The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

$.•

)061
Rl' of
ion,

05'
hone
irly
all

th— ----- -
G Nlght he had done his duty in brim;ing- the .tibiect
,or,,ard. ir ~,,.:,, „„ , im
.1;11,,, if, t,-; I:cu:.,er, ~.
''-t(l6"e thernselve, to ali parts o. the plan. He merely
• .5,4 ed them to go into the consideration of the present
gate of the representation, and to endeavour to devise
Aearis by which a full, a fair, and a free representation
),t...the p•eople might be attained.—(Cheer.) The points
~".101 he had brought forward for the consideration of
.9e-iftl'',e had recently, he was aware, Men into some
'l'4,l§eredii, as being contained in what was comnionly
~.411e.d the Charter. That such was the case lie would
0t deny ; but, at the same time, he did not wish to
'lettify 4 himself with any proceedings Which had taken
1 ace in relation to the Charter. Be was aware that
. ' ,
`?zany of those proceeding's had clime great injury to the
'elt,4se of Reform. He alluded to attempts to attain the
• pects Sinuht by means of physical force and tumult.
ate utterly' repudiated all such attempts, and the first
I."whom resolution of the delegates to 1 he had al-
' laded was, that the object for their consideration should
be
•:: . the best measures for securing. by peaceable means,
iiit) full, a fair, and a free representation of the people. It was
Iss°l3' by those means that he desired to carry his object. He
.51: led to create a moral power, which by a temperate, yet
''''eible expression of opinion throughout the country, should
:illiescornplish such changes. He was bound to repeat that if
"ere were any disposition to attack property, it was only be -
ealise the property of the country arrayed itself against the
ticiPle The moment they did justice to the people, the upo-
ile4t they showed a disposition to inquire how justice might be
''Plries they might depend upon it that the same security for
tPerty that always had existed in England would return.
;11.. sufferings of the people are great, and those sufferings
•Y ascribe - to unjust legislation. Their present demand for
Leeform of that House arose in consequence of their refusal
,
Vnalre reasonable amendments in the Reform Act. Neither
re Working class nor the middle class could effect this Reform
11 itself ; but if a complete union took place between these two
;•-elasses it would produce a power which it would be impossible
,•"°t.iti
resist. It appeared that that union was now in progress. Both
1 asses concurred in the propositions that he 'laid before
,:iii! House. (Hear, hear.) These propositions were
•°at, temperate, and free from all harshness. They had the
IVoWer to answer this petition by taking into consideration the
Srevances it expressed. He asked no more of the House.
~!":bad been said that the power of the aristocracy would be
.
langered4 by a free admission of the people to political
tßower , On this point he should refer to the declaration of
•:7 Noble Lord the Member for London, who assumed that
tetion in a more forcible manner than he could do. He said
...twhile the aristocracy performed the important duties and
7..Nspensed extensive charity, both public and private, in their
,44ierective districts, it was not in human nature but that their
it.t4ttence should be very great. He would now call on the
!Vernment to show its disposition to consider the present
49)Plication ; if they did not feel justified in acceding to the
solutions, let them at least treat them with kindness. If the
'oble Lord the Member for London had been present, he
;.should have called on him, as a leader of the cause of the people,
"7advocate the extension of their rights. He regretted that he
„._''as not there, but he trusted that he should have his assistance
`7.1,a future occasions He believed he had completed all he
)i'l'A to say in reference to the present motion ; in bringing it
''l,°eward he trusted that he had not offered any disrespect to
'•`43' party.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to bring it forward
•itbout any aggravation of party spirit. He wished to do it
a manner consistent with the prayer of the petition, which
4 xpressed the complaints of the people, and he thought they
4411 a right to have those complaints heard.
14r. O'CONNELL seconded the motion.
• The SPEAKER having put the question,
,Mr. WALLACE was satisfied, from being one of the
oldest Reformers in the House, that the time had come when
those sentiments, which had been so ably worked out by the
'. "on. Member bell re him ( Mr. S. Crawford), should receive the
piousconsideration of the House and the country generally.
pious
the middling and the working classes were brought to
:,et in more perfect unison, he must say the Reform Bill
bad
a delusion, practised upon the country by those who
.ad been parties to the passing of the Bill ; and among those
74 included Hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of
e House, as well as those Members who ought to be,but were
r, sitting upon the bench below him.— (The Hon. Member
' Members
pointed to the bench generally occupied by the leading
ulensbers of the Opposition.) He almost felt that he, with
sincere Reformers, ought himself to have gone down into
teat place which those, whom he regretted to say were absent,
r:)aglit to fill on the present occasion.—(Laughter, and cries of
Go down.") He (Mr. W.) would not go down, but stand
... ,here he appeared on the present occasion to advocate the
tights of the people respecting those points alluded to in
s, le document which had been as ably brought forward,
HAN in so mild and gentlemanly a tone, by the Hon.
„wtember for Rochdale. He (Mr. Wallace) knew that he
I.l= not speaking at the time of the night, at 11 or
, sik o'clock, when those who fancied they could command
:-7,7 attention of the House generally rose—he was speaking
; tl,'ne of the minor poets.—(Laughter.) Could it be
i that the Reform Bill had effected the great mprove-
. Rli?ts which had been expected of it ? Certainly not.
e-sei‘e measure in reference to the franchise was absolutely ne-
totally
for the public interest • his conviction of this was con-
• increasing. He had originally been an advocate
pvote by ballot and triennial Parliaments; and recently
had taken into his consideration the question of annual
statliaments. He had not supported the Charter, and some
his constituents had on that ground refused to support him.
st„Litt he believed they would have come to his rescue if there had
t;, lithe slightest risk of the Carlton Club money finding favour
k the town which he represented. He was satisfied if they
ltd annual Parliaments in place of septennial, that totally
tj , erent measures of general finance from what the Right
;col. Baronet had proposed would have been brought for-
kese`ed• He. would not have ventured to propose such
Eaf(s as had been submitted. He (Mr. Wallace) would say,
at he was nearly prepared to vote for annual Par-
1/41i!rents sand for the proposition submitted to them that night ;
et" if he did so, his course would be to inform his constituents,
at if they were not pleased with his conduct he would re-
'tape the trust they had reposed in his hands, and they might
o the_representation to any one they pleased. He would
tit vote for the motion, and then sit for seven years, without
! lir renewed concur, once. Would the Right Hon. Baronet,
those behind him, follow such a course? He fancied not..
gave the, itotf..Gentleman who had brought forward this
ion his hearty concurrence, and he could assure him he
S ,iFt- *helly .agreedin the propesition he had submitted.
t,
Ras_ quite sure there was no property qualification necessary.
it e Alembers for Scotland proved this. He defied England
Ireland to show that they (the Scotchmen) were not as
• for the representation as they were. He would like to see
td, man get up and say that those sent from Scotland were
their equals.—(Laughter.) He said they were as good men
v.,143, in that House, either Tory or Radical. There were
lie Whigs amongst them to be sure—only one here and
7e Scotland knew better. They always had out-and-out
7, and no half-and-half Members.—( Loud laughter.)
ki' r•BOWRING said he was unwilling to give a question
4t.
I‘!ich extreme: interest and gravity a tacit concurrence.
Zire could be no safety for any Government that did not rest
.g.,1 the affections and opinions of the people. The great
4 tijiNiple of representation was freedon of admission, and ex-
thtlien was the exception. He was aware that until some
ti:lige should take place in the constitution of Parliament,
Wee was little chance of obtaining a hearing for the advocates
4 band principles in the House of Commons, and
1,... Was also aware that that change could only be
I 01; ht about by a hearty co-operation between
tkl multitude and those who were somewhat, above
, :111 in society. Hon. Gentlemen opposite paid great atten-
bll to the petitions of the people when it suited them to do
sa,,. Hon. Gentlemen opposite attached great importance to
1;,7 Petition which had been presented in favour of the Income-
e from Manchester, signed by 24.000 persons. He would ask
Zeeswas not a petition signed by millions of quite as great im-
trance ? The petitions of the unrepresented were in his
Ilion entitled to more attention than were the petitions of
a, represented. The represented spoke through their repre-
Cdatives ; the unrepresented many, the suffering masses, suf-
Csla.ff through the effects of evil legislation, had no means of
r_Xlng their sufferings known, except by petition. There were
'Calents of danger in the present state of society—on the one
Oel, they had the privileged few; on the other, the suffering
i 7. On the one side, the agglomeration of property in the
ta of a few ; on the other, millions possessing
hing, yet suffering much.—( Hear.) This was a
ss_ol state of things. If the multitude were entitled to those
Oressions of sympathy which had been made use of by Hon.
)7tiatlerrien opposite—if they had borne their sufferings with such
ee and fortitude—surely the House was bound to pay at-
n to their prayers. What his Hon. Friend asked, then,
Ci not to pledge themselves to the principle at once, but to
seder it. He (Dr. Bowring) was satisfied that those princi-
st must ultimately be acknowledged. All that was wanting
'heir success was, that they should be detached from those
.silliftts of violence, and front those projects of ignorance with
Ipt,eb they had been mixed up. They had only to be exhibited
svoeir naked strength, and their naked truth to prevail. The
Onsion of the suffrage had never been attended with any
Rogeri to property. Were the men of England less
tj.thy to be trusted with the suffrage than the inhabitants of
4...nserland or Spain ; or were the fathers of the people of
si`gerica less worthy than their descendants on the other side
of v_ge Atlantic? Isfo danger had ever arisen from an extension
tistle suffrage. He could not look at an excluded man with-
-1,, feeling as if he had done the man a wrong. He would ask,
e
tx 41se one man was a little less opulent than his neighbour,
4: he therefore to possess fewer rights ? He had heard the
Will Mr. Roscoe say that he could not understand how the
Rd
of universal suffrage could be repudiated by any man
stil recognised the great Christian principle of doing to
litllra that which he would have done to himself. Yet so
ts,IIR,IY anomalous was the principle at present acted
ILtnat in some instances they slid confer those pri.
ts upon the poor. If they found a poor man in a
aeon so degraded as to be influenced by their bribes or ter-
is by their threats, they let that man have a vote in return.,
ketilrepsesentatives to that House. His Hon. Friend had at-
111, ed to his motion a proposition for securing to the voter
i 5 Protection of secrecy. The Radical Reformers were de-
e" of securing the protection of the ballot, in order that
44(Y man might have an opportunity of recording his free
lieOnbiassed opinion. The present state of the representa-
tip, Wal indefensible. They saw small bodies electing the
i„e number of representatives as large ones. Small cities
itOlesl an equal number of representatives as large cities, and
kis`l agricultural districts the same as large ones. His Hon.
tend had likewise represented the necessity of shortening
,4,,ratinn of Parliaments. He (Dr. Bowring) had always
etsbsin favour of annual Parliaments. It seemed an arrange-
! 4 ' in conformity with the general course of nature, and
1 , kx Social habits. We settled our accounts from year to
I , 7., We elected our municipal officers annually.—( Hear.)
INSmon. Member for Greenock had been in the habit of re-
)k:ha'? to his constituents at the end of every year, and he
sSo dt the less of this part of the question, as every Member
sNr,aPproved of the principle of annual Parliaments, had it in
kw" power to acquaint the community of it. With respect
.. atlity to the number of votes could anything be more de-
Nile? Could anything be less defensible than that a thou-
persons in in one part of the country should exercise in that
km as much political power as ten times that number in ano-
' istrict? This seemed to him exceedingly indefensible. If
~thitsaid that their constitution should be made up of incon-
Stell 3' and absurdity, so be it. But if they wished it to be con-
I , t with public opinion, gathered out of the sources of public
)titi,.", --the entire community—let them make it consistent
‘ssa toat public opinion. No man would say that Scotland was
slas:,,tePresented because the money qualification was not cc-
,13,"; This qualification would exclude some of the best men
'aii;etiamerst The man most fit of all to be a legislator might
tillesp,,Y Possess a fortune; a calamity might overtake him to-
lk "ws and the next day they would decide that he ought not
eve
A a seat in this House. What was the deduction? that it
`asyli4 his intellect, nor his mind, nor his knowledge, which
elltilestred to come to their assistance as legislators, but his
letsi' There was nothing like common sense in this pro-
,i_mtli;l• He concurred with the principles of the propositions,
`Nsii.e hosed the House would consent to consider them in
eltls WILLIAMSin4 . W was not at all surprised at the indiffe •
Nisklaanifesred on the other side of the House towards this
Zreolant question, when he saw how much the present system
744:tsentation marked out the great object which those
k.,„, had in view, namely, to promote the interest of the
':ejaiie few at the expense of the industrious millions of
Ostntry. Having had a seat in that House during the
.01.0,K1'iod the Reform Bill had been in operation, he had
Ni-ellr rtnnities enough of witnessing how incomplete that
Ni ? had been—that it had nst worked out one single
"atlol4 Which it had been professed it bad been intended it
s ' according to the statements of Lord Grey in the House

of Lords, and of Lord John Russell in the House of CoM:T one,
on the introduction of that measure. Seeing the failure of
that measure so complete, he (Mr. W.) had no hesitation in
supporting the proposition of the 1-lon. Member for Rochdale
(Mr. S. Crawford.) But he felt the deepest conviction that •
no justice would be obtained for the people of this country
until another Reform Bill was carried out to ills,
full extent of the principle which had been cx-
pressed
by his Honourable Friend (Mr. S. Crawford), I
What had Lord Grey said upon the introduction of the Reform
Pell in the House of Lords? He stated that the object of it
was to procure for the people of this country a cheap and a
good government. Had it obtained either one or the other
of these two great objects? Good government meant good
and just laws. Had those laws which were passed since the
Reform Bill came into existence been founded upon the prin
ciple of equal justice to the rich and to the poor ? He believed
that if they examined almost every statute they would find
some part of each formed for the advantage of the rich and the
disadvantage of the poorer classes. Had the Reform Bill pro- '
duced them cheap Government? `,\ by the expenses of the
present Government, and the Government for some years past,
had been some millions more than they were the yesr preceding
the passing of the Reform Bill. Lord John Russell, upon the I
introduction of that Bill in the House of Commons, said, in
June, 1831, that when he proposed to have a Reformed Par-
liament he proposed to have sent to that House real representa-
tives of the people, to deliberate upon their wants, and consult
fur their interests ; to consider of their grievances, and to at-
tend to their desires. He proposed that they should possess, in
fact, what they had hitherto not within theii grasp, the
power of holding the purse-strings of their monarch.
Laws would no longer be classed for particular classes ; they
would no longer be passed by men who voted at twelve o'clock
for what they had not heard a syllable about, merely because
the leader of their party told them so to vote. Not one of
those prophecies had been fulfilled. There was not a Reformer
in the country who would not be perfectly satisfied with such a
result. AU that was required was, that the Members of that
House should really represent the people, providing for their
wants, and consulting their interests--no one asked for a more
extensive Reform Bill than that. He extremely regretted
that the authors and promoters of the Reform Bill were absent
from their seats in that House.—(Hear.) If there had been
any party question under consideration they would have been
in their places ready to carry out their purposes; but when
the interest of vast masses of the people were concerned, they
did not think it necessary to appear in their seats. He held in
Isis hand a retu ii of the registration for the year 1840. From
that return it appeared that there were five towns returning
Members to that House, of which the aggregate constituency
was 1,1,88 ; five was returning ten Members, with a constitu-
ency of 1,496 ; and twenty towns returning f,rty Members, in
which the constituency was 6,258. Thirty towns were return- ,
ing sixty Members, with a constituency of 12,180. Manchester
returned two Members, and possessed a constituency of 12,150.
—(1-leer, hear.) There were forty towns which returned sixty-
seven Members, with a constituency of 14,180; there were
seventy-four towns returning 121 Members, with constitu-
encies of 29,993. The West Riding of Yorkshire returned two
Members, and possessed a constituency of 30,120. Now this
was a perfect exhibition of the representation of the country.
There were 61 Members returned by the same constituency as
two Members. In another case, there were sixty-seven Mem-
bers returned by a less constituency than two Members. In
another case, there were 121 Members returned to that House
by a less constituency than two other Members. It was proved
by this'exhibition that the Reform Bill had been a failure.
They saw small constituencies, with vast interest and wealth,
brought to bear upon them, in order to obtain seats in
that House—in order to advance the ie' erest of a
particular class at the expense of the rest of the community.
They hail seen a vast system of corruption since the passing of
the Reform Bill, but more perhaps during the last election
than any preceding one. He would venture to assert that in
the old time of the boroughmongering system, when seats in
that House were sold, as was admitted by Lord Castlereagh,
as open as the noon-day sun, the system was not more noto-
rious than it was at present. In the time of the borough-
mongering system individuals purchased their seats for a certain
sum of money. Now the same individual could go to a small
set of sordid electors and make a purchase precisely the same
as under the old boroughmongering system. He believed, in
fact, that under the old system they might have made a better
bargain than with the present electors, who sold their votes to
persons ready to sell their country. Was it to be wondered at
when such a system was in operation—when it was so sorely
felt by the great body of the people, that a feverish anxiety
should exist throughout the whole mass of the industrious and
productive classes of the country for a great and important
change in the condition of that House. There was no diffe-
rence in the country as to that change. The only difference
of opinion was as to the means to be employed to obtain it.
The good sense of the country would point out the necessity of
agreeing in the common principle, and acting together to ob-
tain the great end desired. He called on those who had the
least interest in the possession of property to look to this sub-
ject, and make those concessions which, if delayed, would ul-
timately be forced from them.
Mr. WARD said, there was nothing so disagreeable in that
House as a one-sided debate. He could not impute the silence
of Hon. Gentlemen opposite to an intentional slight. He was
rather inclined to accept it as a sort of tribute on their part
to the importance of the principle which had been advanced
that evening ; and as a sort of proof of their consciousness,
that however impracticable it might be in the present state
of parties in that House to entertain such a principle, yet
that principle was one of great importance, and they, there-
fore, left the Right Hon. Baronet to wind up the debate
by some very courteous reasons, why he could not entertain
the proposition. He (Mr. Ward) was willing, thus, to con-
strue their silence. He certainly should not offer the House
any very lengthened remarks in support of the motion. The
motion was brought forward in a moderate form, and in that
speech, the temperate tone of which was acknowledged by all
who had spoken, the Horn Member asked them to take into
consideration the means of securing a full and fair representation
to the people of England, which was its ultimate object.
They had all discussed this question, before many of them
had had an opportunity of voting on the ballot, which he had
himself supported ; and he had also voted for triennial Par-
liaments, which he, on general grounds, preferred to annual.
As to the question of qualification of Members, he had voted
on the motion of Sir William Molesworth, for equalising
the system in Scotland and England ; and if the interests of the
working classes could be represented more intelligibly, and more
satisfactorily by a working man, he should be delighted to see
him admitted into that House, if he could he so by not requir-
ing a property qualification ; which in the case of men of
good family there was a thousand means of evading, and which
he considered to be no better than a fraud. He did not know
that they could entirely dissever the suffrage from the posses-
sion of some property, but he wished to widen the basis of the
present system, as a security against the dangers consequent
on its present unsettled state. Virtual representation still pre-
vailed, though it was exploded as a system by the Right Hon.
Baronet, the Homo Secretary, and the Noble Lord, the Se-
cretary for the Colonies, so long ago as 1831. They said that
representation and taxation should be co-existent, while they
taxed twenty where one was represented in that House. This
was a great anomaly, if the question were pressed out of that
House. He considered the question to be one principally of
time. How was the franchise used now? Had the people,
who were interested with it, proved themselves before the
Election Committees to be so free from sordid motives of ac-
tion as that the people of the country ought to be satisfied to see
the representation in their hands? A more disgraceful state
of things than that which those Committees brought to light
it was impossible for the page of history to unfold. He cared
not to which side it was attributed. It was only a question of
finding out, for both were guilty of it. When the question of
the disfranchisement of Sudbury came before the House, he
would certainly vote in favour of it. But he thought it very
hard that the charge of corruption should be confined to that
(the Opposition) side of the House. He thought that there
was as much corruption in that House as in any constituency.
There was as much corruption in a blue riband as in a couple
of sovereigns.—( Hear, hear.) With one party the corn-laws,
with another the sugar duties, constituted a sort of corruption.
With respect to the suffrage, there was a strung organization
among the people on the question, but that was owing to the
want of kindness of feeling shown towards them atter the Re-
form Bill. The only remedy for such a state of things was
contained in the motion now under the consideration
of the House. He remembered, when the question of
Catholic Emancipation was sought to be obtained, the
opponents of that measure resisted it on the ground of the
Catholics bring under improper g tidance, and that they would
therefore make a bad use of the power they would acquire.
Mr. Canning, he remembered, in reply to those persons, said
that whatever they complained of was a sort of idol worship
which they would put an end to ; they would throw open the
temple of the Constitution, and let them see the real divinity
enshrined within. He would conclude by stating his inten-
tion of giving his cordial support to the motion of his Hon.
Friend.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that what had fallen from the Hon.
Member who had just sat down, required that he should say a
few words. From the great silence on the question which was
observed on that (the hlinis:erial) side of the House, he feared
that it would be supposed disrespect was thereby meant
to the large classes of the community ; but he was
sere he need not say no sueh thing was intended.
That night they had heard universal disparagement of the Re-
form Bill on the other side of the House, and it had been
treated with contempt and derision, and they were told that it
was, in fact, useless. The Hon. Member for Coventry had
entered into an analysis of the constituencies for the purpose of
showing that the representation was unequal. Now, he did
not come there to discuss abstract propositions. The real
question, as he conceived, was, what was the form of Govern-
ment under which they should live? and he believed the
peerage and the monarchy would not survive if weight were
given to Members, to the exclusion of property. —( Hear,
hear.) This subject was considered very carefully
by the eminent men who had taken part in the
Reform Bill, and admitting the dangerous extent to which aris-
tocratic influence prevailed over popular influences, they thought
that in applying the correction they went to the utmost extent
which was consistent with the maintenance of the ancient con-
stitution of the country. That was his own opinion, and he had
seen no reason to change it. He honestly entertained that
opinion then. He sincerely entertained it now, and, enter-
taining it, he could not recede from it. He was bound to
listen to motions of this description with respect, but, he be-
lieved them to be fraught with danger to the existing form
of Government.

Mr. O'CONNELL said he had heard with some sur-
prise the Honourable Baronet's statement that, if the
motion were carried, it would be followed by the
destruction of the peerage, and the annihilation of the mo-
narchy. He was sorry to hear the Hon. Member use those
words, because he remembered that he was taunted, as one of
the Reform Ministers, with that very prophecy, though he then
very properly repudiated the prophecy and derided the prophet.
The Reform Bill had been hailed by the people, because they
believed that it would secure to them real representation. That
was the foundation of the speech of the Noble Lord, the Mem-
ber for the city of London. The people thought that although
the franchise would not be universal, yet that it would give to
the Members of that House the character of real representatives
of the people. The Noble Lord began his speech by referring
to the 25th Edward V., for the principle that no British sub-
ject should be taxed without his own consent, and
he cited also the statute, " De tallayiq non concedendo,"
declaring that without the consent of the earls, barons,
bishops, baronets, knights, burgesses, and other freemen of
England, no money should be levied for the support of the
State. He said it must be conceded that the taxation at pre-
sent was not placed upon that footing, and the object of
the Bill was to remedy the evil. He (Mr. O'C. ) contended
that the people had been disappointed, that the House repre-
sented apar titular class, and a particular class only, and that the
object now stated by the Noble Lord had not been attained.
Could there be any doubt but the people of England were di-
vidA into two classes ? A master-class having votes in the
choice of the representatives, and the slave-class who had no
votes when returning Members to the House, who had no
share in the making of the laws, who were bound to obey laws
made by others; and whenever there were a class bound to obey
laws made by others, no matter by what name that class might
be called, it was, in reality a slave-class. No one could deny
that such was the situation of the people of England. The
master-class was a small one, the slave-clals was a numerous
one. There were not above 20 per cent. of the male popula-
tion who had a right to vote for representatives in Parlia-
ment. There were 80 per teat. unrepresented, 80 per cent. of
the slave-class. In Ireland the difference was still more dispro-
portionate. In the county of Tipperary there were four hun-
dred thousand inhabitants, and only two thousand voters.
The slave.class amounted to 400,000, the marter-class to
2,000. Was that, he asked, to be the constitution a England?
—(Cheers.) The Reform Bill had not effected the object--
(Cheers).— for which it was passed. Would they tell the

people of England that they would not hold out a hope to them
that these evils should be remedied ?—( Cheers.) tie wanted
' to know on what ground they gave a preference to the master
class over the slave-class. At the time that the statute " De
tallagio non concedendo" was passed, it was well to make the
distinction of free men. At that time there was a class of
slaves, actual slaves, slaves who were property. They said
there were now no slaves, ne men who were the property of
others. If they boasted of having abolished slavery, why
did they continue a slave-class?—(Loud cheers.) The
Right Honourable Baronet had said that at the time
of the Reform Bill it had been determined that
the representation should be based, not upon popu-
lation alone, but upon property. Was that so? What
property had the freemen ?—( Cheers. ) What property had the
freemen by birth—what property had the freemen by servitude?
—(Cheers.) Was that representation based upon property?—
, (Cheers.) But, then, there was the 10/. householders. Was
the possession of such a house as that evidence of property?
A man might be liable to 301. a-year rent, or 500/. a-year
rent, and because he inhabited a house of that value they gave
, him a vote, when, at the same time, by the very possession of
that house he might be pauperised. There was the 501. tenant-
, at-will in counties who had a vote. He was liable to beturned
, out of his farm at any time ; he hail no tenure
whatever. Was that a proof of his property ? No;
it was a proof his distress, and his servitude. It was ab-
surd to say that they adopted property as the basis of their
representation—they had done no such thing. They had
adopted a fantastical and uncertain test, which was not a test
of property.—(Cheers.) They taxed every man, either di-
rectly or indirectly. There was no man so poor that they did
not deprive him of some part of his property by taxation ; and
as they took property from him, he had a right under the old
Constitution—he had a right under the principle of represen-
tation—to a vote in the choice of representatives. Neither
Nature, nor Nature's God, made this distinction of property
between man and man. Under the feudal system, the aristocracy
claimed to be of a superior nature. The present aristocracy
did not dare to do so in words, and ought not to do so prac-
tically by legislation.—(Loud cheering.) The results pro-
duced by the present system were almost ludicrous. The county
of Tipperary had 482,908 inhabitants, 2,468 voters, and it re-
turned two Members. The borough of Thetford had 152
voters, and returned two Members also. If they were to have
property as the basis of representation, let them have it
reckoned according to the rules of vulgar arithmetic. The
West Riding of Yorkshire had 1,154,000 inhabitants, a'0,129
voters, and it returned two Members to Parliament.
The borough of Harwich had 181 voters, and like-
wise returned two Members to Parliament. Was that
representation based upon property ? Parliaments now
lasted seven years. Why was that ?—(Cheers. ) Did
they remember that the same transaction that transferred the
) Crown of England to the present Royal Family, at the same
time gave the people a right to triennial Parliaments ? How
had they lost that right? By the grossest violation of trust of
which men could be guilty—(Cheers)—by the most unpar •
ralleled enormity that could be committed.—;( Cheers.) The
men who had been elected to serve for three years, of their
own power prolonged the term of their existence to seven.
He approved of triennial Parliaments from the conviction that
annual elections became elections of course, and that it was
more difficult to remove a man elected annually than it
was to remove a person chosen for three years. There was
another point which required iisvestigation—that was bribery—
Had is not been acknowledged to exist, by both sides of the
House and by the organs of both parties? If the Morning
Chronicle admitted its existence to-day, it was only because
the Times acknowledged it yesterday. He had heard the
Right Honourable Baronet attribute its existence to
large constituencies even more than small ones ; but
however that might a be, there was no doubt that there
never had been such bribery in England as had
taken place during the last election. They were ascertaining
it even through the dark medium of the Election Committees.
And what was bribery? It was the worst social crime that
could be committed, enhanced by all the horrors of perjury ?
It demoralized and corrupted the people from one end of the
country to the other. They were a religious people. During
the last election there had been much spoken of the differences
of persuasion between Christian and Christian. Great pro-
fessions were made of Christianity—where was it in
reality ? Where was it when they called upon them
to stop this enormous bribery ? It had been said that after the
ballot had been instituted there would he more bribery than
ever—that constituencies would be bribed by wholesale. But
it should be remembered that that would be more difficult,
and, in the next place, it would be a criminal conspiracy to
which very few gentlemen would care to expose themselves ;
while, at the same time, it would he almost impassible to es-
cape conviction. But it was well known it was most preva-
lent in small constituencies; and all he asked was, that they
should do this to stop the practice, and in favour of morality ta
give the ballot in great constituencies. Let them stop it
where they admitted that the ballot would stop it. Let them
give this one proof of the reality of their pro-
tessions, and not continue to talk of their religion without
making out the morality it prescribed. He did tot mean to
detain the House by speaking at any length on the qualifica-
tions of Members ; there was no qualification in Ireland before
the Union ; there was none 'in Scotland; members of Uni-
ver,ities required none; the sons of Peers need riot have a
qualification. lie touched upon these points because he was
there to advocate as far as possible tranquil reform, and the
quiet concession of principles that tended to the public advan-
tage. He knew what was called the Charter had given rise
to a great deal cf doubt and some apprehensions, but the
violence of the Chartists was not one that could last ; it had
passed away al,o,eadas, and men were now taking a lead in this
movement, who were incapable of involving themselves in any
species of violence. His only object was to show that there
was cause for inquiry ; they put the case as distinctly as they
could, and he could not think that they would make such a
preference, as it would exclude so large a number of the Eng-
lish people from their right of being represented in that House.
He had cot mixed up other questions with it, but he might say
now that they could not trust to the well-working of the pre-
sent system. Before the Reform Bill they were told that
though the principle was faulty yet the system worked well.
The reply to that was the enormous accumulation of debt, the
long wars, and the burdens they had brought upon the country.
The Reform Bill was tried, and it mitigated but little of the
evils complained of ; and at the present moment the refusal to
allow the people of England a fair share in the representation,
was said by themselves to be the cause of the overwhelming
distress which had reached them, and which was admitted and
deplored by Members on all sides of the House. There was
distress and misery in the land, and the people were deprived of
their inherent right to representation. All they asked was for
a Committee to inquire and to bring every fact distinctly be-
fore them; then they applied to the House either to continue
the present system, if they found it preferable, or to give that
remedy which they might find most desirable.
Mr. WA KLEY regretted that he had not heard the speech of
the Right ilon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, and he was also sorry that the Right Hon. Gentleman's
late colleagues were not present also. What were they to infer
from their absence—from the absence of those who brought on
the Reform Bill? They were placed in considerable difficulty
in consequence of their absence, as they were not aware of
their own strength. Were they favourable to the change or
not ? He inferred from their absence that they were not.
Well, we must fight that battle ourselves. Instead of a ses-
sional motion on this subject, there ought to be a monthly one.
Was it not curious to see the state of the House on such a sub-
ject? Millions were reflecting on what was passing in that
House, and were looking forward with anxiety to the issue of
the question ; yet here they saw almost empty benches. They
would infer from this that the House did not represent
the feelings of the people, or they would not dare to
neglect their business on such an occasion. They would not
yield till they were driven to it by fear. The people said they
were regardless of their feelings. They asked for redress ; if
it was refused, the people would take it. It was only a ques-
tion of time. The very moment the people were resolved to
have redress, they (the House) must yield, because they would
not have the power to resist They thought that this was a
question got up by agitators ; he could assure them they were
grossly deceived, and they were sleeping on a volcano. The
people attributed their distress to class legislation in that
Howe Within the space of twenty.feur bows a fact had oc-
curred in that House to exemplify this, and a fact
of that kind was worth a whole volume of his-
tory. He said that man that was not represented
was a slave. He had all the authorities since the
Revolution of 1688 in support of the assertion that they were
slaves, anti nothing but slaves, because money was taken from
their pockets without their consent. What had happened in
that House on Wednesday evening ? A question had been
brought forward, which involved the right of a rich
man, arid dealt ruin to 500 poor people. The question was,
with reference to a certain enclosure. The rich man said,
" This is nay property"-500 poor people said " This is our
property." The rich man said to the Government give me
an office under your authority to dispossess these 500 poor
people, and to raze their buildings to the earth. The propo-
sition was, that the House would see the evidence which was
given between the parties before it come to a determination.
That determination was by a vote of ll l to 30 in favour of
the rich man, and they actually decided that they would not
see the evidence upon which they were going to make a final de-
cision. Would any man tell him, that if there had been a pro-
per representation of the people, such conduct would have
been allowed? Did they believe that the people were indif-
ferent to such conduct? Did they believe that those
500 people, who had been rendered houseless and hopeless,
would have any respect for the laws of their country ? What
answer could be made to such a statement as this ? On that
occasion it was not requisite to go into all the points of the
resolutions. lie was for shortening the duration of Parlia-
ments, but he was very doubtful whether annual Parliaments
would be as productive of as much benefit as triennial Par-
liaments; but that was a question for future discussion. The
Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department,
had told-the House that an extension of the suffrage would en-
danger the monarchy. Why, then, they endangered the mo-
narchy by giving contentment to the people. Why, he always
thought that the best security to the institutions of the country
was contentment in the people. He warned them net to tam-
per with the feelings of the people. Let Hon. Members re-
train from laying that flattering unction to their souls, that the
people would remain passive under oppression. He would con.
elude with the words of Lord Camden, in 1776, on a motion for
a repeat of the Stamp Act. Lord Camden said, "My posi-
tion is this, I will maintain to the last hour of my life that tax-
ation and representation are inseparable. Whoever taxed a
man without representation committed an injury which, in my
opinion, almost amounts to a direct robbery." Could this be
disputed ? If its truth were admitted—and it must be ad-
mitted—how could they refuse to accede to the motion of his
Hon. Friend? Millions in this country were unrepresented in
that assembly. They asked to have a voice in the election of
those who made the laws: The Government made answer and
said, they should have no voice. He (Mr. W.) therefore, in
the language of Lord Camdem, raid, "that if they bad no such
voice they became slaves, and if they (the' Government) taxed
them, they were committing a direct robbery."
Mr. R. YORKE said, to show the effect of the present
system of representation, one of the first things they heard of
after the last election, was that fifty or sixty elections were to
be disputed. In the last week circumstances had come under
their notice relative to the Sudbury election. The Committee
had unanimously advised the House not only that the election was
bad and infamous, but so bad and infamous, that. the borough was
unworthy of representation, and they had therefore unanimously
suggested that it should be disfranchis, d. Again, that very
day they had learned that the Committee sitting upon the
Ipswich election had committed an individual for perjury, and
that three individuals had been compelled before that Com-
mittee to acknowledge themselves rogues and vagabonds.
This was under the present system.—(Cheers.) lie (Mr.
Yorke) had no hesitation in saying fur himself that there were
some details in the Hon. Member's motion, to which he (Mr.
Yorke) could not give his consent. He entirely dissented from
the principle of paying Members, but he agreed to that of no
property qualification. He should, however, support the
motion.

Mr. PROTHEROE thought that one great cause of the
corruption in that House was the corruption of the electors
themselves. He did not think that the present system, under
the Reform Bill, gave so much encouragement to industry as the
old system, as a msn under that system obtained a vote by ser-
vitude. .He considered that the 10/. householders were less
corrupt than any other class. He was not one of those who
thought that the rigkt of voting should be extended to every
adult, but he gave his assent to the no qualification principle.
With respect to paying Members, he thought no Member would
ever be returned to that House without possessing the pre-
sent qualification. He should give his support to the motion.
Mr. BERNAL said, that in supporting the motion, he did
not do so with a view of seeking popularity, but at the same
time he declared that the representation of this country was
nything but a perfect system.—(Cheers,) He did not wish