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 Opposition— Lord 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, moves 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. HE subject of Representative 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 for ward 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, practically into the hands of the a 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 the Peers and the Crown, and amenable at short intervals to the judgment of their constituents, would be a safeguard against, and not a step towards, the disturbances then already arisen in France. Sir Joshua Walmsley seconded the motion, and supported it by a speech, in which he descanted on the unreasonable and inequitable distribution of the Parliamentary representation, and the impolitic restriction of the suffrage. He showed in detail, that the distribution of Members is neither in proportion to the population nor to the wealth of the districts and populations nominally represented, and that the number of votes is scarcely greater than the proportion of one in seven of the whole adult population. Then referring to our advance during the last twenty years, in commerce, wealth, knowledge, arts, and civilization-in all that distinguishes a civilized, industrious, and grow ing people-he put in broad contrast to this the fact that there had been during that time no advance or improvement in our representation or rights of self-government. He besought the House to ponder, in this time of tranquillity, on the folly of treating with contumely the reasonable demands of millions of irritated subjects. Mr. Henry Drummond addressed himself to the subject in a speech of some quaintness and originality, appealing to first principles as the test of institutions. Objecting to the Reform Act of 1832, that it had no principle it chose 10., and now they proposed 51., though there was no more principle in connecting the right with 57. than with 47. 19s. 6d. -he for himself propounded the rule, that the elective franchise should be coextensive with direct service to the State; giving the poor man who has nothing in his pocket to tempt the tax-collector, but who has rendered his own personal service as soldier or militiaman, the right, after his discharge, to vote. The ballot he thought a matter to be left to the electors themselves. The varieties in our representation he defended; and the property qualification he specifically upheld, not on the ground often taken, that it is evadedthat was a bad ground, which went towards impairing the obligation of an oath and the conscientious duty of jurors and others-but on a sort of anti-communistic principle, which he thus illustrated: Whereever there are two animals, and one has got something to eat and the other has not, unless the one that has the something to eat were stronger than the other, there will inevitably be a battle between them. So, if there are two men alongside each other, one rich and the other poor, and the rich man has not something or other wherewith to defend his riches, there will be a free trade between them pretty quickly. Property and power must be considered together; for the power of civilized society is alone constituted to preserve acquired property. If he were to take up Parliamentary Reform, Mr. Drummond said, he should turn his attention to the House of Lords. That he considered the weakest part of the Constitution, which needed to be strengthened. He suggested two measures for this purpose-the abolition of the vote by proxy, and the bestowal of life peerages upon men who had done distinguished service, but had not fortune enough to support an hereditary title. 66 66 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 sovereign and an upper chamber of legislation, the people are generally invited to look after their own interests, and govern themselves. These latter are the nations governed by the "Democratic principle;" they are governed by the principle of enlightened confidence: the others are governed on the principle of fear. He described the attributes of the British Constitution, and showed that its principle is one of life and progression. He instanced one nation in EuropeBelgium-which ranks by our side, where a Representative Constitution is safely maintained. This he attributed chiefly to two causes -first, that the Belgian people had for a long period been trained for the exercise of freedom by municipal institutions; and, secondly, because they were a nation deeply imbued with religious faith. He believed that the same circumstances would afford a great security to this country in any reform or extension of the franchise. Having expressed his approval of the general bearing of Mr. Hume's motion, and his specific approval of one portion of it-that referring to the ballot-he said he should not do more. There was no possibility of the measure being carried this session; and he would reserve to himself a perfect freedom as to any and every specific measure. Mr Roebuck, agreeing so far with Sir W. P. Wood, confessed that he relied on no abstract right 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. Mr. Disraeli, after making some sarcastic observations on the general character of the debate, entered into a review of the four propositions involved in Mr. Hume's motion seriatim. On the first point, he assumed that Mr. Hume's objections to the present system. were principally directed against the unfair predominancy of representation which the territorial interests obtain, compared with the municipal interests. This he denied; and he supported his denial by a contrast of the population and Members of Parliament belonging to the rural districts in the manufacturing and agricultural regions of England with the population and Members of Parliament belonging to the great towns in the same regions, showing that the towns absorbed the greatest portion of the representation of those regions. In North Cheshire, the population of the two great towns, Macclesfield and Stockport, amounting to only 92,000, had four Members; the rest of the population, 249,000, had but two Members. In South Cheshire, the town, Chester, had two Members for its 28,000; the rest of the county no more for their 178,000. In South Derbyshire, the capital town again takes two Members for its 41,000, and the county gets but two Members for its 125,000. And so on, through South Durham, West Kent, North Lancashire, South Lancashire, and the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire. The last instance he described as the most glaring of all. "If I were to seek an instance in which to show that the distribution of the representation was not arranged with a desire to promote or to maintain the preponderance of the landed interest, I would seek it in that celebrated West Riding. We have there nine considerable towns, all of them important and distinguished for their industry and manufactures. Among them there are Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield, and Wakefield. The urban population of the West Riding is 500,000, and the rural population is 800,000; and yet the town population is represented by sixteen Members, though it is only 500,000, and the rural population, which is 800,000, is represented not by sixteen, but by two Members. This, then, is a summary of the great scenes of our modern industry. In North Lancashire, every 70,000 of the urban population have a representative, while for the rural popu lation there is one representative for every 257,000. In West Yorkshire, there is a representative for every 32,000 in the towns, while in the agricultural districts every 400,000 of the population have a similar advantage." Lest he should be accused of selecting instances, he gave the result of a summary of the population of 107 large towns, having a population of about 6,500,000, and represented by 187 Members, in contrast with the remaining population of the United Kingdom and their representatives: this result was, that the population of these boroughs had one Member to every 35,000, while the rural population of the United Kingdom had one Member to 36,000. So that, on a "complete and comprehensive view," the town population was better represented than the rural population. Resting on the success of this demonstration, Mr. Disraeli declared all the statistics of Mr. Hume and his school to be founded on partial instances and fantastic combinations, conveying inaccurate impres sions, and not justifying the policy they were brought to support. Mr. Disraeli next proceeded to the subject of the ballot, founding his objections to that method of voting chiefly on representations of its total failure in the United States, which he supported on the authority of an American correspondent, formerly a Member of the House of Commons. The hon. Member followed up his quotations by this expression of his own opinion-"I believe it to be a growing sentiment in the convictions of Englishmen, that corruption is the consequence of men not being properly brought up. You may pass laws, ostensibly to prevent corruption, in coun |