The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-30 00:00:00

THE PRESS, OCTOBER 30, 1858. to reform the House of Commons just so B lack and no more as will allow it to keep pace with the w i. t ies of the House of Lords, I would ask bun not to take °e y trouble in the matter , but j ust to leave it exactl y where iris. If you want it to represent the nation, then it is a national question; and, having come to that conclusion, if we have come to it, there is no great mystery, 1 think, as to the manner in which it can be brought about. The ques tion between the peers and the people is one which cannot be evaded. It is the gre.t. difficulty in the way of our friends at head-quarters who are for reform, but don't know b o w to do it. It wa s the difficult y which Lord John Rus sell felt. Lord John Russell—l believe you may take my word for it—has probably, from association, from tradition, from bis own reading and study, and from his own just and honest sympathies, a more friendly feeling towards this question of parliamentary reform than any other man of his order as a statesman. But, having said this, I must also s sy—what he too would say if he thought it prudent to tell all he knew—that this is with him the great difficulty. How can I reconcile a free representation of the people in the House of Commons with the inevitable disposition which rests in an hereditary House of Peers? Now, we must decide this question, ' Choose you this day whom you will serve." If tne peers are to be your masters, as they boast that their ancestors were the conquerors of yours, serve you them. But, if you will serve only the laws, the laws of your country, the laws in making which you have been consulted, you may go on straight to discuss this great question of parliamentary reform. I am not going to attack the House of Lords. Some people tell us that the House of Lords has is its time done great things fur freedom Well, it may be so, though I have not bean so successful in finding out how or when, as some people. At least since 1690, or there abouts, when the Peers became the dominant power in this country, I am not able to discover one single measure im portant to human or English freedom which has come from the voluntary consent and goodwill of their house. And, really, how should it? You know what a peer is. He is one of those fortunate individuals who are described as coming into the world with silver spoons in their mouths. Or, to use the more polished and elaborate phraseology of' the poet,— _ _ . Fortune came smiling to his youth and welcomel it, And purpled greatness met his ripened years. - - . • _ When he is a boy, among his brothers and sisters he is pre eminent; he is the eldest son ; be will be " My Lord ;" this tine mansion, this beautiful park, these countless farms, this vast political influence, will one day centre on this innocent boy. The servants know it, and pay him greater deference on account of it. He grows up and goes to school and college ; his future position is known ; he has no great incitement to work hard, because whatever he does it is very difficult for him to improve his fortune in any way. When he leaves college he has a secure position reedy-made for him, and there seems to be no reason why he should follow ardently any of those occupations which make men great among their fellowmen. He takes his seat in the House of Peers ; whatever be his character, whatever his intellect, whatever his previous life, whether he be in England or ten thousand miles away, be he totter ing down the steep of age, or be he passing through the imbecility of second childhood, yet by means of that charm ing contrivance—made only for peers—vote by proxy, he gives his vote for or against, and, unfortunately, too often against, all those great measures on which you and the country have set your hearts. There is another kind of peer which I am afraid to touch upon,—that creature of — what shall I say?—of monstrous, nay, even of adulterous binh—the spiritual peer. I assure you with the utmost frankness and sincerity, it is not in the nature of things that men in these positions should become willing foun tains from which can flow great things for the freedom of any country. We are always told that the Peers are neces sary as a check. If that be so, I must say they admirably answer their purpose. But when we come to consider the question of a reform of the House of Commons, which the Constitution does not recognize as the House of Commons belonging to the Peers, but to the nation, we will allow the House of Peers to go for awhile into something like obscu rity, and discuss it as if our sole object were to make it what the Constitution supposes it to be—a oomplete repro sentation of the people in Parliament. THE SUFFRAGE. Mr. Bright next defined the principle on which, in his opinion, a Reform Bill should be founded : With regard to the question of the suffrage, which I state is one of the chief points on which I should insist, I have no doubt there are persons who, on reading my speech, will say, " Subversive doctrine, violent language this. The change which you would propose wou!d endanger many things which we highly value." Now, I beg to assure all those timid people that I do not wish to endanger any of the ancient land marks of our Constitution. I do not want to disturb this question of the franchise beyond what has been already sanctioned by Parliament and the country. [ do not want to introduce any new principle or any theoretical opinion winch it may be found difficult to adopt. There are many Then probably among those whom I see before me who are of opinion that every man shou:d have a vote. They are for what is called " universal suffrage," or " manhood suffrage "—something which represents that every man of twenty-one )eats of age who has not forfeited his right by any misconduct should have a vote. Let me say that, per sonally, I have not the smallest objection to the widest Possible suffrage that the ingenuity of man can devise. At the same time, if I were now a member of a Government, and had to arrange a Reform Bill for next session, I should not act upon that principle. I will tell you upon what Principle I would act. I find in the country great diversity of opi n i on. There are the Peers, of whom I have alread oPQy yken. Th ey are c i t i zens with ourselves, and have ther e light to bat considered. There a r e the ri c h and in. tilleatial aliases whn, ea wealthy men, are a little timid of the great bulk of the people who have not many riches. There are thousands—scores of thonsands—who imagine that they could not sleep safely in their beds if every man had a vote. We are surprised that children cannot sleep in the dark—that they fancy something dreadful will happen to them ; and there are actually rich people in this country who believe that if every man had a vote it would give him a weapon wherewith to attack their property. There being all these diversities of opinion, it clearly is the duty of Government and of Parliament, to.), to frame a measure which shall fairly represent what may be called the reform opinion of the whole country. What have we at present in the way of franchises ? We have the parishes franchises For generations, for ages past, there has been an extensive franchise in all our parishes. We have poor•law unions, which have worked generally satisfactorily to the country. We have a franchise in our poor•law unions. We have a corporation franchise, and, with the exception of a stupid provision that people shall live in towns three years before they can exercise it, that franchise may be said to have worked generally satisfactorily to the country. I will ask any man here whether he believe that in all the parishes, all the poor-law unions, and all the coporations men have not conducted themselves with great propriety and managed the affairs of their parishes, unions, and corporations satisfactorily? And I should like to ask them whether they would object to have the same franchise conferred upon them for the election of members to the House of Commons. There is one great point gained in such a franchise—your registration would be easy and inexpensive. There is another point—that whatever its omissions, whatever its exclusions, they would not be directed against any one particular class. It would admit the working people to electoral power just as fully as it would admit the middle, or what may be called the higher and richer classes. Therefore, as regards class and class, it would remove a great defect of the Reform Bill, and would give a suffrage so wide that I believe no one would suppose it did not afford a fair representation of all classes. I don't want anybody for a moment to suppose that that particular franchise is better than manhood suffrage. lam only speaking of what Government might do, of what it ought to do, and of what it might du moreover in accordance with the vast majority of opinion which exists in this country on this question. With regard to the counties I shall say little. I know no good reason why the franchise should not be as extensive there as in the boroughs; but there appears to be a general understanding that the next step in counties shall be one short of that. But I think it of great importance that the fortyshilling franchise should be extended to all parts of the United Kingdom as fully as it is to the people of England and Wales. THE ALLOTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. Mr. Bright continued : I come nos to the question which I believe all persons who ha-e studied the matter will readily agree is one of great importance to the country—how your members shall be allotted to the various constituent bodies. I will ask you this simple question. What is the obvious rule which would recommend itself to every man when first about to arrange this allotment? Would he not argue in this way ? The law has given certain persons the right of voting, and it presumes that every person who has that right is capable of deciding how he shall vote. Every elector, therefore, is of the same importance in the eye of thr law, and why then should not every elector vote for the sane portion of the whole Parliament? I shall be told that I am not to go ti the United States for an illus tration of this. I will not. I will go a little nearer home. Take the kingdom of Sardinia. I was in Turin last year, and I made inquiries as to the mode of election and the distribution of members there ; and I found that Genoa, with a population of 110,000, returned seven members to the Sardinian Parliament. Sardinia is not a republic; it is a limited monarchy like our own. Let us go to the colonies of Australia. Take New South Wales. The capital, Sydney, returns eight members to the New South Wales Parliament. In Victoria, the city of Melbourne re turns thirteen members to Parliament, and, by the bill now introduced by the Minister of that colony, the number thirteen is about to be increased to eighteen. I believe that in Belgium and Sardinia, both countries under a limited monarchy, the same rule applies, and we know that throughout the whole of the United States the number of members is allotted according to the population. In every ten years this scale is rearranged—in fact, it works itself. I do not for a moment argue that it is necessary that we should get an actuary to apportion the number of members exactly according to his calculations of the num ber of the population, bit; we have a fair right to an honest approximation, and without it there can be no fair repre sentation of the people. Look at London, putting aside the city. If you were to divide the six boroughs of which the metropolis is made up, you would still nave twelve boroughs with 300,000 population each (larger than the population of Birmingham), and constituencies of 10,000. Divide them again and you would have twenty-four boroughs, each of 150,000 population, with 5,000 electors; and when the franchise is extended, the number will be still greater. I say that the metropolitan boroughs and all large boroughs ought to be divided, or subdivided they ought to have double, or treble, or quadruple tbeir present number of members. What a miserable delusion it is that this great capital of midland industry, with its 250,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, sends only two members to the House of Commons ! But if every man I see here before me had a vote, or ,if every man outside had a vote, what better would he be if he sends two members to the House of Commons, and some boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants, equal to one of the small corners of your city, have a right to return the same number? The whole thing as at present arranged is a disgraceful fraud. It ought to be put an end to, and, if it is not put an end to, your representation will remain for the future very little better than a hoe, If you look at the county SOW you will tiod 1051 that the object of the present Government, and, in fact, of any Government in which the aristocracy have so great a power, and where landowners are so predominant, must be in the distribution of seats greatly to increase the number of members for counties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very ingenious gentleman. At this very moment in all probability he has got before him rows of figures to endeavour to make it out that the proper way of reforming Parliament is to increase the number of landed gentry in the House of Commons. I recollect on one occasion that he referred to the county of Chester, and showed that there were three boroughs in that county which returned six members, while the two divisions of the county only returned four, and that the four members represented far more elect3rs and population than the six members of the towns. Now, it will be unfortunate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he ventures upon the ground of arithmetic in connection with this question. e are for arithmetic in connection with reform, and if he proposes to deal with it in that way we have no objection to carry out the principle fully. THE HOUSE OF PEERS. Mr. Bright then commented on the exclusive character of the Upper Chamber:— But now let me turn your attention once more to the House of Peers. You know that the House of Peers is a body composed. entirely of land owners, with the exception of a few lawyers and a few successful soldiers. Have you ever been to the botanical gardens in some of our towns, where a board is put up with the words, " No dogs are allowed to enter here "? There is a similar board at the dot.r of the House of Peers, and, though you cannot see it without an imaginary eye, it says, "No traders admitted here." The House of Peers is a house for the great proprietors of the soil. The county of Chester, to which Mr. Disraeli referred, is very strongly represented in the House of Lords. There are the Marquis of Westminster, Lord Combermere, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and, no doubt, another peer or two, if our acquaintance with them was only a little more extensive. Take Lancashire. We had the Earl of Bur lington, now the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Sefton, and the Earl of Wilton. They come up from their great lauded properties in Lancashire, and sit in the House of Lord. Let us comet° your own county. You have the Earl of Warwick, Lord Leigh, Lord Craven, I think, Lord Calthorpe, and one or two others, for in a county so charming as this there are sure to be many estates and mansions belonging to the aristocracy of England. The time was when both Houses of Parliament sat together. They meet together now, but in different chambers under the same roof, and no law can pass, or the smallest modicum of freedom or of justice come to you, until it has gone through the very fine meshes of the net of the House of Lords. Well, then, I say that if the landed proprietors of England insist upon a great addition to their power, the House of Commons, with the inhabi tants of the towns and the traders of the country, will be obliged to ask, " How is it that we have not our share of power in the House of Lords ? " Only one word more on the question of constitution. Whenever • Reform Bill is brought into the House of Commons by any Government, be as watchful and exacting as you like on the subject of the franchise, but never, I beg, take your eye for one moment from the question of the distribution of the members, for in it hes the great subject of dispute, and unless you guard your rights you will have to fight your battle over again, and to begin it the day after the next bill has passed. THE BALLOT. Mr. Bright next addressed himself to the question of the ballot : There is one other point to which I must refer, and it is one upon whIA I presume I shall have the cordial assent of this meeting. I believe it is the opinion of the great body of the Reformers of the United Kingdom that any Reform Bill which pretends to be generally satisfactory to Reformers must concede the shelter and protection of the ballot. I shall not discuss that question or argue in its favour. I am quite sure that in the minds of the electors of England it has long been decided, and it has also been decided in the House of Commons. Those who are for the ballot are for it mainly because they wish free elections. Those who are opposed to it are opposed to it chiefly because they believe it would liberate the great body of the constituencies from the control and influence of the rich. The Times newspaper and others, but particu larly the Times, in discussing this question treat it as if it were a question to be despised, and tell us that it is mean and unmanly to ask that men should go to the poll and give their votes in secret. The very man who writes thus in the Tires writes his article in secret and publishes it in secret, and if any voter says that he ought to atilt his name to it—which, mind, I do not say at all— what is his answer ? He replies " I am performing a great public duty; I am obliged in the discharge of that duty to comment with great severity upon Ministers and public men, and to expose abuses, and in doing this it is necessary that I should have the shelter of anonymous writing." Well, Ido not dispute that, but if it is wise and just for a writer in the Times to have that shelter in the performance of a public duty, I say it is especially wise and just that the humble elector in every county and every borough should have from the law, if the law cau give it, an equal protection in the exercise of his franchise. I be lieve that when the franchise is thus extended, when the apportionment of members to the constituency approximates to a just arrangement, and when pin have the protection of the ballot, you will have that kind of representation in the House of t.,ommons which will give to every man who sits there a real constit4eticy, and will fi; NU) With real raspougibility,