The Express. — London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1866. ment were trying to force on a relucti nt house by every 'aunties outside the boroughs there were 2,290,000 houses, s pecies of political ma aceuvre, one of which WAS the ender - and in boroughsoalyl,449,ooohouses. Hecould not consent ' your by setting two separate minorities in the house to any step in the direction of reform until the government against each other to obtain a majority for this bill. The gave proof of an intention in some degree to mitigate this government seemed determined to force the bill on, however gross , which exiated neither in the reresentation opposed it might be to the general feeling of the house. He of Scotland nor Ireland, but was to be found i n the repro could see no reason for that conduct, except on the &sauna!). sentation of England and Wales. The hon. member for lion that it was simply a bill to keep the government in Birmingham had described his proposal to correct this office. As to any pressure from without, the thing was anomaly as democratic, but when Lord Aberdeen was at utterly ridiculous. There may hive been some peti- the head of the government in which Sir James Graham times in its favour, but, representing a very and Lord Palmerston were associated, they proposed to large constituency, he had not heard a single transfer more than 60 seats, and so sensible were they of word from any portion of it in favour of the bill. Yet this anomaly he had pointed out, that they proposed to that constituency took great interest in political ques- give no less than 46 to the majority in the counties. Lions, and last year they sent up numerous petitions He was quite willing to consider a reduction of the In favour of the repeal of the malt tax. He denied that franchise; but, as one of the representatives of the people, there was the least necessity for the bill, and he pointed he should never consent to a reform bill which did not in out the general advancement of the country since the Re- some degree remove the existing anomalies ; while the form Bill of 1832, and the absence of all discontent, as a majority of the people of England and Wales were repre certain proof that the working claims were satisfied with rented in that house by less than one-sixth of its members, the Medal system, and entertained no real desire for a he could not consent to any reform bill which did not pro change. He quite admitted that prima facie there was an pose to alter that state of things. (Hear, hear.) objection to small boroughs, but he contended that the Mr. P. A. TAYLOR said that the house had heard many class of members they returned was a justification for their eloquent speeches against the Reform Bill, but none of retention. The government said this was a moderate bill, them had made the issue moreplain. The real question which which would not increase the constituency to any " E re" they had been discussing was whether the House of COMMORG triable extent. The answer to that argument was tat, was prepared or not to accept the principle of the eaten notwithstanding those observations, the addition which sion of the suffrage. (Hear, hear.) Many honourable would be made to the constituency would really swamp it. members who . professed to be reformers at heart The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche made speeches in favour of the amendment. They goer said that the working classes would not act together, certainly not only " dissembled their love " but also but in the large constituencies of the metropolis they did kicked the object of their affections down stairs. so, and the result was that they drove the upper classes (Laughter.) They complained that this bill was not large from the polls. He would admit to the franchise the and comprehensive enough, but if their pain was great members of the co-operative societies of Rochdale, and because the bill was small, their speeches showed that their the working men of Lancashire and the West Riding, but pain would not have been greater if there had been no bill under this bill agricultural labourers in many of the small at all. (Renewed laughter.) The noble lord the member boroughs would possess the vote, and he had as yet heard for King's Lynn appeared to be the only member on the no one in or out of the house maintain that they were fit opposition side of - the house who avoided committing to exercise such a trust. With regard to the 141. franchise himself against reform in general. The noble lord the for counties, the mode in which that was to be married member for Chester told them that the government were would give an undue preponderance to the urban interest compelled to purchase the support of hon. gentlemen below aver the agricultural interest in the counties. He was not the gangway by introducing a radical measure of reform. to reform, but he objected to the measure now He repudiated the bill as one supposed to have originated be ciP ro cg relhe house. It was not because a measure was called below the gangway ; but if the question had been left by the name of reform that it must be good. This measure with them, he did not believe they would have gone back would give a preponderance to the working classes ; it to the proposition of the Duke of Richmond, who in 1780 would unsettle the act of 1832, and discontent the upper introduced a hill for universal suffrage and annual parlia and middle classes, for it would not only curtail, but ment., although they might have ventured to take away their power. This measure was not one as be. go back to the mild and constitutional course tween whigs ancl - tories ; it was a measure which would Pursued by Charles James Fox, who propo sed raise questions as between rich and poor. It was the be- a Reform Bill giving household suffrage. (Hear, bear.) ginning of a contest between the aristocracy and demo. Instead of the government coming to purchase their sup army of the country. .As he was not prepared to see pro- port, hon. members had gone to the government to render party and intellect overriden by numbers, and an inferior it—(sheers)—and they did so because they found, for the order of eiviliaation ruling over the higher and middle first time for many years, a government honest on the classes of the country, he should oppose the measure of subject of reform. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that the government this was a one-sided bill. It was so, but it was right sided. Mr. RAIN ES said that while the hon. gentleman who (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to say this measure would bad just spoken uttered souse liberal sentiments, he made be a settlement of the question. It depended upon the use of words which he thought he would be glad if he had future, which no one could read, but the larger and fairer not spoken. He said that this was a question between the measure allowed to pass now, the more likely it was rich and poor—between the aristocracy and democracy of to be a settlement of the question. He thought the country. the way in which the working class had rallied Sir M. BEACH—I said it would lead to that. to the very moderate bill of the government did the Mr. BAlNgi considered that the bill, instead of leading greatest honour to their prudence and intelligence. (Hear, to any such consequence, would have the effect of uniting hear.) He truste d, if the house should be so short-sighted different classes more closely than before, of strengthening as to reject this measure, that the government would at the state and its valuable institutions. He looked on the once appeed to the public out of doors. (Hear, hear.) measure as a very moderate one, and he supported it on Mr. It J. HARVEY (Thetford) said that as an inde the ground both of the personal fitness of those whom it ; pendent member, and having pledged his constituents that would enfranchise, and also because it would not give a I he would support any measure which he considered to be preponderance to any class of society. The grand argu. good for the country at large, he felt on this occasion— ment against the bill of 1832 was, that the people were not I although sitting on the opposition side of the house—he educated, and therefore not fit to be entrusted with the should not be doing wrong in giving his support franchise. In 1832 there were 1,250,000 persons attending to the measure of the government—(loud cheers from the day schools ; while it appears from the census of 1861 that ministerial side.) He considered it a very mild and mode there were 3,100,000 scholars attending them. (Hear.) rate measure. (Hear, hear.) The bill would require This showed a great incresee in the thrifty, sober portion some amendments in committee, but it was one which in of the population. There were 320,000 Sunday school his opinion hon. members on both sides of the house teachers who gave instruction to 2,500,000 children. These might fairly commit themselves to. (Cheers.) teachers belonged for the most part to the working class ; I Mr. W. DUNCOMBE said the principal argument urged they were men of ability, piety, and good conduct, and ! by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of this bill they were not possessed of the franchise. There was a was the pledge which had been given by a former parlia great increase in mechanics' and literary institutions for I ment. With regard to such a pledge, it had been proved the working classes since 1832. These were attended ; that no parliament could pledge its successor to one line I by the elite of the wonting classes , but they of action. ( Hear .( The - house would not forget what I wore excluded from the enjoyment of the suffrage, occurred last year. The hon. member for Leeds brought ; In 1831 there were 31,000.000 of newspapers circulated; forward a bill for reducing the borough franchise to 6/.,and in 1864 there were 546,000,000. All this showed a great lit was opposed chiefly upon the ground that it was a one increase in the education and intelligence of the people. I sided ball, and did not deal with the whole question. The Leeds Volunteer Corps of Engineers was reported to ;It had bee n' argued that this was an honest measure. But be the first in the kingdom. The privates in tnat corps lit was impossible to estimate the whole scope and extent were all working men, yet they were excluded from the I that the reduction of the franchise would cause till they franchise. The assertion that the measure would give a saw the other measures of the government. He would main preponderance to the working classes was perfectly futile, tam that it was a most dishonest measure. (Divide.) The There were, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I noble earl at the head of the government had stated that only 126 seats in which the working classes would have a the Chandos clause in the act of '32 had detracted from the majority; there would 528 seats in the United Kingdom in . usefulness of that measure, but if this bill passed it would which they would be in a minority. There were i bring into the counties so many urban voters that the 4,000,000 of adults belonging to the working class ; I independent tenant farmers would be swamped. (Divide.) 1,300,000 adults belonging to the upper and middle It seemed to him that the county members did represent classes. Under this bill three out of four of the latter to a g reat extent the working classes, and he would assert be on the register of voters, and only one in twelve 1 confidently that the county constituencies were largely of the former. (Hear, hear.) Would this be a preponder- a Lamle up of that element, but what would become of those &nee of the working classes ' It would give a majority to ', voters after the leaseholders and copyhoblers were added the working classes in very few of the constituencies, and to them' As to the borough franchise, he understood, even in those cases they would be subject to the great in- t from good authority, that the ordinary rent of houses in fineness of property and education. He knew the working towns was 6/., and it would be a very easy thing after the elms, and he could bear testimony to the high character, I passing of this bill to raise that rent to 71., and thus, in the the intelligence, and general qualification of the working West Riding of Yorkshire, all the working men would' classes to whom this measure would apply. He gave his obtain the franchise, and as they had the power to combine I hearty support to the measure as eminently safe, moderate, . they, no doubt, would do so for political purposes. The and constitutional. (Hear, hear.) i government hail tried torsuade the house and the Mr. NEWDEGATE joined in the tribute of praise country that they hail not flowed the advice of the hon. which had been paid by the hon. member for Leeds to the member for Birmingham, but he insisted that they had working classes. It would be most singular if a county done eo—(" divide")—and during the career of that hon. member, and as one of the 160 members who represented gentleman he had tried to set class against claas—(cheers) the majority of the working classes of the country, he —and createhostility to the landed interest, at the should fail in appreciating those high qualities which he same ti to me lauding the institutions of America. This was had seen tested. He had seen them tried, not only in I a measure which would change the constitution of Eng prosperity but in adversity, under temptations to vio- , land, and, therefore, he should vote for the amendment. knee, when they might have been misled by the argu. I (Hear, hear.) mentor. not only of what might be termed radical, but Mr. L. KING would assure the house he would not chartist orators, andbore he his unfeigned testimony to detain them long, but having on so many occasions brought the merits, virtues, common sense, and in many cases the forward measures of reform, he could not help expressing acquirements of the working classes. But he should be his deep regret that the great opposition to this measure doing an injustice to the hon. member for Leeds and the had conic from his own side of the house. (Hear, hear.) hon. member for East Surrey if he failed to object to the This was an honest and straightforward measure—(hear, bill now before the house in the form in which it was hear)—and he regretted that the noble earl was playing proposed. He had voted against a mere reduction of the the game of the opposition—(no)—and leading them into county or borough franchise when it was brought forward I the lobby against it. The noble earl ought rather to have by those hon. members, and as he wax one of those who allowed hon. gentlemen opposite to pursue their own were not ashamed of being consistent he felt it his duty to I course. (Hear, hear.) It wan also a matter of regret vote for the amendment of the noble lord the member for 1 that there should be a split, though only to a small extent, Chester. But he voted fur the amendment on other I among the liberal party. (Hear, hear.) The amendment grounds. He thought the conduct of the noble lord the had been worded tocittch the liberals, but the plot was dis member for Chester upon this occasion was well deserving covered, and only a few of the party would vote for it, of his high position, and would be remembered to his while the party opposite, with a few exceptions, were going honour for many years. And if this debate had been pro. to support it. (Hear, hear.) When he brought forward tracted it was because they were debating a portion of a his County Franchise Bill every excuse was made for measure of reform which was not before the house. He voting against it, but he now found to his surprise that said, in the words of Mr. Fox, that the duty hon. gentlemen opposite were anxious to consider the of that house was " vigilance in preference to secrecy, question with a view to a settlement. though they and deliberation in preference to despatch." (Hear.) When wished to put it off for a time. (Hear, hear.) He the government proposed a measure which was called could not say that he wanted a t edistribution: a measure for the improvement of the representation of the bill to induce him to vote for this measure. people. but which was a measure for the reduction of the He would assert that it was solely in consequence of the franchise only, and that bill was imperfect, as it would not success of his motion for the lowering of the county fran adapt the representation to the extension of the franchise chine to 101. that reform bills hail been brought forward, proposed—he supposed that when such a measure as this and that Lord Derby had agreed to deal with the question. was submitted to the house and not explained in the first (Hear, hear.) Though he respected the talents of the instance, but merely thrust upon their attention. that the right hon. member for Caine, and aulinired his views upon noble lord was performing the duty which Mr. Burke de. all other questions, he regretted that he had not acted scribed as " not yielding to the fear of differing from consistently upon this question of the franchise. But hon. authority of leaders on the one hand, or contradicting the gentlemen opposite must not suppose that the right hon. desires of the multitude on the other, which induces mem- gentleman would join them—of that there was not the hers of parliament to give a careless and facile assent to slightest chance, with his enlightened views. He measures in which they have never been consulted, would remind the right honourable gentleman that and then things proceed by a sort of activity he, as one of Lord Aberdeen's government in 1e54, of inertness, until whole bodies, leathers, middle was a party to a 6/. borough franchise, and also, in 1860, men, and followers, are all hurried with every as one of Lord Palmerston 's government, and both those appearance and with many of the effects of unani- bills went to a second reading. Where then was the right nuty into schemes of politics in the substance of which bon. gentleman's consistency in opposing aV. franchise ? no two of them are fully agreed, and the origin and authors He had swallowed the camel, and was now straining at a of which, in this circular mode of communication, none of gnat. This question of reform had been obstructed on them find it possible to trace." The house must be eon- many occasions. There was an obstacle to its settlement vinced that the noble lord had not yielded to anything but in 1852 by Lord Derby. Then the Crimean war created a sense of public duty in the comae he had taken, and difficulties ; and then, in 1859, Lord Derby's government, I had discarded every feeling of family as well as party and since that time Lord Palmerston, had been a great im connection, in order to perform that duty which the house pediment to a settlement ; and he might say that even would appreciate more fully hereafter, perhaps, than the Chancellor of the Exchequer hail himself been, though it did at present. But they had been relieved not meaning it, an obstacle to a settlement. (Hear, hear.) from ell doubt as to the origin of the conduct They had some reason to complain of the manner in which of the government, for the hon. member for Birmingham a liberal government had placed men in office, because the had informed them that six years ago he recommended to chief objectors to a measure of reform on that side of the the noble lord at the head of the government to adopt the , house were exactly those who had been trained by them. course of proposing merely a reduction of the franchise (" Oh," and loudenes of "Divide.") The hon. membermade without any redistribution of seats. He had a distinct some ineffectual attempts to proceed with his speech objection to that course. Much had been said of the vices amidst adverse cries from the opposition, and was at last and dangers of democracy, but they might have all those compelled to resume his seat, after having intimated that vices and dangers by the undue aggregation of those who it was his intention to support the bill. formed a minority of the electors, and that would be pre- Mr. DISRAELI, who, on rising at 25 minutes past 10 cisely what would be the state of things if this measure o'clock, was received with loud and continued cheers from passed and there was a dissolution, and the house was r epress with an exaggerated constituency, and without a the opposition benches, said—Mr. Speaker,—Before representation adapted to theaggregation of voters about I advert to the amendment of the noble lord, I to be created. The e ff ect of th a 3 r :errii Bill of 1832 was to would make one remark on the alleged reasons for raise the qualification by the abolition of the scot and the introduction of the government measure. They are lot voters and the gradual extinction of freemen ; twofold—parliamentary pledges anti ministerial promises' but that bill so distributed the representation that the will of the people could be expressed adequately The first must be ful fi lled, the second have not been vio. through their representatives. Though he felt the force of late& (Hear, hear.) Now, the house should be cautious' the speech of the right hon. member for Caine, and re- in accepting some views on this head of the subject, which joined that one of the small boroughs had vindicated its have been advanced in the course of the debate. They! claim to the long period of existence they had had, by are touching on very dangerous ground. Hitherto the , sending to parliament a representative capable of bringi ng to the memory of the house the nature of the constitution freedom of parliament has been the boast of our prude - ' Under which the country had risen to its greatness, and censors. That freedom of parliament did not merely mean, showing how fallacious were sonic of the views which midi- freedom of discussion or freedom from arrest. It meant fated against the base of that constitution, still as repre- above all our other privileges, the liberty of legislation. senting a constituency created in its present dimensions by (Ch eers ) And when we hear of parliament being pledged, the act of 1832, and as connected with the representation '" of Birmingham, which was increasing in population at the are we to understand that the conduct of the preceding rate of more than 6,000 a year—when he saw in the case of parliament is to deprive us of the enjoyment BirminghamandNorthWarwickshirethattheelectoralbody of the highest and moat exalted of our tune-, increased in a greater ratio than the population by a tions ? (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, in this t COun ry, natural process, he felt it his duty to enter his protest . great authorities on them subjects have been so jealoua against any measure which proposed to extend the fran chise without adapting the representation to it. The of any attempt upon the liberty of legislation enjoyed by population of the counties, according to the return laid parliaments, that they have often maintained that in a before the house with a view of inducing it to adopt this general constitutional country like England such a thing measure, was, in round numbers, 11,427,000 ; gross esti- as a fundamental law cannot be recognised, but that ins mated rental of counties, 69,000,000/. ; and electors for muniment is only to he found in an imperial chancery. counties. 542,633 ; and yet they were represented by only I would not myself maintain a proposition of that kind 162 members in that house. The population of the boroughs without great reserve ; but in this, I think, all must agree, was only 9,300,000, property 41,000,000/. and electors that no parliament can be bound by the acts of its prede -014,000, and they were represented by 33 4 members. In onion, except so far as they take the form of law, a form which the new parliament has the privilege to revise and to remit. Sir, the conduct, no doubt, of preceding parliaments is for our example aad instruction, and we should indeed be indifferent to the high sources of political wisdom in a country so practical in its politics as England if we disre garded the precepts of those who preceded ue in this house. But, air, I hold that it cannot be for a moment maintained that we can be at all estopped in our course by any casual vote of a single house of parliament—for that is all that is alleged. Our course is free. Well then, air, let us look to the plea that is founded on the conduct of public men. It may be possible that a statesman may have entered , into reek engagements on subjects of vital importance. No one will, I think, for • moment maintain that parties and parliaments are to pursue a course of which they disapprove because they have entered into engagements beyond their strength. (Cheers.) Such con duct on the part of a public man may be a very good reason for leaving the public aervioe or retiring from public life, but it never can be the ground for appealing to the country to support him for his honour and consistency in a course which the country and parliament may deem to be most unwise and inexpedient. (Hear, hear.) Now, air, I hold that the only one ground upon which you can appeal to parliament for its support is when you have a policy which they believe is wise and expedient , and when you bring forward a measure and sub mit it to their consideration—a measure which is adapted to accomplish that object. But I will take the question out of the region of abstraction in which for the convenience of argument I have for a moment con sidered it. Is this parliament pledged on the subject of parliamentary reform? If ever there was • parliament lees pledged to that subject than another it must be the present. (Cheers.) We know that a cabinet council was held before the dissolution of the late parliament to consider the subject and to decide on the course which the ministry should take. We know that the representative of the government in this house in the absence of the Prime Minister expressed what the decision was at which the cabinet had arrived on this subject, and that the cabinet had arrived at a decision that they would not go to the country on the question of reform, or in any way pledge themselves on that question. We know that under these circumstances the chief minister issued immediately afterwards wiled in this country is practically looked upon as the programme or manifesto of a political party—an ad dress to his constituents, in which the very word " reform" does not appear. (Hear, hear.) We know also that wken the new parliament assembled, the government, with great discretion, having themselves decided probably on sub mitting a measure of reform to the house, did not commit the House of Commons in the address to the crown is a manner which could fora moment be supposed to offer any expression of opinion. Papers were promised, and when those papers were produced the opinion of the government Was promised in consequence. Therefore, so far as the present parliament is concerned, I should think that every gentle man on both aides of the house will agree that we are per fectly free to act on this subject, and that we ought to act with those convictions which should guide us to do what is hest for the country. (Hear, hear.) Now, let me see if existing statesmen have broken their promises. That is a very serious charge to make, and it was made by a high authority—the Secretary of State for the War Department, who represents, as he informed us on a memorable occa sion, the educated portion of the community. (Laughter., He imputed broken promises to public men, among' whom chiefly figures his own leader; but it is my duty on this occasion, as it has been once before on the same subject, to vindicate the conduct of Lord J. Russell—(a laugh)—which lam now prepared to do. Lord J. Russell thought fit in 1852 to introduce a new reform bill. That hill in itself was n very good one, and probably a long time will elapse before we see so good a one. (Hear, hear.) There was only one great fault alleged against the bill—nobody wanted it. (Laughter.) ' Years elapsed ; Lord J. Russell did not relinquish his policy, and in 18.19 he had an opportunity of asserting that policy and inducing a party to support him ; he changed the government and became a minister, pledged to bring in a reform bill. Did he por form that pledge ? He brought in a reform bill. Does anyone doubt the sincerity of Lord J. Russell in his conduct throughout respecting that measure? I never did. Some allusion has been made to the motion when he withdrew that bill. I saw nothing in it for the subject of derision, and I publicly expressed wy synpathy . with the noble lord. But I want to know where is the violated promise? (Hear.) Lord J. Russell felt souse emotion when he withdrew the bill—that is on record. Therefore Lord J. Russell fulfilled his promise, and at a great sacri fice, and so far as he is concerned I hold that the charge of , the Secretary of State of broken vows on the part of public men has no foundation, and I take it for granted that Earl Russell may be looked upon as a fair representative of the whig party. And before I allude to the conduct of an individual who may be looked upon as • fair representative of the tory or conservative party, let me refer to an observation made by another Secretary of State, the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who reproached this side of the house with having defeated the Reform Bill of 1860. (Hear, hear.) Who said " hear ?" because that gentleman cannot have been a member of the House of Commons at the time, or he has not availed himself of that authentic I information which is at everybody's command. Now, in 1861, an earnest reformer—or, as I may observe, availing myself of a new epithet which has been adopted by all their journals—a robust reformer—(a laugh)—abso lutely moved an amendment on the address, reproaching Lord J. Russell with his treachery to the reform party, in which he was slightly supported. But on that occasion Lord J. Russell made a statement of his views, his position, and conduct respecting the reform bill, and to that state- i ment I refer gentlemen who wish to have accurate informa tion on the subject. This is the pith, and these are the very words he used. He said he gave up the Reform Bill ! because he found it was opposed by the liberal party, and not only by them, but chiefly by members of the liberal who represented large constituencies. He also said , partyl expected the country would have supported me. I expected there would have been indignation meetings ! called throughout England, but they have not been called. I find the greatest apathy, and I find that the country has approved of the conduct of the liberal party, and therefore I give up the whole question of Reform." He I left the house, and the only time since then until this bill was brought forward, when we ever heard Lord J. Russell give an opinion on this subject, was on that memorable occasion when he recommended the whole country to " rest and be thankful." (Hear, hear.) I say, therefore, that the whig party, as represented by Earl Russell, has broken no vow—(hear, hear)—and I want to know what has been the conduct of the party on these benches on the subject. Lord Derby was sent for by the Queen in la.lB. There was in the House of Commons at that time a majority against the friends of Lord Derby of more than 140, and under those circumstances Lord Derby thought it wax his duty to decline the great honour her Ma)esty had been graciously pleased to offer him. His special reason which he gave to her Majesty was, that he was in a great mi nority in the House of Commons, and that such was the position of the question of parliamentary reform, that he felt conecious the instant he took office it would be brought forward, and he would be put in a minority. The house is perfectly well aware that though Lord Derby declined office at that period, her Majesty, upon delibera tion, felt it her duty to send for him again, and if the majority against him had been 240 instead of 140, it would have been impossible for him to have refused to obey her Majesty's commands. But that happened to Lord Derby which he anticipated. I don't think we were six weeks in office before a question was brought forward by the hon. member for Surrey. and we were placed in a minority. Well, what was the course we should pursue It was quite impossible for Lord Derby to retire from office. The discord in the liberal party which caused the break up of their government still prevailed. It was absolutely necessary that Lord Derby should consider his position. And now I come to what was the real reason that made Lord John Russell in 1852, and Lord Derby in 18.19, bring forward reform bills. An accurate knowledge of these facts is moat necessary now. (Hear, hear.) If there was any one subject of which a man could be master, Lord John Russell was master of the subject of parliamenty reform. It was to him what the currency question was to Sir Robert Peel. No man knew its points more completely or all the bearings of the case. Lord John Russell and Lord Derby were the only two existing statesmen who had been con cerned in the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, and it is well known that it was to their youthful energies that the success of that measure was greatly, if not entirely due. (Hear, hear.) Therefore neither Lord John Russell nor Lord Derby could look with those bigoted prejudices upon the subject which are imputed by different sec tions of politicians to both those statesmen. Lord John Russell was naturally satisfied with the settlement of 1832, l and he resisted the efforts of those who year after year moved for further changes, and always resisted them suc cessfully. But, sir, afterwards a new school of reformers arose, who were called piecemeal reformers, bit-by-bit reformers is the elegant and parliamentary ex pression, and they met with very different suc cess, because those who were called moderate men, who did not give themselves the trouble to think, took it into their heads that piecemeal reform was a very harmless thing, that it only offered to do a little, and that it was well to stop agitation. Well, Lord John Russell, who knew the whole question, who knew that the dis tribution of power, which is the real point—(cheers)-- depended upon the whole question being consi dered and dealt with together, and that if you treated a single franchise, for example, which moderate men nigh think an affair of no great importance, and did not treat other parts of the question, you might effect a great change in the English constitution—Lord Russell, long pressed by piecemeal reform, came to the conclusion—and it was the act of a statesman—that the only way to prevent the pernicious effect of such reform was that he should advise a large and comprehensive measure. (Hear, hear.) You know what happened to Lord John Russell. He went out of office. Lord Derby was in a similar position. He was met immediately by piecemeal reformers. He either had to resign the government of the country, which, not only as a man of honour, but as a practical man, was at that moment impossible ; or at once to meet the question, and by considering it generally, to baffle the pernicious efforts of the piecemeal reformers. Sir, both Lord J. Russell and Lord Derby were animated by the same views and had the same object. But the moat singular thing is that Lord Russell is again minister, and that we now have him introducing a measure of piecemeal reform. (Loud opposition cheers.) Well, sir, I have shown the house that parliaments were not pledged, that there have born no broken vows on the part of the great parties in the country, represented by their chief men, Lord Russell and Lord Derby. What, then, is the origin of the present measure, (Hear, hear.) It is this, that only some sixteen or eighteen months ago, one tine summer's morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the Howe o: Commons, a morning appropriated to one of those dreary debates aboift the W. franchise, which we all look back to with dread and horror—(a laugh)—and made a most remarkable speech, in which he established the suffrage upon the rights of man—(loud opposition cheep)—and, at the same time announced his oonviction that the working classes of the country, on whom he delivered a panegyric, possessed no share or only an infinitesimal share in the suffrage—the inevitable consequence being of course, that a large measure of reform ought to be brought forward, based upon an approximation to the rights of man, which would include the great mass of the working classes. (Cheers.) Well, that speech was received with great enthu siasm by a party in this house—not • numerous party, but represented by great talent—at least in one individual by commanding talent—(hear, hear)—who possesses among his followers men of great activity and intelligence, and ex perience in organisation. They have also a party in the country. And from that moment that party has been at work—working upon the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(hear, hear)—and not checked by the prudence of Lord Palmerston. It was felt that if he unfor- innately left us, a new character would be given to the administration, and the consequence has been the mea sure now before us. —(opposition cheers)—a measure of piecemeal reform. (Renewed cheering.) Sir, I oppose it as a measure of piecemeal reform, and I support the amend ment of the noble lord to which I am now going strictly to confine myself. My great objection to the measure of the government is this, that I cannot—although others I may—l cannot really calculate its consequences. I I cannot fathom what may be the result of its provisions, unless I have before me the further measures that are pro mised, or that some say are promised, because I am not clear about this promise. (A laugh.) But if Ido consider this measure without reference to any further measurel think. I can show the house that it mat land us in a condition of such confusion, so little contemplated, I believe, by the ministry themselves, or by those who support it, that I verily declare, if this bill is passed, and if it should on a subsequent occasion become the duty of the government to advise her Majesty to appeal to the sense of the people, 1 believe they would prefer to have an autumn session to revise and modify this bill to advising a dissolution of par liament. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I propose to show, in the first instance, the inconsistencies, inconveniencies, and im- mense injury that, in a most glaring manner, may be produced by this bill if it passes alone, as alone we must consider it. It is given to us as a complete measure, and we are asked tonight to assent to its principle. Ido not think I could do so in a more complete manner than by referring to the county franchise. I never have been a . . stickler for a contntct;4l and exclusive borough franchise. . . My opinions on that subject were taken frommy earliest political friend, my predecessor in this seat, who was the author of the Chandos clause. lam convinced that the ground on which that clause was based was a right one. It was supported by Mr. Hume and the leaders of the libe ral party. It was opposed by Lord Althorn ou what we would consider now as an old-fashioned notion, namely, that you should confine your suffrage in counties entirely to property, and in boroughs to occupation. But at that time—in IB32—when you were ostentatiously and avow edly, and very properly, giving a large share of the government of the country to the middle classes, it did meta most monstrous and inconsistent that one most important section, perhaps the most important, of the middle classes—the farmers of England, the employers of labour, should have no suffrage. And the first measure proposed by Lord Chandos was a very wise and proper one. (Hear, bear.) Well the present bill pro poses a very large reduction in the occupation fran tibiae in counties. I want to show the house how we will act if we pass this bill ; and I propose to show it first, by considering the effect upon the proposed franchise in counties of the parliamentary boroughs. The house, per haps, does not realize—and it ought to do so—the in crease in the population of parliamentary boroughs since 1832. It is very large. It is larger than the popula lation of several European kingdoms. The increase is considerable—above 4,040,000; and thegreater portion of this population is located without the boundaries of the parliamentary boroughs. (Hear, hear.) Now I know it may be said that a considerable portion of this increase is produced by the boroughs of the metropolitan districts. I think it very likely that a great portion is, although I have no doubt that the increase of the population of the metropolitan boroughs has a very considerable effect upon the contiguous counties of Essex, Surrey, and Kent. I think, however, it will lead to a more precise calculation if I deduct them. Doing so, the increase would be up- I wards of three millions, and the greater portion of that increase is located without the boundaries of the boroughs. I do not think I could give a better instance than that of the borough from which I presented a petition to-day, and which the Chancel lor of the Exchequer in his opening speech referred to as affording a conclusive proof of the undesirable pain tion, as regards the suffrage, of the working classes— which was the subject of eloquent comment in his admi rable speech by my right honourable friend the member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), and which was alluded to by the honourable member for Birmingham as affording the main ground on which he supported the bill. I allude to the borough of Rochdale. (Hear, bear.) When you remember the general character of the artisans of Roch dale—men living in a most flourishing part of the country, who have long been in possession of a high rate of wages, who have the reputation of having shown sonic of the highest virtues of civil prudence—when you look at the papers placed before us and find that they have only the nominal share of representation of 64 or 68 votes (corrected perhaps by the petition to which I referred ; but 64 or 290 it matters little for the argument)—you will admit that it is a case which strikes one very much. But when I came to examine the facts I found that the population of Rochdale without the parliamentary boundaries is larger in amount than the population within the parliamentary boundaries. The boundaries of Rochdale happen to be peculiarly limited, extending from a central point to a radius of three-quar ters of a mile, and beyond that the population is consi derably greater than within it. It considerably exceeds the population of the town. The great body of the work ing men live in a portion of the town that is beyond the parliamentary boundaries. I saw with interest the state ment that the mills belonging to the fanUly of the member for Birmingham were situate without the boundary. They employ at this moment a thousand hands, and I believe that they all live without the boundaries. Mr. BRIGHT—A great number of them live within the boundaries. Mr. DISRAELI—I was informed that the fact was as I stated, but I am not dealing with the borough but with the county franchise, and there is a population amounting to 50,000 or 60,000 without the parliamentary boundary of Rochdale who would be voters under this bill —(cheers)—and remember they are only to live in 61. houses to be entitled to the franchise. In a community bound together by every social tie ought they not to be electors for Rochdale, ought they to be electors for Yorkshire' I put it to every county ineniber whether this is a state of affairs that ought to be per mitted. What would they say if a stalwart body of Lanca shire or Yorkshire farmers came into Rochdale, and on the faith of some old franchise in the county preferred not voting there, but in Rochdale; we soon should hear from the hon. member for Birmingham anew argument in reference to parliamentary reform, to put an end to such an injustice. All the boroughs in the north are, as a rule, in this con dition. All the boroughs of Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and Durham, are in the same condition. It is not easy to give a precise opinion on this subject without authentic returns. But that is what I complain of. We have it in our power to illustrate the case. I take the case of Halifax, which has within the parlia mentary boundary 38,000. But there is a more recent political creation called the municipal borough. We find within the municipal boundary the population is 60,000, so that 22,000 of that borough population will be county voters. Is this a state of affairs which is to be tolerated' But take the borough of Birmingham ; why, it is more monstrous than the state of things in Rochdale and most of the northern boroughs. The population beyond the boundaries of Birmingham is immense. In Aston alone there are 2,000 who can qualify under the 101. clause, but who do not vote for the borough of Birmingham. But he says 1,400 of those will qualify under the new act as county voters. (Cheers.) Is this a state of things that ought to be permitted' If you leave all these anomalies unremedied what will be the condition of the county con stituencies 1 I take it that the great body of the members of the House of Commons wish to maintain the legitimate influence of the landed interest as one of the best securities for our public liberty, and the only security for our local government. But can you do that if you make these great changes in this imperfect manner, without having before you the complete scheme' I know it will be said by the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that while he admits this condition of affairs ought to be remedied, Lord Derby did not bring forward a remedy. This is not an argument. (Hear,' hear.) It is a captious remark. If they take him as their model, and avow that their go vernment was established on the principle of imitating Lord Derby, then there would be something in the remark of the right honourable gentleman. (Hear, hear.) But that is not the case, and therefore I say it is no argument whatever. But is it true that Lord Derby neglected this question' Is it not true that Lord Derby, in the reform bill which, on his part, I introduced into the House of Commons, pro posed to enact that the very day that bill passed there should be a compulsory revision of all the looundaries of the parliamentary boroughs. Was not that plan combined with an arrangement which would have rendered it morally certain that it would have passed' Because the great difficulty of passing a boundary bill is this—hon. gentlemen know that when the great reform bill was passed, settling the boundaries was a source of constant controversy, misrepresentation, and imputation of injus tice and corruption, because the boundary commissioners were appointed by the government ; but Lord Derby, profiting by his experience, took that ap pointment of boundary commissioners from the govern ment, and gave it to the enclosure commissioners, and the late Mr. :Mb', who was a great partisan and admirer of Lord Derby's reform bill, but voted against it--(laughter) --said that part of the bill was so perfect that we had solved a great difficulty, and he defied au y one to make a party question of the decisions as to the allotments by the enclosure commissioners. He approved of that plan. •But nothing has been done, and nothing is promised in respect if etlec degree lse ready e to neie sh e me l m att e : er t e he ie ee ho t u t se ,eoeg to ht c i o n ns b i y de t r he t m he ieie e t ff ey ect ; of the . immense population that has spread beyond the . parliamentary boroughs upon the county eonstitu and I have shown that from these millions an immense population may be enfranchised under the new act who will be a county constituency, and who will have no sympathy with the counties. I don't pre tend that there is any political in the , an an 7 ll th t e hat re iete fO sop b re rim e auy more the nttitcurbed. fi e g u u r e t t h h a e s t o e f t t h t l e e y sol m w e ' n e t re o i a f s d co th u e n m olty .. fra: B c u h t iw you an ha d v i e than m the fi gure of 101. in the boroughs. But the ad to de prescription :'n with i consider 5 i t. thehad I t iis revision n t h o e t e e da of f prescribed mt:ne say there is a principle in the county franchise when you prin ciple is this—it must be a county franchise • it must be a suffrage exercised by those who have a na t ura l relation to the chief property and industry of the coun ties, and they must be and ought to be members of the community, anti not strangers, whose thoughts, feelings, interests, and capital and labour are employed and occupied in another industry. I have shown what must be the effect on the county constituencies by the thousands , and, for aught I know, hundreds of thosands, whom this great population may produce under this act. I now ask the house to consider what must be the effect on the county constituencies of the population of those bo roighsthat are not parliamentary. That is the next step in considering the county constituencies. The house knows that in almost every county in England there are towns exceeding 5,000 in population that are not repre sented. When they are strictly agricultural towns, and have a keen sympathy with the counties in which they are placed, no apprehension need be felt of the general population possessing votes under this bill, because there is a community of interest and feeling, and no doubt they would vote for those who would best repre sent their interests. But where large towns have arisen with an interest adverse to the counties, if those persons are allowed suddenly to exercise the franchise in the com munity with which they have little interest, great incon venience and injustice will be produced. In the bill of 18.19, which was referred to by the hon. member for liimuingham, there was an allotment of seats which he spoke of with some contempt. It was of this character that there was not a single unrepresented town of 20,000 inhabitants that was not provided for by representation, and scarcely one of 1.5,000. That would greatly relieve the effect the bill would have on the coun ties. What will be the effect on the unrepresented towns by the reduction of the franchise among the county con stituencies ? The government tell us we must wait till we see their bill for the redistribution of seats. My first and principal answer to the government on that subject is, what security have we if we consent to the second read ing of this bill ! What security have we that the subsequent measures which the amendment calls for, and which all now acknowledge tobe absolutely necessary, will be passed also? Even the new device, the paid paean device of which we have heard so much, does not in the slightest degree meet it, because I can show to you you cannot understand the action of this measure without having the whole scheme before you, and, therefore, you should not be Raked to ap- I prove of the principle, but you may go on on the pari paean principle, and you may pass this bill, and the other bill may be thrown out. You may pass the Frahchise Bill on Monday, but on Thursday the Seats Bill may be thrown out. Well, I will not insist on the primary objection, because it has been treated on so much, but it was necessary to my argument that I should briefly refer to it. But there are on this subject other objections which appear to me to be worthy of the gravest consideration of the house. The government say they are going to produce a seats bill which will meet all these objections with refer ence to the population of the unrepresented towns. Well, then, my question, is what are you going to do with the counties! When you pursue that subject you will find that if you proceed with this bill without having the scheme of the government with regard to the distribution of seats before you, it will be impossible, which I will prove, for you to come to any sensible and satisfactory decision of what the amount of the county franchise should be. lint before I go into that I want to know what security have we at this moment that to bill for the distribution of seats will be brought forward at all ? Why, the other night the Pre sident of the Board of Trade told the house on this mast • important subject that they had the engagement of the Prime Minister. Now we have no engagement of the Prime Minister. The engagement of the Prime Minister can only be given in his place in parliament, or by some document placed on the table of this house. Now the Prime Minister has made no speech on the distri bution of seats in his place in parliament, and we have no document on this table whichgwes us any information. The right hon. gentleman alluded to is speech that had been made at a private meeting of the followers of the govern- ; ment, and which was printed in certain newspapers, in order to influence their votes. It was neces- , nary for me to ask what engagement he made, and the right hon. gentleman replied that the en gagement made by Lord Russell at the private meeting was "to lay on the table of the house a bill which will show the intention of the government in regard to the distribution of seats, and to proceed with that bill with a view to carry it as soon as circumstances shall permit." A very dangerous phrase. (Cheers.) Now, I shall show that it is totally impossible for us to be asked to fix the amount of the county franchise until we have, in full detail, before us a bill for the distribution of seats. (Hear, hear.) It is absolutely necessary that the house should carry in theirminti—l have no doubt that they have it there—the comparative repre sentation of the land and the boroughs. lam sure the house will recollect it, but it is in round numbers 9,1 - 4,000, the population of the boroughs, against 11,400,000, the population of the counties ; 514,000 elec tors of boroughs against 501,000 in counties, and 33 mil lions of rateable property in the boroughs against 40 mil lions in the counties. But you must bear in mind, I will put it before you very shortly, the most pertinent and pregnant calculation which, on a subject of this kind, was ever made. I propose that the house should consider this proposition—to transfer to counties the representation of all boroughs under 500 electors. Let us see what that is. There are 87, and see what the result would beof transferring to counties all boroughs under 500 electors, being 87 seats. It would be necessary of course to deduct that population from the boroughs and add it to the counties. The population of the boroughs would be a little under nine millions, and the population of the counties a little under twelve millions. The electors of the boroughs would be 493,000 against 521,000 electors for the counties. The rateable value of the boroughs would be about 34,000,000/., and the rateable value of the counties 59,500,0001. None of these great quantities much change, but instead of the boroughs being 334 members, and the counties 162, the boroughs would then have 217, anti the counties 249. Therefore by disfranchising 87 boroughs under 500 electors, and giving them all to the counties, you still would not entirely remedy the balance. It is neces sary the house should bear in mind that striking in stance of the singular inequality in the relative representa tion of the counties and the boroughs. Well, sir, then I address to the government this t uestion—what are you going to do with the counties? You are going to increase the representation of the boroughs, or you are going to transfer the representation of some small boroughs to those large boroughs in the counties not represented, and so far going to relieve the county constituencies from the possible danger of being absorbed in a great degree by the population of those towns. But what are you going to do with the counties? Are you in the first instance going to add a great many members to the counties, and a great many or some members to the counties and sonic members to the large towns? On what principle are you going to act! Do you mean to establish plurality of representation when you shrink from voting in your constituent body? 1)o you mean to say members ought to come here to represent numbers and not opinions? I ask this because on your determination on these points and your conduct our decision as to the county franchise entirely slepende. Or have you found out, as others have found out before you, and I have no doubt Lord Russell, in his long studies and numerous ex periments, has found out, that that plan would be ex tremely inconvenient and impossible, and it would not at all faithfully represent the country? Would you have recourse then to a further division of counties and great cities and boroughs? We want a decision on that point, because on that point depends the judgment we shall arrive at with regard to the county constituencies. Take the county of Middlesex. Half of it is a rural community, and the rest is suburban. It is not very large, but is rich and pros perous. If you give it four members you will have four suburban members with your 14/. franchise. If, on the other hand, you divide Middlesex, and give two members to the rural population and two to the suburban, then it is possible that your 14/. franchise may give us two good bo rough}nembers and two county members. Therefore I contend unless we have your whole scheme it is utterly impossible to arrive at any conclusion as to the county franchise. Therefore, I ask, what could be more reasonable than the amendment of the noble lord? If it be that there are to be further measures let us have them all. I say that we have a right to ask the government, generally speaking, what is the plan on which they mean to proceed with re gard to the redistribution of seats. Not a word have they said on the subjtxt. But those who have avowedly great in fluence with the government have given us a plan ; they have made speeches, and written in the press on the sub ject of the distribution of seats, and if we are to take those speeches and writings as intimations of what is coming, the course they are going to pursue is, to my mind, most unjust and meet injurious to the landed inte rest—that is to say, to England—(cheers)—because I say the legitimate influence of the land is the interest of Eng land. Nothing is more simple, they say, than the mode, according to the last statement we have had, of the dis tribution of seats. I have always considered the distribu tion of seats was one of the deepest, one of the profoundest, and one of the most difficult subjects to which a statesman could apply himself. We must have general principles to guide us. You cannot apply them with extreme severity. You must apply them with great forbearance and consideration of various interests, and any one who has to deal with the subject knows it is a subject which requires forbearance and temper, and considerable knowledge of the complicated interests of the country. But that is not the opinion of these who seem to have a com manding influence on this question ; because the last thing I have seen is thin There is a borough in the north o England with a • trade and a population of 100,000. Well, that borough has two members in this house, and there is a small borough in the south with a population of 110,000, or perhaps 5,000, with very httle snide, or no trade at all, quite asleep, and with only a county market. Can anything be more anomalous than that this borough of the north, with ita great population and great industry, shall have two members in this house, and that this little unknown place in the south shall have the same number? The thing is undefensihle, and if I were in the Music-hall in Birmingham it would not be diffi- cult for me to pnxluce a very great effect by de claiming upon it. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing more easy than to disfranchise a borough in the south of England ; but the moment that is don, another issue arises. That issue is no longer between the borough in the north and the borough in the south, but between the borough in the north and a district in the south which perhaps exceeds it in population and property, and which is most imperfectly and inadeivately repre sented. (Cheers.) Let us take an example—say West Kent. The population of West Kent is above half a million ; and there are several boroughs—l think four—the aggre gate population of which exceeds 100,000. They . are re presented by eight members ; but West Kent 11 repre sented only by two, though I admit they are both capital ones. (Hear, hear.) The people of Kent would say, "There is a borough close to us, in the next county. dis franchised, and its members are to be given to a borough in the north, because it has a great trade ; ft has a hun dred thousand inhabitants, and only sends two members to parliament." Surely the 400,000 people of West Kent, which is a very proud county, would naturally say, "If members are taken from • borough in the south, they ought to be given to the county of Kent." (Cheers.) And therefore, sir, it is not so simple an issue as those who are in favour of these sweeping changes ima- One. I think the argument is unanswerable, and it is not to be answered by a statement whioh I read to-day, and which was made by a member of this house at a public meeting—namely, that the superio rity of population and property in the north would no longer admit of the present system of representation re maining. I think it is most unwise to have these constant companions made between the north and smith. We shall soon be coming to a state like America, and we shall be ha viii secession. or, perhaps, as Mr. Canning sa' be bnugieg beak the Hep tarchy. (Laughter. I don't want to make these • comparisons between north and south ; for a wise states man would take care that whatever he did the represen- Hon was fairly distributed over the country. But as these statements are made, and as this sort of rantipole rhetoric prevails, I must deny that the north has a superiority over the south in population and property. (Hear, hear.) Taking the traditional and acknowledged line of demarcation, namely, the Trent, the pro perty and population of the two portions of the country are equal • or, rather the superiority is with the south. I know the answer that will be made to this. It is, that fortunately for the south, it includes the metropolis. (Mr. Beicer : Hear, hear.) Is that any reason why the population, intelligence, and property of the metropolis should not prefer a claim before these new members ! (Cheers.) Sup pose I were to say to the hon. member for Birmingham, who cheered me, "You are always boasting of your great predominance in population, property, and industry in the north ; but you know that if you take off from the north the West Riding and South Lancashire you will not go for much." (Hear, hear.) This plan, therefore, of disfranchising boroughs in the south to enfranchise places in the north won't stand a moment's consideration. The problem is a very difficult one, and it must be approached with more calmness and with more comprehensive views. (Cheer-.) I would atop for a moment to say that I am not one of those who think that a great system of parliamentary reform would lead to the destruction of the country. I never believed that it would. I have too much confidence in the country. I think there is sense and spirit and creative power enough in it to forma government, but I think that such a system would end in the destruction of parliament. (Cheers.) You won't destroy England, but you might get rid of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) Suppose the government make up their mimes--ax, for anything I know, they may do—to meet the case on a great scale, and to astonish the house by a grand scheme founded upon statistics—suppose we say that they are prepared to dis franchise these 87 boroughs which have lees than 500 voters, and say—" We cannot promise to give all the members to the land, notwithstanding that it is en titled to them. (Hear, bear.) But, looking at the matter as statesmen, we will endeavour to establish a fair ba lance in the constitution, and we will, as far as possible, represent population and property blended, and at the same time we will every now and then allot representa tives to some distinctive interest." Suppose they were to do that, what would happen! If the house will per mit me I will tell them. You would have • very great parliament. If you adopt electoral districts tomorrow, you will have a very great parliament, for the charac ter of individual members, for the great pro perties, the great interest' and the command ing populations it would represent. It would include great landowners, great manufacturers, and some merchants ; but after • short time you would find that you had not the same hold over the executive power that you had under the old system. The want of variety of ' elements would cause that. Well, in proportion as your hold over the executive receded your proprietors and your great manufacturers would cease to belong to a house of which the influence and the importance would proportionably diminish. Then the story would be that the House of Commons is not what it wax ; and then you must extend the franchise till you got to manhood or uni versal suffrage. You will not by that advance your case. You will have a parliament which will entirely lose its command over the exe cutive. For that is what always happens the moment you have universal suffrage ; for every man then looks upon himself as good as any other. When this state of things arises the parliament will lose its prestige ; it will have no special traditions, no prospective glory ; it will have no evidence of historical lineage ; you will have no great families round which men may rally in seasons of difficulty ; no scholarship, no learning, no geuiva. (Cheers, and " Oh, oh.") You will have a hall filled with selfish and obscure mediocrities, incap able of anything but mischief, and that mischief devised and regulated by the raging demagogue of the hour. (Cheers and " Oh.") I now come to the amend ment of the noble lord, and I must say I am surprised that it was not anticipated by the government. I cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have treated that amendment with so much bitterness ; for it appears to me to be a rational amendment, and one expressed in language at once clear, simple, and significant. (Hear, hear.) I know there is nothing so difficult as to draw up a parlia mentary amendment. Lord Russell, in his tune, was con sidered as capable a man to draw up a cunning amendment as any man could be, and if the noble lord's amendment were merely as is pretended, a cunning device, instead of 1 being, as I believe it to be, the reflex of his own mind, the ; noble lord (Earl Russell) must, I can imagine, have felt the sympathy of a master mind. But what is the motion which would have suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer! The opposition has been unjustly attacked. The house is not satisfied with the course the government took, and it was impossible for us not to oppose the bill. If the noble lord had not come forward, somebody on this side must have done so, and we must have opposed it in re ference to the manner in which it deals with the county franchise, and on various other grounds. I want to know, therefore, what is the amendment which would have suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other day I was looking over the reoords of an assembly, not, perhaps, quite so illustrious as the House of Connnons, but which had in it many most , eminent men. It was about the period of the I' Reform Bill of 1831. The country was greatly agitated,and in that assembly the whole question was brought forward, and this motion wax made on the 16th of May, 1831, at Wyatt's rooms in the Oxford Union. Parliamentary re form was before the house and an ardent member (Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen) moved that the present ministry is incompetent to carry on the government of the country, which was supported by Mr. Sidney Herbert ; but an ardent member of the Union, not satisfied with this bald amendment, next day moved a rider to it to the effect that the ministers had unwisely introduced a most unscrupulous Reform Bill, a measure which not only threatens to change the form of government, but ultimately to break up the foundations of our constitution. Now I should be perfectly willing to adoptthat amendment which was moved by Mr. William Gladstone. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) I only mention it to show how difficult it is to devise an amendment to please everybody. (Cheers.) I must touch for a few moments on the county franchise, and the clause referring to leaseholders. It appears to me I that that suggestion must have been made 1 without any sufficient knowledge of the subject. I have always considered the freeholders' suffrage in towns as an anomaly. Before the Reform Bill the freeholders , voted in many places in towns, and Lord Auckland waa very fprin hol c d ip w le as that the freeholders shoulda There vvooteurabwhleere to the the free a stout resistance on the part of the whigs, and the only provision on which the government succumbed was that we attempted to put the county franchise on a broader basis, not merely because it was an anomaly hut because a number of split votes were made in all towns. It cannot be defended, but still there is prescription for it. But the present government have gone out of their way to aggravate the evil, and they must have done it without a fair understanding of what the conse quences would be. The hon. member for Staffordshire has shown conclusively that one town could send forth 5,000 voters under this qualification. Well, if there is one topic which I have no wish to avoid it is the ques tion of the reduction of the borough franchise, which no doubt is intended to give to the working clams their fair share of the representation. (Ministerial cheers.) I think that after the speech of my right hon. friend the member for Hertfords hire , and the speech of the member for Caine yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had quite enough of the sentimental part of the question. I may say at once that we on this side of the house have no fear whatever of the working men. But the question before us is not whether we are afraid of them, bat whether we can improve the constitution. Now, the old English oonstitution is not a phrase, but a fact. It is founded on a distinct principle, and aims at different ends. The old constitution is a monarchy, limited by the co-ordinate authority of bodies of subjects invested with privileges for their own advantage and the common weal. They are called estates of the realm, and one of them is the state of the Commons. Of course the elements of which the Commons are formed must vary, and be (Par coatiaration lee page 6.) PmIPIN 1k !II 1 ~'