of the full Charter advocated by Mr. O'Connor. [In the course of this criticism, Sir George drew from Mr. Hume the admissions, that he had no objection even to extend the franchise to females, and that he would have "not the least objection" to "substitute for a hereditary House of Lords

an

elective second Chamber."] These admissions Sir George fixed upon as effective topics for comment. In conclusion, he declared his opinion that the Bill would establish a pure democracy in the House of Commons; which would be inconsistent with the harmonious working of the constitution. He therefore asked the House to negative the motion.

Mr. O'Connor defended himself and the Charter against some remarks of Mr. Hume, whom he, however, thanked for bringing forward the measure.

Mr. Wood did not see why the principle adopted in the Irish Bill should not be applicable to the constituency of England. Mr. Hume's was a plain and simple proposition; and was it safe to go on, year after year, the Government opposing reform, and bringing forward no measure for remedying acknowledged evils? Was it wise to wait until driven, as in

other changes, by some formidable convulsion? This measure was perfectly consistent with our Constitution; it was adapted to the habits of the people, to their system of Government, and to the direction their minds had taken. The question was, whether it was unsafe to trust a larger portion of the people with the franchise. Assuming Sir G. Grey's figures there were 3,500,000 nonelectors, and were there none amongst them fitted for the

suffrage? If some were fitted, would they remain long tranquil, excluded from it? Men of the highest intelligence were found among the industrious classes, and he did not wish to see them bandied in an order with the mark of exclusion upon them.

Mr. Henry Drummond regretted that Mr. Hume had not separated the extension of the franchise from other matters, in order that he (Mr. Drummond) might have supported him. Sooner or later, however, he believed, every one would be carried; the reaping time was coming of seed long sown; the Whigs had been preaching the doctrine of democracy for the last 150 years.

Mr. Roebuck thought the country was indebted to Mr. Hume for bringing forward this question at the present time. Sir G. Grey

had resisted the motion because it would be a departure from the principles of the Constitution, and would make the House too democratic; but there had been a direct change in the representative system- -a quiet and salutary revolution-by the Reform Bill. The motion did not controvert the English Constitution — that is, that there should be a body representing the people, and speaking in their name in the making of laws. He did not support this motion because he thought that House did not represent the feelings, opinions, and passions of the people; nor did he hold that taxation and representation should go together, which they never did; nor that the actual burdens of the people of England were greater than those of other people. His ground of support was, that a large body of our fellow countrymen fancied

themselves aggrieved because they were not represented, which engendered a feeling of discontent amongst the labouring population. The franchise proposed by Mr. Hume was not universal: it required various conditions and qualifications; and the notion that the intelligent labourer and mechanic would return men hostile to the institutions of the country was a mere bugbear. He believed, that if this franchise were given to-morrow it would be a harmless concession, and that there was really no danger in endowing a large section of our labouring population with this privilege.

Lord J. Russell vindicated Whig principles, and the motives and objects of the Reform Act, against the strictures of Mr. Drummond and Mr. Roebuck. With respect to the motion, he reiterated the argument of Sir G. Grey, that the proposed franchise was one disjoined from property. Mr. Roebuck's ground of supporting the motion went to the extent of universal suffrage; and whilst he (Lord J. Russell) denied that the maxim that taxation and representation were reciprocal should be literally understood and acted upon, he dissented from Mr. Roebuck's theory that the maxim was a fallacy; it meant only that the House of Commons legally and virtually represented the people, and in their name granted taxes. The proposed franchise would open a door to fraud, whilst it would be almost universal; and was he to infer from the conduct of the labouring classes, or working men, which deserved commendation, that if they had such a suffrage their choice would be a wise one? It might be ungenerous to seem to

distrust the people, but he believed they would be misled. With respect to inequalities in the representation, if they were to be remedied, the country must be equally divided into districts, or an increase of members should be given to counties as well as towns; but it was never proposed to cure the inequalities in counties; and he suspected that there was a desire to give a preponderating weight to the great towns. Although he negatived the motion, he did not therefore hold that the existing limits of the franchise must be permanently maintained; but he and his colleagues had thought it would be advisable in the present Session, not to put aside all other questions in order to raise one that must lead to long and protracted debates; but that the sentiments of the country should be matured and settled respecting other questions before this, which must create a great division of parties, and required fuller information and further reflection, was launched. Referring to recent events in other countries, Lord John contended that we should derive a lesson from their experience, and not grasp at too much at once, nor take a wide step without mature deliberation. Whatever change was made should be effected, not by a substitute for the Reform Act, but by a supplement to that law, which was adapted to the institutions of the country and to the wishes of the people. The course proposed by Mr. Hume was one of conjecture and uncertainty; his advice was to prefer to that conjecture and uncertainty the institutions we had, prepared to amend their defects, but refusing to enter upon a new career full of doubt and peril.

Mr. Osborne condemned the speech of Lord J. Russell, and lamented his apostacy from the cause of reform. He read some amusing illustrations of the purity of elections under the Reform Act, and asked what better remedy for this political leprosy could be devised than an increase of the franchise? The only question was, how far it should go? Household suffrage was the ancient system. If the ballot was deemed by the

was

people a protection, they should have it; and a return to triennial Parliaments, which were no novelty, would be a wise step. He concluded his speech, which seasoned with humour and sarcasm, by stating, that he supported the motion because it would make the house in reality the Commons House of England.

The House having divided, the motion was negatived by 242 against 96.

A

MONG the subjects of proposed legislation foreshadowed in the Royal Speech at the opening of the Session, a measure for extending the benefits of constitutional government to some of our colonial dependencies held a prominent position. The subject had for some time engaged public attention, and had been enforced on the consideration of Parliament by men whose opinions deservedly carried great weight. It had become the conviction of most of the leading men of all parties, that the vast communities which England had planted in distant regions of the world could neither attain their full development, nor be held in permanent attachment to the mother country, without the concession of a larger measure of self-government, and a more complete realization of the representative system, than had been hitherto accorded to them. Acting upon these principles, Her Majesty's Ministers announced their intention, at the commencement of the Session, of embodying their views in an Act of Parliament applicable to the British Australian settlements. On the 8th of February Lord John Russell made his promised statement in the House of the intended policy of Government in respect to the colonial possessions of the Crown. The noble Lord began his speech by confessing that he felt appalled at the magnitude of his task, but was consoled by the reflection that

there were many members of that House who had applied their time and talents to the subject. He then took a retrospective view of the manner in which most of our Colonies, except the Australian, were acquired and founded. The main object seemed to have been to send out settlers from this country, and also to maintain a strict commercial monopoly in relation to the Colonies. At the same time it was established on various authorities, by the whole policy of the Marquess of Halifax, King James's minister, by the decision of Sir Philip Yorke on the Jamaica proclamation, by Lord Mansfield's decision on the case of the Island of Grenada, &c., &c., that Englishmen carry out with them their native rights and privileges, and that the simple proclamation of those rights and privileges protects them against being taxed, except by the Imperial Parliament, or by their own consent in a local assembly. From 1763 to the peace of 1814-15, the model of the English Constitution was not imitated in respect of possessions acquired during that period. Lord John Russell read a mass of statistics, to show the progress that had been made by the Colonies in population and wealth.

By our recent legislation, especially by the repeal of the Navigation Laws, continued the noble Lord, we have utterly broken down the relation of monopoly; and a question has arisen, Whether it is