which is the source of much discontent, and which may ultimately lead to public disaster-I ask if it is at all met by the measure of the hon. Member for Surrey? On the contrary, while some complain that property is too much represented in the constitution, what is the answer of the hon. Member for Surrey to the claims of labour? The answer is, 'We want to represent property still more.' I must say that I cannot myself sanction legislation of so crude a character. I believe it to be founded upon principles altogether fallacious. I have thought it right to say on the part of my colleagues what I have said before for myself. But let our feelings not be misconceived. We do not associate an extension of the suffrage necessarily with an extension of democratic power. If we see any well-matured measure brought forward, not with the view of serving a mere party purpose, but with the sincere desire of giving the deserving artisan the exercise of the suffrage in a manner consistent with the existence and maintenance of institutions which we believe to be as much for the interest of the artisan as any other class in the country, I say that to such a measure we shall be disposed to give a dispassionate and kind consideration. But the motion of the hon. Member for Surrey is not of that class; and until some measure is brought forward which we think is calculated to meet the difficulties and exigencies of the case, we must be allowed to take our stand on the settlement which exists-not from any superstitious reverence for that settlement, but because we are opposed to the system of year after year tampering with the constitution; a system which we believe to be the source of political weakness and of national debility.' After a few words from Sir Benjamin Hall in favour of the motion, and a short reply from Mr. Locke King, who disclaimed the intention to increase the representation of property, his aim being only to make that representation more fair and equal, the House divided, when the numbers werefor the motion, 149; against it, 202; majority, 53. The Bill was consequently lost. A subsidiary measure of reform in the electoral system was proposed and successfully carried out in the present session by Lord Brougham, who in an early part of it laid on the table of the House of Lords a Bill to remedy an inconvenience in the law affecting the assembly of a new Parliament after a dissolution. The object of the measure was, to reduce the period of fifty days heretofore required to elapse between a dissolution and the meeting of a new Parliament to thirtyfive days. The former period was fixed by usage and statute under circumstances which had ceased to operate. After explaining this Bill, Lord Brougham added some earnest words, imploring their Lordships to take immediate and stringent measures to put down bribery and corrupt practices at elections; especially counselling that efforts should be more than hitherto directed against the giver of the bribe, and expressing his opinion that nothing done would be effectual till the Legislature made it compulsory upon every Member of Parliament on taking his seat to take an explicit oath that neither directly nor indirectly, neither by himself nor by CHAPTER IV. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM:-Mr. Hume moves for Leave to bring in a Bill for the Extension of the Franchise on the 25th of March-His Speech -Sir Joshua Walmsley seconds the Motion-Speeches of Mr. H. Drummond, Sir W. P. Wood, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Disraeli-The Motion is rejected by 244 to 89-Mr. Locke King renews his former Motion for assimilating the Franchise in Counties to that in Boroughs -He is supported by Mr. Hume, Lord Robert Grosvenor, Mr. Bright, Mr. Wakley, and Sir Benjamin Hall, and opposed by Lord John Manners, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord John Russell, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer-The Motion is negatived on a Division by 202 to 149-Lord Brougham proposes and carries through Parliament a Bill for shortening the period between the Dissolution and Re-assembling of the Two Houses to Thirty Days. BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION AT ELECTIONS:-Increasing prevalence of these Practices-Case of St. Alban's-A Commission appointed to inquire into Bribery at that Borough reports the existence of extensive and systematic Corruption -A Bill is introduced and taken up by the New Government for the Disfranchisement of the Borough-It is passed without OppositionLord John Russell having introduced a Bill to empower the Crown to direct a Commission of Inquiry to any Place at which Bribery is reported by an Election Committee, Lord Derby's Government proceeds with the Measure-It is carried with some Amendments made in the Upper House-Enfranchisement of New Constituencies-Mr. Disraeli's Plan for the appropriation of the Four Seats vacant by the Disfranchisement of Sudbury and St. Alban's-His Speech in the House of Commons on the 10th of May-The Motion is opposed by Mr. Gladstone, and the House divides-A Majority against the Government of 234 to 148. NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION BILL:-Sir John Pakington, Secretary for the Colonies, mores for Leave to bring in a Bill for this purpose on the 3rd of May-The Measure is, on the whole, favourably received by the House-On the Second Reading being moved, Sir W. Molesworth raises several Objections to the Bill-Speeches of Mr. Adderley, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. E. Denison, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. F. Peel, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir James Graham-The Bill is read a Second Time without a Division-Sir J. Pakington proposes certain alterations in Committee-Sir W. Molesworth moves an Amendment, but without success-In the House of Lords the Bill is carried, after a Debate, in which the Earl of Desart, Lord Lyttelton, the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Wodehouse, and Earl Grey take part. THE COLONIAL BISHOPS BILL:-Measure proposed by Mr. Gladstone for extending the deliberative Powers of the Church of England in the Colonies-His Speech on proposing it-The Bill is strongly opposed by Sir John Pakington, as affecting the Royal Supremacy -After some Debate the Bill is withdrawn. EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR REVENUES:-The Marquis of Blandford moves for Leave to bring in a Bill for the better Management and Distribution of Ecclesiastical Funds-Statement of his Plan-It is favourably received by many Members-Speech of Mr. Walpole on the part of the Government-The Bill is eventually postponed. in Parliament on several occasions, and in various shapes, during this session. The first and most direct proposition was submitted to the House of Commons by the veteran Reformer, Mr. Hume, who, on the 25th of March, brought forward a motion in the following terms: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the national representation, by extending the elective franchise in England and Wales, so that every man of full age, and not subject to any mental or legal disability, who shall have been the resident occupier of a house, or of part of a house as a lodger, for twelve months, and shall have been duly rated to the poor of that parish, for that time, shall be registered as an elector, and be entitled to vote for a representative in Parliament: also, by enacting that votes shall be taken by ballot, that the duration of Parliaments shall not exceed three years, and that the proportion of representatives be made more consistent with the amount of population and property." In the outset of his speech, Mr. Hume touched on Lord Derby's recent declaration on coming into office, that his Government would "oppose some barrier against the current of democratic influence that is continually encroaching, which would throw power nominally into the hands of the masses, а Hume took this epithet of " demagogue" to himself; and observing, that he found from Johnson that the word demagogue means ringleader of the rabble," he "threw back the imputation, not with contempt, but as wholly unworthy of Lord Derby:" for Mr. Hume, though oftener at the head of large bodies of his coun trymen than any man in this country, had never led a rabble; he had been a peacemaker; and he would still strive to pacify men who met in large numbers under a sense of injustice to demand their rights. From this personal point he went into an argument that the suffrage is a right and not a privilege. This he much insisted on; quoting Blackstone, and referring to Sir Thomas Smith, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, in support. Then, from the ground of abstract right, he passed to that of political expediency; and this he fortified by quoting Lord Chatham's opinion-that the restoration of a genuine House of Commons was the only remedy against the system of corruption; and the opinions given in Parliament in 1792 by Mr. Lambton, father of Lord Durham, and the then Duke of Richmond-men certainly not "demagogues"—that making the House of Commons a real representation of the people, freely chosen and independent of England.] 66 to the ballot-he said he should Mr Roebuck, agreeing so far he thought that there was no abstract right in question; but he asked the franchise for the instructed artizan living in a lodging, first, because he was a man who by honest industry gained his subsistence; next, because he was instructed; and, thirdly, he was a moral man; and upon these three qualities-independence derived from obtaining his subsistence by his own individual exertions, intellect sufficient to guide him in the judgment he ought to form upon the government of the country, and that morality which ought to pertain to the constituency-he was to be placed upon a line with any other class in this community, and worthy to be a constituent. Sir Page Wood, like Mr. Hume, opened with a reference to Lord Derby's attack on democracy; but his reference to it was not made so much to disclaim the epithet of demagogue," as to present a contrast between the principles of democracy and those of absolutism. Putting out of his view the many "military occupations" now seen in Europe, he divided the governments into those high monarchical ones in which the sovereign is a paternal despot and the people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them, and those few governments in which, with an hereditary soveeign and an upper chamber of gislation, the people are generally vited to look after their own inrests, and govern themselves. ese latter are the nations goned by the "Democratic princie;" they are governed by the prinole of enlightened confidence: e others are governed on the prinle of fear. He described the atbutes of the British Constitution, showed that its principle is one Mr. Disraeli, after making some fe and progression. He in- sarcastic observations on the gened one nation in Europe- ral character of the debate, entered -which ranks by our into a review of the four propore a Representative Con- sitions involved in Mr. Hume's safely maintained. This motion seriatim. On the first d chiefly to two causes point, he assumed that Mr. Hume's the Belgian people objections to the present system period been trained were principally directed against se of freedom by the unfair predominancy of repreutions; and, se- sentation which the territorial iney were a nation terests obtain, compared with the religious faith. municipal interests. This he desame circum- nied; and he supported his dea great se- nial by a contrast of the popuin any re- lation and Members of Parliament franchise. belonging to the rural districts proval of in the manufacturing and agriculHume's tural regions of England with proval the population and Members of rring Parliament belonging to the great |