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

131PERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following were read a second time :—Huddersfield mater, Manchester Improvement, Frome Gas, Bryclough, ...7 1 avir, and R oc hd a l e R oa d s ; St a ff or d , Church-bridge, &e., o 46° ads ; Butterton Moor End Road ; Wrexham, Mold, and °/in ah's Quay Railway (additional capital), and Drayton Junction Railway Bills. The f o ll ow i ng bills were read a third time and passed : 1 , ~a g liarn Harbour, Metropolis Se w age and Essex Redma n', Ridvrelly and Burry Port Railway and Burry Port Amalgamation, Derwent and Shotley bridge Road, West xiddlesex Water, and Dublin Corporation Water (with alnendments). THE IRISH CHURCH. The Earl of BELMORE presented a petition from Tip !)4".817 against the disendowment of the Established Church na Ireland. SHEFFIELD WATER BILL. The standing order of the house, No. 179. sec. 1, having been considered and dispensed with, this bill was put through its several stages and passed. PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL. . 0 4 the m o ti on o f L or d STANLEY o f ALDERLEY t hi s 141 Passed through committee. Their lordships then adjourned. ROUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : 'Ellesmere and Glyn Valley ; Hoylake Railway ; Lanca shire and Yorkshire Railway ; Uxbridge and Rickmans worth Railway ; Winchcomb and Midland Railway ; and Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway (Ex tensions). ELECTORAL STATISTICS. Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from Rochdale Im pugning the accuracy of the electoral statistics, and 7 4 ting that inst ea d o f 58, th e w o rkin g men affected by these returns amount to 22G. The petitioners prayed for Inquiry. THE CATTLE PLAGUE. 1. ,. 11 r• H. LEWIS asked the Secretary of State for the ' °lllB Department whether he had received information that the provinces of Friesland and Groningen were en tilt** free from the Rinderpest ; and, if so, whether it was 4 , 148 intention to take steps to modify the existing restric "Ma on the importation of cattle and sheep from those Proyi eee , Sir G. GREY said that representations had been made to the Privy Council that the cattle plague had greatly decreased in the places referred to, and asking that the atria regulations with respect to importation might be r elaxed ; but before any step was taken it would be right t o Make inquiry whether the places from which cattle kiglit be brought were also free from disease. MIXED MARRIAGES. Mr. DA WSON asked the hon. and learned member for "lie° whether in the Marriages (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill to be l ead a second time upon Tuesday, Ist May, any provision Vas contained which would legalise the celebration of marriage between two Protestants by a cleromaß of the "'"'lnall Catholic Church ? Sergeant ARMSTRONG said the bill did not interfere 'with the law as it existed with respect to marriages of two Protestants by a Roman Catholic. THE REFORM BILL—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. The adjourned debate on the second reading of the Re 4arna Bill was resumed this evening by "Viscount CRANBOITRNE who commenced his observa tions by condemning the speech delivered by the Chan °eller of the Exchequer at Liverpool, and denied that It Was fair to impute to members of his side °Pillions in aversion to the working classes. Ho was quite aware when the Ministry had nothing to say in favour of the bill it was very easy to shower dirt over its supporters, and this course had been most unscrupulously adopted. Ifs felt they had heard in that house two much about the Working man, as if he was different from other persons, and he could not understand how their nature, for better nr worse, should be considered better than others. Ile said their nature, not their temptations, and the election committee that had been sitting proved that the possession of the franchise was looked upon by many as a saleable commodity, and to give this power to persons 'Who might be tempted was scarcely wise or prudent. 1 4 did not say that the rich were free from ;lees, because they were not, but the temptation to the 'tumbler possessor of the franchise was far more dangerous, because the offer of a bribe of £2O or £3O was a circum stance which it would be scarcely possible for many of the humble class to withstand. Various party tactics had taken Place during the progress of the discussion, but he believed ghat the last move of the Government was to announce Il raul the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that /t hey would proceed with the Distribution of Seats Bill l'aripassu with the Rofcrm Bill. He did not think that Such an announcement would answer much, because it 11.118 decidedly opposed to the announcement he had made hi introducing the bill. But, be the matter what it may, he did not like to see unnecessary humiliation, and if the leb ancellor of th e E xc h equer d i d take th i s course i t wou ld a Piece of use l ess h um ili a ti on . It was painful n t 'MY time to see a man eat dirt, but when any one did so j„ B .V e sslY it was most pitiable ; and if the move he had al ,-Zued to was to be played, he warned the right honour- L yl e gentleman it would fail, because he would te - , t "env) one additional vote by such a party hi, - , v a• The Government said they would take the fer the redistribution of seats pari passu, which pari -Pease the Reform Bill would meet one after the other, but Ithat they on his side of the house wanted was, that they ll4ul d proceed w ith th e t wo ma tt ers a t th e same time, Fad 4 F i n the same bill. (H ear .) U n til y ou k now ou t of which _ the conitituencies you were going to take the persons I°vrhoin the franchise was granted hcw was the house to W Whether they were fit for the privilege or not. He 7 11 d not agree at all in the arguments of the hon. mem :7 for Westminster, because he never attempted to ' h ove that the bill as it now stood would not give a pre tliclerance to the working classes. The very stone of all e e e t l .lll Was preponderance to none, and yet this had been flyt h neglected by the non. member. It had been said thleLt his Party were not the proper persons to arrange f„ I'e-distribution of seats, because they were not h er a Positio n to grapple with the question—[Mr. BRIGHT 1,6 int errupted the noble lord with the observation, th e °ll m ight destroy it"]—that might be the opinion of f t `fn• member for Birmingham, but this he knew, that th _ was left t o th e hon. member who had interrupted him, only result would be that democratic power would be the 11 7 , l bing left i n th e coun t ry . (H ear, h ear, an d c h eers. ) it ; aueuld like to know upon what ground the bill was fo t , e .: l t hrough the h ouse ; h e d en i e d th ere was a necess it y tVbut he w as t o ld th a t it was urge d on so l e l y on es—that th e h ouse was p l e d ged to reform. (Hear.) we e d ere was the pledge? What was the pledge ? The had ge ' " far as he could collect, was simply the subject th e bea n mentioned in two or three Queen's speeches, but ti,4_ Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought,l was not tiZetly the , Person to be bound by what was set down in 2t4‘‘eele:li. tshpeeeches. The house was told that if they passed would hear no more about Reform for the next a u er 30 years, but the Reform Bill of 1832 was stated to be „ 4 " 1 Measure, and the present bill would be about as final .that was. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He knew the i llion of the hon. member for Westminster on property th a t lan dlords, the latter of w h om h e h a d written th e " t hey might be di scar d e d at any t i me. I n ' 4l wherev er y ou go you f i nd concealment. thee „ Chancellor of the Exchequer would not tell Ithouse where the first blood was to come from, the hon. member for Westmi ns t er wou ld not te l l them Wh at sort of measures the new Parliament would pass. i'va f or one desired to kno w w h a t h e was go i ng to vote for 4 131.6 he voted. (Hear, hear.) He was not going to tC a n lliate in reform, and the house, in his opinion, had off e , en twage to vote honestly. Th e G overnmen t was 1 ,, e 7 n 8 an indi gn it y to t h e house i n the course they d o : ne Pursuing. They w ere a tt emp ti ng t o b rea k an d bond 44,11 in dependence of Parliament, and, therefore, their their' duty to th e i r country was to resist it to the utmost of P n wer• (Hear hear and cheers ) -spt. Gy t 7 • . exptes O SVENORsupported the bill in a lively speech, b ee , sin g" his preference for a complete measure, if it had their Possible to carry it, and rallying the Opposition on nse nsibility to the sound arguments which bad been advance d mr in favour of the extension of the suffrage. teuiti JOHNSTONE maintained that no reform bill except by a tacit understanding between t tt e l e ,s a b7 le: r ( l ; i f ed both parties. A Government which desired top,t i nPlieh this task must not only conciliate as much t o as Possible on its own side, but must be careful not irritate it Rene , 8 opponents, and both conditions Mr. Glad be " had failed to fulfil. No Reform Bill, he argued, could ds: e a d tis ., fa ntory to any side of the house which was not pr01e..., l e. .., 11l its integrity, and he warned the Government that l e r,°rti na as they threw themselves into the arms of itt: "gilt they of would sever themselves from the real feel count rY- Po Qed . "ONOGHUE supported the bill in a speech com et e;.? the main of abstract disquisitions on thebestform lkt o tnntent, the true character of a repr esentative sys • ' aad the lit that necessary attributes of a Reform Bill, conclud tefor_ . the ext ens i on of the franchise was the essence of to in g' that t h e form of this bill was the best calculated thiepsilarre success, and that the opposition of the Conserve ettee„ t Y was prompted by a dislike to the principle of an t , 'len of the suffrage. Ho admitted that the great body eita'de.taerristocracy wore not hostile to the bill, and, after re- Fe at _ ; 0 the house that the Irish Liberals had loyally as , an their lay English brethren in every struggle, concluded iie v d ern est profession of faith in the Government. discussion was continued by Mr. A. GRANT, who be a u" favour of a bill which would include a redistri tiltiielltßoTf ats aild . a rectification of boundaries ;by Mr. ees e Y.,C, maintained that working men did not pos hill „ h ei a air share of electoral power, and supported the th e _ st calculated in form and intent to do justice to hiblil elf nf ranchieed class • by Sir M. BeAeir, w h ogu arding fo re; c'o _against being su ' pposed to be opposed to all re ttenill9d the bill as tending to swamp the agricul- tural interest and to give the preponderance to the work ing classes, characterising it as the commencement of a contest between rich and poor, aristocracy and democracy. Mr. BAINES, on the other hand, as a sincere friend to our mixed form of government, defended the bill as calcu lated to unite all classes by doing justice to large masses of Our fellow-countrymen. He referred to the statistics of the progress of education among the working classes, to the spread of cheap literature, the increase in their habits of saving, and particularly to the support they had given to the Volunteer movement, to show that the voters pro posed to be admitted were fit for the franchise ; and argued that the bill would still leave the working classes in a minority in the representation. Mr. NEWDEGATE pointed out the difference between this bill and the measure of 1832, which raised the fran chise, but was called a Reform Bill, because it so redistri buted the representatron that the will of the people could be adequately expressed. He dwelt on the deficiencies of the present county representation, and, though favourable to a reduction of the franchise, declined to support the bill, because until the redistribution scheme was produced it was impossible to see whether those anomalies would be redressed. Mr. P. TAYLOR supported the bill, not because it came up to the wishes of the party below the gangway, but be cause the Government intended to stand or fall by it, and it therefore offered an opportunity of settling this ques tion. He recommended a dissolution if the bill were re jected. Mr. R. T. HARVEY, who, speaking from the Conserva tive side, was loudly cheered from the Ministerial benches, also professed his intention to support the bill. Mr. W. DUNCOMBE condemned the bill on account of its parentage, which he maintained cast a suspicion on its honesty. Mr. L. KING expressed his regret that the opposition to this bill should have been started on the Liberal side of the house, and, after referring, amid increasing signs of impatience, to the history of previous bills, accepted the measure as an honest settlement. 'Up to this period the debate had been conducted in a thin and somewhat languid and inattentive house, but when Mr. Disraeli rose, at 25 minutes past 10, the benches rapidly filled, and the cheers and counter-cheers began to flow from side to side with increasing warmth and rapidly as each telling point was delivered. Mr. DISRAELI (who was received with loud cheering) said—Mr. Speaker, before I address myself to the amend ment of the noble lord the member for Chester, I will make one remark upon the many reasons put forth for the intro duction of the Government measure. We have to deal with the twofold question of Parliamentary pledges and of Mi nisterial promises. As to the first of these, they may be ful filled ; as to the second, they have been violated. Now, sir, the house will be cautious in accepting some views on this head of the subject which have been put forward in this debate. In the course of it some members have touched a very dangerous question. Hitherto the freedom of Parlia ment has been the boast of our predecessors; but the free dom of Parliament does not mean merely freedom of discus sion, and freedom from arrest ; it means also, above all our other privileges, liberty of legislation. (Cheers.) When we hear of Parliament being pledged to a particular course, are we to understand that the conduct of a preceding Par liament is to deprive us of the enjoyment of the highest and most exalted of our functions ? In this country great authorities on the subject have been most jealous of any attempt made on`the liberty of legislation enjoyed by Par liament, and they have maintained that in a constitutional country like England a different principle must be recog nised from that which prevails in Imperial Cabinets. (Hear, hear.) I shall not argue a question of this sort without great reserve, but we shall all agree that no Par liament can be bound by the acts of its predecessors, except so far as they obtain the form and force of law, though Parliament, doubtless, enjoys the power to review them. That course is for example and instruction, and we should be indeed indifferent to the highest sources of political wisdom in such a country as England if we disregarded the precedents of those who preceded us in this house. This is a question which must depend merely upon any casual vote of a single House of Parliament. I maintain that this is a question which we are free to consider. (Hear, hear.) Let us look at the question of pledges founded on the conduct of public men. It may be possible that states men may have entered upon rash engagements upon a subject of fatal import, but it does not follow that, under a different set of circumstances, they are to follow out a course of which they do not approve, and which, upon consideration, they believe to be unwise and inexpedient. lam told there is one ground on which to appeal to Parliament for its interference, and that is when you bring forward a measure which has been called for, and which seems adapted to its end. But I will take the question out of the regions of obstruction. Is this Parlia ment pledged to Parliamentary Reform ? If ever there was a Parliament not pledged to reform it must be the present. We know that a Cabinet Council was held before the disso lution of the late Parliament to consider the subject, and they decided upon the course which the Ministry should pursue. We know that the chief organ of the Government in this house expressed what the decision was at which the Cabinet had arrived on this subject; that the Cabinet had arrived at the decision that they wouldnot go to the country upon the question of reform, nor in any way pledge them selves on that question. We know that,under these circum stances, the Chief Minister issued an address which in this country we regard as the programme of a political party, and in that address to his constituents, issued immediately, the very word reform does not appear. We know also that when the new Parliament assembled the Government, with very great discretion, having probably themselves decided upon what they could do in the matter—having decided probably on submitting a measure of reform to the house— did not commit themselves in the Address from the Crown in any manner which could for a moment be supposed to be an expression of opinion. They only promised us papers. Therefore, so far as the present Parliament is con- t , earned, every gentleman, I think, will agree that we are perfectly free to act in the manner which we think best for the country. Now, let ice ask if existing statesmen have broken their promise, for that is a very serious charge ; and it was made on the high authority of the Secretary of State for the Department of War, who represents, as he informed us on a memorable occasion, the educated por tion of the public. (Laughter.) He ought not to have made that statement, imputing broken promises to public men, among whom chiefly figures his own leader, without due re flection. But it is my duty on this occasion to vindicate the conduct of Lord Russell—(a laugh)—which lam prepared to do. Lord Russell thought fit in 1852, for a reason to which the hon. gentleman has just referred, to introduce a new reform bill, in itself a very good one, and a long time will probably elapse before we see so good a one. There was only one great fault, an d that was nobod y wanted it. (Loud cheering.) Years elapsed. Lord Russell had not relinquished his policy, and in 1859 he had an opportunity of asserting that policy and inducing his party to support it, and by so doing he became Minister and was obliged to bring forward a bill. Did he break that pledge ? He in a reform bill ; and does anybo d y doubt his sin cerity respecting that reform bill. Some allusion had been made to the emotion he expressed when he withdrew that bill. I saw in it no subject for derision, and publicly ex pressed my sympathy with him. (A laugh.) I want to know where is • the violated promise. Lord Russell felt some emotion when he withdrew his bill, but the circum stance led to something more important than the withdrawal of the bill, for it led to the withdrawal of Lord Russell from this house, and therefore he fulfilled his promise. So far, then, as Lord Russell was concerned, I hold that the charge made by the Secretary of State of broken vows on the part of public men is not founded. I take it for granted that Lord Russell may be taken as a fair representative of the Whig party, and therefore no pledge has been broken by them. Let me make one remark in reference to an ob servation made by the Secretary for the Home Department. He reproached this side of the house for having defeated the Reform Bill of 1860. (No.) Who says "no" ? That gentleman could not have been a member of the house at the time, and he could not have availed himself of the authen tic information which is at everybody's command. In the year 1861 an earnest reformer, or, to avail myself of the new epithet adopted by all their journals, a "robust" re former, absolutely moved an amendment on the Ad dress, reproaching Lord Russell with his treachery to the Reform party. Lord Russell made a statement of his views to this house as to his conduct respecting the Reform Bill ; and to that statement I refer all gentlemen who wish for accurate information on the subject. It is a most interesting one. He said that he had given up the Reform Bill because ' he found that it was opposed by the Liberal party—(hear) and not only by the Liberals, but chiefly by those mem bers of the party who represented large constituencies; and he said that he expected that the country would have supported it by indignation meetings throughout England, but none were called, and he found that apathy pervaded both the country and the Liberal party, and therefore he gave up the question of. Reform. Ho left this house, and the only time since when we have heard of him on this question was on that memorable time when ho advised a state of tranquillity. (A laugh.) Therefore I say that the Whig party, as represented by Lord Russell, have broken no vow. Lord Derby was sent for by the Queen in 1858. There was in the House of Commons at that time a majo rity against him of 140, and under these circumstances he thought it his duty to decline the great honour that her Majesty was graciously pleased to offer him. But he gave a reason, and that was that he was not only in a great minority, but that there was such a feeling in Parliament that the Reform question would be brought forward, and he would be put in a minority on it. Although Lord Derby declined office at that period, her Majesty, after de liberation, again applied to Lord Derby, and if the minority against him had been 240 instead of 140 it would have been inipossible for him to have refused. (Cheers.) But that happened which he had anticipated. We were n©t six weeks in office before the question of reform was brought forward by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Locke King), and we were in a minority. It was quite impossible for Lord Derby to retire from office, but it was absolutely necessar y that he should consider his position. Now I come to the real reason that made Lord Russell, in 1852, and Lord Derby, in 1859, bring for ward reform bills. Sir, I consider these facts most neces sary and pertinent to the discussion. (Hear, hear.) If there was any one subject of which any man was master, lard Russell was master of the Subject of reform. It was to THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-, APRIL 28. 1866. that ought to exist ? (Cheers.) Tho hon. member for Rochdale— Mr. BRIGHT dissented. Mr. DISRAELI—WeII, he may be, or some of the lion. member's friends may be, standing for Rochdale, and per haps not very high on the poll, but sufficiently so to make them feel a little anxious about three o'clock, and what would they say if a stalwart body of Yorkshire or Lanca shire farmers came riding into Rochdale town, and on the faith of some old franchise in the county, prefer voting for Rochdale town instead of voting for the county? (Cheers.) Wo should soon hear from the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham a new argument for parliamentary reform to put an end to such an injustice. (Loud cheers.) All the boroughs is the north, as a general rule, are in this condi tion. All the boroughs of Lancashire, the West Riding, the counties of Durham and Chester are in the same con dition. (Hear, hear.) It is not easy to put precise informa tion before the house, because we have not got authentic returns, but that is the thing of which I complain. (Cheers.) But we have it every now and then in our power to illus trate the case. I will take the case of the town of Halifax, which has a population within its parliamentary borough of 38,000. Now we have there, fortunately, a more recent political creation than the parliamentary boundary, the municipal franchise, and we have a return of the muni cipal population within the boundary, and we find that whereas the population is 38,000 within the parliamentary boundary there are 60,000 within the municipal borough—(cheers) —and the consequence will be that there will be 20,000 of that population who are to be county voters. (Cheers.) I want to know if that is a state of affairs which is ;to bs tolerated when you have before you a scheme of parliamentary reform—(hear)—which cer tainly a fortnight ago was not a complete and conclusive one ? (Cheers.) This state of things is not peculiar to the north of England. I will now take the borough of Bir mingham, which the hon. gentleman certainly represents, and what is the state of affairs there ? Why, it is much more monstrous than that of the northern boroughs to which I have alluded. (Hear.) The population beyond the parliamentary borough of Birmingham—and when you walk along the streets you cannot see a line of demarca tion with regard to the boundary, but you eee, like London and Westminster, a homogeneous community, with the same feelings and interests, but the population beyond the parliamentary boundary is immense. In the neighbourhood of Aston alone, taken from a person whose name cannot be questioned, because he has the means officially of mak ing the return, there are 2,000 persons who could qualify under the £lO clause, but who do not vote for the borough of Birmingham, which they ought to do. (Cheers.) But he says that 1,400 of them will immediately qualify under this bill, if it passes, as county voters. (Cheers.) Is this, I again ask, a state of affairs which ought to be permitted ? And if you pass this bill with all these anomalies left mare moved, what, I ask, will be the condition of the county constituency ? (Loud cheers.) I take it there may be indi viduals in this house—l will not dwell on their eccentric opinion—(laughter)—but take it for granted that a great many of the members of this house who wish to retain the legitimate influence of land in the interests of England as one of the best securities of public liberty, and the only security for local government. (Cheers.) I take it, I say, that that is the feeling of both sides of the house ; but can you do this if you make this great change in this imper fect manner—(cheers) —and do not ask, as the amendment does, to have before you a complete scheme ? (Hear.) 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, and that it ought to be remedied that Lord Derby did not bring forward a remedy for it. In the first place, that is not au argument, but only a captious remark. (Cheers and laughter.) If there be a great evil, and if I have shown that there is one and it is permitted, it is not the slightest argument to say that Lord Derby, placed in a similar position, did not remedy it. If they take him as their model, and avow that their Government is established on the principle of imitating Lord Derby, then there world be something in the remark—(hear)-- but it is not the case, and, therefore, it is no argument whatever. (Cheers.) But is it true that Lord Derby neg lected this question ? (Hear, hear.) Is it not true, on the other hand, that Lord Derby, in the bill which I had the honour of introducing into this house on his behalf, pro posed to enact that the day that hill passed there should be a compulsory revision of all the boundaries of the Par liamentary boroughs ? (Loud cheers.) And was not that plan combined with an arrangement which would have rendered it morally certain that it would have passed with facility and promptitude (cheers)—because the great difficulty in passing a boundary bill hon. gentlemen well know, or have heard, when the bill of 1832 passed was settling the boundaries. It was a constant source of misrepresentation and imputation, of injustice and con-up tion, because the boundary commissioners under the reform bill of 1832 were appointed by the Government; but Lord Derby, profiting by his experience, took their appointment from the Government and gave the duty to the enclosure commissioners. (Cheers.) And I might add that the late Mr. Ellice, who m as a great partisan and admirer of Lord Derby's bill, though be voted against it (laughter)—said that that part of the bill was so perfect that we had solved a great difficulty, and he defied any one to make a party question out of the decisions as to the allotments by the enclosure commissioners. And he and every person did approve entirely of that plan ; but we have now nothing personal in respect of it. (Hear, hear.) I have asked the house to consider the effects of this immense population that has spread beyond the parliamentary boroughs upon the county constituencies, if some measure is not brought in by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) And I have shown you that from these millions an immense population may be enfranchised, under this bill, which will be a county constituency, yet have no sympathy whatever with the counties. (Cheers.) I do not for a moment pretend that there is any more political principle in the figure of £4O in the counties any more than there is in the figures of £lO in boroughs, but they have the advantage of having been settled and that some degree of prescription has gathered round them. But you disturb the settlement of 1832, and I am, therefore, ready to consider the revision of the county franchise. And I say there is a principle in the county franchise when you deal with it, and the prin ciple is this—it must be a county franchise—(hear, hem)—it must be a suffrage exercised by those who have a natural relation with the chief property and in dustry of the county. (Cheers.) They must be and ought to be members of the same community, and not strangers, whose thoughts, feelings, interests, capital, and labour are employed and occupied in another industry. (Cheers.) That is the principle I contended for. (Hear, hear.) I have shown what must be the effect on the county constituencies if thousands, and for aught I know hundreds of thousands whom this great population will produce under this bill in the revision of the constituency. I now ask the house to consider what will be the effect oil the county constituencies of the population of those boroughs which are not parlia mentary boroughs. (Hear.) That is the next step in consi dering the county constituencies. The house knows very well that in almost every county in England there are towns exceeding 5,000 population that are not represented —are strictly agricultural towns, but have a keen sympathy with the property and industry of the counties in which theyare situated; no apprehension need be felt as to the general population possessing votes under this bill because there is a community of interest and feeling between them, and they would, no doubt, vote for those men who best represented their interests. But where large towns spring up with an interest adverse to the counties, if those persons are allowed suddenly to exercise the franchise in a community with which they have little sympathy and interest great injustice will be done. (Hear, hear.) I ask you, therefore, to support the legitimate influence of the land. (Cheers.) In the bill of 1859, which was referred to by the hon. member for Birmingham the other night, there was an allotment of seats which he spoke of with some contempt, though he was obliged to admit the allotment was most efficient. (Hear, hear.) 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 15,000 that was unrepresented. That would greatly relieve the effect the bill would have had upon the county consti tuencies. (Hear, hear.) What will be the effect on unre presented towns by the reduction of the franchise on the county constituencies the Government tell ns we must wait till we see their bill for the re-distribution of seats. (Hear, hear.) My first and principal answer to the Government on hwhat security have we if we ons h e of this bill to-night that subsequentee would s onaturallyn dmeasures be,reading which t a consent subjectt nt t o t the the amend ment calls for, and whi4h all now acknowledge to be absolutely necessary, will be passed also ? No speech that we have heard has met that ar gument; even the new device—the pari passu devisee—of which we have heard so much, does not in the slightest degree m ee t it , b ecause you cannot understand the action of this measure without hav ing the whole scheme before you, and, therefore, you ought not to be asked to approve of the pri nc i p l e. But you may go on with the pari passu principle —you may pass this bill by one step, and by another the other may be thrown out You may pass the Franchise Bill on Monday, and on Thurs day the Seats Bill may be thrown out. (Cheers.) But I will not insist on that primary objection, because it hasbeen treated on so much ; but it was necessary t o my argumen t that I should briefly refer to it. There are on this subject other objections which appear to me t o b e wort h y o f t h e gravest consideration of this house. The Government say "-We are going to produce a Seats Bill which will meet all the objoctisns with reference to the population of the unre presented towns." Well, my question is, What are you going to do with the counties? You will find when you pursue that subject, and 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, and I will prove it, for you to come to any sensible and satisfactory decision of the amount of what the county franchise should be. (Cheers.) But I want to know first what security we have at this moment that any bill for the distribution of seats will be brought forward at all, be cause the other night the President of the Board of - Trade whom I did not intend to interrupt the other night when I spoke across the table —told the house that on this most important subject we have the engagement of the Prime Minister. Wo have no engagement of the Prime Minister —that can only be given by the Prime Minister in his place in Parliament or by some document placed on the table of the house. But the Prime Minister has made no speech in his place in Parliament, nor has any document been laid on this table which gives us any information. (Cheers.) The right hen. gentleman alluded to a speech that bad been made at a private meeting of the followers of the Government—and which was printed in certain newspapers—in order to influence their votes. Therefore it was necessary for me to ask what engagement he made, and the right hon. gentleman replied that the engagement was an engagement given by Lord Russell at a private meeting, which has now been publicly recognised in this house, and the right hon. gentleman said that engagement was " to lay on the table of the house a bill that will show the intention of the Government with regard to the dis tribution of seats, and to proceed with that bill with a view to carry out as soon as circumstances shall permit." This is a very dangerous phrase, and it will show you that it was 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. It is abso lutely necessary that the house should carry in their minds —and know they have it - the comparative claims to repro sentation of laud and of the boroughs. lam sure the house will recollect it, but it is in round numbers 9,350,000 the population in the boroughs, against 11,400,000 in the counties, 514,000 electors in the boroughs against 501,000 in the counties, X 33,000,000 of rateable property in boroughs, against .£60,000,000 in the counties; but you must bear in mind—l will put it before you very shortly, the most perfect and pregnant calculation on a subject of this kind that was I believe ever made. I propose for a moment that the house should consider this proposition to transfer to counties the representation of all boroughs under 500 elec tors. Let us see what that is —there are 87—and see what the result would be of transferring to counties all boroughs under 500 electors, being 87 seats. It would be necessary, of course, to deduct this population from the boroughs and add it to the counties. The result would be, the population would then be a little under 9,000,000, and the population of the counties a little under 12,000,000 ; the electors of the boroughs 492,000 against 523,000 electors in the counties. The rateable value of the boroughs would be about X 34,000,000, against £59,500,000 in the counties. None of these great quantities much change, but instead of the boroughs having 334 members, and the counties 162, the boroughs would have 247 members, and the counties 249 ; therefore, by disenfranchising 87 boroughs and 500 elec tors, and giving them all to the counties, you still would not entirely remedy the balance. (Cheers.) It is necessary the house should bear in mind that striking instance of the singular inequality there is in the relative representation of the counties and boroughs. Well, sir, then under these circumstances 1 address to the Government the question— what aro you going to do with the counties? You are going to:increase representation in the boroughs—you are going to transfer the representation of small boroughs to larger boroughs in counties that are not represented, and so far you relieve the county constituencies from the possible danger of being absorbed in a great degree by the popula tion of those towns; but at the same time I ask what are you going to do in the counties ? (Hear, hear.) Now, look here : are you, in the first place, going to add a great many members to counties and a great many or more mem bers to the counties' and some to the large towns ? On what principle are you going to act ? Do you mean to establish plurality of representation when you shrink from plurality of voting in your constituent body ? (Hear.) Do you mean to say that members are to come here to represent numbers instead of opinions ? I ask this because on your determina tion of these points and your conduct our decision as to the amount of county franchise entirely depends. Or have you found eut—as they have found out before you—and no doubt Lord Russell, in his long studies and numerous ex periments has found out—have you found out that that plan would be extremely inconvenient and impossible ; that it would not faithfully represent the country, and the constituencies would find greater difficulty than they now do in getting members? Would you have recourse then to a system of further division of the counties and the Go vernment boroughs and cities ? Well, we want a decision on that point, because on that point depends the judgment that we can arrive at as to the amount of the county con stituencies. I will give an instance. Take the county of Middlesex—half is a rural community and the rest a very flourishing suburban county, it is not large but rich ; if you give it four members by adding two, you will have four suburban members with your £l4 franchise ; but if on the other hand you divide the county, and give two members to the rural population and two to the suburban, then it is possible that the £l4 franchise will give us two good bo rough members and two excellent county members. (Hear.) Therefore I contend that unless we have the whole scheme before us it is utterly impossible to arrive at any conclusion as to the amount of the county franchise, therefore I ask what can be more rational than the amendment of the noble lord ? If it be true there are to be futher measures let us have them all, for without them we cannot come to a decision. I cannot conceive what argument can be urged against this claim. We have a right to ask the Government, generally speaking, what is theplan on which they mean to proceed with regard to the disposition of seats ? At present, not a word has yet been said on the subject by the Government ; but those who have avowedly a very great influence with the Government have made speeches and written on the subject, and if we are to take those speeches as intimations of what the Government in tends to do, to my mind the course they are going to pur sue is most unjust and injurious to the landed interest—. that is to say, to England, because I say the legitimate in terest of the land is the interest of England. Nothing is more simple than the mode, according to the last state ment of the distribution of seats. I have always considered the distribution 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. He must have general general principles to guide him, est modes in rebus. He cannot apply them with extreme severity. He must apply them with great forbearance, and consideration of various interests of the country, and any one who has to deal with the subject knows that it is one in which forbearance and temper and considerable knowledge of the complicated in terests of the country is required. But this is not the opi nion of those who seem to have corresponding influence on this question—because the last thing I have seen or heard is that iu the North of England there is a flourishing borough with a population of 100,000, doing what is called a roar ing trade, which hes two members in this house. Then there is a small borough in the south, with a population of 5,000 or 10,000. It is quite asleep, with merely a country market. Now can there be anything more anomalous, that this great borough of the north, with its groat population, its great industry, should be represented in the house by two members in the same manner as this little borough in the south ? The thing is utterly indefensible, and if 1 were in the Music-hall of Birmingham, it might not be difficult for me to :produce very great effect by disclaiming it. There is nothing so easy as to disfranchise the borough in tho south. Yes ; but the moment you do that there is a new issue arising. That issue is no longer between the borough in the north and the borough in the south, but the issue is between the borough in the north and a district in the south, equal in population and property, but which is im perfectly, inadequately represented. I will take the great county of Kent, of West Kent. The population at this moment is about half a million. There are several flourish ing boroughs and towns in this county—flourishing boroughs, four towns I think—and their aggregate popula tion exceeds 100,000. They are represented by eight mem bers, while the county itself is represented by only two members —very capital members I admit--but still only two. Well, Kent says, there is a borough in the south of Eng land, close to us, in the next county, which is to be dis franchised, and its members given to a borough in the north of England, because it has a great trade, and has 100,000 inhabitants. But surely the 400,000 men of Kent ought to be considered. It is a very wealthy, a very progressive, and a very proud county ; and they say, very naturally, if the borough in the south is to be disfranchised why give the members to the north ? Why not give more representa tives to the county of Kent ? (Hear, hear.) And, there fore, sir, it is not so simple an issue as those who are in favour of these sweeping changes would tell us. I think the argument is unanswerable. It is not to be answered by a statement I read to-day, made by a member of the house at a public meeting, that the superiority of population and property in the north would no longer admit the pre sent state of representation of boroughs to remain. 1 think it is most unwise to have these constant comparisons be tween the north and the south. (Hear, hear.) if so, we shall have a state of things like that in America. We shall have secession at last, or, as Mr. Canning said, "bring back the Heptarchy." (Hear, hoar.) I do not want to make compari sons between the north and south. Whatever you do with your representation a wise statesman would take care that the representation be spread over the country. (Hear, hear.) But as these statements are made and this sort of rantipole rhetoric prevails, I must deny that the north of England has a superiority over the south in population and pro perty. (Hear, hear.) It is not true. Taking the tradi tional and acknowledged line of demarcation—namely, the River Trent —the population and property of the south are equal and superior to the population and property of the north. I have heard an answer to this—that fortu nately for the south it includes the metropolis. Mr. BRIGHT—Hear, hear. Mr. DISRAELI—Hear, hear? Is that any reason why the population, the intelligence, and the property of the metropolis should not prefer their claim before those now boroughs? (Hear, hear.) Suppose I were to say to the hon. member for Birmingham, who cheered me, " You are always speaking of the great predominance of population and pro perty and industry of the north, but you know that if you take off from the north the West Riding of Yorkshire and South Lancashire, you in the north will not go for much." This plan, therefore, of disfranchising the boraughs in tho south to enfranchise boroughs in the north will not stand a moment's consideration. The problem is a very difficult ono and must be approached with more calmness and with more comprehensive views. (Hear, hear.) I would stop 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. (Hear, hear.) I have too much confidence in the country. (Hear, hear.) I think there is sense and spirit and creative power in this kingdom to form a governm ent, but I think it would end in the destruction of parliament. (Hear, hear.) You might get rid of the House of Commons. I hope you will not destroy England; but you will get rid of the House of Commons. Suppose the Gov ernment make up their minds to-night, as for anything I know they may do, to meet the case on a great scale, and astonish the house with a - new scheme founded on their statistics. Suppose they say "we are prepared to disfranchise those 87 boroughs which have not 500 electors; we cannot promise to give all the members to the land, notwithstanding it is entitled to them, but look ing at the matter as statesmen, we will endeavour to esta blish a fair balance of the constitution, and wo will as far as possible represent population and property blended, and at the same time we will now and then allot representatives to some distinctive interest." Suppose they do that, what would happen? If the house will permit me I will tell them. This would probably occur first. I do not suppose that you will have a Parliament in the confidence of the country. You will have a great Parliament. If you adopted electoral dis tricts to-morrow you would have a great Parliament owing to the character of the individuals, the great progress, and great interests, and the great landlords, and the great manufacturers and some merchants it would include. But, after a short time, you will find you do not have the hold over the executive pctiver as you have over the old system. The want of variety in the elements of the house will cause that. Well, in proportion as your command over the ex ecutive recedes, your great proprietors and your great manufacturers would cease to belong to a house of which tThhneoinfluence and the importance proportionately the story will be that the House of Commons is not what it was, and then you must extend the franchise to manhood or to universal suffrage, and you will not advance loseyou your c c o a m s e You m . andw overi l 1 thhaevea executive. ox w h . c h That) will entirely t always happe nsevery m thea considersm oment you him s h e ave universal suffrage ; further,good as any other. W e ll , then, whentheHolu f se m as o ns is en tirely without any as of be c i o ng c ommand over the executive m it will be in the condition of Continental th ose popular assemblies that we have seen rise up and rience. There will b e no superior education, class, no evidence o f h istoric lineagetin; disappear n o ar within our perspec tiveexpe- rience. will not have any of the great famili es round which; you w to rally when liberty is assailed. There will b e no eloquence, no learn ing, no genius. But you will ha ve a horde of ' selfish and obscure mediocrities capable of nothing but mischief, and that mischief devised and regulated by th e raging dema gogue of the time. (Loud cheers.) Now, s i r, I think I fhaveranc shown,franchise anddunert Nwith heads, someas the reason, influence—if in viewi ng the c o unty h a reduction of the franchise—the influence of the popula tion in non-parliamentary boroughs. Unless we aro in formed precisely what the Government intend to do with them, I think I have shown the house that it is imp os .. Bible for us to form any opinion as to the expediency of the change they propose, and of the appropriateness of the sum which they fix for the amount of the county franchise, unless we have before us further in formation. And what is the amendment of the noble lord? It asks for that further information. And what surprises me is that the amendment should have been resisted. I do not see why it should not have been anticipated, and why the Government should not have felt that they have taken a false step. It is unfair to say that the opposition was the cause of the Government taking this limited move. That is not only unjust—that is not only ungenerous, but it is not a well-founded charge. It is upon record that although we disapproved of the measure of Lord Russell in 1860, it was permitted to be read a second time, being a competitive measure. Therefore our opposition is not open to that charge, and I never can understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have taken the view which he has taken in this case, and which he has avowel with so much bitterness, relative to the amendment of the noble lord. It is not only a rational amendment, but an amendment expressed in language so clear, so simple, and so significant that it cannot be misunderstood. I know there is nothing so difficult as to draw up an amendment. But Lord Rus sell in his time was considered as able to devise a cunning amendment as any man. And if the amendment of the noble lord (Grosvenor) were a device, as some have pre tended it to be, instead of a reflex of his own mind—if it were a cunning amendment, I can imagine that Earl Rus sell must have felt the sympathy of a master mind. But what is the motion that would have suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? The Opposition has been most unjustly attacked. The house is not satisfied with the course which you have taken. It is impossible for us not to op pose it. (Cheers.) If the noble lord had not come forward, somebody on this side of the house must have done so. (Ministerial cheers.) The principle of a complete measure has been approved of, and we must have opposed the measure for the reasons I have stated in reference to the -county franchise. (Cheers.) I want to know, under these circumstances, what motion the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would like. The other day I was looking over the records of a celebrated assembly—l will not say so cele brated as the House of Commons, although no doubt men as illustrious belonged to it—l allude to the records of a period precisely similar to the present. It was at the time the great Reform Bill was introduced in 1831. The country was greatly agitated, and in that assembly the whole ques tion was brought forward and a motion was made on the subject on May 16, 1831, at Wyatt's rooms. The Parlia mentary Reform Bill was brought before the Oxford Union, and an ardent member (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) moved the following resolution :—" That the present Ministry is incompetent to carry on the Government of the country." (Cheers and laughter.) That motion was supported—ono remembers it almost with a sigh—by Mr. Sidney Herbert. But there was a member who was not satisfied with Mr. Hugessen's amendment, and on the next day he moved the following rider :—" That the Ministry has unwisely in troduced and most unscrupulously forwarded a measure which threatens not only to change the form of our Go vernment, but untimely to break up the very foundations of social order, as well as materially to forward the views of those who are pursuing these projects throughout the civilised world." (Cheers and cries of " Oh, oh.") Now I shall be willing to take that amendment instead of that of the noble lord now before the house. It was moved by Mr. Gladstone, of Christ Church. (Cheers and laughter.) It only proves how difficult it is to devise an amendment that will please everybody. But that is an amendment to which I should be prepared fully to assent, because I think the Ministry have "unwisely introduced, and most unscrupulously forwarded," a measure of similar descrip tion. (Cheers.) I wish to speak strictly with reference to the amendment of the noble lord ; but there is one point connected with a clause in the bill on which I must just touch. I mean the clause referring to leaseholds. (Hear.) That alone would prevent us entertaining the present bill, because it is a suggestion that has not been made with a sufficient knowledge of the subject. It has always been considered a great anomaly that free holders in towns should vote in counties on behalf of freeholds that were in towns. At the tidle of the Re form Bill Lord Althorp was favourable to a provision that all freeholders should vote where freeholds were situated. (Hear, hear.) The Cabinet did not take that line, but there was a stout resistance on the part of certain Whig gentlemen (hear, hear). A great deal is to be said in favour of the old franchise. We attempted to deal with it, not merely because it was an anomaly, because it had been terribly abused, but a number of split votes had been made. I do not think it can be defended, but still prescription was in its favour. Government have, however, gone out of their way to aggravate the ano maly (hear). I think they must have done so without un derstanding what the effect would be, because my hon. friend the member for Stamford told us the other night that in a town in his district 5,000 voters would be added under this qualification (hear). I wish now to speak of the borough franchise.. The reduction of that franchise is the real cause of the introductien of this bill, and the wish to introduce the working classes to a fair share of the franchise is the real motive for reducing the franchise. 1 speak on the subject without reserve, because it would not be becoming a public man to speak on such a subject with reserve (hear). I shall divest the question of all sentiment, After the speeches of the right hon. baronet the member for Herts, and of the noble lord the member for Stanford, I need not say a word on that point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard quite enough of sentimentality, and I have no wish to taunt him on that subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks if we are afraid of the working men. I don't think that is the question before us. I take it for granted that gentlemen on this side are not afraid of working men or anything else. (Hear, hear). The question is not whether we are afraid of working men, but whether we can improve the consti tution (hear, hear). I take the constitution of England to be not a phase, but a fact. I hold it to be founded on strict principles, and to have definite aims (hear, hear). I hold the constitution to be a monarchy limited by co-ordinate bodies of subjects vested with privileges and duties for their own defence and for the common good (hear, hear.) They are called Estates of the Realm, and of these is the Estate of the Commons, of which we are the represen tatives. Of course, the elements of the Commons must vary and be modified according to the vicissitudes and changes in a country like England. (Hear.) Nevertheless, in the original scheme of the Plantagenets, which always f guided us, the Commons consisted of the proprietors land, citizens, burgesses, and skilled artisans. i l ha wi cl i as to s, preserve, to foster, e constitu but I wish to retain the original character departo from the and, if necessary, to increfaishe t tion, to legislate in its spirit, and not to le and necessary in genius of the original scheme. (Hear.,) any estate of the Commons must t b e e P represent an with (Ifear.) Our any age like this, and they "'serous enough to be inde-, The elements of constituent body should be n to un b t e resp onsible. (Hear-) We, pendent, and select enough When we had indiscriminate multitude, enjoy, and also entrusted with duties the representatives of the but 7 , privileges which they e ra t a ni b u o n d l y tY o ' f d i o ne n n ot en r d e in 1858-59 we d to discuss a what to consider this question • of skilled artisans was in the Plantagenet the proportion which they must perform. (Hear, hear.) sc h eme , and was after inquiry it represented t o b e about of the eonstituent body. That did no t one -eighth seem to us to be enough. (Hear.) We had to consider how that number could be increased, and first whether that should be done by a reduction of the borough franchise. We be lieved that to be a convenient arrangement, and we decided never to hesitate taking the question whether we should reduce the borough franchise, or whether we should exclude the working classes from a fair share of electoral power. We never hesitated on that point. (Hear.) We believed that it was most dangerous to reduce the borough franchise, for we did not see, if this reduction were commenced,where it was to end, and we thought that the reduction would not obtain the entrance into the constitution of the very people whom you desired to see admitted. But we en deavoured by other means to obtain this result for them, and upon careful consideration we calculated that by these other means, some of which have been adopted from us by o fs t o h t ir i tt s 7l eGnheotvoet body.r t n o s e eneci efforts of fu ours, d double du s t le b e dko a n m onl o ov u st u flol t , rh o aa f t t i h nw e oau c sl o te n - tet wish to dwell upon the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for th 6 Home De partment taunted me because in 1859 I had expressed a willingness, on the part of the Government of Lord Derby, to reduce, if necessary, the b oroug h f ranc hi se ; b ut there was no inconsistency in this expression of mine. Sir, in cur appeal to the country we had to deal with a majority of 140 against us, and it was difficult to know what the effect of the appeal was, to know where the majority were. We were bound not to desert the subject, and after this appeal to the country we were ready to consider it. But., sir, has nothing happened since 1859 ? A period of seven years has elapsed, which, with regard to this question, have been the most remarkable in the history of England, for though the working classes are prosperous, and in a state of con tentment, they have not been studying the principles on which the representation ought to be founded ; on the con trary, during these seven years, while the country was thus progressive in its prosperity, the intellect of England and the thought of the most intelligent, and cultivated, and west enlightened of the country, have most intently been studying the principles of representation, and considering those questions which hitherto have baffled statesmen. (Hear.) Sir, Ido not give it as my opinion, but I give it as my observation of what I believe to be the opinion of the country-the opinion which regulates the affairs of this country-that the opinion of the cultivated, the thoughtful, the impartial, and the responsible, who view with favour, and are desirous that the choicest members of the working classes should form a part, and not an unimportant part, of the state of the Commons, recoils from obtaining this en by gross and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise. (Cheers.) That I believe to be the real opinion of the country and nobody has advanced that opinion more than the hon, member for Westminster himself. I listened with surprise to the speech made the other evening, because it was not at all consistent with his writings, and with those opinions of his which have so much influenced the convictions of society. (Cheers.) I do not taunt him with anything he wrote 25 years ago. I speak only of his present writings. I will speak only of the last edition of his latest book tpwoorltiiittitiiecnnakl aftero events,v er t t he ea ns ud failure biaefct o te. f r 1859 -wri t t e n after that here, i eo r e rwe l y , hh e i e n cia c s o ui n sne s , i f s tent with the Ah v el views e h experi ment of Lord John Russell, and when his mind was full of s vt a n d sato fI tabundantrhead hon. opportunities uisn gentlemani teines vsfroiungreaohtfhiseeirn. from the purport of his speeches reduction of the aa from the most recent writingsdi l sc d r indiscriminate, the et a , theh,ooni however, nevoetran gentleman.g ,ther illimitablethatHe has, I know, been always in favour of an extension of the franchise, but modified by condition s of a character which. might have induced any gentleman on this side of the house to accept his proposition. (Cheers.) There was certainly to have been a representation of minorities, and in that chapter he said I was a : blunderer for refusing it. (A laugh.) I do not care what is said so that nothing is done that I do not approve of. (A laugh.) Then, again, plurality of voting is strongly enforced by the hon. gentleman ; but we did not hear of the rights of minorities or of plurality of voting in his speech the other night. (Cheers.) i admit that the hon. member is not only ker an extended but universal suffrage, although upon principles upon which I am not sure I myself would not advocate universal suffrage to-morrow. (Cheers and laughter.) The first principle is one upon which I need not dwell - it is that the suffrage should not be confined to the dark sex. (A laugh) I have always agreed that with universal suffrage women have as much right to vote as men ; and more than that, women in possession of property in a country where they can hold manorial rights, and sometimes elect a church warden. (Cheers.) But there is another condition, and it is one to which I must call the attention of the house, and particularly that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is that no man shall exercise the franchise who does not pay taxes. Gentlemen below the gangway, I know, will say, " Oh, everybody pays taxes-on tea, sugar, and tobacco." But that will not do for the hon. gentleman. He says, "I do not mean indi rect taxation-indirect taxes are no security whatever for the prudence of individuals or the fitness of them to have the vote-I must have direct taxes." Well, that seemed to me rather a difficulty- but I have immense confidence in b p e hi s l o o l s v o e p d h . ers s - ta (a tesm lau en gh a ) n -and a d n iffi ar c r u o l w ty r w a c o e u ld of men-they live in the limited sphere of experience, and you do not get much out of thorn if they leave that sphere. But a philosopher is an exuberant and an imaginative being, and the hon. gentleman was ready with an admirable expe dient, although it was certainly more simple than original ; and that was a poll-tax. (Hear, and laughter.) He said, "We must have universal suffrage in this country, but every man must pay direct taxation, and what I propose is that there should be a poll-tax." Well, it is a great thing to have a future, and we now know what will be the future of this country when the philosophical Cabinet, which I understand is intended, shall take its place on those . benches. (Laughter.) We know that there are preparing in the same armoury measures for imposing a poll-tax on England, combined with compulsory education and com pulsory cleanliness. (Renewed laughter.) I say we shall then be the admiration of cosmopolitan Europe, but this I fear, that before nine months shall have passed away the country will be in a state of insurrection. (Hear, and continued laughter.) There is one point of primary import ance which ought not to be evaded in this debate. I have laid down my views as to the position of the working classes with reference to their share in the constituencies. I wish them to take their position in the estate of the Commons and to have an adequate share of that great and privileged body. But what is the number of the working classes at present enfranchised ? That is a subject on which the greatest mystery exists, and on which the information that had been given to the house seems to have startled.everybody, and the ministers more than and other persons ; and yet it appears to me that it is one on which we ought to have accurate information before we can give any opinion upon this bill. There is one very startling fact. We used to be told when we had to deal with questions of this kind-we used always to be told that before the Re form Bill all the freemen and scot and lot voters were working men. That was always taken for granted; but now it turns out that at no period before the Reform Bill the majority of the freemen and the scot and lot voters were working men. On the contrary they were to be found in different classes of society, and many of them were among the gentry. We have a return of the number of freemen at the present moment. The freemen and scot and lot voters now amount to 60,478, of whom 28,000 belong to the working classes, so that the working classes form 45 per cent. of the whole body. That may be taken as a very good estimate of the relative proportions of the different classes at the time of the Reform Bill. There were then 108,000 freemen and scot and lot voters, of whom 48,000 may be assumed to have belonged to the working classes. At the time of the Reform Bill there were 174,000 £lO householders, and the working men appear to have then amounted to 68,000, while they are now, accordingto the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 128,000, so that they must have increased by 90 per cent. The result would be en seem to Buckingham s 0 1 . tW h il that they would form one-third of the borough population. One-third of the borough population is rather a fair pro portion, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says one fourth of the borough population, and if you take borough and county population it is only one-seventh. I think this is a fallacy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you want to estimate the amount of the working class interest in a borough you should calculate it by the borough constituency; if you do not you get a great preponderance; andif you want to calculate the number of the working lass you must take both counties and boroughs. On that subject we have no information. Did I say nothing ? (Hear, hear.) For I have something here which is rather startling. The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to doubt the state ment that the working classes had any share in the t county .oint ment." constituencies, and he spoke of the "fly in t l h lo e r p: . ,11.0 iEx chequertke:resnehsrriiviirinleac :s: ni e a n sdns t one to know the go intolim,oorkstinin ment." I have a doubt whether the Chanecoie of the highegs; effect tof wthase Land Society. o a c n ie d ty th . a o t n he th d is id icou first I entered Parliament there teresting details, but at thi b s Ae l r s a : w o t there area sixth of the population . (Hear, man, and now they hear.) But go to the analysis shire and Hertfordshir r o th w . of his township. He analyses authority gives n class, the middle class, and the lower middle the upper class, s oeially belong ing to the middle class; and th en h e com es to t h e working class, receiving weekly wages under 1 30s. lie sa y s as th orough a knowledge of the Wes t Riding as of this township, and declares that at this moment there are upwards of 15,000 working men, at w eekly wages, who possess the suffrage in the West Rid ing. (Cheers, and a single cry of "No" from the Ministe rial benches.) An hon, gentleman says " No ;" but he may digest it at his leisure. But here is a man who says he is a Conse rvative agent f or S outh Derbyshire-I do not know him -and he says that in South Derbyshire there are more 40s. freeholders than all the tenant-farmers and estate holders put together. I think I have shown that the condition of,the working classes in the West Riding is not such as has been stated. (Hear, hear.) The question is, have they or have they not their fair share of that estao of which they are and caro to be members ? (Hear, hear.) I say that you should inquire, that you should pause, that you should obtain a great amount of information before you make a change; but, above all, that you should act in house the • spirit of the English constitution. I thin k that this should remain a House of Commons, and not merely a house of the people, not the house of a mere indiscriminate multitude, devoid of any definite idea, and not responsible to society, having no duties and . no privileges. A re we to consider this subject in th e spirit of the constitution, or are we to meet it in the spirit of the American constitu tion ? (Hear.) I prefer to consider the question in the spirit of our own constitution. I approv e o f A mer i can institu tions as they are adapted to the country in which they exist. The point that I alway s consider is, whether the institutions of a country are adapted to the country where they flourish. But Ido not think that because a certain class of institutions may suit America, that therefore it should suit England. If I could see a body of intelligent him what the currency was to Sir R. Peel. No man knew its points more completely, or was more fully acquainted with all the bearings of the case. Lord Rimsell and Lord Derby were the only two existing statesmen who had been concerned in passing the Reform Bill of 1832, and it was well known that to their youthful energies the success of the measure was greatly, if not entirely, indebted. There fore, neither of them could look with any of that besotted prejudice which is imputed so frequently to both of those statesmen by different sections of politicians. Lord Russell was satisfied with the settlement of 1832 entirely, and he resisted all those attempts which year after year were made for a general and comprehensive change in our representa tive system, and resisted upon the principle of finality, and always successfully. But having resisted them successfully a new school of reformers arose, who were called piecemeal or bit-by-bit reformers; it is not au elegant but it is still a parliamentary expression. Persons who were called mode rate men, and who did not give themselves the trouble to think, took it into their heads that bit-by-bit reform was a very harmless thing, and that in any event it was better to do a little and stop agitation by bit-by-bit reforms, But Lord Russell knew that the distribution of power was the real point— (hear)—and that if you treated a single fran chise by itself, which moderate men miht think of no great importance, and did not treat other parts of the question, you might effect a complete change in the English consti tution. And, therefore, Lord Russell in 1852, when he was pressed, said, "What am I to do? The only way I can pre vent it is by devising a large, general measure." You know what happened with him—he went out of office. Lord Derby was in the same position; he had to resign the government of the country, which, not only as a man of honour, but as a practical man, he found it impossible to continue to hold. And this is exactly the case in which Lord Russell and Lord Derby were animated with the same views and objects. But the most singular thing is that Lord Russell is again minister, and we now have him introducing a measure of piecemeal Reform. (Cheers.) Well, sir, I leave shown the house that Parliament has not been pledged, and I think I have shown the house that there have been no broken vows on the part of the great parties of this country represented by their chief men, Lord Russell and Lord Derby. (Cheers.) What, then, is the origin of the present state of affairs ? The ori gin is this—that some 16 or 18 months ago, on a fine sum mer morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House of Commons appropriated to one of those dreary debates about a £6 franchise, to which we all look back with dread and horror—(cheers and laughter)—and he made a most remarkable speech, in which, he established the suffrage upon the rights of man. (Cheers.) And at the same time he announced his conviction that the working classes of the country, on whom he delivered a high pane gyric, possessed only an infinitesimal share of the suffrage. The inevitable consequence at which it pointed was that a large measure of Reform was to be brought forward, based on the approximation to the rights of man, which would include a great mass of the working classes. (Hear.) That speech was received with much enthusiasm by a party in this house—not a numerous party, but one represented by great talent—in the case of one individual by commanding talent, who possessed among his followers men of great in telligence, experience, and organisation. (Hear.) They had also a party in the country, not a contemptible party, but I do not think a predominant party. From that moment this party has been at work—working upon the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And, though checked for a moment by the prudence of Lord Palmerston, still it was clear that if he unfortunately left us a new character would be given to the administration, and the consequence of that event has been the measure now before us—(cheers) —a measure of piecemeal reform. (Renewed cheers.) Now I oppose it at once as a measure of piecemeal reform (cheers) and I support the amendment of the noble lord, to which I am now going almost strictly to confine myself. (Hear.) My great objection to the measure of Government is this —that I cannot, though others may, really understand it. I cannot calculate its consequences—l cannot fathom what may be the result of its provisions, unless I have this fur ther measure before me, which is essential to its complete ness. (Cheers.) But if Ido consider the measure without reference to any further measure, I think I can show the house that it must land us in a condition of such confusion as is little contemplated by the great body of ministers themselves and by those who may support it, that I verily declare, and I will give my authority for the proposition, that if this bill were passed, and on a subsequent occasion it became the duty of ministers to advise her Majesty to recur to the country—l do believe they would rather have an autumn session in order to revise and modify this bill before us, than they would really dissolve Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I propose to show, in the first instance, in the clearest manner, the inconvenience and immense in jury that may be produced by this bill if it pass alone —and we must consider that it is given us as a complete measure —and we are asked to-night to assent to its principles. (Hear, hear.) Ido not think that I can put the case in a more convenient manner than by taking the county franchise as represented by the hon. member for York. (sear, hear.) Now I have never been a stickler for an ex clusive county franchise. My convictions upon the sub ject were taken from my earliest political friend, my pre decessor in the seat I hold, who was the author of the Chandos clause. And he convinced me that the principle on which that clause was based was the right principle. It was supported at the time by Mr. Hume and the leaders of the Liberal party. It was opposed by Lord Althorp, upon what I cannot but conceive would be thought,in these days in which we live, old-fashioned notions (hear, hear)-- namely, that you should confine the suffrage of counties entirely to proprietors, and that in boroughs exclusively to occupiers. (Hear, hear.) But in 1832, when you were ostentatiously, avowedly, and -properly giving a large share in the Government of the country to the middle classes, it did seem most monstrous and inconsistent that one of the most important sections of the middle class—l say the most important, as the largest employers of labour, namely, the farmers of England, should have no suffrage (cheers). I think that the measure proposed by Lord Chandos was a wise and a proper measure. The bill now before us proposes a very large reduction in the occupa tion of franchise of counties. Now I want to show the house how that will act if this bill, which is brought in as a com plete bill, is passed. And I propose to show that, first of all, by considering the effect of the proposed franchise in counties from the population in Parliamentary boroughs (hear). The house, perhaps, has not realised as it ought the increase in the population of Parliamentary boroughs since the act of 1832. It is very large—it is larger than the population of several European kingdoms. The in crease in the population of Parliamentary boroughs is con siderably above 4,000,000 (hear, hear). And the greater proportion of this population is located without the boun daries of the Parliamentary boroughs (hear, hear). I know it may be said that a considerable portion of this in crease is produced by the metropolitan districts. I think it is very likely that the greater proportion of the increase in the metropolitan districts may be within the Parlia mentary boroughs ; though I have no doubt the increase of the population of the metropolitan boroughs may be considerably affected by the contiguous counties of Essex, Surrey, and Kent. But I think it is better to deduct that population, and then there will be an increase in the Par liamentary boroughs of upwards of 3,000,000 of men, the greater portion cf whom are located without the boun daries (hear, hear). Ido not know that I can give a hap pier instance of that fact than that borough from which I presented a petition to-day—which borough the Chancellor in his opening speech referred to as a conclusive proof of the undesirable position of the suffrage as regarded the working classes, and which was made the subject of an eloquent comment in the admirable speech of my right hon. friend the member for Herefordshire (Sir E. Lytton), and which was urged by the right hon. member for Bir mingham (Mr. Bright) as the main ground for the neces sity of this bill. I mean the borough of Rochdale (hear). I admit when you consider the general character of the artisans of the borough of Rochdale, which is the most flourishing part of the county, in which men have been long in possession of high wages, and in which men have the reputation of having shown some of the highest virtues of civil prudence; that when you refer to the books and find that they have only a nominal share in the representation ; that they have only 68 votes according to one authority, and 200 by another—but whether the numbers be more or less does not signify for my argument—l say lam ready to admit that that is a case which strikes one very much. (Hear, hear.) But when I have to examine the question minutely, I find that the population of Rochdale without the parliamentary beundaries is larger than that within the boundaries. (Hear, hear.) The boundaries of Rochdale are very peculiar. From the central place of the town there is only a radius of three quarters of a mile, and beyond that the population is spread over seven valleys in a very re markable manner. (Hear, hear.) The population without the parliamentary boundaries considerably exceeds the population within the parliamentary boundaries, and the great body of the workmen live in a portion of the town beyond the parliamentary boundaries. (Hear, hear.) I saw with interest the statement that the mills belonging to the family of the hon. member for Birmingham—mills of a considerable extent—aro all without the boundaries. The proprietors employ at this moment about 1,000 bands, and I believe, without exception, every one of those hands lives without the boundaries. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BRIGHT—No ; the great bulk of them live within the borough. Mr. DISRAELI—WeII, I have the names ofir -- before me. (Cheers.) But I am not going to press that point with reference to the borough franchise at this moment, be cause I think it is of little importance. In reference, how ever, to the county franchise it is a matter of some import ance. (Hear, hear.) Here is a population of 40,000, 50,000, or 60,000 living without the boundaries of Rochdale,':and this is the population that is to possess the county votes under this bill. (Cheers.) Remember that they are only to live in a £6 house. - Now, if a ma n have a £l4 house—aud that is not a rare thing in that part of the world—or if ho has a£6 house and an occupa tion field, he will be entitled to a county vote. I do not mean to say that they should not have a vote, but is it not just and proper that they should vote where their capital and interest are? (Cheers.) In a community the members of which must be bound by every social and political tie, ought they not to be electors for the borough of Rochdale, and not the electors for Yorkshire and Lancashire ? (Cheers.) That is the question, and I put it to every county member whether they think that is a state of things