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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING,

the charge, but that the damaging and odious charge was
made solely from the interpretation which the right hon.
gentleman placed upon a cheer which he imagined he
heard from some part of the house. The right hon. gentle-
man having said that they looked upon the working classes
as an invading army, and having imagined that he beard
from the opposition side of the house some inarticulate
assent to that proposition, did not attempt to fix the
charge at the moment when it might have been contra-
dicted and disproved—(cheers)—but went down to Liver-
pool, and thereldore a select audience of his friends, ad-
mitted by tickets, 80 that there could be no opposi-
tion, told them, in fact, that that was the light
lin which the conservative party looked upon the
working classes. It did not seem to him that
it was consistent with the obligations which a
leader of the House of Commons ought to accept. If a
leader of the house had cause to impute to members of the
house any opinions which he deeply censured, it was upon
the floor of the house alone that he ought to impute those
sentiments to them. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the
lE:chequer might search the annals of the House of Com-
mons in vain to find another precedent of a leader of the
house going down to a provincial audience and telling
them that those who opposed him in debate were guilty of
sentiments upon which he east the gravest censure.
(Hear, hear.) He thought it right to make his pro-
test upon this subject, because it was one of the or-
dinary weapons of gentlemen opposite to im-
pute to their opponents some species of ill-feel-
ing towards the working classes. Sometimes it was
that they distrusted them, sometimes that they insulted
them, sometimes that they detested them, and sometimes
that they were anxious to exclude them from all share in
political government. (Cheers.) He could understand
that when the supporters of the government had
nothing to say in support of the bill or against the amend-
ment it was very convenient to shower dirt on those who
opposed the measure. (Cheers.) But the right hon. gen-
tleman could not have obtained from the words of any
speaker upon the opposition side anything that would jus-
tify the odious charges he bad brought against them. He
felt himself that there were dangers to avoid in deal-
ing with the working classes. He had heard much
about the working classes in that house which had
filled him with apprehension. It was believed by
many honourable gentlemen opposite that the working
classes were to be their future sovereign, that they
were to be the great power in the state against which no
other power could stand, and it was with feelings of no
small terror and disgust that he had heard phrases used
which sounded, he hoped unduly, like adulation of the
sovereign, while those who used those phrases expected to
reign over them. If there uses one great claim which the
House of Commons had upon the people of the country, if
it had done anything to establish the present balance of
power among all classes of the country, and prevent any
one class from overbearing the rest, it was that in the pre-
sence of all powers, however great or terrible, it had always
been free and independent in its language. (Hear, hear.)
It had never in times when kings were powerful, fawned
upon them, it had always resisted their unjust pretensions
and had refund to allow any courtierly instincts to sup-
press in it the solicitude for the freedom of the people
which it was their duty to cherish. He should deeply
regret if at a time when it was said they were about poli-
tically to change their sovereign, at a time when some
might think that new powers were about to rule, • dif-
ferent spirit were to influence the House of Commons.
Nothing could be more dangerous to the reputation of that
house, nothing more fatal to its authority, than that it
should be suspected of sycophancy to any power, were it
from below or above, which was likely to become a
dominant power in the state. (Hear, hear.) They had
heard a great deal too much of working men, as if they
were different from other Englishmen. (Cheers.) He did
not understand why the nature of the poor man or
working man should be different from that of any
other. (Hear, hear.) They sprung from the same race,
they lived under the same climate, they had been brought
up under the same laws, thy aspired after the same his-
torian modals as others, and he did not understand why
their nature was to be thought, for betteror worse, different
from that of other men. (Ministers' cheers.) He said
nothing about their temptations. If they applied to any
class of the community special temptations they would find
that class addicted to special vices, and that was what he
feared they were doing now. They were not recognising
the fact that, dealing with men who were Englishmen in
their nature, with every English virtue and vice, if they
applied to them • special training they must not
look forward to that special result which at-
tended a different training. Those who had sat
on election committees would agree with bim that the
franchise was a convertible commodity. It had a value,
and in two was. The franchise had a direct money value
to those who did not care much about public affairs, in the
way of bribery; and it had an indirect money value to
those who did care about public affairs, in the way of en-
couraging unjust and special class legislation. If they
gave the franchise to those who would naturally be tempted
to misuse it, they must expect that the larger props rtion
who were not deeply interested in public affairs would be
liable to temptation, and to treat it as a saleable com-
modity. The minority, more influential, more deeply in-
terested in public affairs, would be liable to treat it,
not as a saleable commodity, but as something to get for
them laws with respect to taxation and property especially
favourable to them as a class, and dangerous therefore to
all other classes of the community. That was the temp-
tation to which they were exposing the working man by
giving him the franchise, and they were exposing him
I much more than other classes of the community, for the
simple reason that he was poorer. It was perfectly true
that the poor had their virtues as well aathe rich, and the
rich had their vices as well as the poor ; but the vices of
' the poor, unfortunately, had a special bearing
upon their fitness for the exercise of political
rights. The poor were liable more than the rich to
be tempted if they put into their hands anything that
was pecuniarily convertible. (Hear, hear.) A. great deal
of odium had been cast upon speakers in that house
because they had said that the poorer classes were more
venal than the rich. That was not true as to their nature,
but it was true as to the temptations to which they were
exposed. It was ridiculous to assert that 501. would not
tempt a man of whose income it formed one-third or one-
fourth more than it would a man of whose income it
formed one-thirtieth or one-fortieth. Therefore all bribes,
whether in the direct form of money value or the indirect
form of class legislation, men be expected tout more upon
the poorer classes than upon the upper classes of the commu-
nity. With respect to theamendment of the noble earl, it ap-
peared to him that there had been seemingly a kind of
demon that had attended all the speeches proceed-
ing from honourable gentlemen on the government
side of the house, which forced them, whatever
they said, to spak in such a way as to support
the amendment of the noble earl. The government com-
menced the debate with very cavalier language on the sub-
ject of the Franchise Bill, and did not care to introduce
the Redistribution of Seats Bill at all. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer did not absolutely say so, but he intimated
in pretty clear terms that he intended the Seats Bill to
come on next year. The right hon. gentleman was driven
from that position, and then he said the Seats Bill
was to be brought in this year. Then it was
thought the Seats Bill should come on only for-
mally; and then the right honourable gentleman
again gave way, and it was to be made a matter of the
standing or falling of the government. (Hear, hear.) Now
they were told a third step was to be taken, and that the
Seats Bill was to proceed park passe with the Franchise
Bill, in order to satisfy the scruples of some members of
the government. He felt some difficulty in believing that,
because be bad referred back to the speech of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and it seemed to him from the
language used no one could have given a stronger pledge
to a contrary course. (Hear, hear.) As the Chancellor of
the Exchequer might possibly, at a later period of the
evening, take the opportunity of making such an announce-
ment, he (Lord Cranborne) would read to the house what
the right bon. gentleman said at the beginning of this
debate with reference to the pushing forward of the Seats
Bill. On moving the second reading of this bill
the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, " Allow-
ing for full and free discussion regarding the
subject, we could not expect that the two
portions of the question could be dealt with within
the ordinary and usual duration of the session, and he
must decline to proceed with the other portion of the sub-
ject until the fate of the Franchise Bill was determined,
and then it would be for the government to review their
position." If the right hon. gentleman did, in spite of
that declaration, now say he would proceed with the Seats
Bill pan plum with the Franchise Bill—that was, before
the fate of theFranchiae Bill was determined—hetwould be
admitting that he had departed from those motives of duty
which had originally actuated him. (Laughter.) The
house would take notice that such a proceeding entirely
disposed of that question of time which the Chancellor of
the Exchequer made so much of on introducing the bill.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. Eire lian said there
were only twenty-four days at the ' d n
of the govern-
ment, that twelve of them must devoted to finan-
cial huffiness of the crown, and that twelve only would re-
main for the Reform Bill, and therefore argued in an un-
answearble way, according to his own line of &gement,
that it was impossible to proceed with the Franchise Bill
and also the Seats Bill in the present session. If the ru-
mours which were flying about were true, and if the right
hon. gentleman did pledge himself to proceed with the
Seats Bill.pari passu with the Franchiseßill, it wouldfollow
that the right hon. gentleman did not use the argument
about the time of the house with any personal conviction
that it was correct. (Opposition cheers.) He supposed
that if the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the right hon.
gentleman the member for the duchy of Lancaster spoke
on this subject, they would say it was a party manoeuvre,
and that it was impossible to get a majority without it—
(hear)—and according to modern morality, he had no doubt
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would think itright that
the government might pursue an argument which they did not
believe in themselves. But to use an expression of a friend
' of the right hon. gentleman's, he (Lord Cranborne) did not
like to see unnecessary humiliation, and be thought that
if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made any attempt to
influence votes by this concession he would be subjecting
himself to unnecessary humiliation. (Hear, hoer.) It was
a very painful thing to see a man eat dirt at any time—
(laughter)—but • much more painful thing to see him eat
dirt when we knew he would not be paid for it. (Renewed
laughter.) His (the noble lord's) theory was, that the
right hon. gentleman would endanger his character and
position by thus contradicting his previous declaration, and
would not gain a single vote on the division. (Hear, hear.)
Such a course would entirely misrepresent our position.
What they wanted was, not that the Suffrage Bill

and the Seats BM should 'proceed peri pessu—
that meant to say one after the other. (Lanighter.) I
What they wanted was that the two subjects should pro-
osed together in the same bill. (Opposition cheers.) They
wanted information ; but that was not their main object.
What they wished most for was control. (Hear, hear.)
What they wished was that the form of the bill should be
such that from tint to last the influence of the house
should be all powerful, and it should enjoy undisputed
and undbuirdslied control. (Hear, hear.) He had a right
to claim the government as a witness in favour of the
amendment of the noble earl. Why did they make these
Concessions What did they admit? They admitted that
the House of Commons had a right to have the whole sub-
ject before them, though the right hon. gentleman had
declined to admit this previously. (Hear, hear.) The I
Chancellor of the Exchequer had been compelled
to make that admission, and it showed that he
accepted now what he would not before the amend-
ment was introduced. But it was not only the right
hon. gentleman and the government that they might claim
as witnesses in this matter. The bill had been argued on
the other side, some people mid, with want of ability. He
did not in the least agree with that statement. Considering
the difficulty of the case, the ability displayed was very
respectable—(hear, hear)—and he should be inclined to say
the hon. member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), the
hon. member for Birmingham, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and the hon. member for Westmin-
ster (Mr. Mill) made the four speeches to which the
house must most look for arguments in favour of the
bill. All those speeches were well argued, and all
started upon a foundation which might be true, and in a
great degree was true. (Hear, hear.) They went on to a
certain point with the ability with which they began, but
they stopped short, as before a chum, at the point
where they were required to connect this bill with the ar-
gument they used ; and the difficulty in each case arose
bemuse they had not got the link which would be furnished
if the government had enabled the house to see what the
distribution of seats would be. (Hear, hear.) He would
first refer to the arguments used by the hon. and learned
member for Exeter. That hon. and learned gentleman
took the ground of fitness, and argued that the 71. house-
holders were fit for political power. In spite of all difficul-
ties and in spite of the argument of the noble lord the
member for King's Lynn, the hon. member maintained
the fitness of these 71. householders to be so great that he
was fully prepared to admit them to power. What did
that fitness mean? If it meant fitness for political power
he entirely concurred with the bon. and learned gentleman ;
but if it meant to enable them to lord it over all the
other classes of the community—to be despots over the
rest—he (Lord Cranborne) must say that was a fitness he
was not prepared to recognise. (Hear, hear.) But they
were dealing with unknown quantities. They did not
know the constituency of the future. (Hear, hear.) It was
absolutely impouible to ascertain the fitness of people
whose names, localities, and habitations were not known.
Until they knew what the constituencies were to be it was
impossible to tell whether they were fit for the franchise or
not. (Hear, hear.) And he need hardly remind hon.
members who were acquainted with the evidence taken
before committees of that house, of the extent to which
sugar and paint might be used in dealing with large con-
stituencies. (Laughter.) There were two election com-
mittees now sitting—Huddersfield and Wakefield. [An
HON. Maness: The Wakefield case is decided.] Was
it decided that there had been no bribery in the borough
(Cheers.) Nobody could say but that it reqsired minute
and careful investigation before they accepted too readily
the assertion that people were fit for the elective franchise
because they lay between certain strata of the population.
The hon. member for Westminster, in a most able and con-
vincing speech, argued in favour of concentration of the
franchise, saying the working classes were represented up
to • certain point, but it was valueless because not =E.
ciently concentrated. He entirely agreed with the hon.
member that concentration with representation would
in many cases be highly desirable. A certain
number of working men sitting there would prove
no derogation to the dignity of that house. (Hear,
hear.) Nay, they might possibly increase its value.
In fact, if he might make a definite proposition, he would
say that he would readily sacrifice twenty or thirty seats of
what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called " the moun-
tain," and substitute in their place working men. (Hear,
hear.) He believed that so far as the working clarion were
concerned, their natural leaders, the prominent men among
them, would be better representatives than some of those
from the higher classes who, for reasons best known to
themselves, chose to identify themselves with them. (Hear,
hear.) There was • fallacy in the argument of the hon.
member for Westminster, who admitted that a preponder-
ance of the working classes in the house was to be avoided,
and said if they returned • majority of members they
would probably use that power for putting on the statute
book legislation founded on theories to which he should
object. Surely the hon. gentleman would first require in-
formation to prove to him that the result he feared could
not happen. He thought the hon. member would prove
that under this bill the working classes should not have •
majority, but at that point he stopped short, and passed
from the general subject to the cattle plague, or some
similar topic, without attempting to prove that under this
bill the working classes would not have a preponderance.
That was the point to prove—(hear, hear)—and it was the
point which the amendment required: to be proved. It
made the difference between a good reform bill and a bad
reform bill, as to whether the working classes now, or at a
proximate period, should have a majority. That was the
keystone on which the whole matter rested. It was not
difficult to show danger or ruin in that direction. The
hon. member for Birmingham pointed out that as they an
ranged the redistribution of seats, in that degree they re-
arranged the distribution of political power.
Mr. BRIGHT—I said that you might destroy popular
representation. (Hear, hear.)
Lord CRANBORNE—That was true, but they might
do the other thing. They might produce republicanism
on the one hand and absolute despotism on the other.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentlenuin said that the right
hon. member for Calne and himself (the noble lord) might
so re-arrange the seats as to destroy popular political
power ; but if they were to follow the scheme proposed by
the bon. member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) the result
would be very different, and democratic power would be
the only thing left in this country. (Opposition cheers.)
Look at the figures ;130was the numberof seats which in his
opinion this bill would give to the working classes in Eng-
land, and according to a similar calculation for Scotland and
Ireland the number would be raised to 15.5. Now, as to the
distribution of seats, anyone who looked through the statis-
tics would see in • moment that if they removed the power
from those boroughs most likely to be disfranchised, they
would band them over mainly from the middle class to the
working classes. The question was, what was likely to
happen with restrest to that redistribution of seats. They
were inevitably driven to observe the influence of the hon.
member for Birmingham over the cabinet. The hon. mem-
ber made • speech the other night, and it was very kind
and good of him to make it in such • moderate tone. He
knew what the hon. gentleman thought of them—
he thought they were the offspring of landlord
influence in the counties and of corruption in the boroughs,
and yet his speech showed • command of temper and
almost a sacrifice of principle in addressing them in such
a kind and patronising manner. (Laughter.) But he
could not draw from the speech any comfort as to that
apprehension they all entertained that the hon. member
for Birmingham controlled the government too much in
this matter. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member informed
them that he had had no consultation on thisquestion with
Earl Russell for seven years. Had he not had any con-
versation with the right hon. gentleman the President of
the Board of Trade during that period ? (Opposition
cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT—Very often.
Lord CRANBORNE—Just so. He gathered that from
certain things he had seen in print. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer told • meeting that there bad been a sort of
subterranean communication between the premier and the
hon. member for Birmingham. It was an ides that filled
one with horror. One thought of the President of the
Board of Trade, armed with a dark lantern. finding his way
along the sewers, with that imperturbable amiability of
countenance sohabitualtohini, tothe house of Earl Russell,
or to the house of what he would call the head centre of
this conspiracy. (Opposition cheers.) It was very
gratifying to find that that report had no
foundation, and that the President of the Board
of Trade was allowed to go above ground. But whether the
right hon. gentleman went above ground or under ground,
he (Lord Cranborne),was afraid the evidence of direct com-
munication between the hon. member for Birmingham and
the cabinet was too strong to be resisted. (Hear, hear.)
For extraordinary human actions they required extraordi-
nary motives, and to every observer it was perfectly inex-
plicable why the government should have adopted the
precise eoursewhich seemed certain to lead them to destruc-
tion—why they should have introduced this bill in such a
form that it was imputable to pass the House of Commons
—why they should have departed from the traditions of
former days, and when they knew that that course was
recommended by the hon. member for Birmingham, and by
him alone. (Hear, hear.) He had no objection to the
cabinet, if they liked, reposing on so able and eminent a
man; but he (the noble lord) wished to ascertain something
about this Sesta Bill, which was still under consideration, or
in the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1858,
the hon. member for Birmingham gave the house some
hint as to his view of the distribution of sesta, for he pro-
posed a bill which would disfranchise 140 constituencies.
Well, if they disfranchised 90, they would transfer a ma-
jority in the whole house under the 71. franchise from
the middle to the working classes. It was a matter
of simple calculation, and of course all they wished to
know was whether that was likely to happen. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Birmingham had treated with abso-
lute contempt the proposal of Lord Derby's Refonn
which, in a better hour, even obtained the approval of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. gentleman com-
plained that the bill did not disfranchise Caine, Arundel,
and Portarlington. That rather raised formidable appre-
hensions in one's mind, because Lord Derby's bill went on
the principle of taking one member from existing boroughs.
The hon. member for Birmingham evidently resisted that,
and proposed that a schedule should be inserted in the
new billinmilar to the schedule in the Reform Bill of 1832.
The honourable gentleman, the member for Birmingham,
did not propose anything, but be treated with contempt
and derision any proposal which did not include Arundel,
Caine, and Portarlington. The bill of 1860 did not include
those boroughs, and therefore the hon. member must ex-
pect something very much larger than was contained in
the schedule of that bill. He was anxious to raise the
veil from the probable proceedings of the government
in this matter, because no evidence was given to them

ripen which they ceed4l forts any judgment. Thor
nothing except what they could jwither from the oplsii
expressed by the hon. member for Birmingham]. It war
clue that they bad no information which would mat*
them to argue even approximately what power the week-
lag dosses or the lower classes would possess under the
measure of the government. He wished to ask what
grounds they had for confidence in the leader of the house
that they should accept him in the place of a measure.
The right honourable gentleman asked them to yield all
their confidence to him, and to offer .their obeisance to
him upon the second reading, before he gave them any
information on the subject. He wished to ask whether,
from what they knew of his opinions, there was say
ground for absolutely confiding in him as to any imbee-
quent measures he might propose! (Hear, hear.) What
were the grounds on which the right hon. gentleman urged
the bill upon the house? He had not argued it at all
(Hear, hear.) He did not prove any necessity for re-
form, and he argued it entirely on the question of pledges.
Now ,r 1 great deal had been said on the subject of pledges,
and he wished to enter his protest against the view which
seemed to be entertained so largely on the treasury bench,
and to some extent on that side of the house as to the
house having been pledged to reform. (Hear, hear.) He
wanted to know what a pledge was. If a pledge was made
by the House of Commons, surely it would be found
recorded in some document. But what was the ground
on which the Chancellor of the Exchequerurged the pledges
made by the House of Commons? Well, there was • certain
number of queen's speeches, but he did not suppose that
so constitutional • statesman as the right hon. gentleman
would attempt to bind them by Queens speeches. (Hear,
hear.) Then, several bills were introduced, but so far
from binding the house, they were invariably rejected or
over—(hear, hear)—and it was rather alarming to
rtleed that if • measure was passed over by the Howe of
Commons, therefore members were pledged to its principle.
They had been told that if they passed this bill they
would hear no more of reform for twenty or thirty years,
but they were told when they passed the bill of 1832 that
it would be a permanent and final settlement. He would
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what ground he bad
for mppwng that the result of the measure would be
such that a large majority of the house would ap-
prove of it. In Lord Pahnerston's time there was
• measure which was supported by that noble lord
and his adherents, but they had absolute faith
in Lord Palmerston that, whatever happened, he would
not do much harm to the British constitution. That bill
was read a second time without a division • but could they
the same confidence in the supporters of this bill !
e (Hear, hear.) Was it moderate liberals who supported
the present bill, or those who had avowed their object to
destroy the House of Lords and the established church ?
(hear, hear}—and who availed themselves of every oppor-
tunity to render homage to American institutions? (Harx,
hear.) The noble lord referred to speeches made at meet-
ings in favour of reform, and chiefly to an open air meeting
on Clerkenwell-green, at which a Mr. Lewcroft, a cabinet-
maker, said that for 800 years the lordlinga had ruled
them with a rod of iron, and accumulated millions ; that
the Marquis of Westminster and Lord Stanley had
thousands of acres, while those who worked for their
living could not get a foot of ground. At the same meet-
mga Mr. Bligh maintained that capital was the overplus
oflabour ,and that what working men had produced they
ought to have a share of ; and he added that they would
never have a reform bill until every man who had not been
convicted of crime had a vote. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord proceeded to say that because of the concealment of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer he looked with distrust
upon the bill The right honourable gentleman would
not tell them what kind of constituencies they would
have after the passing of the bill, nor would the
honourable member for Westminster tell them what
the effect of it would be on future legislation.
The government were now offering an indignity to the
House of Commons ; they were attempting to bend and
break down its independence, and to force them to vote
for • measure of the effect of which they bad no means of
judging, and it seemed to him that the first duty
they owed to the country and themselves was to vote
against the bill. (Cheers.)
Captain GROSVENOR said the noble lord had not
persuaded him to adopt the course he had taken, and he
felt no more able at the conclusion of his speech than at
the commencement to vote conscientiously for the amend-
ment. (Hear, hear.) He had no wish to disparage the
anthorof the amendment, or to impugn the motives of hon.
members on that side of the house whose views of their
political obligations were at variance with his own. It
was to hon. gentlemen opposite that he wished more par-
ticularly to address himself, for they pointed their argu-
ments not chiefly to the amendment, but against the
principles of the bill which they opposed. The noble lord
the member for Ring's Lynn had argued very comprehen-
sively in favour of the amendment, and he did not suppose
• happier thought ever reached the minds of his party
than that which induced them to place him in the van of
the battle, because ever sinoehe spoke theyhad been enabled
without attempting to enforce or illustrate his reasoning
to brandish his arguments victoriously in their faces,
written upon the original paper, tied up with the same
string, and docketed unanswerable." (Laughterand cheers. )
He was disposed to admit that the arguments of the noble
lord, so far as they expressed • theory, had not been com-
pletely answered. (Hear, hear.) He was disposed to go
a step further, and admit that upon this point they were
unanswerable. He believed that few members of the
house would not have preferred dealing with the distribu-
tion of seats in a bill for the extension of the franchise.
(Opposition cheers.) He believed the Chancellor of the
Exchequer himself would have preferred that course, but
what reason had the government to suppose that a com-
prehensive measure would be more successful nom than it
was in 1860? (Hear, hear.) Was it to be wondered at that
the government pursued that course which they thought
was most likely to secure them against not only their oppo-
nents but their sup rters ? (Laughter from the opposition.)
When he addressed the house on this subject on a former
occasion the discussion was of an elementary and tentative
character, but now it assumed the practical shape of •
good old-fashioned party contest, the object on one side
being political extension, and on the other a monopoly of
electoral rights. (Hear, hear.) In saying this he did not
impute selfish motives to hon. gentlemen opposite. If be
were so inclined he might fairly express his surprise that
they had arrayed themselves against themin such a
phalanx of compact hostility, because they were assured by
the hon. member for Caine that the effect of the bill would
be to relieve those benches of their accustomed occupants.
He did not advocate that they should confer the franchise
as a right, but he thought they might confer it on those of
their fellow-countrymen who had earned it by their pati-
ence, their culture, and their integrity. (Cheers.) Why,
he would ask, did hon. members opposite oppose the bill
He could not call them patriots, because they acted as if
the spirit of democracy was keeping guard while the bill
lay on the table. Surely those hon. gentlemen were in the
dark. (Hear.) If they would turn on the light • little
stronger what they took to be a spirit would assume the broad,
palpable, and familiar form of the British artisan. (Cheers.)
The opposition of hon. gentlemen to this bill touched their
consistency as well as their patriotism. Of their consis-
tency he would not complain, and if further reflection in-
duced them to think that the promises they had made to
their leader in that house were unwise, he thought they
were quite right in renouncing them ; but let it be for
hon. gentlemen on his side of the house who had made the
same promises, and who thought their fulfilment wise and
expedient, to see to their fulfilment as a matter of public
honesty. (Hear, hear.) He did not think the question
of public honesty was one that should be lightly
dealt with. The right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Huntingdon, in a speech he made the other
night, drew • line between the personal and political honour
of her Majesty's ministers ; saying that for the one
he had the highest respect, and that for the other he had
no respect at all. He (Captain Grosvenor) asked was it
not rather with their political than their personal honesty
that the right hon. gentleman had to deal, and if the right
hon. gentleman thought they were men of no political in-
tegrity, was he doing his duty in discussing this question at
all' Ought he not, as soon as he had arrived at that con-
clusion, to have risen in his place and levelled a direct vote
of censure at the government? (Cheers.) He would leave
it to the right hon. gentleman in his calmer moments to
decide whether the line he had taken was dignified,
generous, or fair. He did not propose to enter on the
wide field of argument connected with the effect which a
further diffusion of the popular element into the constitu-
tion might be supposed to have upon the foreign and finan-
cial policy of the country, because, as the hon. member
for Exeter had said, those arguments could only rest
upon mere conjecture. He hoped the house would
bear with him for a moment longer, because if
he were to sit down then he should be open
to the accusation that he had neglected a form
which had been of constant observance among preceding
speakers—he had not yet made any reference to the hon.
gentleman the member for Birmingham. That hon. gen-
tleman had referred, in the speech he had made on the
first reading of this bill, to the accident of violence as pos-
sible, nay, probable, if hon. gentlemen opposite did not
modify their views and tone with regard to the working
classes. He (Captain Grosvenor) attached as little import-
ance to that threat as possibly the hon. gentleman did to
the geographical position of the borough of Caine. He
was sorry the hon. gentleman had introduced it, because
first, it was an argument which was least likely to have any
effect upon hon. gentlemen opposite, who were wedded,
partly by conviction, partly by inheritance, and partly by
prejudice, to a domestic policy of timidity and
The last thing in the world to which they would be likely
to listen was the trumpet of menace, however certain in
its sound. The hon. member for Birmingham had referred
to two speeches delivered by the right hon. gentleman the
member for Hertfordshire—one the other day, the other
in 1859. In 1859 he (Captain Grosvenor) had the eminent
good fortune to herarfrom the lips of the right hon. gentleman
one of the most eloquent speeches ever made in that home,
and the right hon. gentleman concluded that speech in these
remarkable words :—"That the working classes had no
better friend than himself ; that no one was readier than
he to invest them with such privileges as they were fitted
to enjoy • but he asked the house to hesitate before it
placed the property and intelligence of the country at the
mercy of impatient poverty and uninstructed numbers."
Those words were uttered in defence of Lord Derby's
Reform Bill, which contained no provision for the exten-
sion of the borough franchise ; but since they were uttered
they had had an illustration such as never occurred before
in any age or country, that poverty could be patient
even amid cruel and bitter privations, and that numbers
were sufficiently instructed to appreciate the action of
cause and effect even in matters affecting their daily ex-
istence. He in his turn humbly and respectfully asked