and found out were all who had been guilty.
He did not believe they were the twentieth part of the whole
number.—(Hear and a laugh.) As to the great objections
that had been made to the extension of the suffrage,
they had already granted a 10/. household suffrage, and the
Hon. Member for Montrose went only a very little way fur-
ther. But it was not enough to give thefranchise—the
voters should be protected in the exercise of it. The work-
ing classes were, to a great extent, as well educated as the
aristocracy themselves, and quite as well acquainted
with
their own wants. They were easily to be governed, if only
they were governed fairly, and he begged the House not to
think that if even they went as far as universal suffrage, the
people would change their constitutional government. He
believed the proposition as now made by his Hon. Friend
was founded upon a sound, a just, and a right principle, and
he gave it his most cordial support; and ,he believed that
' many Hon. Gentlemen who now opposed it would shortly

change their sentiments in favour of it.—(Near, hear, anti
loud calls for a division.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE rose amidst renewed uproar, despite
of which he proceeded to make some remarks in reply, as
we understood him, to Mr. Osborne, who, he said, had
committed a mistake when he said that they (the agri-
culturists) had carried on their agitation by means of
hired lecturers. He begged to remind those Honourable
Gentlemen who were now so anxious for reform, that
they had a few years ago attempted to disfranchise
nearly all the county voters of Warwickshire, and many
in and about Birmingham, and that they had served
23,000 notices of objection to voters. The Honourable
Member for Manchester had said that .1w Government
should govern the country that did not, represent the
feelings of Manchester and Yorkshire, and take them as
their guide ; and he begged also to remind them that
they had created no less than 1,600 voters in the West
Pilling of Yorkshire, thereby exercising as great corrup-
tion as any that had existed in the days of Gatton and Old
Sarum.—( Divide, divide.)
31r. VILLIERS said he was not going at that hour to no-
tice the attacks that had been made upon the party to which
he belonged, nor to speak upon a question which was not be-
fore the House. But as he intended to vote fur his Hon.
Friend's proposition, and as he did not agree with some of
the terms of it, and still less agree in some of the reasons
whi,ai had been'adduced in support of it, he would state
those which induced him to vote for it. All its supporters
were agreed tik,on household suffrage; but they did not know
Nvtiut household !suffrage was. They were agreed, however,
upon the principle cf an extension of the franchise, and he
thought it was wise to recogiike that policy, because they
could not in these days safely withhold the right of suffrage
fr.,iii the people. lie believed they had a right to it, and he
could not discover the reason fur refusing it
eilit,tt it was demanded. But lie wished to steer
clear of one subject. lie did not think that
legislation would have been very different if the suffrage bad
been different since the time of the Reform Bill.—(Cheers
from the Opposition benches.) Ile did not believe that their
legislation would have been very different if the Reform Bill
had not been passed at all.—(Renewed. cheers.) He believed
the House was much impressed by public opinion, and their -
sentiments much formed by public discussion—(Hear, hear)
—and he believed there was nothing which Was honestly de-
sired by the country which that House would not give.—
(Loud cheers.) But he thought it would increase the public
confidence in the House if the suffrage were extended. As
to the existing system of bribery and intimidation, they had
found no remedy whatever as yet for it. It had been
brought before the House more during the present
year than in any other; and when there was a remedy pro-
posed for it by his Honourable Friend, it was not, in his
opinion, right to resist it. But he thought that extending
the franchise to the people, without giving suitable protec-
tion for the free exercise of it, would be doing no good, but
rather tending to demoralise them. He reminded the House
of the tyranny that was frequently exercised over voters by
those who had power to influence them. He believed that
that system existed quite as much in the towns as elsewhere.
Many people thought they had a right to deal with their
tenants, or any persons dependent upon them, as they liked.
He thought they should endeavour to effect a change of that
system, and perhaps they might be able to do sobi making
such practices jnfamous. But as the practice wal at pre-
sent, every man who had tenants, even the owners of small
cottages, expected that his tenaata would vote as he
pleased.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") No places pro-
bably suffered so much from the practices as large towns,
owing to the intimidation exercised over shopkeepers
by those who were in the habit of dealing with them;
in fict, it was a constant struggle between custom and con-
science. The consequence was, that a quarter of a million of
voters now on the register, and who were entitled to vote,
had not voted at the last election, and the fact was that to
such persons as he referred to the franchise was a curse, and
not a blessing. He must, therefore, differ with his Honour-
able Friend, who said that the extension of the franchise
was the first thing to be obtained, and that the ballot was
merely a secondary consideration. He believed that the
ballot was a measure which ,geserally speaking, all wealthy
people were most afraid of ; it would be the measure that
would strike most directly at their interests, and it would be .
the most generous concession that could be made by that
House. He was sorry his Hon. Friend had not brought for-
ward a proposition for the ballot separate from his other pro-
positions. He believed that if he made such a proposition,
he would have a larger division than he would have on that
night, when he had included other questions of a more diffi-
cult nature.—(Cries of "Divide.")
Mr. HUME rose to reply amid loud calls for a division.
He assured the House that he should not long detain it, but
there were a few points which he felt called upon to notice.
With regard to what had fallen from his Honourable Friend
who had just sat down he could assure him he was altogether
under a mistake when he thought there was any difference
amongst those who supported his resolution. There was
merely a difference with reference to the extent to which the
suffrage ought to go, and they were anxious to ascertain
what the people of the country desired to obtain.—(Hear,
hear.) He though his Hon. Friend was under a mistake in
supposing the ballot would be a remedy in the present state
of things. He (Mr. Hume) had stated distinctly in the
outset that he thought the extension of the suffrage was the
principal point, but that he would not agree to take that
measure except it was accompanied by the ballot. He said
he thought the two measures were inseparable, and that all
must be carried to ensure to the people that efficient reform
which they required. He might possibly refrain from
saying one word with respect to any objection that had been
made, or any answer that had been given in reference to the
points he had made, but as there were many Hon. Gentle-
men who did attend to hear what his simple propositions
were, he begged again to state in a few words what he bad
proposed. He said that Parliament ought to represent the
whole community, he said it did not represent the whole
community, and-he contended th It no man in the country
ought to be taxed without either through himself or his re-
presentative authorizing that taxation. He said the repre-
sentation, such as it is, was most unequally divided, and that
there could be no protection whatever to the property of the
country when they saw that seven or eight boroughs, with
small constituencies, could send as many Members to that
Hausa as would overrule the whole representation of London,
Liverpool, and Edinburgh.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see
any difficulty in providing a remedy, if the House would
let Itioi introduce a Bill; he would save them all. trouble,
and give them an opportunity of deciding upon the question.
lie did not ask the House to concur in opinion with him, ex-
cept as a matter of right, because the people were entitled to
have a voice in the constitution. Their Government was a
representative one, and every man should be represented, but
the people were not represented. Four millions were ex-
cluded from the franchise, and what was the consequence?
—discontent and dissatisfaction. The bases of the Govern-
ment were not sound, and he (Mr. Hume) proposed this
measure, as the late Lord Grey bad proposed his reform
measure in 1831, as a measure of peace and conciliation, and
for the purpose of preventing evil consequences.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilt-
shire (Mr. S. Herbert) had asked him to take into consi-
deration what was passing in France.— (Hear, hear.)
When he (Mr. Hume) considered what was passing in
France, he wished that England should not be sub-
jected to such an ordeal.—(Hear.) The Right Honourable
Gentleman had referred to the proceedings which attended
the revolution in France, but he (Mr. Hume) submitted
that they could have no reference to the circumstances in
which they were placed in that country.—(Hear, hear.)
The people had a right to representation; let them deny
that right, and they were injured; injury produced discon-
tent, and with discontent in the country they were not safe.
(Hear, hear.) Why, a few months ago half a million of
people were called out to keep down another half. Would
they, then, prevent the people from having that due share
of political power which the constitution gave to them?
The peace of the country could not be secure while they
continued their injustice. He called upon the House to de-
cide the question, and let the country judge of their acts
hereafter.—(Cries of " Divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Hume's motion
Against it
Majority ...... ....... .....
The County Ceat (Ireland) Bill was passed through
Committee. ,
The Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill (report) was
postponed till Wednesday.'
The Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Bill was
read a second time.
Mr. FAGAN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to make life
policies assignable at law.
The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a
second time on Wednesday, the 26th inst.
Mr. TRELAWNY moved. for a return of. khe annual
amount of salaries paid in the year 1847 to the schoolmasters
and schoolmistresses of each poor-law union in England and
Wales, of the perquisites and emoluments allowed to them,
and the various profession or occupation of such person?;
also, of the number of vacancies which have occurred
in
each union since its formation, in the offices of school-
master and schoolmistress; and the number of boys and
girls respectively who attended the school of each an" in
the year 1847.—Ordered. (this
Mr. PARKER gave notice that he should to
day) take a few votes on account of the
Inis"
The Seers-
mates, and on account of the British Museum-
tary of the Admiralty would likewise take more votes on ac-
of, and the
count of the naval service. "linlaenrr°eouws esti-
The other orders of the day were then disposed
House adjourned at One o'clock.

Tsocheom
accompanied by her
Queen and his
Royal Highness Prince
HER MAJESTY'S TRHA
Albert,T a a.
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, honoured the
performances at her Majesty's Theatre yesterday even-
ing with their presence. In attendance upon her Majesty
were the Viscountess Jocelyn, the Hon. Miss K h
err, t e
Earl of Listowel, and Major
General . W
erayss, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was attended by
Lady Augusta Bruce ; and his Royal Highness Prince
Albert by Lieutenant Colonel Seymour.IS Royal
Highness Prince George also visited the theatre.
audience we observed
Amongst the the Duke and
Duchess of Cleveland, his Excellency the Russian Minis-
ter. Prince Lieven, the Marquis of Clanricarde,
_ the Mar-
quis of Sligo, the Marquis of Anglesey, the Marquis of
Donegal, the Earl of Lonsdale, the Count and Countess
Batiste Metaxa, the Countess of Lovelace,' the Viscount
Cllden, Lord Ward, the Ladies Browne, Lady Doraville,
his Excellency the Prussian Minister (Chevalier Bun-
see), 'Lord Southampton, Lord Gardner, General the
Hun. 11. Cavendish, Colonel Bowers, Sir J. Bayley,
Bart., Sir F. Trench, Bart:, M.P., Sir I. L. Goldsmid,
Lady C. W. Taylor, Sir Edward Codrington, Lady
Charlotte Guest, Major
Buckley, Captain and Mrs.
Griffiths, Mr. Taylor,
Mr. W. M'Gregor, Mr. and Mrs.
Travers, Mr. and Mrs. Tudor, M. C. Koudriaffsky, Mr.
B. Sheridan, Mr. Barry Baldwin, M.P., and Miss Bald
win, Mr. N. Leader and Miss Leader, Mr. Frank
Mills, &c.
ROYAL MATERNITY CIIARITY.—Last evening the
anniversary dinner of this philanthropic institution
(which was established in 1757, for the purpose of de-
livering poor married women at their own habitations),
was celebrated at the London Tavern, Bishopsgate-
street. Viscount Brackley presided, in the absence of
L' rd Robert Grosvenor from indisposition; and A
goodly number of gentlemen sat down to dinner. In
the course et the evening, the secretary (Dr. Rayner,
F.S.A.), read the society's annual report, from which it
appeared that the institution is advancing in prosperity,
being enabled, by its steadily-increasing income, to eit-
tend its benefits to greater numbers of the class for
whose especial behoof they are designed. During the
past year a total number of 2.963 poor females were
delivered, free of charge, at their own homes, within the
24 metropolitan districts. The last year's income of
the charity amounted to 1,87 IL 10d., and the expendi-
ture left a balance in hand of 1371. 3s. 4d. The noble
chairman ably advocated the claims of the charity to
the support of the humane public, and the company
substantially testified their sense of its merits by
liberally contributing towards the funds during the
evening.

Mr.-R. Graham bad an interview with Sir Georg•
Grey yesterday, at the Home-office.