proceeded to state that he was induced to submit the clause of which he had given notice, from a conviction that the country could no longer de-fray the enormous expense of outdoor relief. Did the House know the extent of the increase of outdoor paupers? A recent Parliamentary return showed that in the Ballina union there were 34,000 paupers, in the Ballinrobe 41,000, in Castlebar 21,000, in Castlereagh 16,000, in Newcastle 17,000, and in the Westport 27,000. Could any one believe that the property of Ireland could support such a mass of pauperism? A great number of the unions in the south and west of Ireland were bankrupt, and in others it was of late found impossible to collect the rates. In the union of New Ross, in one of the best counties in Ireland, Captain Newport, the vice-guardian, reported that in one day he had 300 applications for outdoor relief, and that rates in the union were no longer collectable. He asked whether the Government was prepared to perpetuate a line of policy which had been condemned by the Committee of the House of Lords, and also by the Committee of their own House? He warned the House, that if they persisted in this system they would have to return—as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth told them they would have to do—to the legislation of former years, and refuse to give outdoor relief. He believed that if the workhouse test were adopted in every instance, fraud and deceit would be no longer practised on the guardians and ratepayers. The clause which he wished to have inserted stated, that the system of outdoor relief demoralised the pauper. Of this there could not be a question, for they had it in evidence that the grossest frauds were daily practised on the guardians. Cases were known in which women brought the same children three or four times to obtain relief, and that children were hired at a few pence a day in order that they might accompany persons who were not provided with those qualifications for relief. He contended that no country could possibly stand such a drain upon its resources. England could not long last upon such a system. Did not the House remember the clamour which was raised in the wealthy union of Manchester, when there were 1,300 paupers placed upon outdoor relief? How, then, could it be expected that Ireland, impoverished and borne down as she was, could support such a drain? He did not wish the Government at once to issue an order to stop outdoor relief, but he wished to point out the urgent necessity that existed for limiting the system, as he was convinced that the property of Ireland "was daily breaking down under its influence. All the persons of the middle class in Ireland who had the means to quit the country were emigrating, to avoid the pressure of taxation, which weighed them down. The most useful classes of the community were expatriating themselves, and emigrating to America, where there was no outdoor relief. To his own knowledge there were hundreds of houses in the city of Waterford which were tenantless, and for which no occupants could be found at even half the rent. Let him not be told that he was advocating a principle by which relief would be refused to the poor. He was in favour of relieving the poor when there were not twenty Members in the House to support him; but he was opposed to giving outdoor relief to the ablebodied. Let relief be given to the old, the weak, and the disabled, out of the house if necessary, but do not let them give outdoor relief to the ablebodied without subjecting them to the workhouse test. He assured the House that an inroad of the Atlantic, the visitation of an erratic bog, or the invasion of 300,000 Cossacks, could not more effectually desolate the country than the continuance of the system of outdoor relief to the ablebodied. He would beg to propose the following Clause:—

"And whereas it is found that outdoor relief demoralises the paupers, leads to great frauds, pauperises the ratepayers, and destroys all motives for exertion on the part of both landed proprietors and capitalists, be it therefore enacted, that from the 1st of January, 1850, it shall not be lawful for any board of guardians in Ireland to grant relief to the ablebodied poor out of the workhouse."

opposed the clause, because the hon. Gentleman's Motion, under the guise of a clause to be added to the present Bill, was really a clause for the repeal of the Irish Poor Law Act of 1847. It was, therefore, hardly proper to discuss so great a question upon the proposal to add a clause to the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman stated the sufferings of the poor, and said that they had no sufficient means of existence already; but he (Lord J. Russell) could not understand how the taking away the relief now given to them could add to their means of subsistence, or improve their condition. He knew a distinction was made between the sick and ablebodied poor; but if the hon. Member succeeded in refusing relief to the ablebodied poor, he would not find there was much economy in it, because the same persons would come a few days afterwards, and demand and receive relief as sick. They would qualify themselves by their misery and destitution to receive relief as sick poor, and as such they must be relieved. The greater portion of the 700,000 persons who were now receiving outdoor relief in Ireland came under the description of sick, aged, and infirm poor, and were not ablebodied poor. Looking upon the clause then as a repeal of the poor-law, he must give it his opposition.

had seen the ill effects of granting outdoor relief to the able-bodied poor in Ireland, and had himself heard a man who possessed forty cows apply for outdoor relief, saying, "Why should I not have my whack?" The country could not pay the rates if this demoralising system were continued, and he would support the clause.

said, that if there was sufficient accommodation in the workhouses, he would be unfavourable to outdoor relief. Such was not the case, and, therefore, he was of opinion that out-door relief should be afforded. He thought that if Ireland recovered herself, and assumed her ordinary condition, as he felt she would, they would find that they would not have to complain of relief being afford-ed to the ablebodied in Ireland.

supported the insertion of the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford, and said that it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to lay down the broad principle, that every man should live by the sweat of his brow. If they did not go the whole way with the hon. Baronet, they ought at all events to make some modification of the present system.

felt the great importance of the question which had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet, but looking to the attendance of hon. Members, especially from Ireland, he put it to him whether it would not be better to postpone his Motion till the third reading of the Bill?

also admitted the importance of the clause. He did not accuse those who supported it with any want of consideration for the poor, but they had not shown by what other means than those at present resorted to, the poor of Ireland could be supported. He agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford that it was desirable to return as soon as possible to the workhouse test. The Poor Law Commissioners had the power of withholding outdoor relief to the ablebodied poor whenever circumstances justified their doing so. Admitting the abuses inseparable from out-of-door relief, and the desirableness of returning as soon as possible to the workhouse, he hoped the hon. Member for Waterford would be satisfied with that expression of his opinion, and withdraw the clause.

said, that after the opinion expressed by the Secretary for Ireland, he should not press his clause to a division.

Clause withdrawn.

then moved the insertion of a clause to the following purport:—That in electoral divisions, where the ratepayers of any townland or union of townlands within such division shall undertake to support a portion of their poor, then such townlands to be exempted from any rate, except for union and establishment charges. In the event of any pauper appealing to the board against the support afforded him under the foregoing circumstances, the guardian to give him relief; and in case of decision of guardians being disputed, appeal to lie to the magistrates and assistant barristers at quarter-sessions.

said, that a plan similar to that contained in this clause was embodied in a Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud. That Bill having been read a first time was fully debated on the second reading, and the House decided against that plan for a labour rate in Ireland. He did not, therefore, think that it was necessary to go into a fresh debate on the subject; and he would put it to his hon. and gallant Friend whether he would deem it expedient to press the House to a division.

said, that although he agreed in the spirit of the Motion which had been brought forward by his hon. and gallant Friend, he did not think it was practical in the shape in which it was brought forward. To carry it out it would be necessary that the entire poor of the electoral division should be supported; he would be inclined to support it, provided it was arranged that the entire poor of the electoral division should be maintained.

said, that the proposal before the House was one calculated to stimulate private employment, and he would therefore give it his support. Surely nothing could be more reasonable than to employ the enormous number of ablebodied paupers who were now supported on the rates, while the land was lying uncultivated all around. The proposition of the hon. and gallant Member went to cure this anomalous state of things, and was one which he considered a wise Government ought not to reject.

did not agree with those who thought that Irish Members were indifferent to the question now under consideration. He believed he might say that almost every Member representing an Irish constituency, and at present in London, was then in the House. They had had ample experience of the extent to which Ministers could, generally speaking, command majorities to outvote the Irish Members, and he strongly recommended them on the present occasion to avail themselves of the preponderance which at that moment they possessed, and defeat Ministers by coming at once to a division.

did not disapprove of the clause proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend near him, but he thought that its operation ought to be limited to two or three years.

said, that the principle of this clause was identically the principle of the Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud. That principle had been fully discussed, and the division was only 41 to 166. Any person who referred to the majority would find that the greater number of the Irish Members present on the occasion were opposed to that Bill. He now asked whether the House, by a clause of a few lines, would adopt the same principle?

had dissented from the Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, and would again dissent from it, because he would object to anything that interfered with independent labour; but he could speak from his own knowledge of the benefit resulting from a plan somewhat like that now recommended. If, by doing as proposed, the rates could be kept down, the suggestion would be deserving of serious attention; and probably the Government might take the proposition into their own hands, and modify it, with a view to remove the objections to it.

said, it appeared to him to be very doubtful whether the Irish Members, especially the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, was in favour of the clause; for it appeared that he was opposed to a compulsory allotment of labour in certain districts, and that was what the clause proposed to do. The hon. Gentleman approved of a plan which he believed to have been adopted in some parts of Ireland, and frequently in parishes in England, where the farmers, by general agreement, on seeing a number of labourers out of work, gave them employment, and thus avoided a considerable burden of poor-rate; but there was no clause to make them do it. If it were voluntary, the object was accomplished without any Act; but if it were made compulsory, they would run the greatest danger. It was proposed many years ago to make such a law in this country; but Lord Althorp satisfied the House that it would be most objectionable. And though various amendments had been made in the poor-law from the year 1833 up to the present time, no such amendment had been made in it, and it would be difficult to interpret such a clause if the House adopted it.

, in supporting the clause, did not mean any compulsory allotment whatever. He considered it should be done by a voluntary association, in a town-land or district, for giving employment to the unemployed.

considered that the proposition was different from the principle embodied in the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud. By this proposition, it was proposed to give a permissive power to make voluntary arrangements, and to subject those voluntary arrangements to the discretion of the boards of guardians. He did not think they were bound by the decision on the Bill of the hon. Member for Stroud to reject this proposition, which should be discussed on its own merits.

thought the object of the clause was good; but, on considering the machinery by which it should be carried out, he felt it would be quite impracticable. On that ground he would be compelled to vote against it.

said, that however specious the proposal might appear, it would be quite impossible to carry it out. He should, therefore, be compelled to support the Government in opposing the clause.

, in reply, stated that he had had a great deal of experience in the administration of the poor-law in Ireland, and he was convinced that none of the difficulties apprehended by hon. Gentlemen who opposed the clause would, in reality, exist.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 80: Majority 62.

brought forward a clause for the purpose of enabling the commissioners to require the board of guardians, when in want of sufficient funds for payment of debts, to borrow such sum as might be required, on the security of the rates of the union at large, but on condition that the sum so borrowed should be repaid, with interest, by instalments extending over a period not exceeding ten years, and the instalments and interest payable thereon should be the first charge on the rates of the union, and the treasurer should be bound to pay off the instalments and interest as they became due out of any money in his hands to the credit of the union, or to advance the amount thereof, and charge interest on such advance; and for so doing the order of the commissioners should be a sufficient discharge.

thought this clause, in its present shape, was very objectionable. He did not mean to say that it might not be right to enable guardians to borrow money which might be required for the relief of the poor, and to spread its repayment over a certain period; but this clause went much further. It required the guardians to borrow, and also required the treasurer to lend, money at a certain rate of interest, which was, he thought, a most arbitrary requirement, especially if the office of the treasurer was compulsory. He also considered that it would be improper to make the repayment of such loans the first charge upon the rates, for the first charge upon the rates ought clearly to be the relief of the poor.

Clause withdrawn.

then moved the following clause:—

"And be it enacted, That so much of an Act passed in the second year of Her present Majesty's reign, intituled, 'An Act for the more effectual Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland,' as enacts 'that any covenant or agreement whereby any person liable to pay rent, and entitled, under the provisions of this Act, to deduct therefrom any rate, or portion of rate, shall have covenanted or agreed, or shall hereafter covenant or agree, to forego such deduction, shall, so far as such rate is concerned, be of no effect,' be repealed, except as to anything heretofore done, or now pending under this Act."

said, that if the Committee divided, he would vote in favour of the clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 10: Majority 61.

Clause added to the Bill.

House resumed.

Committee report progress; to sit again at twelve o'clock on Thursday.

said, the Motion which he was about to submit to the attention of the House for the appointment of a Select Committee, was not new in its character, for in 1844 a Motion of a similar nature was made by an hon. Friend of his now on the Treasury bench, upon whose support he confidently reckoned on the present occasion. The Motion was, however, resisted by the Government of the day, and no Committee was consequently appointed. That was five years ago, and no Committee had, in fact, sat on this important subject for fifteen years. That, in itself, was a sufficient reason to induce the House to accede to his Motion. But there were others, and one was, the enormous increase which had taken place in the police rates. Foreigners were always greatly surprised to see so few soldiers in our capital, and wondered how with so small a force peace could be maintained. But they forgot that our police force was an army to all intents and purposes, and the amount exacted for the support of that army had gone on increasing, till in 1848 it reached the sum of 374,929 l But not only had the rate increased to this enormous amount, but it was drawn from the people in a way the most oppressive, because the most unjust. The police were provided for originally by a rate of 8 d . in the pound; subsequently 2 d . was granted from the Consolidated Fund, up to a certain amount; but, in 1847, the magistrates of Middlesex raised the valuation of property by the enormous amount of nearly 1,500,000 l the effect of which was to add to the annual police rate of the ratepayers of Middlesex, 36,617 l . This injustice was represented to the Government, who felt the justice of the complaint, and undertook to remedy the evil, and an official correspondence took place between the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the police commissioners; and the right hon. Baronet was in hopes that an arrangement might have been made, and no doubt intended that it should be carried out, for a Bill was brought in on the 25th of last May; the second reading was put off again, and again, and again, and so was the Committee, till at last on the 27th of June, at two o'clock in the morning, without any notice to the parties concerned, it came on, and upon the Motion of the Government, the order was discharged. Of this the ratepayers, he thought, had reason to complain, and their complaints would be much louder if the inquiry he sought should be refused. It was not his purpose to complain of the conduct of the police; but he believed that the metropolis might be as well and as efficiently protected by a much less number of men, and at a much less cost, as they formerly were in many of the metropolitan parishes. His hon. Friend, to whom he had alluded in bringing on his Motion, stated, that in the parish of Marylebone previous to the establishment of the new police, the amount collected was 9,900 l .; and the number of policemen employed 256; while at the time he spoke the amount had increased to 20,000 l ., or more than double. He was not one of those who regarded the police as so very admirable and unblameable a force. Many of them, he knew, were prone to exceed their duty and oppress the people. No doubt, they were found extremely convenient by gentlemen who were in the habit of going to parties, by making way for them and getting them their carriages. But inquire of the people, ask them if they found them so convenient, and they would tell you that wherever a policeman was found, there was a petty tyrant. He knew this was attributable to their being uneducated men, and all he asked was, that they should be severely punished when they were found to be in the wrong, though he much feared that a general leaning existed in magistrates to favour the police, the result of which was, that the liberties of the people were put in jeopardy. They had seen how unscrupulous these men had shown themselves in giving evidence on trials, even when on their oath. He did not speak without book, but could quote cases if he were not afraid of wearying the House. Within the very last month a person had been brought before a magistrate and sent to trial, charged by a policeman with a horrible offence; but when the case came into court, the jury, just as the counsel for the defence had begun, stopped him, and at once acquitted the defendant. It was horrible to think that any Gentleman in that House might in the same way be exposed to such an imputation. Grant him a Committee, and all these things might be investigated, as well as the great cost, and why this large army should be maintained in the year 1849, when all was at peace in this country. His belief was, that the Government in 1848 made the disturbances which took place in that year, a pretext for increasing this force, and, having got it, they were unwilling to diminish it. This ought to be resisted. If he could hope that, by anything which he could add, he could influence the minds of the Government, he might be tempted to trespass longer on their attention; but he thought he should best consult the wishes of the House by at once moving for the appointment of the Select Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner of making the Assessment in the several Counties for the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police, and into the expenditure thereof; as well as into the general administration of the Force, and especially into the recent annual increased charge of upwards of 35,000 l . on the County of Middlesex."

really thought it would be a very needless waste of the time of the House if he were to enter upon a defence of the police against the charge of tyranny brought against that body by his noble Friend the Member for Marylebone, and to contrast with what the noble Lord thought the petty tyranny of an armed force, the security of person and property enjoyed since the establishment of the police. There was evidently but one opinion in the House as to the value of that force. With regard to charges brought against policemen—and it must be expected that in such a large body there would be such cases—the commissioners, where the parties were not brought before justices, exercised their power of dismissal or suspension wherever they thought the constable had exceeded his duty or acted improperly. The noble Lord had not laid the slightest Parliamentary ground for the inquiry he proposed. He had dealt only in general statements. Undoubtedly there was nothing new in the Motion; there was a most minute and satisfactory inquiry in 1834 into the constitution and general administration of the force. There had been no alteration in these respects since, though no doubt the number had been increased; and he (Sir G. Grey) did not see any good in renewing the inquriy. Originally the whole expense was provided by an 8 d . rate levied upon the metropolitan districts; but by a subsequent Act it was settled that when 6 d . out of the 8 d . had been collected, the Treasury might issue out of the Consolidated Fund a sum equal to the remaining 2 d . in the pound, subject only to the limitation that the sum so issued by the Treasury should not exceed 60,000 l .; and there was now issued that sum annually, with some other items defrayed by the public, making the amount nearly 90,000 l . The Bill of last Session was introduced under very different circumstances; and he had an opportunity then of stating the circumstances under which his letter was written, and need not repeat the statement. He admitted that the difference in the valuations in the metropolitan counties constituted a grievance, but it was one which he was endeavouring to remove, and in regard to which he was in communication with the magistrates; he might remark, that Middlesex was still valued very much below the property-tax valuation. He would move as an Amendment an Address for a return showing the increase and expense of the force in 1848, and also of the increase in the number of houses and streets in the metropolitan district within the last ten years.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'there be laid before this House, a Return, showing the increase of the Rate in the year 1848 above that of the year 1847, for the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police Force, in the county of Middlesex, and each of the other counties, parts of which are within the Metropolis Police District, and showing what proportion the valuation upon which the Police Rate is now raised bears to the' actual value of the property in each of the counties within the Metropolitan Police District, as nearly as it can be ascertained;'

"Also, a Return of the Expenditure of such increased Rate:

"Also, a Return of the number of Houses built, and of new Streets formed (with their length in miles) within the Metropolitan Police District, since the 1st day of January 1839, when the limits of the present district were fixed, to the present time, so far as the same can be ascertained:

"Also, a Return of the increase of the Population within the said District, since the 1st day of January 1839, so far as the same can be ascertained."

concurred with his noble Friend the Member for Marylebone, in protesting against the injustice of this rate. Instead, however, of its being unjust as regards the inhabitants of Marylebone, he considered that it was flagrantly unjust as regards the different counties and his own constituents. The county of Middlesex was valued at 6,000,000 l .; Lancashire was assessed at a somewhat less sum; Manchester was assessed at a like sum. The expense of the police in Marylebone was 21,000 l ; while the expense of the police of Manchester was 29,000 l . In addition to the charge required to be made up for their own police at Manchester, they had to pay a largo portion of the money taken from the Consolidated Fund to support the metropolitan police force. This he thought most unjust, and he hoped that his constituents would be relieved from this additional burden.

regretted that the noble Lord should attack so excellent a body as the metropolitan police. Although he agreed with the noble Lord in his Motion, he could not go with him in his calumny on the metropolitan police force, because he believed that a more excellent or efficient body of men never existed; and Mr. Mayne and the other commissioners were entitled to great credit for the manner in which they managed that force. He therefore could not join in the attack of the noble Lord. But that was not the question before the House. What he wished to press upon their attention was the increased annual charge that had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that there was no Parliamentary ground for this inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the face of his own letter, in which he had stated that the existing rate of 6 d . ought to be reduced to 5 d ., and that he should introduce a Bill on the subject. That Bill was brought in, but was withdrawn after the first reading. The reason given for withdrawing the Bill was the celebrated 10th April, which he thought ought to take the credit of making those fools which were supposed to be made on the 1st. Now, in 1847 there was a new assessment made for Middlesex, and the hon. Member for Salford was misinformed on that subject, as he was on all others not connected with his own district. Instead of the assessment being 6,000,000 l ., it was 7,500,000 l . What the inhabitants of Middlesex asked was that a balance of 62,511 l . should not be allowed to remain in the hands of the police commissioners. Now if the penny were taken off the sixpenny rate, there would still be left a surplus of 26,854 l . in the hands of the commissioners. Now, what could be the object of their having that surplus in their hands? He should support the Motion of the noble Lord, at the same time expressing his dissent from the attack he had made on the police force of the metropolis.

considered, that the speech of the noble Lord contained a most unjustifiable attack upon the police force. He thought that the rural and thinly-peopled portions of the great metropolitan district had much more reason to complain than Marylebone. A single policeman, a foot patrol, in one of those parishes, could be watched over one of the hills, and depredations committed in his absence: nor could be follow the men who went about the country in taxed carts who committed the robberies, or carried off the stolen property. There should be a much larger mounted force for that outpost duty; there ought to be three constables at every station, at least two of them mounted, and those three men would prevent depredations more effectually than seven or eight at present. In Yorkshire the mounted police force had been found of the utmost efficiency. He should support the Motion, hoping that inquiry might lead to improvement in the system.

was anxious to support the Motion, but not upon the grounds made out for it by the noble Lord. For the last twenty years he had, on the ground of economy, supported the principle that the police force should be placed under one head. He thought that these local burdens should be paid by local taxation. He thought it most unfair that Manchester, for instance, should be compelled to pay more money than was necessary for the support of their own force. It would be much better if there was a thorough inspection of every board every ten or twelve years: 24,000 l . to be levied annually from Marylebone was a very heavy sum, particularly when it was stated that one-fourth of that sum would be sufficient for the purpose. He did not, however, think that there would be time this Session for this inquiry; for it was well known that hon. Members were already getting tired of the weight of the business that was imposed upon them. He would advise the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion for the present, and to remain satisfied with the returns for which the right hon. Baronet had moved. He did not concur in the charges against the police, but he thought the Government ought to grant a Committee of Inquiry. If his noble Friend divided he would vote with him, but at the same time he hoped the Government would grant an inquiry at some future period which would obviate the necessity for pressing the Motion to a division.

said, that the present system of assessing for the police rates was very unfair; for even if 2 d . or 3 d . in the pound would suffice, the Act required 6 d . to be collected. An inquiry was absolutely requisite, and he should certainly support any proposal to that effect. At the same time he hoped the noble Lord, seeing what the feeling of the House on the subject was, would withdraw his Motion and renew it next Session.

said, that there was no desire on the part of the Government to raise any greater sum than was absolutely necessary for the support of the police. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that a 6 d . rate must be raised, whether it was required or not.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had admitted the hardship of this case, and had actually brought in a Bill to remedy the grievance. Acting upon the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, they levied at that time only a 5 d . rate in Marylebone, instead of 6 d . In consequence, however, of the right hon. Baronet withdrawing his Bill, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) was obliged to go to his banker's, and upon his own security to raise the balance. The inhabitants of Marylebone thought that they might rely upon the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman. [Sir G. GREY: I distinctly deny having given any such assurance.] The letter written by the right hon. Gentleman was not certainly in his hands. He believed it was in the hands of the hon. Member for Middlesex. If, however, that letter did not contain an assurance from the right hon. Baronet, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) did not know what an assurance was. The right hon. Gentleman must himself have understood it as an assurance, for, in conformity with it, he brought in a Bill, which, however, he afterwards withdrew without any explanation or previous communication with the public. Hon. Gentlemen ought to remember that the police force were sent into all parts of England whenever an exigency arose requiring their services, therefore the payment out of the Consolidated Fund was perfectly justified. But he asked why did not the Government see that a new assessment of Surrey, of Kent, and of Essex, was proceeded with, in order that justice might be done to all?

said, more was paid towards the maintenance of the police force out of the Consolidated Fund than would cover the expense of sending them throughout the country upon some occasions. But that was not the question; because, whatever expense was incurred in sending the police to any part of the country, it was always charged to and paid by the locality. Since the hon. Member for Beverley had complained of the assessment upon the part of the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, he would only mention that until the new assessment of Middlesex, two years ago, the two wealthiest parishes, St. James and St. George, Hanover Square, paid the least in rates of any parish in the county—they were greatly undervalued, as compared with the eastern parishes.

replied: He contended that the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, with regard to the police being sent to different parts of the country, was not satisfactory, because though their expenses were paid when they were on country expeditions, still the fact of their being so sent about rendered the employment of a larger force necessary than would otherwise be required. He had not meant to charge them as a body with gross misconduct, but what he said was, that they were not so perfect and efficient a force as they might be. At any rate, whether supported in that particular or not, he still contended that the inhabitants of the metropolis were unjustly taxed. He had the greatest deference for his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose; but as no hope had been held out to him that the Committee would be appointed at another time if he now withdrew his Motion, he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he did not press it to a division.

regretted that his noble Friend had not followed the judicious advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. However, if his noble Friend divided, he should divide with him, although not on the grounds which his noble Friend had himself advanced.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 137: Majority 109.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He was perfectly aware of the disadvantage under which he laboured when submitting this great question to the House of Commons; but, at the same time, he believed that it was the duty of that House to discuss every question which agitated the public mind out of doors. If there was anything erroneous in the principles which he enunciated, it was the duty of the Government to oppose them by sound arguments—to show that they were the mere Utopian theories of an excited fancy, and not to attempt to crush them by ridicule or force. Many applications had been made to him to withdraw his Motion for the present, to enable the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to proceed with the debate on the state of the nation. He could not consent to such a course, however; more particularly after the statement of the hon. Member himself, than a great alteration in the legislation of this country was required, in order to do justice to all classes of the people in this country. Many hon. Gentlemen supposed that he was going to make a fierce and discursive speech, It was not his intention to make any such speech. He had heard many speeches made in the House, by the noble Lord at the head of the Government amongst the rest, and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, giving a preference for his principles as compared with the principles of the hon. Member for Montrose. Last Session the noble Lord expressed his preference for his principles. He had no hope that the noble Lord would support those principles to-night, or that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would support them. He thought that every system adopted by the majority of the people should be discussed sessionally in the House. He presumed the noble Lord had not forgotten the forty-three years of continuous agitation for reform; he had not forgotten the means which were resorted to to enlist the people on behalf of that measure; and, above all he would not forget the great hopes held out to the people when that measure was achieved. Not one of those social changes or benefits that were to be produced by reform had been conceded to the working classes, but this House was more divided than ever it was before into classes repugnant to the rights and interests of the working classes. Every hon. Member must be aware that the House was now divided into classes. The interests of officers in the Army and Navy, merchants, manufacturers, shopkeepers, and last, not least in their own belief, lawyers, were repugnant to the interests of the working classes; whereas they all lived on the proceeds of their labour. There was one passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire which astonished and alarmed him last night—namely, when he claimed to illustrate the labour question, he said he did not mean labour, but the protection of the profits of those who made profits by the labourer. His proposition was of a different character: it was to give to the labourer the fruits of his own industry. If labour was fairly represented in the House, it must result in the advantage of all other classes. The labour question was convulsing the whole of Europe: every country was asking for the proper development of the labour question; and it could not be developed if the wrongs of labour and if the rights and privileges of labour were concealed from those who represented labour in that House. He was aware that the state of the Continent might be urged against concession to the working classes of this country at this moment; but he contended that France was the strongest argument in favour of his proposition, because there had been three elections in Paris—two for the Assembly and one for President—without one single convulsion in the country. There was another thing with regard to France—namely, that the expression of public opinion was totally forbidden; but public opinion had not been suppressed in this country, and you could not urge the people to impetuosity and violence. He should not detain the House long with his proposition; it was likely that he might be without a House before he concluded; but he believed the noble Lord and the Government would not lend themselves to such a mode of getting rid of his proposition. He would analyse the several points of his proposition, and if they were not susceptible of argument, let the wisdom of the House expose them; and people out of doors, if they found they had been deceived, would give up their theories and remain under the constitution as it was at present. He would apprise the Government that reformation did not mean revolution; but withholding reformation very often led to revolution. As to the three great measures of Roman Catholic emancipation, reform, and free trade—if there had been a modicum of justice to the Catholics, emancipation might have been deferred—if Old Sarum and other boroughs had been disfranchised, and some of the larger boroughs enfranchised, the Reform Bill might have been deferred for some time; and so with regard to free trade. His proposition was founded on the original Charter, as drawn up by Daniel O'Connell, signed by four or five Members of the House—amongst them, by the hon. Member for Rochdale, who did not shrink from the avowal of these principles, by Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Hindley, and others. It spoke rather in disparaging terms of annual, and preferred triennial Parliaments; but it did not repudiate them. If he were asked which of the six points of the Charter he preferred, he should say annual Parliaments, for then hon. Members could settle annual accounts with their constituents. On a former occasion, the noble Lord had stated that since the passing of the Reform Bill there had been elections every two years and a half. It was so, but in those two years of legislation the representatives of the people were not aware that the Session would break down, and it was only towards the close of the Session that those who had been most subservient, invariably catered for support by voting for some popular measure. What he contended for was, that all men who were returned to the House should not he delegates, but the representatives of the mind of the constituency. There was one very important fact connected with this question of annual Parliaments, and it was strongly developed last year as regarded Ireland, and commercial distress. He believed it was an admitted fact that many who had votes in 1847 had lost those votes in consequence of pauperism. So that you had representatives representing bankrupt electors, dead electors, and pauper electors? Could that be the case if they had sessional Parliaments? There was one great object which would be attained by the adoption of annual Parliaments, and it was this: you legislated for the mind of the day. In this age of rapid progress, when the mind travelled by electric telegraph, he asked whether those persons who were returned at the commencement of a septennial Parliament to make laws in consonance with the opinions of the day, should not be guided by the opinions of their constituents before the seven years had passed away? He recollected that two hon. Members for Sheffield, as soon as they had violated the hopes of their constituents, were asked by all those who voted for them to surrender their seats, because they did not represent the different mind of the same constituency. Every one was aware that the man who entertained the opinions which he held seven years ago, would be looked upon as a man living behind his time. The Reform Bill had been a total failure. What the people said now was, that they must have that particular franchise which would confer the greatest social changes which the improved mind of the country required. He was told that annual Parliaments would lead to annual confusion. No man discharged a good servant, no one could be compelled to keep a had one in his service, and a constituency ought to be represented by one who was able to discharge his duties faithfully. He complained of hon. Members who, having made a famous hustings speech in favour of reform, turned round, when returned, upon their constituents, and told them that a false construction had been put upon their promises. He rose on the present occasion under unfortunate circumstances, not being backed, as in the previous year, by a monster petition. But let not Ministers think that the people had given up the cause of the Charter, because they did not petition. The fact was, that they declined, in consequence of the disgusting manner in which their petitions had previously been treated. He had that morning received a letter from Birmingham, in which it was stated that the people had determined upon petitioning no more, but would "bide their time." The noble First Lord of the Treasury had taunted the hon. Member for Montrose with the fact that he had no petitions to support him; but he (Mr. O'Connor) was happy to inform that hon. Member that his cause was making great way outside that House. He tendered to the hon. Member his sincere thanks for the manner in which he had taken up the cause of the people. The noble Lord laughed to scorn the petitions of the people; but he warned the noble Lord against attaching too much importance to the lack of petitions. That absence was a consequence of the absence of trust, of hope, or of confidence in that House, and not of any apathy on the part of the people as to their just claims. Any man who had ever advocated liberal principles in Parliament, knew the difficulties with which hon. Members had to contend out of doors. When the people were in employment they could not be aroused to demand their political rights; but as soon as they found themselves without employment, or working at insufficient wages, they said, "Lead us on; we are ready for death or the Charter." If the Government were wise, instead of arousing the people to fury, and then coercing them to keep them quiet, they would endeavour, at a period of tranquillity, to make of society one harmonious whole. Charles James Fox and the Duke of Richmond, in 1780, advocated every point in the Charter; but when Mr. Fox was in power he brought in a Bill preventing Government contractors from sitting in that House, saying, "There is your Charter; that is what I promised you." It was said that the people were too ignorant to be enfranchised. In France the people were more ignorant, and they were not so well prepared for the exercise of political rights, because no public discussion had been allowed in that country. But the people of France, he was prepared to contend, had exercised their political privileges wisely. He asserted that no people were so advanced in political knowledge as the people of England; but if want of education were any charge or ground of disability or disqualification, upon whom ought the blame, sin, crime, and inequality to rest, but on the Government, whose primary duty it was to look to the education of the people, and who were answerable for this disqualification. In France you could lead the minds of the people after utopias, theories, and airy and metaphysical nothings; but in England you could not do this, and all the legal prosecutions that the Attorney General might institute would never put them down in the pursuit of their political rights. The people would never look for any thing short of the People's Charter, whole and entire; and he did not believe that the House would be disgraced, or the character of its Members would be lowered, if the working classes were admitted to their fair share of political power. The people might then be relied upon to defend the institutions of the country. Every hamlet would become a sentry-box, and every peasant a volunteer, for all would have an interest in defending the constitution. With respect to the ballot, although he had voted for it, he could hardly say he approved of it, while the constituencies were so restricted as at present. The clubs had been quoted in its favour; but it should be recollected that in the clubs every member had a vote. If there were only 100 votes out of 600 Members, the working of the ballot might not be so satisfactory as at present. [An Hon. MEMBER here moved that the House be counted. The gallery, was accordingly cleared, but exactly forty Members being present, the gallery was reopened.] He must complain of the discourtesy by which the debate was attempted to be cushioned—a discourtesy of which he himself had never been guilty. With respect to electoral districts, he would not entangle the question by putting forward any specific plan. He would content himself with alluding to a digest he had prepared of the various electoral bodies in England, by which it appeared that for thirteen of the first-class towns, from London to Birmingham, with a population of 2,748,890, there were only 28 Members, while 18 towns, with a population of 116,891, returned 25 Members. Again, he found that 34 places, with a population under half a million, returned 59 Members. With these facts before it, the House could hardly deny that some change in the arrangement of electoral districts was called for. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had asked him how he proposed to alter the present system. His answer was, that he was determined to bring forward no scheme which might create antagonism in the liberal party. He would merely remind the House that the inequality of the electoral districts had caused the Reform Bill. Then, Old Sarum was contrasted with Birmingham; and similar comparisons might be made now, if a more equitable arrangement were not conceded. The noble Lord at the head of the Government was continually boasting of the loyalty of the people. If he believed them to be loyal, why not trust them more extensively with the franchise? He came next to the question of the property qualification. He did not see why that should be so vigorously resisted, seeing that there were already 53 Members in that House from whom no property qualification was required. The Scotch borough Members did not qualify, nor the Members for the Universities, the latter being the most prejudiced and bigoted men in the House. Why, then, persist in requiring it from English and Irish Members? The noble Lord the Prime Minister could sit there as the representative of the great and wealthy metropolis of London, with a qualification of 300 l . a year; but the Member for a starving county in Ireland must possess a qualification of 600 l . a year. Was there any justice in that? He did not allude to the noble Lord with any view to his disparagement; on the contrary, he was happy to see the noble Lord in the position he occupied as the representative of that great city; and he was also happy to hear that his late colleague (Baron Rothschild) had been again returned that day. Then with regard to Scotland, though the voter must possess a qualification, the Member might sit in Parliament though he were shoeless. Was it possible, then, for any system to be devised more replete with contradictions and absurdities than that which related to the qualification of Members? He was referring to these things to show the necessity of making some concession to popular opinion. Before long that House must be the reflex of public opinion—it was impossible that it could maintain its present course of pandering to the upper classes, to the exclusion of the claims of the working man; and was it not better for the interests of all that justice should be conceded by the voluntary act of the House themselves, than that it should be forced upon them by the voice of popular indignation? He now came to the last of his propositions—the payment of Members. That the labourer was worthy of his hire was applicable in this as in all other matters. And if he needed an example to justify this proposition, he need only point to the Treasury benches, the noble and right hon. Members who occupied which received as much in salaries from the State as would be sufficient to qualify the representatives of 321 citizen boroughs. With this fact before them, was it not a mockery to tell them that it was derogatory for Members to receive payment for their services? The working classes of this country who advocated the six points of the Charter, had been sadly maligned. It had been alleged against them that they desired spoliation; but to their credit be it said, they had resisted every agitator, every demagogue, who would teach them that the land of the country was common property. It was his object, as it was that of the thousands he represented, to benefit, not themselves only, but all classes, by a better application of the industry of the country, and a more complete development of its resources. While he saw this country looking across the Atlantic for supplies of food, while millions of acres of land here were lying waste and uncultivated, and hundreds of thousands of our labourers were unemployed, he must say that some change in our Legislature, some change in the constitution of the Legislature, was necessary. Talk not to him of the ignorance of the working classes. If they were ignorant, who was to blame? He had more acquaintance with the working classes than any man who had ever gone before, or who would ever come after him. Yes, he had met them in all places, and under every variety of circumstance, and he had never heard a working man make use of an indecent or obscene word. Lot hon. Gentlemen who did not mix with them as he did go amongst the working men at their meetings, and they would be surprised at the good sense, the eloquence, and the sincerity they would there meet with. Why, then, should persons who so conducted themselves not have a share in the representation? There was no danger that they would choose improper persons. For their own sakes they would, if they had the franchise, elect those who would make the fittest representatives. Then the best security for the good conduct of the lower classes would be to clothe them with the responsibility of the franchise. He complained that the voice of the people now was in a great measure stifled by the press in this country as well as on the Continent. Free-trade and other meetings of the middle and upper classes were reported and commented on by the newspapers; but if a meeting of 300,000 working men took place to advocate the People's Charter, it was described as a gathering of the rabble, or an assembling of boys, thieves, and pickpockets. It was impossible to get at the truth from the newpaper accounts. It was the same with regard to the foreign news. In the foreign news of the Times , the events on the Continent, which showed the actual feeling of the people, the progress of popular opinion everywhere towards free institutions, were either perverted or oppressed. Whole nations, who were struggling for freedom, were described by the Times , first as merely insurrectionary, then as a body of insurgents, and afterwards, when they became strong enough to make their power felt, they were elevated into "the democratic party." In one morning paper, he was happy to say, it was not so. If they read the correspondence of the Daily News , they would there see the mind of the people foreshadowed. There they would see what the people really thought, and what they were really doing. But the object of the Times seemed to be to keep them in ignorance of the truth until it should burst upon them like a clap of thunder. Yet what was more necessary than that the Government and the Legislature should possess a thorough knowledge of the feelings and wishes of the people; and what greater vice could there be than the withholding or concealing such knowledge? He had seen much of the working classes, and had done much for them, and never had he sought either fee or reward. All his services had been performed gratuitously. When the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the city of Limerick, stood for Youghal, he had laboured most assiduously, night and day, to promote his election, and had spared neither time nor expense in that work, but he had not charged a single sixpence even for expenses, though it would be admitted that he was greatly instrumental in securing the return of the hon. Gentleman. [Mr. J. O'CONNELL: No, no!] He had, however, received the thanks and the gratitude of the hon. Member's father for the services he had rendered on that occasion. He had never in his life attended a secret meeting; he never wrote a private letter on politics, nor had he ever done anything that he would be ashamed to do in open day. The cause he now advocated might have been brought forward by others with greater force, but by none possessing more of the honest confidence of the working classes than he did. He proposed this Motion as an independent Motion; he had shown that the construction of the House of Commons was not in harmony with the opinions of the people; he had shown how they might develop the resources of the country, give employment to labour, and destroy a powerful and dangerous antagonism; and in expressing his determination to agitate a question which, after all, was but the recapitulation of the principles of the Whig party previous to the Reform Bill, without going so far as to say that he would die on the floor of the House, he promised that, whether in the House or out of it, spite of persecution or prosecution, he would never, until that question was carried, cease to advocate the People's Charter, and no surrender.

Motion made, and Question put—

"That this House, recognising the great principle that labour is the source of all wealth, that the people are the only legitimate source of power, that the labourer should be the first partaker of the fruits of his own industry, that taxation without representation is tyranny, and should be resisted, and believing that the resources of the Country would be best developed by laws made by representatives chosen by the labouring classes in conjunction with there who live by other industrial pursuits; that (in recognition of the above great truths) this House adopts the principles embodied in the document entitled The People's Charter, namely, Annual Elections, Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, equal Electoral Districts, no Property Qualification, and Payment of Members."

seconded the Motion.

said, that as one of those who were concerned in the modern origin of the Charter, he should, he thought, incur just blame if he allowed the debate to go over without offering a few words to express his reasons for supporting the Motion. In doing so, he must admit that he took a wide and diffusive view of the subject. He did not consider himself bound either to this part of it or that, but he looked to see in what direction the current of the Motion tended, and believing it to be generally good, he voted for it. If he voted for annual Parliaments, it might be his opinion that this was a just and reasonable thing; and he had no hesitation in saying that he preferred annual Parliaments if they were practicable, but if it should be found that they were not, he did not consider that he was in any way bound on that subject. There was one of the six points which he certainly looked upon as an excrescence—no part in the adoption of that could be charged to the modern authors of the Charter, to whom he had the honour to belong. He referred to the payment of Members. That was no child of theirs, but had been invented since, and he could not involve himself in any promise to support it. With regard to the Ballot, he thought it would be a highly useful adjunct to purity of election, and he knew of nothing that would give more relief to a large and meritorious body of electors in the kingdom. Members were not bound by voting for the Motion to all these several points; but it appeared to him that the constituencies, seeing such a Motion on the Paper, would naturally ask, "Did our representatives give that general support to the advancement of political and popular freedom which we had a right to expect from them, or did they not?" They would not enter into the reasons of their representatives for dissenting from this point or that, but would look to the division list to ascertain whether they supported generally a proposition brought before them for the extension of the franchise.

would vote for the Motion. He denied that any odium attached to the Charter, or to those who advocated popular rights in a candid and constitutional spirit. He desired to sec the principles of reform fully and fairly extended, and believed that reform, to be efficient, must be made conformable to the feelings of the country. He had ever advocated the right of every man to be represented in the Legislature; and he could distinctly recollect that 25 years ago there was an excellent toast at popular Whig meetings and dinners—namely, "The People: the source of all legitimate power." He was opposed to taxation without representation, which he with many others considered tyranny, and he was pleased beyond measure to find that those out of doors who had heretofore rendered reform unpopular, and checked its progress, were now engaged in meeting the wishes of the people by endeavouring to obtain for them their just rights. He confessed that he should prefer his own more limited Motion to the one now submitted by the hon. Member for Nottingham; but when he saw the present Government, who ought to be progressive in their movements, standing still and refusing to advance a single step, he had no hesitation in voting for an extensive proposition of the present kind. He thought the Government ought not to act in ignorance of the strong feeling entertained out of doors relative to the limited extent of the representation. He hoped the time was coming when the middle-class electors, seeing that all those measures were now rejected which had for their object a reduction of the national expenditure and the promotion of good government, would demand a change in the constitution of the House. He was happy to say that, during the whole course of his acquaintance with the working classes, he had never heard them advocate anything approaching to violence. He had heard noble Lords and hon. Members declaring that the time might come when the sponge would have to be applied to public property; but never had he listened to any such sentiment escaping from the lips of the working men of England. On the contrary, a more honest, disinterested, and, he would add, intelligent class of men he had never met. He believed they would ever be found reasonable in their demands, and in every respect entitled to obtain and exercise the rights of freemen. England should recollect that she owed her greatness to the labours of her artisans, the very men who were now considered incapable and unworthy of being brought within the pale of the constitution. Surely, in order to be an Englishman, a man ought not to be slave. And yet there were four or five millions of men, of adult age, the very strength and sinew of the country, who were still held to be disentitled to the privileges of the State. These men were loyal; they felt themselves degraded by the stamp of inferiority having been branded upon them; they were kept at bay and excluded from their just rights upon the ground of unworthiness. He was anxious that Her Majesty's Government should make these men as contented as they were now dissatisfied, by admitting them within the pale of the constitution. The noble Lord at the head of the Government was looked upon as a great reformer; now that he had the power, let him carry out those principles of which, for so many years, he had professed himself to be so warm a supporter. Let not others be allowed to do what he might now accomplish with so much facility and grace. Let him, as a friend to popular and religious freedom, do justice to the people by at once bringing them within the pale of the constitution.

said, he could not agree with either of the hon. Gentlemen in supporting the Motion, and he did not think the arguments of either of them went the full length of the Charter. To two of the principles advocated in the Motion he subscribed, namely, to the abolition of qualification for Members, and vote by ballot. The question of annual Parliaments he would leave to the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. Universal suffrage, in the present stale of society, and without further enlightenment of the people, would be most dangerous and injurious. He was opposed to equal electoral divisions, as artificially interfering with the old ties that bound a man to his county or his borough; but he was at the same time desirous of seeing the existing inequality of constituencies greatly modified. With regard to the suffrage, he was anxious to express his decided opinion that the safest and most conservative measure which the Government could adopt, would be a large extension of the franchise. After what we had seen abroad, of ancient dynasties being overturned, and established Governments withering away like Jonah's gourd, it was essential, in a country like this, that measures should be taken whilst the public mind was calm, to admit within the pale of the franchise those large bodies of intelligent and industrious men who were now excluded from it. Whatever might be the faults of the Reform Bill, it was a great blessing to the country that it had passed. The main fault of that measure was, that it gave the franchise upon a system of a too philosophical character. The attempt to make it uniform had not been successful, whilst it had been followed by injurious disproportions. Any one who knew what a ten-pound house was in a large city, compared with a house of the same rent in a small borough, whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland, need not be reminded of the utter absence of uniformity. The effect of it had been to throw all power into the hands of one class, and to exclude the class below them, who were no less enlightened, nor less deserving—he meant the working classes. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, in his speech upon this question last year, alluded to the establishment of guilds in large towns, whereby to bring the working classes into the enjoyment of the franchise, in addition to the present constituencies. He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) recommended the noble Lord not to lose sight of that object, nor to miss the opportunity of adding to his character as an extender of the franchise to the middle classes the additional lustre of conferring the same boon upon the working classes.

did not anticipate any practical result from the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, but he felt that it was important, whenever a fitting occasion offered, that there should be, for the sake of the Members within the walls of that House and for the country outside, a judicious discussion on that great national question—a change in the representative system of the empire. He had observed in that House a retrograde instead of a progressive movement on the part of its Members—he had observed that they had offered a firm and continued resistance to everything having a tendency to enlarge the political rights of the people. Every declaration made by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government was more emphatic than the last—that nothing was to be expected from him. [Lord J. RUSSELL: No, no!] The noble Lord held power on a condition imposed so far back as November, 1837, that condition being that he would never disturb the Reform Bill of 1832; and although the noble Lord did not deny that some change in the representative system would be desirable, it could not be expected that the noble Lord would be the originator of any measure of reform in the system—that he would even give his support as a Member of that House to any such measure—much loss that he would lend it his sanction. [Lord J. RUSSELL: No, no!] It was therefore time, instead of making any appeal to the noble Lord—which was going on a broken system, expecting to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles—that the House should see whether they would not take into their serious consideration the necessary enlargement of the number of those who had the privilege of sending Members to that House. Now there were some facts connected with this question which did not admit of debate. It was not a matter for debate whether the population of the united kingdom amounted to 28,000,000—it was not a matter for debate that they were as virtuous, as religious, and as orderly a population as any on the face of the globe—it was not a matter of debate that when, on the 10th of April, they were threatened with an invasion of London, there was no disturbance—no breach of order on the part of those who met in large numbers on Kennington Common, although a collision might have occurred in consequence of the arrangements made by the Government between an armed police and a peaceable people—it was not a matter for debate that a committee of noblemen and gentlemen of influence assembled shortly afterwards for the purpose of expressing their approbation of, and of bearing testimony to, the loyalty of those working classes—yet those very classes who had received this unequivocal acknowledgment were the parties of whom the hon. Member for Kerry was afraid—of whom the Members of Her Majesty's Government were afraid—and whom that House, in its collective capacity, held unworthy of an increased franchise. It was not a debateable question that though, as he had stated, the population of the united kingdom amounted to 28,000,000, there was but 1,000,000, or less, on the registry; and that, owing to double votes and other circumstances, there were not on the registry, at any one time, more than 800,000 persons. That he thought was a remarkable fact, and a libel on the intelligence of the country. Yet was there no country which could be so safely intrusted with an extended franchise. Never was there a country the population of which was more subject to all those influences which would lead them to make a right use of any additional powers conferred on them. But if there were only 1,000,000 of electors out of a population of 28,000,000, what was the spectacle which was witnessed in regard to the manner in which the right of franchise was distributed? In the borough which he had the honour to represent (the Tower Hamlets), there were when he was elected 19,350 persons having the right to vote, who sent two Members to Parliament. He found that there were 58 towns having a population of 19,882, which sent 82 Members to the House. The gross population of the Tower Hamlets, having the right to send two Members to Parliament, was 419,730; whereas he found by the list that 65 English towns, having a population of 419,259, had a right to send 93 representatives to that House. That was a monstrous anomaly, of which the people were aware, and wanted to see corrected. He held that every argument used by the noble Lord at the head of affairs, and by other Members of his Government, in 1832, were equally applicable now. Was the noble Lord au enemy of nomination? So was he (Mr. Thompson) and others who held the same opinions. Was the noble Lord an enemy of bribery and corruption at elections? So were they. Did he (Mr. Thompson) put a question "Were there any nominations at elections for boroughs?" the answer would be in the affirmative. Looking at the list moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone, he found the words "no contest"—"no contest"—"no contest" placed opposite such and boroughs. Those were the nomination boroughs; but if they took up the list of those which were not, strictly speaking, nomination boroughs, they would find they were nevertheless in the market. The man who would not or dared not make an appeal to a liberal and enlightened constituency betook himself to some club not 500 yards from where they were sitting, and there entered into a contract with a man acknowledged to be a trafficker in boroughs and in seats in that House. An agreement was entered into as to what that trafficker in seats would take, fees included, and an hon. Member took his seat. The House was aware that such practices were constantly resorted to; but the question then arose, how were those boroughs managed? It was well known, that there were within them a corrupt few, who held the balance of power in their hands, and it was not the honest Conservatives, nor the honest Liberals, who returned their Member. He would not support any measure, by which any party would be precluded from returning a representative of their choice, and one who would be the exponent of their views. He would have no objection, that Gentlemen on the other side of the House, should appeal to the country on the question of changing the policy of the late and the present Administration, during past years, provided that the appeal were made to the sense and understanding of the entire people of the country. But to return to his subject—to put an end to such matters as he had alluded to, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and those Members of the Cabinet who had voted with him, had introduced the Reform Bill; but there was not a single abuse which that noble Lord had exposed—which that noble Lord had denounced, and for the suppression of which the Bill had been framed—which was not as rife now as then. There was, at borough elections, the same interference by Peers of the realm—there was the same bribery, and the same intimidation—there was naught which led to the Reform Bill seventeen years ago, which did not exist in superior force now. But, since that period, things had improved. There was now a favourable disposition amongst the working classes to come before that House—even in the person of the humble individual who addressed them—to make an appeal, and to express their readiness to accept even an instalment of that which they believed to be their due. He would bear testimony, with the hon. Member for Nottingham, that there were elements for making that House what it was designed to be by their constitution, and that there was no fear of improper representatives being sent to it by the largest extension of the franchise. The population of the country had greatly increased, there had been a great increase in the education of the people. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kerry had referred to his own country when he spoke of the want of education which existed, and expressed a wish for a further enlightenment of the people. If the hon. Member spoke of the English nation, he begged to deny the hon. Gentleman's statement. There was not in England as great an amount of moral and religious education as he could desire; but there was enough to give ample security that the extension of the franchise would not be abused. The men who were esteemed by their employers, and trusted by them, to any extent, in all the affairs of human life, were the men who were denied the right conferred on the native Irishman, twenty-four hours after he had landed in New York. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, had the gratitude of the country for having passed the Reform Bill; it would be more than man could say, how much evil had been arrested by the timely passing of such an Act. He would ask the noble Lord if he had ever regretted that he had enfranchised Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, and other large and important towns? He would ask if there had ever been any petition from those towns—had there ever been any of those disgraceful electioneering scenes there of which they had evidence as having taken place in such towns as Bewdley, Harwich, Horsham, and Lyme Regis? The former were large and important towns; but it was in the small towns that scenes occurred so disgraceful as to cause to be laid on that table piles of volumes, the effect of which was to make every one desire to see an efficient change in the representative system of the country. He asked the House to recognise the right of the people to an extended franchise. The people were aware that they had no hope that there would be any change in affairs unless the representative franchise was increased, and he believed that they were making a great rally to effect that object. It was his full and earnest belief that in seeking to promote that measure, it was one of a truly loyal and conservative character; and if he indulged in any fears that convulsions would take place which would shake the constitution of their country, it was not when he contemplated that the people were brought within the pale, but the events which might be occasioned were they kept without it. Believing that the constitution would be maintained in its integrity when the people were possessed of their indubitable right to an extended suffrage, he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham—but without committing himself to all the details—in the hope that it would lead to some beneficial result.

rose as a supporter of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, to deliver such an answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham, as the debate, wholly unexciting as it was, appeared to call for—an answer he had not carefully considered, as he came down intending to speak, if at all, upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, but which, as it was present to the mind of every educated Englishman, there was no great hazard or presumption in delivering at so short a notice. Whoever proposed to plunge the British empire into a system of immediate, complete, and irreversible democracy, must prove one of two things: either that democracy was in itself, and viewed generally, a good form of government; or that, if conceded in the abstract to be false, pernicious, and degrading, the peculiar features of the British empire rendered safe and tolerable there, what in other countries was precisely the reverse of tolerable, and precisely the reverse of safe. The hon. Member for Nottingham had not accomplished one condition or the other. He had neither weakened the authority nor combated the doctrines of the various illustrious men by whom it had been shown that supreme power ought not to be consigned to the numerical majority, or referred to a single institution; or which rendered England an appropriate victim of so subtle, so stern, and so nakedly exposed a tyranny. He had, however, advanced one most extraordinary argument, namely, that because Roman Catholic Emancipation, the Reform Bill, and Free Trade, had all been legislative failures, it was requisite to introduce a scheme of Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage to amend them. He (Mr. Campbell) denied that those three measures had been failures. Each had answered its intention. The first had averted civil war; the second had prevented revolution; the third had cheapened bread and mitigated famine. If because these measures, conformable to popular desires, and defensible by solid arguments, had led to no good result, was it rational or prudent to infer that another vast scheme, which was not conformable to popular desires, or defensible by any argument whatever, was entitled to the sanction of the House, or essential to the welfare of the country? The hon. Gentleman then briefly stated the main argument against Chartism in the minds of thinking men, familiar as it must he to the thoughts of every one present, namely, that inasmuch as Chartism engaged the support which it possessed among the working classes, by the promise of higher wages, and inasmuch as none of its provisions had any tendency whatever to raise the price of labour, the disappointment which would follow its adoption must lead to a cry for the next delusive system by which it was proposed to solve the fearful problem—the problem of human misery. That system was Socialism. Socialism would then become, as it was in France, a topic of Parliamentary debate; and as such a state of things would be disastrous to the people, and degrading to the Legislature, he (Mr. Campbell) called upon the House of Commons to avert it, by their vote to-night. He should offer no remarks upon the speech which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had delivered against the details of the Reform Bill, as it ought to have been made, if at all, upon the 5th of June, when it would no doubt have been satisfactorily answered, either by the noble Lord or some of his supporters. One startling fact had emerged to-night, which he could not pass without notice. The hon. Member for Montrose had appeared before them as a Chartist. Radical reform and Chartism had at length shaken hands in the House of Commons. The argument of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, on the 5th of June, had been accepted by his adversaries. They no longer pretended that Chartism was not their goal, as they had when, in the first instance, they selected the Reform Bill as their starting post. The doubts which surrounded their real aims, and ultimate intentions, for the pleasure of going into the lobby with the hon. Member for Nottingham to-night, they—or at least their leader—had shown, if not the courage, the simplicity and candour to disperse. On this one result of the debate to-night, he (Mr. Campbell) would not scruple to congratulate the noble Lord, the House of Commons, and the country. As he had risen to discharge a debt of courtesy to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, by adverting to some of his remarks, which could hardly be expected to command the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he (Mr. Campbell) had no doubt he should be forgiven by the House, for having ventured into the discussion at a moment when perhaps he was little qualified to do so.

said, that the hon. Member for Nottingham having referred to him as one of those who had signed the document on which the Charter was founded, he was desirous of not giving a silent vote on this occasion. He was quite willing to avow having signed that document; and he would also avow that all his experience since then had confirmed him in the opinion that the true principles of public liberty were defined in it. His experience told him that the liberty of the people was not regarded in that House—that a farther reform of the Legislature was necessary—and that the principle set forth in the resolutions of the hon. Member were the true principles on which that reform ought to be established. But while saying this, he did not mean to state that he would be unwilling to accept of any qualification of these principles, which it would be possible to get public opinion to agree to. He was not one of those who wished to carry reform by force, or by any means except the influence of public opinion in its favour; and he was therefore willing to accept of even a portion of these measures in the first instance. But, above all, he thought that the great principle of reform should be an extension of the suffrage. In advocating these principles he did not consider that he was advocating any invasion on the constitution. He believed that he was only going back to the original principles of the constitution, which they had departed from, and which it was most desirable to restore. The resolution stated other preliminary doctrines that had his entire concurrence. It declared that labour was the source of all wealth, and it must be admitted that there was no wealth which was founded on labour. It also stated that the people were the source of all legitimate power; and how, he would ask, could there be legitimate power that was not conferred by the people through their representatives? The next proposition was also true, that the labourer was entitled to be the first partaker of the fruits of his own industry; for what could be more just than that the labourer should get a fair return for his labour? The next was, that taxation without representation was tyranny; and he would ask if that also was not a fair proposition? All these propositions met with his fullest concurrence; and he also thought that the mode of reform to be founded on them recommended in the resolution of the hon. and learned Member, was the true one to be adopted. He had presented a petition from the inhabitants of Rochdale that day, and they had instructed him to say that the reason why the petition had been signed by the chairman alone, was that the people had determined to send no more petitions to that House, because they had learned by experience that their petitions were totally and systematically disregarded. If the House by its vote to-night confirmed the people in this impression, they could not be surprised if hereafter there was a return to those scenes which they had before witnessed with so much regret.

had to express his regret at being obliged to address the House on this occasion, but he did not wish that his vote should be misunderstood. He believed that there was not an older reformer in the House, or one more anxious to extend the franchise, than he was. He had voted for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose; but after the declaration of his hon. Friend to-night, that he would vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham, though he did not coincide in all the sentiments that the hon. Member had put forward, he felt that some explanation was necessary on his (Sir G. Strickland's) part in taking an opposite course. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Rochdale, that any reform adopted ought to be based on a large extension of the franchise. That was also the view expressed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and yet that hon. Member also intended voting for the present Motion. He was as willing as either of these hon. Gentlemen to extend the franchise, and to place it on a higher and more extensive basis, and yet he intended taking an opposite side in the vote which he was about to give. He had been also a strenuous advocate for the ballot, as he thought it would relieve many honourable and conscientious persons who found themselves placed in a most embarrassed position at every election. He thought that it was a most odious and disgusting position for an honest shopkeeper to be placed in when he found that he could not give a conscientious vote at an election without exposing his family to ruin and distress. But the hon. Member for Nottingham had told them that he was not a friend to the ballot without getting at the same time the widest extension of the suffrage—a jump which he thought too wide to take at once. On these grounds he must vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham, although there were many points on which he agreed with him.

said, the hon. Baronet who had just spoken seemed to imagine that there was some extraordinary contrariety between the Motion now before the House, and that of the hon. Member for Montrose. But there was a bond of union between those two Motions much more important than any minute difference that could possibly be shown. They both aimed at one thing—at representation; and it was for representation, real, full, and fair, that he meant to give his vote that evening, as he gave it on a former occasion, when he went out into the lobby with the hon. Member for Montrose. It had been objected to this Motion that it was an abstract proposition, and also that it tied the House down by its adoption to a minuteness of detail which could not afterwards be altered. These two objections, though urged by the same hon. Member, seemed so radically in opposition to each other, as effectually to settle the question of the attention to which either of them was entitled. This proposition was only abstract in the sense of all important propositions. Every great measure of reform must originate in what was called an abstract proposition. It must be the assertion of a great and broad principle; yet he was not aware that, by the rules or custom of the House, it was precluded, after the adoption of such a Motion, from taking any liberty with the details of the measure, which must, of course, undergo regular discussion, and be liable to any amendment that might be applied to it. To some of the details he should most assuredly object when they came under discussion; but what he wished to support was Representation, which he took to be the principle of self-government to which every nation was entitled. It was the principle of the British constitution; but it was also that to which every nation was entitled when they had the opportunity of obtaining it. A great mistake and confusion had been made by the hon. Member for Cambridge, in representing the Motion as one for the adoption of extreme democracy. No two things could be more distinct than extreme democracy and representation. Representation was a sort of filter, yielding a result far above that which any individual of the elective mass might separately exhibit in his own person. People naturally looked out for something above themselves—for a candidate above themselves in situation, in intelligence, and in those qualities which would best ensure the object they had in view. Extreme democracy—the mere preponderance of a numerical majority, acting directly—was as unlike this as anything that could be conceived. It never had been a principle of the British constitution, nor of any constitution or form of government that was fated to last in the world. But representation was a result which mankind had arrived at after a long series of ages, which seemed to promise to realise, more than anything that could be devised, that union of popular influence and popular satisfaction with the exercise of practical wisdom and far-sighted views—a combination of which all the friends of good government must be most desirous. Towards such a combination this country had long been tending. The principles of the British constitution in their infancy, their germs, their primitive form, were to be found in our history at a very early period. But all those principles were of gradual development. The responsibility which was so marked a feature of government in this country—the toleration by which this nation was so honourably distinguished—these had been all gradual in their progress. They were principles of the constitution from the time that that constitution began to take a defined form, and show itself possessed and animated by a living power; but the full development of those principles was not in the past, but in the future. There also ought we to look for the full development of the principle of representation. It had been alleged as an argument against the adoption of the Motion, on the supposition that it was identical with extreme democracy, that this was a peculiarly unfit country for such government—that we had here an ancient monarchy, an ancient Church, an ancient aristocracy, and a large landed proprietary. Why, these were the very reasons which had necessitated representation in the government of these realms, and which showed the intense want of a popular principle, in order to create some balance to these mighty influences, identified as they were with classes of society who might occasionally have, or seem to have, interests not identical with those of the entire population. Not only was it plain that representation was the principle of the British constitution, but it was also matter of complaint that we had not yet arrived at its enjoyment. The House had hoard, perhaps to weariness, calculations end statistics on that subject; but repetition was needful in such cases, and he could not help referring to the return moved for by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone in the early part of the Session, giving the list of boroughs in England and Wales, with their population and the numbers of the constituencies. He had taken two groups of boroughs, one from the commencement of the document, the other from its termination, returning the same number of Members. The first 14 boroughs returned 20 Members; the last 9 boroughs returned 20 Members—precisely an equal share of the representation; but the voters in the first 14 were 3,449, in the last 9 they were 141,664. In the first group of 14 boroughs, he found a population of 67,329; in the other set of 9 boroughs, a population of 2,156,493. In the former of these two groups, each Member represented, on the average, 172 electors, and a population of but 3,336; in the latter, each Member represented 7,083 electors, and a population of 107,824. In point of fact, he found that at the last general election there were 36 Members returned to this House by contested elections, who were so returned by 5,024 voters only, or, on an average, each of the 36 by 144 electors. In each of these 36 cases the majority was under 200. In 16 of them it was less than 150; in three others it was under 100. In the face of anomalies like these, it was surely a burlesque to talk of the representation of the the people. But if the House looked at the element of property, in addition to that of numbers, it would find that 330 Members represented property to the amount of 6,200,000 l ., and 328 other Members property to the amount of 78,800,000 l . If such anomalies as these, glaring as they "were, were not opposed to the feelings and opinions of the people, he was not prepared to say that it would be worth while to bring about their rectification at the price of those inconveniences which, to a certain extent, must always be attendant on any change of a great system that had been long in operation. But the feelings and opinions of the people were decidedly opposed to them; and there was an imperative necessity for their removal. Again, were the result of such a change as the people now called for to return only the self-same men who had been brought into Parliament under the existing system, he should contend that the experiment would be well made, and prove of infinite advantage and importance; because the people, feeling that they had at length a real voice in the election of their representatives, would pass at once from their present state of dissatisfaction to one of satisfaction. In this change alone there would be realised a signal benefit. The Government was a government of opinion; and, in truth so were all Governments; but ours was eminently such. Let the House, then, calmly reflect how disastrous must be the operation upon it of a sentiment of dissatisfaction at the state of our Parliamentary representation, which had been growing in strength for many years past, and was at this moment most intense. He could not avoid adverting to the means which this unregarded dissatisfaction at the conduct of the Legislature in withholding redress to other grievances, had compelled partisans of all parties to resort to, in the various schemes of combination after combination, agitation after agitation, which they had all witnessed both within and without the walls of that House. Those who would bestow confidence, if they had a full share in the representation, withheld that confidence when they had not such share. The exclusion produced an antagonistic bias, and created an unfriendly disposition of criticising the proceedings of that House; and a friendly disposition would be substituted by a general participation on the part of the people in the elective franchise. While every atom of discontent flowed to this centre, an agitation was kept up which gained strength and bitterness by the postponement of the required concession. Of all modes of government which ever existed, he thought that the very worst which to a certain extent had prevailed in this country—he meant the accomplishment of improvements only by means of agitation. It withdrew men's minds from the topics on which they might most wholesomely be employed, and created professional agitators—men who lived by that work, and were ready to stimulate the people for their own purposes. From time to time it occasioned a danger of breaches of the peace, caused bitterness between class and class, and utterly destroyed that unity of feeling which ought to exist between the representatives and the constituencies from which they emanated. He knew of nothing which could cheek this enormous evil except giving as widely as possible to the people a share in the nomination of the Members of that House; and it was not on account of agreement with any points of the People's Charter in detail that he supported the present Motion, but he cordially gave his vote for it, as another attempt in the series of attempts to realise a full and free representation of the people.

Sir, having addressed the House on a vote something similar to the present in the last Session, and also in the present Session of Parliament, I do not know that I need trouble the House again with any repetition of sentiments with which the House must be familiar; but I think it necessary to allude to some expressions that have been made in the course of the debate, which, if uncontradicted, would lead to false impressions both with regard to the Government and to this House. And, first, with respect to an assertion made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He appeared to suppose, and I think asserted, that I pledged myself and the Government to which I belonged, to resist any farther measure of Parliamentary reform, or any extension of the suffrage which might be proposed. Now, I beg to say, that that is by no means a correct representation of my words. I may revert to the circumstance to which he alluded, since he referred to a speech of mine made in the year 1837. The House will recollect, that when the Reform Bill was brought forward by me as the organ of the Government of Lord Grey, it excited very great enthusiasm among a large number of the people, and at the same time excited very considerable alarm among others who were prepared to adopt some measures of reform, but who thought the Reform Bill a measure so extensive, so extreme, and so democratic, that they were ready to offer every hostility to it, and to run all risks rather than give so extensive and great a majority in this House to the people. Under those circumstances, some people who were still doubtful what course to pursue—seeing on the one hand the perils which they thought belonged to the reform which Lord Grey had sanctioned by his authority, and on the other hand the danger which might result from resisting the free manifestation of the popular will in a free country like this, they put the question to Lord Grey as the head of the Government, and to Lord Althorp as the representative of the Government in this House, whether they intended that that Bill should be the commencement of a series of other measures totally destroying the system of representation which existed, or whether they intended it as a measure to which they were prepared to stand? Lord Grey and Lord Althorp clearly, repeatedly, and solemnly declared that it was a measure on which they intended to stand, and that they had no ulterior project of introducing on the foundation of the Reform Bill other changes, carrying the alteration in the representation of this House still farther than was proposed in the scheme then before Parliament. On this declaration, so made by Lord Grey and Lord Althorp, who were entitled to speak on the part of the Government—one being the head of the Government, and the other being the representative of the Government in this House—many persons, who up to that time had not been Parliamentary reformers, declared their adherence to the plan of the Government, and gave such support to it as enabled Lord Grey to carry it, first in this House, and finally to carry it into effect as an Act of Parliament. Some five years after this I was asked to give my consent to a totally new scheme of representation. I said, as I was entitled to say, and as I think I was bound to say, that I had been a Member of Lord Grey's Government, that I had been the organ of that Government with respect to the Reform Bill, and that I did not think I would be justified, within a short time after the measure had been carried, to introduce a now scheme of representation. I said, at the same time, that such a measure might be wise, and might be called for by public opinion; but that, if so, I was not a fit person to make such a proposition to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman says, that by that declaration I precluded myself from ever giving my consent to any—the smallest—alteration in the Reform Bill, or to any extension of the franchise; that though I did not consider the Reform Bill perfect—though I knew it to have many defects and imperfections, I was not to be at liberty to consent to any alteration whatever in it. Now, so far from this being so, and so desirous was I of preventing misconception at that time, that I took a course, I believe unusual with Ministers of the Crown—I published a letter to my constituents, in which I declared that, with regard to alterations founded on the Reform Bill, giving the working classes a greater share in the representation, and giving votes to people not then possessed of them, I certainly, when they were brought forward in due time, would not be hostile to them, and would be ready to give them a fair consideration. Now I think, after that, I am scarcely open to the representation that has been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had not heard these speeches, and who probably has not read the letter to which I have alluded. However, having stated this much with respect to my own conduct in this matter, connected as I have now been, for I believe a period of thirty years, with different questions relating to reform in Parliament, I will now proceed to state very shortly my opinion of the Motion which is before the House. I am not surprised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston seems to be, at the course taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. I own that when he brought forward his Motion recently, I considered that there was much that was obscure and ambiguous in his Motion, but that, although it might only be regarded as a step, yet it was a step which must lead very rapidly to the assertion of all those principles which are called the six points of the People's Charter. I cannot, therefore, be surprised that he should vote for the Motion to-night, and that he should have declared, that though he thought it would have been better to go more slowly to the result, yet that he had no objection to proceed to that end; and, indeed, that it was an end to which he thought we should arrive. [Mr. HUME: Hear, hear!] Now, let us see what the end is to which the hon. Gentleman thinks we ought to arrive. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, not content to introduce a Bill to carry into effect the six points of the People's Charter, has thought it necessary to bring forward a resolution professing to base this reform on certain principles, which of themselves, I think, contain no little danger and no few doubtful propositions. Upon the propositions that labour is the source of all wealth, and that the people are the only legitimate source of power, I will not at present make any observations. But "that the labourer should be the first partaker of his own industry "—what is the moaning of that proposition? If the labourer engages for certain wages to do a certain amount of work, and obtains that amount of wages, the contract is performed, and he has no further rights to urge, in consequence of the amount of labour he performs. I am sure the hon. Member for Montrose will concur with me in opinion upon that proposition. But I know there was a proposition which was very popular last year in France, and, for what I know, may be very popular at this moment with a great many persons in France—some of them very acute philosophers, and others, as I think, misled labourers—which said that there ought to be no such thing as a capitalist enjoying the undivided profits of any enterprise; but that the profits of any enterprise of any kind, such as manufactures, railroads, farms, or whatever it might be, should be divided among all those who contributed to produce the fruits of that industry, and that every labourer should partake, according to a certain proportion, in the benefits resulting from that enterprise. If that is the meaning of the hon. Member, and it certainly looks more like that than any other, I say, at once, that the preface of his proposition is both dangerous and destructive of that industry upon which so many of our people are now depending for comfort and independence. The proposition is one more subversive of industry than any of those monopolies or privileges the destruction of which has so recently been effected, or any scheme of political representation which might be said to be defective or unsound. The hon. Member goes on in the preface to his Motion to say, "that taxation without representation is tyranny." If by that proposition it is meant to say that if a man has not a vote, any taxation which is imposed upon him must be tyranny, I entirely disagree with that proposition. I stated upon a former occasion in this House, and I think still, that the arrangement of the representation of this House is a matter that ought to be made according to what is most for the welfare of the people, and that if you have a scheme of representation which would produce worse laws and a worse system of taxation than another system which did not give to every man a vote, I should say that the system which tends most to the benefit of the people was the better system of the two, and that you ought not to adopt the worst for the sake of any abstract doctrine with respect to the rights of every man to have a vote for Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Montrose, indeed, says that every man who has not a vote is a slave. That is an opinion which I have not only heard stated, but in many of those speeches which appear in the Daily News , of which the hon. Member for Nottingham appears to think I am ignorant, I sec it is taken for granted, and used as a common topic of declamation, that all those persons who have not a vote for Members of Parliament are slaves. I cannot, however, agree in that representation. I have been in the habit for a long time of hearing of "free-born Englishmen," whoso great pride was the liberty they enjoyed, and I never yet knew that every one of them had a vote for Members of Parliament. The rights which they enjoy under this constitution are, the right of thinking what they please, and of saying what they think, and of acting without any fear of arbitrary imprisonment or restraint. I thought that, having the power to act as they pleased, so long as they acted in conformity with the laws, and not having their liberties or lives at the disposal of any arbitrary monarch or authority whatever—that these, with other liberties, were what we constantly called "the liberties of Englishmen." It is entirely a new doctrine, and I think a very mischievous one, which says that every one who has not a vote for Members of Parliament is a slave. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets spoke of the whole of the 28,000,000 of the population as if they were all slaves, and not merely the male adults. How would the hon. Member propose to act with respect to the women of this country? If every person is a slave who has not a vote, are all the women who adorn English society to be regarded as slaves? Are they all to be considered slaves because they have not votes? Do not tell me that they are not fitted to give votes. For ray part, I think persons like Miss Martineau, and many other ladies, are as fitted to give votes for Members of Parliament as many thousands of those who are now called "slaves" on account of their not possessing the privilege of voting. But I really think that, with respect to this right of voting for Members of Parliament, it is no more necessary that there should be any abstract right upon the subject, than with respect to the right of sitting upon juries, or of being judges in this country. You make certain regulations with respect to property, and say that persons possessing a certain amount of property are entitled to sit upon juries. Are all persons, then, who are not entitled to sit upon juries to be considered "slaves?" Is it to be said, that because their lives and properties are disposed of by other classes, that therefore we are slaves? We say that is necessary that a certain education, and being called to the bar, should be necessary to enable persons to be Judges. If we are to go upon this abstract right, I know not why these qualifications are necessary, and why, as well as in the question of representation, we should not throw open all these offices to the whole community. I believe that in some of the ancient democratic republics such was the case, and that every citizen not a slave—for there were real slaves in those days—was eligible to fill all the offices of the State. But the real question upon this subject, as upon a former Motion, is, whether it would really tend to the benefit of this country that every adult male of full age should have the right of voting for Members of Parliament, and that districts should be equally divided, so that a certain amount of population should send a Member to Parliament. Now upon that subject I should certainly say, that I do not believe that we should be in the enjoyment of so much liberty as we now possess, if universal suffrage were the rule for representation in this House. I shall say nothing with regard to a system of universal suffrage as the foundation of a democratic republic. I am to look at universal suffrage, proposed as the basis of the representation of this House, and I am to consider how far such representation would agree with the rest of our constitution, and could be made to harmonise with the other parts of it, as they now exist; and it is my opinion that they certainly would not harmonise. I can well understand that in a case where there are no other powers to come in contact with it, that democracy may have that moderation which all power is not apt to possess, and that no danger may result from the exercise of that power. But where you have, as in this country, a constitution which, while I think it is very perfect, is at the same time extremely complicated, I do not know how a House of Commons elected by universal suffrage would harmonise with the other parts of our constitution. I am told, indeed, by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that it is because we have other powers in our constitution that it is necessary to have a representation founded upon universal suffrage. I entirely demur to that observation. The whole of the constitution of this country depends upon the moderation and forbearance with which its various powers are exercised. If the Sovereign were to exercise the extreme power of the prerogative—if the House of Lords were upon every occasion to indulge its own views and its own opinions, and exercise its power of rejecting all the Bills sent up from this House—if the House of Commons used its extreme power of constantly refusing all supplies, unless its will were complied with—I say, if the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, were all, or indeed any one of them, to use the powers which the constitution has vested in them, which by law they possess, and which cannot be denied to them—if they were to use all these powers, and push them to extremes, the constitution could not last a month. There would be an end of its powers, and at the same time there would be an end of the temperate liberties of this country. I do not say that you might not erect upon its ruins some other constitution; I do not say that you might not have a democracy which would be very powerful and very flourishing; and I do not say that you might not have—which perhaps would be the greater probability of the two—under the name of a democracy, a dictatorship, powerful, terrible, and absolute, and a government very strong and very formidable. But what I do say is, that the liberties we have inherited from our ancestors, and that temperate liberty of which we are now in the enjoyment, are enjoyed only by not pushing the rights of any parties to the extreme. For this reason, therefore, I do not concur in the proposal to establish a system of universal suffrage. With respect to another topic upon which I shall touch—namely, the system of electoral districts, I at least take it that the proposition of the hon. Member for Nottingham is more intelligible than was that of the hon. Member for Montrose. I can very well understand a proposal to divide the country according to its population, and that each district, according to its population, should return one Member. That, at least, is an intelligible proposition. That it would put an end to the influence of aristocracy, which seems to be the great bugbear with some hon. Members who have spoken, I do not at all believe; because, if you have a representation of the agricultural districts, as you would be obliged to have, according to the plan of the hon. Member himself, where there was considerable property, whether in the possession of one man only, or in the hands of several gentlemen living in the country, that influence would still be made to tell at the elections, and it would tell with universal suffrage almost as much as it would in the present mode of elections, and the aristocracy would consequently have a great influence in the return of Members. I do not think myself, that it would be so good a system as that which at present prevails. The hon. Member for Oldham has for the hundredth time collected several of the discrepancies which exist in the number of Members for largo places, and for boroughs of an insignificant char-actor. That objection has been urged over and over again— habemus confitentum reum —it has never been denied, and is an incident of our system of representation. The system of representation as it now exists, although not one of numbers, is more a representation of the whole community of this country than if you had the representation of districts divided exactly according to population. Now, with respect to that division into districts, you would have many Members from large towns, and many from agricultural districts. They would discuss the questions which came before them, and you would find very possibly at first, that those who expected great democratic changes would be disappointed, and that there would be a majority of those who would belong rather to the Conservative than to any other party in the House. But then, having made these great changes, have you any reasonable expectation that satisfaction would be given by such alterations? Do you believe that these persons who you say are now dissatisfied, and who are chiefly persons busying themselves in politics in some of the great towns of the country, would be satisfied with such a representation? We have seen—and I do not think we ought altogether to leave out of view what we have seen in a neighbouring country in the last year, because those experiments have been made to their cost, as I think—we have seen what they have done. They have established universal suffrage, they have equal electoral districts, and a largo majority has been returned which is composed of what may be called in this country men of Conservative opinions. But has that majority inspired universal satisfaction? Has the majority, according to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, sat down contented? That hon. Member said, if you do nothing else you would give contentment to the masses of the people, because there have been complaints for a long series of years. "If you establish universal suffrage," said he, "and equal electoral districts, you will give contentment to the people." Well, they have tried that plan in Prance. What did the minority do there? They brought their question before the Assembly—they set the constitution at defiance; the majority, representing universal suffrage, said that the constitution had not been violated. The minority, which, according to the hon. Gentleman, ought to have sat down contented, immediately laid their plans for carrying bloodshed through the streets of Paris, and asserting by force what they could not obtain by other means. These are not the fruits of such measures in one country only; they are the natural fruits, let me tell the House, of attempting those great changes, and of expecting very great results immediately to follow upon the foundation of the doctrine of universal suffrage, and holding out the delusion that by certain changes in the laws of property all men should obtain at once the advantages of perfect ease and prosperity. But that is what has been done in France. There the doctrine has been held that those who were engaged in manufactures need never have periods of adversity, and that if there should come a time when there might be a want of demand, and the manufacturer was not able to supply work to the labourer, that the order of society ought to be so changed as to provide that no suffering should follow, and that by certain most artificial, most absurd, and most impossible regulations, the manufacturing interest not only of France, but of every other country, should be regulated and restricted to what would be the exact demand of the world, so that the time should never come when the supply should exceed the demand, or that the artisan and workman would be without the necessary means of enabling them to obtain their livelihood. The consequence of holding out these doctrines has been that a number of men have been disappointed at the effect of the changes which have taken place in Prance. They have got universal suffrage; but when they found that these impossible effects did not follow, they went into the streets, some 20,000 or 30,000 strong, prepared to sacrifice their lives in defence of these impossible views. You may tell me that no such occurrences would take place in this country, that we are better instructed, and that we should consequently have no such things in England. But I own I do not think—talk as the hon. Gentleman may of the greater portion of the people of the country being "slaves "—that the advantages we have to part with are so trifling as that we should run the immense risk of losing them by adopting the course which is now proposed. I may be quite mistaken in all this. It may be that the country would be made happier, more prosperous, and more free, by adopting this proposition; but what I say is this, that the country is now in the enjoyment of great liberties—that if we are wrong in any of those economical changes which we have lately adopted, they have been adopted by the consent of the great body of the people, and not against their will. Feeling this as I do, I am not disposed to adopt the changes which the hon. Member recommends. I believe it would be for our advantage if a greater number of the working classes had a voice in the election of their representatives; but I think that such a change can be made without the danger of the sacrifice of all the main principles of our representative constitution. I therefore meet the proposition of the hon. Gentleman with a direct negative, conceiving that, if adopted, it would tend to the greatest evils, and that in adopting it we should run the risk of losing the liberties we now possess, and that to do so would be a most foolish and unwise proceeding.

said, it was with great satisfaction that he had heard the noble Lord declare that they were at liberty to make great alterations, notwithstanding the passing of the Reform Bill. He remembered a declaration of the noble Lord on that subject, which had the effect of giving him the soubriquet of "Finality John."

Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the word "finality" was never used by me. It was, no doubt, a very good nickname; but I never used the word "finality" at all.

was very glad to hear that declaration. He had also rejoiced to hear the noble Lord declare, in the latter part of his speech, that he was in favour of an extension of the suffrage, provided it could be made with advantage and safety, and hoped he would not allow a very long period to elapse before he put his views in practical operation. He was satisfied that the great majority of the people of this country felt that they were at present under a great privation. Sincerely did he wish that he could make up his mind to vote for the Motion, but in some of the propositions he could not concur. He agreed with the noble Lord that the proposition that the labourer should be the first partaker of the fruits of his industry was very ambiguous. He strongly objected to the proposal to have annual elections; he could not conceive how, under such circumstances, the business of the country could be properly carried on. He was quite prepared to vote for the ballot, if accompanied by a large extension of the suffrage: without that he doubted whether it would produce any good results. As to the electoral districts, it certainly appeared a very great anomaly that one man should represent thousands of persons, and another only scores, and he would like to prevent an improper use of what were called the rights of property. The property qualification seemed to him nonsense. It was a notorious fact that many Gentlemen had sat in that House with a nominal qualification, who had not a shilling's worth of property in the world. He regretted that he could not record his vote in favour of the Motion, feeling that there was a great deal which ought to be given to the people, and which, if it were not given, they would take.

, in reply said the noble Lord at the head of the Government had told the House the Reform Bill was carried in deference to popular opinion, and that five years after it had been passed he saw the necessity for other concessions. Now, those concessions had never yet been made, and he wished the noble Lord would say when he would make them. It had been insinuated that he was in favour of the socialist and communist doctrines. He was opposed to both, and he was perfectly satisfied that the people of this country were neither socialists nor communists. As to the changes in France not having worked well, the French people, from their fettered press, were not so well prepared for change as the people of England. He was glad to hear the noble Lord say when the proper time had arrived he would be prepared to make timely and necessary concessions. The proper time had now arrived. He hoped the noble Lord would no longer delay. He had been charged with having always avoided saying to what his proposed changes would lead. He had done so designedly, and did not think it was necessary to give an opinion on that point. He was certain of this, that the people did not like the present state of things, and would soon have some change. He was reminded of an anecdote at an election where Earl Fitzwilliam was very closely questioned by a sturdy peasant. "What do you know, you booby," said the Earl, "about making laws?" "I know nought about making laws," said the peasant, "and I know nought about making shoes; but if a mon meakes a pair as pinches my toes, he shan't make any more for I, that's what I knows." If the present Motion were lost, he could assure the House that he would persevere until the Charter became the law of the land.

The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 222: Majority 209.

rose to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the best means of more effectually preventing frauds in the sale and manufacture of bread. In the last Session he had introduced a Bill upon this subject, which he intended should have the same objects as those that were indicated by his present Motion. He did not mean to make any charge against the trade of bakers, many of whom were as honest men as were embarked in any other trade. It, however, unfortunately happened in that trade, as well as in others, that there were some dishonest men who took advantage of the honest trader by following the opposite course. He thought he would be able to prove that the poorer classes had not that protection in regard to the purchase of bread to which they were entitled. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, at the close of the last reign, introduced a Bill into this House which was passed into a law—the 7th Wm. IV., chap. 37, to regulate the sale of broad; but that measure, though it might afford protection to the rich, who generally purchased fancy bread, was no protection to the poor. This Act repealed the 19th Geo. III., which did afford some degree of protection to the poor. The effect of the law as it stood was, that all bread was to be sold by weight, and it required that scales and weights of the proper form should be in readiness to weigh the bread. The rich man, no doubt, was thus protected from fraud, but the poor man, who was generally the debtor to the baker, dared not demand to have his bread weighed. The hon. Member then read a communication from a magistrate of the county of Essex, to the effect that a baker had been convicted by the bench to which his correspondent belonged, for selling bread to the extent of four ounces deficiency in each 41b. loaf. The writer suggested that each loaf should be stamped with the weight in figures. The bread alluded to was sold chiefly to the poor. This suggestion he should introduce into the Bill he proposed to bring before Parliament; he should require the weight of each loaf to be stamped on it. He had introduced the same provision into his Bill of last Session, but he was defeated in carrying it through the House by the metropolitan Members. On that occasion the Speaker had expressed a doubt whether such a Bill could be introduced without a Committee; therefore it was that he now moved for a Select Committee. If the Government—if any private Members expressed themselves satisfied with the present state of things as regarded the bread of the poor, he was not. The Chancellor of Exchequer might assert that the working classes were prosperous; but his (Mr. Bankes') experience was to the contrary, and at all events the poor man was not so well off as to be indifferent to the weight of his bread. It was to secure this to him that he was led to introduce the measure he hoped to propose. His plan had been adopted in a local Act, late in the last Session, and was now the law of the land as regarded Edinburgh. A baker was convicted in that city the other day for selling an unstamped loaf. Therefore he only asked the House to make general that which was already in operation in particular places. The clause of the Act in question made it imperative on all bakers to impress the weight of the bread upon each loaf, under a penalty of 40 s . for the first offence, and 5 l . for the second. It was the law in Edinburgh; why should it not be the law in London? Nay, why should it not be the law in Brighton, where there were poor people, as well as everywhere else? Much evil was done to the poor by defrauding them with false measure, and he proposed that the inspectors should inspect the articles as well as the weights. He concluded by moving for a Select Committee on the subject.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of the best mode of preventing frauds in the Sole of Bread, and for making further provision to secure the wholesome quality of articles used in the Manufacture of Bread."

seconded the Motion.

opposed the Motion, and said that the House, having abrogated the laws relating to the assize of bread—laws which placed millers and bakers alike at the mercy of informers and magistrates, he would never consent to revive such an injurious and obnoxious system. If bread was to be subjected to such regulations as the hon. Member wished to enact, why should groceries and other necessaries not be similarly treated? He was afraid the hon. Member would find he had taken a very troublesome job in hand, and for his own part he should strenuously fight in support of the system which he had been the first to introduce.

said, that he was not indisposed to permit the hon. Member to have his Committee, but he must guard against being supposed to agree to the principle. The present system worked well. When the proposal to stamp the bread was last year before the House, the bakers opposed it by very reasonable arguments, and nothing had been urged to shake his belief in the validity of those objections. If the proposal to stamp the weight upon every loaf were to be made into a law, it would be impossible for a baker to sell a portion of a loaf or to cut it, and much of the bread sold to the poor was so dealt out. He apprehended that the respectable bakers of London and large towns would be subject to great inconvenience, and very unfairly so. As to such an enactment being in force in Edinburgh, that had been done in a local Act, and certainly its effect was not such as to induce him to follow such an example.

said, that the country, and more particularly the poor, ought to feel very much obliged to the hon. Member for his Motion, which deserved the support of the whole House. The price of bread in London was exorbitant, as compared with the provinces.

said, that there was a very strong feeling in many parts of the country that the present state of the law was wholly unequal to afford that protection against fraud which the poor consumers of broad required.

was in favour of granting the Committee, as the sale of bread did require some regulation. There was an extraordinary difference in the price of bread even in various localities of the metropolis, and some means ought to be adopted to enforce fair prices, so as to give the poor the advantage of the low price of corn. He only regretted that the Session was so far advanced as not to render it likely that the Bill could become law this year.

denied that there was any combination amongst the metropolitan Members to prevent the Bill from becoming law. It appeared to be a favourite hobby of the hon. Member, but he had deferred the introduction of his measure until so late a period as thereby to defeat his own intentions. At the same time it might be doubted whether the hon. Member was aware of the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of carrying out his proposition, as bread was constantly changing in weight owing to its exposure to the air. He begged to state on the part of the bakers that they were very desirous to be relieved from the stigma which constantly rested on them; and, therefore, he should await and see what the Bill was.

could not assent to the introduction of such a Bill as that proposed by the hon. Member. As regarded the principle of the Bill, he defied the hon. Gentleman to show one reason for passing it which was not equally applicable to the butcher or the grocer. It was quite true that the baker when he put his bread into the oven did not know what weight it would come out; and again it was quite possible that one loaf might come out much lighter than another, even though both were of the same weight when put into the oven. He believed that the Bill, if agreed to, would let loose a whole host of informers, and for this reason he should give it the most strenuous opposition in his power.

Question put.

The House divided;—Ayes 91; Noes 37: Majority 54.

Matter considered in Committee.

Resolution reported: Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bankes, Mr. Spooner, and Mr. Stuart.

moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of the proposed alterations as regarded the transmission of the mails between the southwest of Scotland and the north of Ireland. He asked for inquiry into the reasons why the principle recommended by the best authorities, and which had led to the expenditure of so large an amount of public money, was to be departed from. The whole of the south-western part of Scotland, and a considerable part of the northern counties of Ireland, would be affected by the change, and all the money that had been expended for the purpose of carrying out the old arrangement would be lost. A saving of 4,000 l a year, it was said, would be effected by moans of this alteration; but that he regarded as a very questionable saving, especially when large interests were involved, and the alteration was proposed to be from a short passage between Portpatrick and Donaghadee, to a longer one from Greenock to Belfast. The old arrangement was in every respect most advantageous, and would be found still more so when railway communication was carried on to Portpatrick.

Motion made, and Question put—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of the proposed alterations as regards the transmission of the Mails between the South-west of Scotland and the North of Ireland."

did not see that any further information could be acquired by a Committee than was already before the House. He admitted that the passage between Portpatriok and Donaghadee was the shortest, and also that a large expenditure of money had taken place on the harbour of Portpatrick; but these considerations were overborne by the advantages which "would accrue to the public generally by the adoption of the new arrangement. A considerable saving would be effected by the proposed alteration, and it should be borne in mind that it was not by any means proposed to interrupt the communication between the south of Scotland and Ieland. The hon. Gentleman spoke of railways being brought to the point of communication with the steamers from Portpatrick and Donaghadee; but when the railways come to these points it would be time enough to consider the question. Parties now carrying on steam navigation betwixt the Clyde and Belfast, were willing to convey the mails to Belfast without any payment whatever; and he did not see why in this way they should not be conveyed as rapidly as by steam-packets kept up by Government, while a great expense would be saved. He did not see that any further information could be obtained by a Committee than was already possessed.

The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 44: Majority 7.

called the attention of the House to the special reports and recommendations of the Lyme Regis Election Committee of last Session, charging John Attwood, Esq., with bribery—then a Member of this House, and subsequently unseated for bribery in his election for Harwich—and moved that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute Mr. Attwood and his agents for the alleged cases of bribery and corruption at Lyme Regis and Harwich. He referred to the proceedings at the elections of Athlone and Kinsale, as brought out in the reports of the Election Committees, and by letters from both these boroughs, as showing that Mr. Attwood's interference with the freedom of election was not even confined to this country, but had been extended to Ireland. If a check was not put to such a system by the House, he had no doubt that half of the Irish Members would ere long have to make way for the millionaires of the city of London, who, like Mr. Attwood, would find speculation in Irish boroughs a profitable investment.

Motion made, and Question put—

"That the Attorney General he directed to prosecute Mr. Attwood, and his Agents, for the alleged cases of bribery and corruption at Lyme Regis."

said, that having listened to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, it seemed to him that the charge against Mr. Attwood was not for what had been done at Lyme Regis, but for having invaded Ireland, and, like another Strongbow, attacking the native Milesians in their strongholds. The whole of the evidence relied on by the hon. Gentleman were certain private letters, and none of the arguments tended to prove any thing except that it was disagreeable to certain parties in Ireland to be invaded by a rich English gentleman. He had always heard it said that nothing more was desired than the introduction of English capital into Ireland. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Attorney General should be instructed to prosecute Mr. Attwood for bribery and corruption at Lyme Regis. Now, the evidence taken before the Committee did not bring home a single case of bribery to Mr. Attwood in the Lyme Regis case. In the Harwich case, the Committee reported that Mr. Attwood was entirely innocent of bribery, the only case proved having been the act of his agent, without Mr. Attwood's knowledge. He know that the Harwich election was a decidedly cheap and pure election as compared with former elections, so much so that the voters themselves were astonished at it. The whole expense did not exceed 300 l . If the hon. Gentleman was so imbued with the spirit of purity, why did he not go to other places as corrupt as either Lyme Regis or Harwich? [ Cries of "Name!"] He might name Kinsale. The evidence before the Committee showed that bribery to three times the extent at Kinsale that there was at either Lyme Regis or Harwich. The accusation against Mr. Attwood was, that he allowed money to certain electors on the condition that whenever he came forward as a candidate, they should vote for him or for his nominee. Now, Sir FitzRoy Kelly did not come forward at Mr. Attwood's request, but before Mr. Attwood was aware of his intention, so that he could not be considered as Mr. Attwood's nominee. He should say there was no great crime committed against the laws of this empire in purchasing property of any description; and for his part he did not think that the Attorney General of this country should go out of his way to prosecute parties in compliance with the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite. For these reasons he should meet the Motion before the House with a direct negative.

asked whether hon. Gentlemen were not aware that property had been purchased in Kinsale for the purpose of securing permanent political influence in that borough?

said, the Committee which had been appointed to consider the Lyme Regis case, had not recommended the Attorney General to prosecute. He doubted whether such a prosecution could be now sustained.

The House divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 46: Majority 43.

The House adjourned at half after One o'clock.