The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-21 00:00:00

either be grouped into boroughs, or else that the inha-
bitants must have a 10/. franchise for the counties. The
Noble Lord had truly said the other night that the mass
of the people of this country were determined to main-
tain our present commercial policy. And the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Gra
ham) in that admirable speech—(Hear, hear)—made
the same assertion, and it would find an echo through
the country. But what was the case with regard to the
representation? He would pass over the fact,that there
was only a majority of 14 votes among the representa-
tives of the people upon a question upon which the
mass of the people were unanimous.—(Hear, hear.)
But let them look at the decision of the county repre-
sentation, so fir as the opportunity had been afforded of
testing it. Take the elections for the last few weeks in
Herefordshire, Glamorganshire, Nottinghamshire,
Montgomeryshire, and the elections now going on
in North Staffordshire and Bedfordshire. In
those six counties or divisions of counties there could
be no doubt that the mass of the people were just as de-
termined as ever to maintain free trade. But at all these
elections there was not a free-trade candidate who had a
chance, and why?—because the representation of the
counties was not in accordance with the opinions of the
mass of the people in those counties. The landlords and
the tenants might be tolerably unanimous, but they con-
stituted only a small fraction of the population; and, so
long as this state of things continued, there would be
no security for the permanent enjoyment of free-trade,
and great peril to the institutions of the country, from
our inability to uphold this vital principle. Now, would
the Noble Lord allow this great discrepancy to exist,—
that while the great body of the people were in favour
of free trade, so many Members of that House should
continue to vote for dear bread, against a free importa-
tion of foreign produce, against the unrestricted export
of manufactured produce, for low wages and high prices,
—and to do all this under the pretext that they repre-
sented the counties? If there were no other grounds
than this it would be sufficient to induce him to support
the motion. His Hon, Friend had done a great service
by bringing this motion forward; and not the least
service that he had rendered was in having elicited from
the Noble Lord the promise that we were to have a great
extension and modification of our representative system.
After a few words from Mr. P. HOWARD, in sup-
port of the motion,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 100,
Against it ... 52
Majority . . --48
The announcement of the numbers was reoeived with
loud cheers.

On the motion of Lord SEYMOUR, leave was given
to bring in a Bill to amend the Act for regulating the
construction and the use of buildings in the metropolis
and its neighbourhood.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved fora copy of all peti-
tions on the subject of convict discipline and transporta-
tion which ha►e been presented to her Majesty, or to the
House of Commons, from any part el Australia or Van
Diemen's Land since the year 1845, with the number of
signatures attached to each petition.
Mr. THORNELY said the petitions moved for by the
Hon. Baronet were seventeen in number, of which six
teen were already printed.
The motion was then agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland moved
for and obtained leave to bring in a "Bill to consolidate
and amend the laws relating to Civil Bills and the Courts
of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, and to transfer to the
assistant barristers certain jurisdiction as to insolvent
debtors."

On the motion of Lord MELGUND, leave was given
to bring in a " Bill to reform and extend tho School Es
tablishment of Scotland."

Colonel DUNNE moved for " A return of the names
of naval officers, civil engineers, and other persons who
have reported iii favour of or against the proposed plan
for the Asylum Harbour at Holyhead, or that have re-
ported that Holyhead is not a suitable place for an asy-
lum harbour, and whose reports have been made or
printed by order of Parliament previous to the intro-
duction of the Holyhead Harbour Bill into Parliament
last session; distinguishing those who have reported in
favour from those who have reported against such har-
bour; together with the cost of the same, as estimated
by the several engineers referred to. And copy of any
report or paper forwarded to the Admiralty in the year
1847, on the part of the shipowners of Liverpool and
others, on the nature of the anchorage ground of the
proposed asylum harbour at Holyhead, and signed by
Captain James H. Christie and Lieutenant R. Sarsfield,
R.N., together with the plan annexed therete."—
Agreed to.