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

THE PRESS, OCTOBER 30, 1858.

to reform the House of Commons just so
Black and no more as will allow it to keep pace with the
wi.ties of the House of Lords, I would ask bun not to take
°ey trouble in the matter, but just to leave it exactly 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
bow to do it. It was the difficulty 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
ssy—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 opinion.
There are the Peers, of whom I have alread
oPQy yken. They are citizens with ourselves, and have there light to bat considered. There are the rich 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.