UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

May 28, 1830.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL spoke as follows:-I cannot but feel, Sir, considerable embarrassment in rising to address the House on this occasion, because it is impossible to avoid observing that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Clare has placed me in a difficult and very delicate situation. Since the time when I brought forward a Motion for General Reform, and when, in my opinion, all the arguments in favour of that proposition had been exhausted-and exhausted unsuccessfully--the subject had been permitted to rest in silence, until a noble Lord, in the early part of this Session, introduced a Motion for Radical Reform. The hon. and learned Member for Clare has now moved a Resolution containing three main features. The first is that of Triennial Parliaments; the second, Universal Suffrage; and the third, Vote by Ballot-from all of which, I beg leave to say, I most decidedly dissent. In consequence of this I am placed in a very difficult situation; for either I must vote for what I do not like in the hon. Member's plan of Reform, or I must join with those who oppose all Reform whatever. In these circumstances, I must be allowed to return to the plan and the propositions which in former times I have myself brought forward. I must be permitted to recur to the principles I then advanced, and by proceeding thus I shall be enabled to give a negative to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, and afterwards propose a measure which I think to be founded on better and more constitutional principles. I agree with the hon. Member that it is very disagreeable for reformers to come into collision, and if he had confined himself to the first part of his proposition, though I do not approve entirely of

Triennial Parliaments, and believe that Parliaments elected for five years would be preferable to them under our present system, yet I do not think that I should be led to oppose him on that point alone. But universal suffrage and vote by ballot are measures that, in my opinion, are incompatible with the Constitution of this country. I do not deny that there has been and may be a free and wellregulated Government founded on such a plan of representation. I do not deny that the Commonwealth of America is a well-constituted Government, but considering our system-considering our Monarchy and our House of Lords, and remembering the state of property in this country, I do not think that the exercise of universal suffrage could end otherwise than in a collision that would produce either a Commonwealth on the one hand, or an absolute Monarchy on the other. Mr. Fox, however violent he might be in opposition to, or in pursuit of a particular measure, yet preserved a high degree of moderation in the most stormy times. When Mr. Fox was speaking of the doctrines of equality, so much in fashion at the time of the French Revolution, he said, 'I too, Sir, am for equality. I think that men are entitled to equal rights, but to equal rights to unequal things.' To that observation, Sir, I adhere. I think that if universal suffrage were introduced, equal rights to unequal things could not in the long-run be maintained. The hon. and learned Member for Clare has truly said that this is a time of tranquillity, and that it is, therefore, the best time for introducing the discussion of this subject. I agree with him as to the fact, and I submit to him whether that tranquillity is not in a great measure owing to the circumstance that this doctrine of universal suffrage has been kept for several years out of the sight of the peoplethat, latterly, there have been found no popular leaders to recommend it, and that, consequently, safe and practical

reform has been for years preferred by the mass of the people to more violent and sweeping measures. The first thing on which I found my plan for Parliamentary Reform is, that there has been of late a vast increase of property for which we cannot find in the Constitution of this House any adequate representation. This principle I have stated on former occasions, and I have gone so fully into the proof of the increasing wealth and intelligence, the means of information, and the capacity to form a right judgment, that I shall not go farther into any of these topics now. I shall, therefore, at once proceed to read the resolution I mean to propose if the hon. Member's Motion should be negatived. It is one which I have before submitted to a Committee of this House. The resolution declares, That it is expedient to extend the basis of the representation of the people in this House.' The next resolution is relative to the manner in which that basis is to be extended. I say, in the first place, that there are many large manufacturing and commercial towns which have no representatives in the House. That is the first and most grave defect in the present system of representation. We feel it every day in the business of this House. We are really in want of representatives of the extensive interests connected with our woollen, iron, cloth, and silk trades, and with our shipping business. I will read a list of the towns which in the former Bill I proposed should be entitled to send Members to this House. I do not say that all the towns the names of which I am about to read should now at once be entitled to send Members, but I think that within some limited period that privilege should be conferred on them. The towns are Macclesfield, Stockport, Whitehaven, Sunderland, Cheltenham, Brighton, Bury, Bolton, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Dudley, Leeds, Wakefield, Sheffield, and North and South Shields. Five of these towns are the seats of the woollen

and silk trade; three are engaged most extensively in the woollen trade, four in the iron trade, two of them, Cheltenham and Brighton, are towns with a large population, and, in my opinion, ought to send representatives to Parliament. I will add, that when giving representatives to the large towns, we should not omit giving two representatives also to Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. Many of our larger counties are insufficiently represented, and to them also I would give additional Members. In those counties that have already two representatives it would be inconvenient to add to their number. The present system, so far as it concerns them, works well, and I would not disturb their arrangement; but where the counties are very large I should propose to divide them into two districts, of north and south, or east and west, and to allow two Members for each. The second resolution I should propose to the House, in pursuance of the principles I have stated, declares, 'That it is expedient that Members should be sent to Parliament by the large manufacturing towns, and that additional Members should be given to counties of great extent, wealth, and population.' I will now proceed to state the manner in which I propose to execute the purpose of that resolution:-The additional Members I have proposed would make a large addition to the numbers in this House. In order to get rid of the objection to that addition, I should propose that many of the Cornwall Boroughs should only send one representative, instead of two, to Parliament; and that every borough with less than 2,500 inhabitants should send only one Member. I trust that will not be considered a grievance, particularly after the resolution I shall propose relative to this subject. The third resolution states, "That, in order to attain the object of the foregoing resolution without inconvenience, it is expedient that the number of the smaller boroughs returning

members shall not exceed sixty; and that boroughs with a population of only 2,500 shall not send more than one Member to Parliament.' This brings me to my last proposition. It would, no doubt, be matter of consideration with this House whether, having deprived these boroughs of one Member, it would be fit to give them compensation. I think it would not be a hardship to deprive them of this right, when it is considered that it is a trust for the benefit of the people; but it ought to be remembered, that it is at the same time a privilege conferred upon the electors. In the Act giving the borough of Wenlock the right of electing Members, it is called a privilege; in the Act giving it to the county of Durham it is called so likewise. As long, therefore, as they are not convicted of any offence which ought to deprive them of their franchise, it would be a better and more convenient way to grant them compensation. That was the measure adopted towards Ireland, and that measure forms a precedent for this mode of conduct. The fourth resolution is, "That it is expedient to grant compensation to boroughs which lose their right of returning two Members, the said compensation to be afforded by means of a fixed sum to be applied to that purpose by annual grants for several years.' I have now done with the statement of what I mean to propose; but I cannot avoid taking notice of a general argument, which on these occasions is always introduced that this House, as now constituted, practically serves the purposes of its constitution, that it balances the power of the House of Lords, that it controls the Crown, and that we ought not, therefore, to ask for any further improvement in it. Every year that I sit in this House convinces me more and more that that argument is not founded in truth. I think I have before proved, in a manner that cannot be answered, that in all the great divisions in this House, on questions when we