offensive mission to another country. What were those but aggravations of the offences already committed, and a throwing of contempt on the law? Through this contempt of the law, there would soon be no authority but that of physical force. In 1831, there were extraordinary riots at Bristol, and also at Lyons at Bristol, Colonel Brereton saved the town from entire conflagration, and restored order, with one squadron of dragoons; at Lyons, a Marshal of France needed 60,000 men to save the town from destruction. Such in 1831 was the respect for the law in Bristol. But where was the respect for the law in London now, when hundreds of thousands of citizens and thousands of armed troops were found necessary to preserve the peace? The transactions in Ireland during the last few years had been the cause of this altered state of public feeling. A measure was necessary which should apply to such transactions. He did not want to put down discussion, and hoped it would always be allowed on every subject whereon it could be wished: but let it be at meetings of such numbers only as could hear what was said; and let not the meetings, under the pretence of discussion, be made assemblages to create terror and overawe the Government.

Lord Denman agreed that in certain quarters there was an increased contempt for the law; but he thought that the feeling was overrated. Indeed, the spectacle which had lately been exhibited was proof of the estimation in which hundreds of thousands of citizens held that law which they met to uphold. With regard to monster meetings, he thought they were themselves

misdemeanours, and might always be put down by the existing laws. With respect to one point of the Bill-the privilege of challenge possessed by prisoners-he should be sorry to see prisoners in Ireland deprived of that privilege.

Earl St. Germains gave the Bill a qualified support; and it was read a second time, and on the following evening passed through its remaining stages without opposition.

Another measure which derived its origin from the occurrences of this eventful crisis, was a Bill for enabling the Government to compel the departure of aliens from this country in certain cases. The subject was first mooted on the 11th April, when the Duke of Beaufort called the attention of the House of Lords to the number of foreigners seen in the streets of the metropolis, and inquired if Government intended to apply to the Legislature for powers to remove aliens?

The Marquis of Lansdowne said he held in his hand a Bill for conferring on Ministers ample powers, to be exercised upon their responsibility, for a limited time, and in certain cases, to compel the departure of persons coming here not from the accustomed motives of business and pleasure. Crowds of foreigners were resorting to this country whose object could not be ascertained, and Government thought it their duty to stand prepared against every contingency.

A day or two afterwards the noble Lord moved the second reading of this Bill, with some further explanations. He said it had been found necessary that such a power as that to be conferred by the Bill should be lodged somewhere. The Execu

tive would be enabled to exercise discretion in the removal of foreigners from this country; acting not with reference to the conduct of the individuals elsewhere, but with reference to their conduct here. The power would be exercised by the Home Secretary.

The Earl of Ellenborough only objected to the Bill that it did not go so far as the last Alien Act. Aliens were required to present a passport, and make a declaration under the Act of 1836; the only penalty if they failed to do so being a fine of 40s. But there would be no means of executing this measure, unless the most stringent provisions were introduced in reference to passports and registration. Under the last Alien Act, the arms of aliens might be seized; aliens might be directed to land at particular places; passports might be refused; aliens might be committed; magistrates might require production of passports. What the noble Lord proposed was but a fractional part of that Act. The Bill would be utterly inoperative unless the number of aliens could be ascertained.

Earl Grey admitted that the present measure would not secure a complete register of all foreigners; but he feared that a system of registration could not be devised which should be complete and yet not interfere with the ordinary affairs of life and the ordinary pursuits of persons who had no criminal intentions. He believed, however, that the Bill would give quite sufficient power to protect the country from the abuse of hospitality by foreigners who might endeavour to stir up civil strife.

The Bill was supported by Lord Stanley and the Duke of Richmond, who regretted at the same time

that it was not more stringent. Lord Denman also approved of it, but expressed his concern that it should be necessary. He must, however, say that in his humble opinion none of these Bills ought to be dealt with in periods of excitement, disturbance, and alarm; but that, in times of peace, the Government and Parliament ought to consider what was the best mode of governing the country when any outbreak should occur. The Bill was then read a second time.

The principle of this Bill encountered some degree of opposition in the House of Commons.

Sir George Grey having moved the second reading on the 1st May, with a brief explanation of its objects,

Sir William Molesworth strenuously opposed the measure, moving that the second reading be on that day six months. So far as it regarded aliens, it was analogous in principle to the famous law of suspected persons of the 17th September, 1793, one of the most accursed laws of the Reign of Terror. It was a repetition almost word for word of the 15th, 16th, and 17th sections of the Alien Act of 1793-an Act which, like this, was proposed as a temporary law, but which had been continued from year to year for thirty-three years, before the opposition to it from every man of note in the Liberal party was successful. Lord John Russell himself made his maiden speech against that Bill in 1814. In 1824, Lord John and Mr. Denman were the tellers against the Bill. On the last occasion, (alas for human sagacity and forethought!) Lord John expressed his hope that that would be the last time he should raise his voice on the subject; as he was convinced that, after the expiration of

the Act, the House would look back on it as a measure which ought never to have been sanctioned. The present measure was directed especially against Frenchmen, and was offensive and impolitic. It moreover paid but an ill compliment to the feelings of our own people. The score of desperate characters now in London, against whose machinations the Bill was to guard, would be harmless in this country though dangerous in their own; for here they would find neither a Monarch self-seeking and hated, a Ministry corrupt, an upper class profligate and despised, nor a middle class indifferent to the institutions of their country. Sir Wil liam Molesworth would not, because he had confidence in the Ministry, give them powers which every person on their side of the House would have refused to Sir Robert Peel if he had asked for them.

Lord Dudley Stuart remarked, that under this Bill a Secretary of State need not, in some cases, have actual "information" against, but only "apprehensions" concerning an alien, to justify seizing him and expelling him from the country.

The Attorney-General corrected some misapprehensions which had been expressed as to the law. In 1793, foreigners had almost insuperable obstacles placed in the way of their becoming naturalized subjects. The law was no longer in that state. The difficulty and the expense of being naturalized were now nominal; and any person wishing to reside here permanently might become naturalized, on proof that he had no designs against the peace or institutions of the country; and on becoming naturalized, would be immediately exempted from the operation of the Bill. Under the Bill, too, the Government could

only act on information which the Secretary of State would be bound to produce.

The other speakers were-for the Bill, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. Henry Drummond, and Captain Harris. Against it, Mr. W. J. Fox, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Urquhart, who quoted Leviticus xxiv. 22, and Numbers ix. 14, that there should be but "one ordinance both for the stranger and for him that was born in the land." Dr. Bowring observed that all men are Propagandists, so far as they are able; but he had faith that all our institutions which were of real value would be maintained by the good opinion of those interested in them.

On a division, the second reading was carried by 141 to 22.

It was the opinion of a certain class of politicians, at this crisis, that the true remedy for the dangers and discontents which prevailed was to be found in a larger concession of popular claims, and that the constitution would be most effectually strengthened by widening the basis of representation in Parliament. The veteran Reformer, once Member for Middlesex and now for Montrose, Mr. Joseph Hume, took the lead in this new movement, and at some large public meetings, which took place about this time, he expressed in strong terms his sense of the expediency of a wide extension of the elective franchise. Associations were formed and meetings held in various parts of the kingdom for the promotion of this object, and Mr. Hume undertook to bring the question to a test by a formal motion in the House of Commons. The day fixed for the debate was the 21st June, when, after several numerously signed petitions had

been presented in favour of Mr. Hume's object, that gentleman rose to move a resolution in the following terms:

"That this House, as at present constituted, does not fairly represent the population, the property, or the industry of the country; whence has arisen great and increasing discontent in the minds of a large portion of the people and it is therefore expedient, with a view to amend the national representation, that the elective franchise shall be so extended as to include all householders; that votes shall be taken by ballot; that the duration of Parliaments shall not exceed three years; and that the apportionment of Members to population shall be made more equal."

Mr. Hume began by referring to the numerous petitions which had been presented upon that and previous days, denying that they had been concocted by any undue influence or organized confede

racy.

He glanced at the state of public feeling in this countrythe general disposition, amid the disturbance of Europe, to maintain order, and especially the maintenance of peace on the 10th of April last. It was for the House, however, to consider whether those who had manifested at that crisis such a determination to obtain an extension of the suffrage, had just cause of complaint. He believed that if the Reform Bill had not been granted, much more serious disturbances would have happened. Our position, however, had materially altered within the last three or four years; events had changed the condition and relative situation of the working classes with other classes in this country.

We formerly boasted, that, while in other countries despots maintained themselves by large armies, we could maintain the peace and welfare of the country by the agency of Parliament, without the aid of military measures. But whereas we were formerly a civil nation, we had now become a military nation, with a great expenditure; and the discontent in the country had become general. It was upon that ground that he felt it to be his duty to submit to the House what he thought would be a remedy for existing evils.

Reverting to the Reform Act of 1832, he contended that it had failed to answer all the purposes for which it was intended. "Parliament purports to be an engine for governing a constitutional country, all classes being represented: is that so now? Taxation and representation should go together. Every man should have his share in sanctioning the laws by which he is governedthe sole difference between a free

man and a slave. The Crown, Lords, and Commons, form the best method of giving effect to that constitutional government : the House of Commons, therefore, ought to be invested with the highest authority and influence in the country: no act of the Crown ought to be valid without its sanction; and the large classes of the community ought to be represented. But what is the fact? Five out of every six male adults in this country are without any voice in the election of the representatives to that House. The population of Great Britain was 18,500,000 in 1841; out of the male adults above twenty-one, taking the average-some individuals being registered for three,

four, or five different places-the number of registered electors does not amount to more than from 800,000 to 850,000. The rest of the 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 adults who have not this privilege are placed in an inferior situation, and deprived of that right which by the constitution they are entitled to enjoy. At eighteen, or even sixteen years of age, a man can be drawn for the militia and called out to quell riots. Yet classes of workmen distinguished for their industry, intelligence, and ability, are excluded from the franchise." Mr. Hume cited the oath taken by Cabinet Ministers to maintain the peace of the country, and, quoting the words of Earl Grey when introducing the Reform Bill in 1831, maintained that the way to do so is by giving to the people "a full, vigorous, and efficient" representation.

He quoted various definitions of household suffrage; Sir Thomas Smith's dictum, in the time of Elizabeth, that in one way or other "every Englishman is intended to be present in Parliament, either in person or by procuration," &c.; the declaration of the Hampden Club, in 1814, that every adult male who paid taxes had a right to vote for Members of Parliament; with other declarations of a similar kind. He then quoted a number of statistical details from various sources, showing how partially and unequally the franchise is distributed. Huntingdon, Westmoreland, and Rutland, with 26,000 adult males and 9,000 electors, returned 6 Members, and thus neutralized the 6 Members of Middlesex, West Yorkshire, and South Lancashire, with a population of 316,000 adult males and 73,000 electors. The Tower Ham

lets, with a population of 400,000, were neutralized by Harwich, with a population of 3,700. Some large towns had no representatives. Mr. Hume cited statistics adduced by the late Mr. O'Connell, showing the scanty representation of Ireland; and others from a pamphlet recently published, illustrating the general inequality. To prove how unequally different interests and populations are balanced in the House of Commons, he took twenty-two boroughs, the aggre gate population of which was but a fraction above 100,000, and found that they had 42 representatives in the House of Commons, that is to say, one Member for every 2,390 persons; while twenty other cities and boroughs, with an aggregate population of 3,780,000, also returned 42 Members, being one Member for about every 90,000 persons. The Metropolis, including all its Parliamentary districts, with a popula tion of 2,000,000, was represented by 16 Members in Parliament. The eight boroughs of Bridgenorth, Honiton, Harwich, Thetford, Richmond (Yorkshire), Totness, Stafford, and Lymington, with an aggregate population falling short of 40,000, returned the same number of Members.

Another evil was the great diversity of the franchise. Although the ten-pound rental was the standard for boroughs, and the forty-shilling freehold the standard for counties, there were, in truth, no fewer than eighty-five different kinds of franchise. It was scarcely possible to appreciate the confusion, the delay, and the expense that such a system produces. What the House ought to do, was to render the suffrage as simple, as general, as easily obtained, and as easily defended as