The Press.
London, England, 1858-12-25 00:00:00

Volitlcal.

MR. BRIGHT ON PARLIAMENTARY
REFORM.
ON Tuesday evening, a meeting was held at Glasgow
to hear an address from Mr. Bright, M.P., on the
subject of Parliamentary Reform. The hall in which
the address was delivered was completely filled, there
being about 2,7(X) persons present. Tae chair was
taken by Mr. Walter Buchanan, M.P., and among
those on the platform were Mr. Daigleish, M.P., Mr,
H. C. Ewing, M.P., Professor Nichol, etc. After a
few introductory remarks from the Chairman,
Mr. BRIGHT rose, amidst loud cheers, to address
the meeting. He said he was there to consider,
along with the citizens of Glasgow, s great question
of constitutional reform. The illustrious foun ler of
Pennsylvania had given his definition of a free
country; that is a free country where the laws rule,
and where the people had a share in the making of
the laws. We were now in a different position on
this question to what we were when he (Mr. Bright)
was in Glasgow before. No one now rises to oppose
parliamentary reform. But he (Mr. Bright) was
accused of repeating again and again the same facts
and the same numbers in illustration of his view 3 Ott
the subject of parliamentary reform. Bnt how could
it be otherwise ? We have at least 6,000,000 of
grown men in this kingdom, and not more than
1,000,000 have votes. These facts he was bound to
repeat and reiterate until he had roused public
opinion and wrought a change. As a machine for
carrying on the legislation of the country it would,
perhaps, be impossible to construct a more clumsy
one than the British Parliament. Mr. Bright de-
scribed at great length the numerical disproportion
which exists in the representation and constituencies
of England. The House of Commons, he said, was
a convenient club, a kind of lounge; it did not re-
spond with any heartiness or willingness to the aspt•
rations of the people for better government. The
two cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow had a taxable
property, taking schedules A and B, to the amount
of 7,800,0001., and there were 101 boroughs in Eng•
land and Ireland with a taxable property of 7,434,01)01.,
but the two Scotch cities only returned four members,
whilst the 10l boroughs returned 126 members.
Now this would show whether property was properly
represented. Re was accused of always dwelling
upon mere numbers and ignoring property. Whether
we took numbers or wealth, the great populations
were most inadequately represented. He had been
told that the sentiments which he had expressed at
Birmingham, and which caused such a howl from the
press, both Tory and Liberal, had been much
moderated at Manchester. and almost abandoned at
Edinburgh. Now he denisd slt)gother that he had
abandoned one single opinion which he had first
promulgated at Birmingham. What was the change
which he proposed? S'mply this, that the franchise
should be lowered from what it, is now, and that votes
should be given to all who are rated to the poor. He

bad been told that he misunderstood the franchise
as it exists in the parishes and municipalities of
England. He was told that votes were given in our
parish unions in proportion to the property held by
the electors. Some electors bad one vote and some
as many as six. Ile, however, should not continue
such a law, but propose to give one vote only to each
person registered as an elector. In Scotland be had
learned that lodgers in certain large cities, who paid
annually a sum of 101. or more, could obtain a vote
fur members of Parliament. This was an excellent
provision, and ho saw no reason why it should not be
extended to England. As regarded the county repre-
sentation, be thought the 40s. franchise ought to be
granted to Scotland. After referring at great length
to the necessity of securing the ballot, Mr. Bright
said she most difficult question in the forthcoming
Reform Bill would be toe mode of allotting the re-
presentatives to constituencies. He was not prepared
to say what limit he should be disposed to recommend,
but he hoped large cities like Glasgow would not be
satisfied with the posit!on they held at present.
Twenty seven years ago, before the passing of the
Reform Act, we were told that such a measure would
be dangerous, and that if it became law the King's
Government could not be carried on. The same
kind of assertion was being used now. It was what
Jeremy Bentham had termed the " hokoblin argu-
ment." He would appeal to the great middle cla:s
of this country not to be led away by such assertions,
but to act magnimously to their fellow-countrymen,
who were not yet possessed of political rights. By
giving the working men votes, their self-respect
would be immensely increased, and the moral and
educational results would be incalculable. Mr.
Bright described the operation of the laws of primes
geniture and entail, and said he believed that a con-
sequence of a Reform Bill such as be proposed would
be that Parliament would find a remedy for the many
evils which arose from the monopoly in land. We
should be able to apply to land the same principles
of political economy which we had already applied so
successfully to trade. Again, we should be able to
control the national expenditure, particularly that
portion which arises out of our diplomacy and our
foreign •policy. He had often compared in his own
mind the people of England and the people of Egypt,
and the monuments of Egypt to our Foreign-office.
We have, indeed, no obelisks nor columns such as
those on the banks of the Nile; but in the Foreign-
office of England they would find a mystery as great,
a s uperstition as fearful, and a loathsomeness as
horrible, as among the ancient tomes of the Egyp•
tians. The people knew nothing of the foreign
policy of their rulers, and yet that policy had wrought
innumerable wrongs, and caused suffering and cala-
mities, the extent of which was only recorded on the
tablet or the Eternal God. In conclusion, he said he
was not there to set class against class. He implored
the middle and working classes to unite their powers
on this question of representative reform. He had
spent many years of his life in advocating freedom of
trade, and he hoped yet to see the bounds of free-
dom made broader in many other direclions. He
loved his country. He loved his freedom, and it
was because he believed that freedom would only be
maintained by means of a fair system of representa-
tion that he was there that night to address the
citizens of Glasgow, and to ask their support.—The
hon. gentleman having resumed his seat amidst
loud cheers, brief addresses were delivered by Messrs.
Dalgleish, Ewing, and Buchanan, who eaeh promised
to aid Mr. Blight in the House of Commons.
On the motion of Professor Nichol, a committee
was appointed to adopt measures to advance the
object of the meeting, and the proceedings were
brought to a close shortly before ten o'clock.