The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-01 00:00:00

Lord J. RUSSELL.—Sir, before I address myself to
the motion of the lion. Member for Montrose, I feel it
wi it be necessary for me to say some words respecting
the motives and the conduct of those who had brought
forward the Reform Bill. The lion. Member for West
Surrey has chosen to say—not an original observat'on
on his part, although he is not wanting in originality—
that tke Whigs in power immediately became Tories,
and acted upon that principle, which he thinks the right
one, upon which every Government ought to act. But it is
somewhat difficult for him, after making the remark, to
:show that the bringing forward of the Reform Bill tallied
with the principles of a Tory Government. The Hon.
Gentleman, therefore, hits on the ingenious device of
inventing the motives that actuated us, and says that
the Reform Bill was brought forward by the Whigs
to wreak vengeance upon their ties. Now a more
unjust remark never fell from any lion. Gentleman.
But the Hos. and,Learned Member for Sheffield, in giving
us a warning of the danger of resisting this MelStllo,
charges us with a resistance for a series of years to
* very proposition for a reform in the representation of
this House. Why, Sir, the plain truth is,this—thist, f
a series of yeses, I myself had brought forward and
had voted for motions having fur their object a refine
in the representation.—(Hear.) But if I feel it sone -
what necessary to vindicate myself from this charge, I
cannot at the same time refrain from saving a few words
in defence of that chief under whom I had the honour
for so many years to serve, and under whose auspices the
Reform Bill was brought forward and ultimately carried.
Lord Grey throughout his political life had brought for-
ward many propositions for :reform.—(Hear.) In 1810.
being then a member of the House of Lords, where re •
form was not likely t 6 be a very palatable or favourite
topic, Lord Grey declared that, although his original
plans had been modified—although his ardour had some-
whale abated by age and experience—yet, even in
those dap, when Reformers were few, and those gene-
rally much calumniated and run down, he was still
convinced of the justice of those opinions which he held
in respect to reform. And after all this we are now to
be told that we brought forward that great measure for
the mere purpose of wreaking vengeance upon our foes.
That may be a very ingenious device of the Hon. Mem-
ber, but anything further from the real history of the
fact could not be stated or imagined. Well, Sir, I will
now come to the immediate question before the House.
And I must say I think that my Right lion. Friend has
been somewhat ill-treated by those lion. Members who
followekhiro, in`-accusing him of misrepresentation Or a
misconstruing of the motion of the lion. Member for
Montrose. The Hon. Member for Montrose had himself
stated that he was in favour of tee principle of that
which is called the People's Charter; that every man
should have a votes and he further said, he conceived
that those who had not votes were absolutely slaves. He
therefore proposed that not only occupiers of houses,
but lodgers should have votes on being rated. Well, my
Right Hon. Friend says that that is evidently a franchise
disjoined from property—that the constitution of England
hag hitherto united, though not in every case, property
with the right of voting, and that this proposition of the
Hoe. Gentleman would, if carried, cause a great change
and iunovation on the constitution. If the Hon. Member for
Montrose proposes only to admit every man that is an
occupier of a house, and a lodger who is rated, what be-
comes of his assertion that every man who has not a
vote is a slave? Either he is making a motion so eaten
sive in its nature that but a very small class can be re-
garded in the light of what he calls slaves. or else he is
making a motion that proposes to give but a restrictive
suffrage. In -that case hi leaves a large number of the
people in the so-called state of slavery. I understood
the Hon. Gentleman to say that if his proposition be
carried; out of the 4,000,000 of adults in Great Britain
3,000,000 would have votes. If that be the case,
this ' cannot tbe the restrictive franchise referred to by
the Hon. Member for Oxford. If, on the other hand,
it is the restrictive franchise, like scot and lot voters
under the ancient laws, the lion. Member fir Montrose
will lose the benefit arising from the delivery from
slavery of the great body of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
The Honourable and Learned Member for Sheffield
says he does net find, fault with the present re-
presentation; but, ccinsidering‘that a great number of
the population are excluded from the franchise, in order
tQ content them he thought they-should be allowed to
vote. Now if that is the ground upon which you are
proceeding, unless you give the franchise fully and com-
pletely to adult males, you will altogether fail in your
object.—(Hear, hear.) If the franchise was to be ex-
tended as far as the Hon. Member for Montrose calcu-
lated, when he said 3,000,000 .out of 4,000,000 world
possess it, then I think it would be much more painful to
individuals to see-.that out of four adult males, three of
them had the right of voting, and one of them was ex-
cluded. This would be considered a still more unfair
exclusion than any that at present existed. In respect
to the question of taxation and representation, upon
which the. Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield says
that the Hon. Member fir Montrose has f illowed me in
error, I must observeethat I do not think either of us are
in error upon the general principle of the constitution,
although I may be of another opinion as to the practice.
I apprehend, Sir, that many of the declarations so often
made were to this effect,,that the King did not from ancient
times, since the commencement of the representative con-
stitution, levy taxes by his own authority as Sovereign,
bat called the representatives of counties and boroughs
together to take their assent, which assent
Was considered to be that of the people at large, and
therefore, from the ;beginning of our representative
history, with one small exception, the principle was,
that all taxes should be levied with the consent of the
people. It is quite another question whether the ge-
neral maxim was true—namely, that every person sub•
ject to taxation had a direct voice in the representation.
It is quite evident at all times of our constitution that
great numbers, though not subject to taxes and affected
by the taxation of the country, had, notwithstanding, no
direct vote in the representation. And when Lord
Camden declarei that taxation without represeltation
was a tyranny, he did not deny the right of the House
of Commons to tax the people of England and Scotland,
although a great number of the population to be affected
by such taxation had no votes at all for Members of
Parliament. But what he meant was—that in proposing
a tax upon Americas when America had no representa-
tives in Parliament, was plainly and obviously a
tyranny, and a violation of the great principle of the
constitution, which was taxation and representation.—
(Hear, hear.) 'I, therefore, deny that there is
no truth in the validity of the principle of taxation and
representation. I deny also, that it is meant to be
carried literally into effect as regardi all persons that
are subject to taxation. It is only meant that the House
of Commons, being really and veritably the representa-
tives of the people, shall grant in their name the taxes
and subsidies to the country. If I am right in this general
maxim I think I shall not be wrong in asserting that we
did not deviate from the principle of the constitution in
the proposition we made in the Reform Bill.—(Hear.)
We were of opinion that the time was come when a re-
form in the representation was necessary, and that the
people could not consider themselves fairly represented
while a green mound and a town destroyed by the sea
some centuries ago :sent representatives to the House at
a time when the great seats of manufacture—Manchester,
Leeds, and Sheffield—had no members in Parliament.
Believing that the time was come when this unreal re-
presentation would no longer be tolerated, we proposed
that there should be such a change as would oblige the
representatives of the people more directly to reflect their
opinions in this House. But we did not propose to destroy
all that then existed, for we gave to certain boroughs the
right of' sending members to Parliament, where a body of
electors, though small, would still be found to return them
here. We believed, as it was'well stated by Lord Hol-
land, ;in a letter having reference to the constitution
in Naples, that the attempt to make a constitution for a
nation, and to believe that it would be all at once fitted
fee it, was as absurd as thinking of building a tree or
manufacturing an animal. The Hon. and L' arned Gen-
tleman says that in framing this Reform Bill we endea-
voured to create a preponderance in favour of the landed
aristocracy, and that I had avowed such to be oar ob-
ject. Now I must say it certainly was our object not to
make any unfair distribution of the new representation.
And while we proposed that many towns not hitherto
represented should send members to this House, we like-
wise proposed that many counties possessed of large po-
pulations should send additional representatives here.
In doing so, we distributed fairly the representation. I
was asked towards the end of that Bill whether it was
true that I utterly discarded the landed interest, or some
such phrase, or as Lord Ashburton styled it, whether I
had not taken from the barley field and given to the
coal field? So far from that I said that the effect of
the measure would bo rather to give the landed interest
a preponderance. I did, not say that it was our inten-
tion to give such preponderance to the landed i nterest,
but that that interest was so strong -in he country that
this fair representation of the people would end in
giving that preponderance. I should have thought
it most unjust if I proposed a considerable
number of manufacturing towns for representation with-
out taking into consideration the growth in the wealth
and people of the counties, although they might be agri-
cultural. The Hon. Gentleman's proposition to-night
begins by slating that every person, although he may
not pay any rates or taxes, yet if he be a lodger in the
house he should have a right to vote. Now it appears
to me, in the first instance, that if my Hon. Friend at-
tempts to carry out that object by. a Bill, and if such Bill
become law, it would be open to innumerable frauds. I
cannot conceive, how any means could be adopted to
prevent any number of persons being placed on the re-
gistry as rated householders, although, according to the
present law, they could have no claim to be placed there.
Supposing the owner or occupier of a home in which
there are /six or seven lodgers—the owner is rated, and
pays the rate—the other lodgers are not rated, and have
nothing to do with the payment of them. Well, accord-
ing to the Bill of the Hon, Member, they may be all
rated and placed on the rate-books upon their own de-
mand. They would be under no obligation to pay the
rates—the obligation would still devolve on the occupier.
I own it does appear to me that this is as near universal
suffrage as a plan that does not profess to be one of
universal suffrage can well be.—(Hear, bear.) The
lion. Gentleman himself has avowed that he is in favour
of the People's Charter; and in all the public meetings
of which we have seen an account, the Hon. Gentleman
and the lion. Member for Nottingham have avowed the
same objects and the same views.—(Hear.) If that,
then, be the case, how am I to distinguish the Hoe.
Gentleman's proposition from that which the Chartists
hitherto have made?—(Hear, hear.) But then the Lion,
and Learned Member for Sheffield says, e Why shouldi
you distrust the people? Why not have confidence
i
the whole body of the people? And why not Admitto vote far Members of Parliament?"—
(it may seem very ungenerous in me to sayli tthaart.) Now,
I do not
feel confidence in the great body of the people; and this,
too, when it is declared by the on. and Learned Mem-
berli
for Sheffield, that when the working classes are
praised by one' side of the House we are always sure_ to
other. Now,.
.5.1 r, I
timit. echoed? on - the

admit that the conduct of the working classes is de-
serving of our 'praise, and that, too, upon every oc-
casion that we have had an opportunity ,of judging
of their general conduct; but going from that conduct;
should it follow that a suffrage almost universal should
give to them the power of electing Members of Par-
liament, and that if they had that power their choice
would always be a wise ono?—(Hear, hear.) Am
I to say that become they are deserving that the
consequence should be that they should elect the Mem-
bers of this House, by whom are to be determined all
questions in relation to thiagreat empire?—(Hear, hear)
—that to them should be intrusted the preservation of
our constitution and of this empire, in the direction of
which this House has so great a part?—(Hear, hear )
Candidly, I must say that I think they should not; I be-
lieve that they would be misled, and I have seen inst feces
that induce me to think so. There would be found one
man telling them that 30,000,000/. of taxes were paid for
a debt that was nova national-debt —that they would be
right in not paying it; and that they might get rid of
those taxes by refusing to pay that debt. I think that a
man telling them this would get followers and sup-
porters, and thus have a seat in this House. I believe, too,
that persons might obtain favour amongst them by pro-
posing the repeal of the new paor.la se, and restoring the
old poor-law—that law which was fast leading to a
social revolution in this country. I believe that dee-
trines such as these, and others, would, with the classes
to whom you propose to give the suffrage, have great
weight and influence.—(Hear, hear.) If such, then, are
my opinions, I cannot support the proposition of the
Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear.) But, then, we are
rept-of/died with the measures on this subject thst we
have proposed. The Honourable Member for Oxford
ays, " You have brought in a Bill respecting the Irish
franchise, and the constitution for the Cape laid down
principles which do not differ much from that which the
-Honourable Gentleman proposes." With respect to Ire-
land we have brought forward a Bill which, if it passes
in its present shape,'will give 250,000 votes to 2,000,000
'of an adult population—that is,which gives to the people
a less_number of voters in proportion to the population
than that which the people of England and Wales now
have.—(Hear, hear.) If that, then, bo so, that Bill is
no precedent for the measure of. the Hon. Gentleman.—
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the Cape, the state of its
population and the franchise to be given can form no
grouad for such a motion as this. Any representation
given to a colony such as the Cape will be a representa-
tion for the colony only—it will have nothing but the
concerns of the colony to manage. It is not like the great
Imperial questions which come before the House of Com-
mons here. The representation here is totally different
from that which would suit such a colony as the Cape.
The next part, then, of the Honourable Gentleman's
proposition—having given a vote, or the right of voting
nearly to all persons; having made it that which Sergeant
Talfoard had well said, when he said "that this was a
household suffrage, not for everybody who held a house,
but for everybody that a house would hold."—(Laugh-
ter.) The Hon. Gentleman next states what is the alte-
ration ho would propose as to the cities and boroughs
that should send Members to this House. Now, lam
bound to say that the Hon. Gentleman's explanation on
this, as on other occasions, has been very unsatisfactory.
—(Hear, hear.) I can very well understand the plan of
the Hon. Member for Nottingham, and as laid down in
the Charter, which the Hon. Member, I believe, has
signed and assisted in drawing.—(" Hear," from Mr.
Hume.) By that it was proposed that the country
should be divided into a certain number of districts,
-each having 40,000 or 50,000 persons, who should have
a representative. Now, I think that would be very in-
jurious, and less like a national representation than that
which now exists. When we were making the Reform
Bill we endeavoured, in preserving the ancient boun-
daries and ancient cities and boroughs, to give a fair
representation to the whole. Now, I say that when
you come to apportion the representation you would
be obliged to consider the case of the counties.
Hera- you have 100,000 people collected in a manu-
facturing town, and you say they must have two
Members to represent them, but here, where there are
200,000 people in a county, you say they are not de-
serving of a representation of four Members. Now,
what is the state at present of the representation?
There is Nottingham,-with 53,000 persons, sending two
Members to Parliament; and North Devonshire, with
170,000 persons, has only two Members.—(Hear.)
There is Leicester, with 50,000 persons, having two
Members of Parliament, and South Devon, with 200,000
persons, sending no more Members to Parliament.
There is Oldham, with 42,000 persons, and two Mem-
bers, and Dorsetshire, exclusive of the boroughs, with
170,000 persons, sending no more Members to Parlia-
ments- than Oldham.—(-Hear, hears)- If then we come
to inequalities in the representation, and you say there
are great numbers of persons in the manufaeturing
towns who are not represented in proportion to the
population, 'yet I-say that before the small boroughs are
destroyed, I do 'not 'think that your object will bo
attained by destroying the boroughs connected
with the agricultural counties. Wolverhampton,
Bradford, Stamford, and Kidderminster, with a
population of 198,000, send twelve Members to Par-
liament; and South Devon, with a population that is
12,000 more than all these towns together, sends only
two Members to Parliament. If then we are to
fight the question of inequality, let us fight it upon true
grounds. Adopt the plan of the Hon. Member for Not-
tingham, and divide tte country into districts—give an
equal number to boroughs and counties.—(llsar.) But
the Hon. Gentleman does not propose that; he takes up
the question of the great towns and small boroughs, but
yet I never heard of a remedy for the inequality pro-
posed by the Hon. Gentleman which would deal
equally with the counties and the towns.—(Hear.) I
have upon otter occasions stated my reasons for think•
ing why a representative from the large towns and divi-
sions of counties would less represent the people than
the divisions which at present exist. I do not believe
that any other result would follow from the proposed
change than to increase the division amongst classes.
between the agricultural and manufacturing interests. I
think that the representation of the smaller towns with
agricultural districts around them tends to smoothen
those differences by the Members they send to the
House of Commons. If we are to change this—then
let there be a fair and Equal p'an of representation pro-
posed; let that plan be explained to this House, and let
not the Hon. Gentleman, now for the third time point to
the small boroughs and the large towns. Sir, when I
brought forward the Reform Bill, I stated what boroughs
I thought, and I named them, should be disfranchised,
as well as what counties and what-towns I proposed to
give the representation to. I laid the whole case fairly
before the House and the country to judge of it.—
(Hear.) But the Hon • Gentleman's plan always gives
me the suspicion that he desires to give not a prepon-
derate, but an almost exclusive weight to the great towns
of this country.—(Hear, hear.) Ho would not treat
fairly the whole population by dividing them into manu-
facturing and agriculurists.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gen-
tleman talks of the labouring classes as if he wished to
make a distinct class of them—as if we distrusted them,
and would keep them at a distance.—(Hear.) I differ
altogether from that view. So far from the workir,g
classes being a slave class, they have, in my mind, in-
estimable privileges—they are secure in their persons
and their property; and if the poor man be injured I e
is as sure of having a fair trial before his country as the
highest man in the land—he has the security of the law
and of our free constitution.—(Cheers.) _ Such, too C

am sure is the feeling of that class. We have never
seen any other sentiment &clan d by them than that

"we are a free people and have the full enjoyment of
our liberty."—(Cheers.) I appeal to any one who has
ever heard the popular feeling expressed, if it is not so?
and nothing, I am sure, can bo more different from
the feeling that they are living in a state of slavery.
—(Hear, hear.) There is not a republic in the
world which opens such a field to every honour and
every distinction as this monarchy.—(Loud cheers.)
Here a man may rise to the highest honours in the
state; ho may rise to the greatest power in the state; he
may become a Minister in this country, however humble
may be his origin, and in that situation he may advise
his Sovereign as to the policy he should pursue, and the
measures he ought to adopt; he may rise to the highest
-position in the Church or the law, he may become Arch-
bishop of Canterbury or Lord Chancellor, and as such he
may take rank before the Duke of Norfolk and the highest
noble in the land.—(Cheers.) They possess every pri-
vilege, their properties and their lives are protected, and
they have a fair field open to their ambition—they are
a free people, and they are not the less free bemuse
they have not votes given to them to enable thorn to elect
persons who may have the direction of public affairs in
Parliament.—(Hear.) Though I entirely differ from
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, and though I muss
giie it to-night, as I would at any time give it, a dis-
tinct negative, yet I do not hold that a 101. valuation is
absolutely necessary, or must be always permanently re-
tained; and having stated that opinion I may be asked
why I have not come forwardi the present session and
prpposed such an amended measure for reform as I may
consider advisable. It is my opinion, and that of my
colleagues to whom I submitted this question,
that it would not be advisable in the present session to
put aside all other questions in order to raise the queston
of the franchise, which must lead to long and protracted
debates, excluding every other subject, and leading, I
fear, to many angry contests.—(Hear, hear.) I considerd
that, of late years, we have made very great changes
with respect to our commercial policy, and these changes
are matters of discussion in this House, and, still more
matters of discussion in the country.—(Hear, hear.) My
opinion is that the sentiments of the country should be
allowed to be matured and settled upon these questions,
before we place before the country that which must
cause great excitement, and could hardly be settled
without great divisions of parties. I believe that if WO in
addition to that which has caused angry debates through-
out the country—the question with regard to our com-
mercial law—that if we added to that another question,the
we might do a serious injury to the interests c
country.—(Hear, hear.) I believe
that this' Parliament
is equal to the determination of subjects of great interest,
which might be passed as law, for the benefit of the
country; but no long lime
had been passed for the extensionaoId uelapse once a measure
of the suffrage, until a
md
complaint would be mad©
thaetletehteedprebseynt
nllllousewhoof
Commons had not been
might be entitled to vote for representatives.
I believe it is more for the interest of this
country that the Parliament should continue
t,Give Ste attention to the subject brought before it,
than if we rushed into a contest on Parliamentary reform.
—(Hear, hear.) There are, too, other considerations
which I think may well induoe us to collect further in-
formation, and that open to us further reflection, before
we bring the question of extension of the suffrage before
the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has
alluded to great changes on the continent of Europe in
the last few years. These changes are not without
.their lessons. The first lesson—and we are told
of, it by Honourable Gentlemen in favour of
the motion—is, that we have seen governments which.
might have altered their institutions—which might hate
granted popular representation—whichmight' ha*?
all Owed the people an enlightened press, and might have

introduced measures which would have prevented alrio-,
lute power from interfering with the liberty of the:,
people unjustly, and that, having lost the time which they,
should have devoted to such objects, were overwhalmek
with the tide of popular fury which they had incurred.
But another lesson has been taught since governments
have been overthrown, or disturbed in their course.
We have seen in three countries in Europe, the cause of
liberty endangered, and the cause of good governments
injured, by those who came forward in the name of liberty
and of democratic government. We have seen in Italy
a-venerable Pontiff, whose good intentions and benevo-
lence no one can doubt, obliged to fly from his capital.
We have seen that capital stained with the blood of WS
Minister, who had been assassinated; and we have :seen.
the wild establishment of a republic followed by a foreign
bombardment and a foreign occupation.—(Hear, hear.)
We have seen in Germany various changes, from the
extr, me of despotism to the extreme of democracy; we
have seen universal suffrage given and withdrawn, and
a substitute-adopted, which was 'borrowed from ancient
[ Rome. by which the votes cf 100 of the richest men are
equal ti the votes given by 1,000 of the poorest. We
hive seen this substitute for the evil of universal suf-
fray.e. We have seen in France, when a demand was
ree,!e fir the extension .of the suffrage beyond the
narrow limits of a Inv hundred thousands—we have
seen that followed by a republic, which appeared to
the astonishment of ninety-nine out of every hundred
inhabitants of France—(Heer, hear)—we have seen
universal suffrage proclaimed and acred upon, and yet
the new republic and universal suffrage openly reviled
at once by the wisest and the ablest men, and at the
same time by the poorest of the people.—(Cheers.) We
have men men endeavouring to remedy the evil that
has bent brought upon them by surprise. I have been
told, and many others have been told the same, that it is
the opinion of the great mass of the people of France,
that the present constitution is not suited to their
habits and character, and that that constitution gaud
be replaced by institutions of a different kind.--s(Hear.)
Now it was no busineas of ours, as I stated when I was
first asked by the Hon. Member for Montrose—it is no
business of ours to interfere with any kind of govetn.
went thatahe French nation msy give to themselres....
(Hear.) But it is our privilege, and we should be idiots
indeed if we did not avail ourselves of it, to observe what
is going on in Europe—(Hear, hear)—and to take coun-
Isel from these events.--(Hear, hear.) I say then, that
if the result of the first lesson of 1848 was "It is too
late," the result of this second lesson is "Do not do
too much, and do not go too far, without full delibera•
lion." I say that we are in the happy position that we
have not a constitution toseek,—(Cheers.) The 'Hon.
and Learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) says
that he has always been looking for this constitution,
and has not been able to find it.—(Laughter.) Why,
that, in fact, is our happiness and our advantage--that
we have no written constitution, but that every English-
man " knows his rights, and knowing dares maintain;"
and that no person would venture to deprive an English..
man of that liberty which, notwithstanding the Hon.
Member for Montrose, he knows that he hay, sad he
values it.—(Loud cheers.) Well, then, if that be
the case; if we aro in the enjoyment of so muck
liberty; if the people of this country, daring the years
1848 and 1849, have shown co much good temper, end,
as the Hon. Member says, are now in a state of quiet,
and contentment—l say that Ido not think it will be sae
wise in us to pause and consider, and not to take 'the
next step without further consideration as to what that
step shall be.—(Hear.) That there is no very prevailing
wish among the people at this time for these changes,
and that the middle classes are, as the Hon. Member for
Sheffield says, opposed to them, are certainly not con-
clusive reasons against those cbanges.—(Hear, hear.) It
is very unadvisable to wait for a storm before we go to
sea; but at the same time, if you lift your anchor and
unfurl your sails in a perfect calm, you may be drifted
against the rocks.—(Loud cheers.) I do not think,
therefore, that in the present temper of the people of this
country, it would be advisable for the Government of
this country to propose a great plan for the extension of
the suffrage.—(Hear, hear.) Whenever we do pro-
pose a plan, 1 think it should not be a substitute for
the Reform Bill, but a supplement to that AO.—
(Reiterated cheers.) My opinion is certainly that the
Reform Act was _ adapted to the institutions of
this country—was 'adapted to the wishes of the
people of this country. I believe witta Hon. Gentlemen,
that the people of 'dole country have, since the Reform
Bill was introduced, made great advances in knowledge
and in information of every kind.—(Hear.) _ I rejoice to
know and to acknowledge those advances. I think that
it is partly is consequence of those advances that they
do not, as far as I can perceive, ahem any impatience at
the present moment for a great political change; that
they know the conflicts and even the dangers that must
accompany any such change, that they are contented to
wait till the wisdom of this House—(oh, oh, and laugh-
tcr)—shall decide that it is necessary to make a further
extension of the suffrage; and that the 101. value shall
be no longer the limit for the right of voting in this
country.—(Hear, hear.) I think, therefore, if you decide
against the motion of the Honourable Gentleman that
you will be deciding against a motion which is in-
consistent with any right of suffrage that has hitherto
existed in this country, and which would introduce into
your representation a body of electors with whom you
might find it was impossible to make the other institu-
tions of the state accord. I am supported in this view
by the language that I tee is held at the public meetings
which are professedly in support of the Hon. Member
for Montrose. I observe that at one of them the Honour-
able Member for Nottingham rejoiced in the union
that had taken place—(Laughter, and hear, hear)—and
r. marked, amidst the great applause and laughter of the
audience, that it was not enough to destroy protection,
but that they mu.t destroy the Established Church and
get rid of the " black blugs," which was the tame with
which he thought right to denominate the clergy of the
United Kingdom.—(Laughter, and hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman cheers that sentment,—(Hear.) The Hon,
Gentleman has united with those who are proposing this
plan to- ight.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Oxford (Mr. Wood) means nothing of the kind. He has
f'l I quently expressed his adherence to the constitution of
this realm, and his wish to preserve the monarchy and
the institutions of the country. I have no doubt that
such is his intention; but when the Members come to be
elected under the plan of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose, if sanctioned by Parliament, I rather believe, and
I am inclined to think, that the lion. Member for Not-
tingham would be more likely to carry the majority with
him on his plan, than the Hon. Member for Oxford on
his.—(Cheers.) Be that as it may, this is a question of
conjecture and uncertainty. My advice to the House is
to prbfer to that conjecture and uncertainty the institu-
tions that we now have, bring prepared to amend them
with regard to any of their detects, refusing to ally our-
selves with any obstinate rejection of what may be for
the public benefit, but not adopting a course full of
danger, full of doubt, and full of peril to our best inte-
rests.—(Loud cheers.)

Mr. B. OSBORNE—The Noble Lord had described
the speech and motion of the Hun. Member for Montrose
as unsatisfactory, but the declartions just made by the
Noble Lord were completely unsatisfactory to the sup-
porters of the Government. It was worthy of notice
that all the opposition to the motion, with the exception
of one amphibious politician, the Member for West
Surrey, had come from the Treasury bench. Ile was
one cf those who had indulged in the pleas'itg dream that
the Noble Lord would have deprived his Hon. Friend
of the necessity of making his motion by bringing for
ward a measure to amend the representative system. In
July, 1848. the Noble Lord not only disclaimed the
doctrine t f finality, but expressed himself as totally
dissatisfied with the state of the franchise.—(ll( ar,
hear.) The Noble Lord would not put to sea in a storm.
and he would not lift his anchor in a calm Were they
to gather from this that the Noble Lord was waiting
for a breezl-01. laugh)—and that it would not be
until the excitement of a general election occurred
that he would lay on the table of the House a Bill
for extending the franchise?—(Hear, hear.) He did
not think that such a course was calculated to

place the Noble Lord in a very high position with the
constituency uf this country. He was afraid that until
the broad arrow of the Government were stamped upon
the measure, it was in vain to bring forward a motion
like the present. There were always people who said
the proper time bad not arrived for measures of this
kind. At one time it Ras said that you should never
yield to popular clamour, and at another that you should
not grant such a measure when there was popular apa-
thy'. But if ever there was a time when a Minister could
add to his fame, and secure the best interests of his coun-
try, it was by bringing forward such a measure at the
present moment. If he were not much mistaken, a cry
was arising out of doors that would swell after the
speech of the Noble Lord so that he would not have.to
wait long fur the storm he had spoken.' of. Who wars
the parties that were really promoting this agitation? -
A supine House of Commons and a procrastinating
Cabinet.—(Loud cheers.) ,The Noble Lord had given
the House few-rea,oas for • the 'dilatory course he
proposed to pursue—s course very different from that
taken by his great predecessor, Mr. who laid
its
Pitt.
cd h o w w
were
thatraplof
fhoLtdodrd iGnirtleayteanredfo
Jura::
regretted s
reattileGdsoebvneetriendmnimdentnostt see in his place to-night
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli),
the successor
oi nf. histLi positionthin
country.—(A
leaderas l
laugh.)
e
What great aristocratic
what did that Hon. Member say? lie said that Reform
ssor of
M partyr Pitt
Associations and Anti Corn-law Leagues, and other com-
binations of the kind, were the consequence of the people
haring to take the government of the country into their
own hands; that if the Government would not lead tha
people the people-would drive the Government.—(Hear,
hear.) So it was now; and hence we had a set of agi-
tators getting up—(lronical cheers)—of whom the Noble
Lord (Lord 'John Russell) was the godfather.—(near,
hear.) The Noble Lord himself; a few years alter the
Reform Bill passed, expressed his dissatisfaction with
the franchise. In 1837, when the Government was not
quite so strong, and it was necessary to throw out these
things to keep the party together (as it was called).
ho said in his letter to the electors of Stroud that
it 'would haves been difficult, bat not impossible, by
means of the "freemen" franchise, to obtain the re-
presentation of the industrious, intelligent, and
able mechanics, and ttat such a change in the
character of freemen would do much to purify
our elections and to strengthen the House of Commons.
--(Hear.) But to come to a more recent period ; what
came out before " Mr. Roebuck's Committee " on the
Election Compromises? Why, that at Harwich 94
Tory votes cost 6,0001., and 84 Whig votes 2,oooL—
(Hestr.)—at Nottingham,
529 Whig rotes cost 12,000/.
and 144 Tory, ; 5,0001; at Lowers, 411 Tory votes cost
5,0p01., and 407 Whig, 2,000 h; at Reading, 572 Tory
ntei cost 6 0001. and 410 Whig votes 16,000rhear)—no, -that last was a mistake, the Whigs always
,
did thp:tbing cheapest--(A laugh)—it was 1,6001. Ia
abt boroughs 3,796 rotes cost upwards of 53,360.
palely.)
(SirJ. Pakington) Last year the Hon,'' Member for Droitsviek
r
had a Committee, and it was pro-
posed that Members should take an oath apivat bey