The Express.
London, England, 1866-09-25 00:00:00

TRE EXPRESS;

=ataOrePow fit 08. 000411. in *NA g!* Att.
hem.) 'We are not, as our father•
Mer 3„ tore lltpdred years ago, called upon to do
battle ;with gus crewn•--we have no dynasty tooomplain of,
no raid fniilt to depose. In our day, the wearer of the
crows is in favour of freelom--(cheers)—and on many
separate mmaateas, s yon all know, the Queen has strongly,
as Mien* as became her statics, urged upon parliament
the extesmion at the franchise to the people. Parliament,
however, has been less liberal than the crown, and time
after time those recommendations havebeen disregarded, mid
the wishes of the monarch have been rejected and denied.
It is not our business' to-night to assail the other branch of
the legislaters—the House of Peers. For my part I can-
not but think that if there are dangers ahead for the House
of Lords they are dangers not so much from without as
within—its foes in my opinion are those of its own
household ; it stands in the high place of a senate,
but too much it abdicates the duties of a senate—
it gives its votes, its power, its proxies into the
hands of one man, and he often, as at present,
not by any means the wisest of men. (" Hear, hear," and
laughter.) Unfortunately for that home it does almost
nothing ; it does not even debate freely. A maion will
pass, and you scarcely hear any discussion in that house
which is calculated to instruct the people in political sub-
jects. I sometimes fear that it is no longer the temple of
honour—the path which leads through the temple of virtue
—it has become too much a refuge for worn out members
of the House of Commons. (Cheers and laughter.)
It becomes every year more numerous without, I fear, he-
mming more useful. If it cannot stir itself up to great
duties, decay and darkness will settle upon it. Some of
Its members may read what I say. I beg to scene them
that in these few observations I am speaking in no un-
friendly spirit to the House of Lords ; but we have • dis'
tint purpose to-night, and our purpose Is this—to restore
the representation of the people ; to make the House of
Commons, the house which professes to represent the
people, a reality, and no longer • sham. (Cheers.) Now
the facts of our representation are simple. The important
facts can be stated in about two sentences. I think at
every reform meeting they should be re-stated, and that
they should fix themselves in the mind of every re-
former throughout the country. I am charged with
telling things that everybody knows—(a laugh)—but
if we tell them often enough everybody will know
them. (Laughter and cheers.) This is a fact which is
worth knowing—that there are seven millions of grown-up
men—seven millions of men responsible to thelaws—inthe
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ; that of
those but one million end a quarter are on the list of
1 voters ; that, exclusive of paupers and exclusive of crimi-
nals (though I am sorry to mention those two classes in
the same sentence)—exclusive of those to whom no man
proposes to give the franchise, there are five millions of
men in the United Kingdom who have no votes. (" Shame,
we will have them.") Of the million end a quarter who
11 have votes, the counties take up shout seven hundred and
fifty thousand, and the boroughs five hundred and fifty
thousand. Now, I shall say that which some men
I will contradict, but which I venture to say is
1 true, when I declare that, for the most
part, the county representation in this country is
not a popular representation in any honest sense of that
term. (Cheers.) We know that with • franchise of 501.
occupation, and a freehold franchise added to it, that the
great body of the people in every county is excluded fn,m
the elective franchise. Well, I regard the county repre-
amtation to • very large extent as • dead body tied to the
living body of the borough representation. I believe it
will become less so. In Ireland there are some free counties.
In Scotland there arasome, end there will be soon more ;
but still, taking the county representation as a whole, it
is in a most unsatisfactory condition. Well, but of the
boroughs, where they are alive, and where there is some
freedom, what is their condition? Let me give you only
one fact. There are 145 boroughs with over 20,000
inhabitants each, and they return 215 members. There
are 109 boroughs with over 20,000 population, and
they return 180 members. But look at the difference
in the number of votes, the number of the population,
and the amount of the taxation. It is something startling
and enormous. The boroughs under 20,000 have 79,000
electors ; the boroughs over 20,000 have 485,000 electors-
The boroughs under 20,000 have 1,350,000 people ; the
boroughs over 20,000 have 9,305,000 people. The boroughs
under 20,000 pay 367,0001. of income tax ; the boroughs
ever 20,000 pay 5,240,0001. ; and yet the boroughs under
20,000 have 215 members as against 181 members for the
boroughs over 20,000. (Cries of " Shame.") Now I am
sure you will agree with me in this—that a representation
which, as regards the franchise, shuts oat five
millions of men, and which as regards the distri-
bution leaves the state of things which I have described,
can only be fairly pictured when I call it a stupendom,
fraud upon the people. (Cheers.) As to the counties, we
have Lord Derby's own authority for it that the counties
are politically the hunting ground of the great landowners.
Lord Derby said if you would tell him the politics of haf
a dozen principal landowners in a county, he would tell you
the polities of the oountymembers and the boroughs. What
are they! Manchester knows not bribery, nor Birming-
ham, but of the boroughs of twenty thousand population
and under, how many of them are full of corruption'
There are small boroughs, such as Banbury, and Tavisteek,
and Liakeard, where, I believe, great honour and great
purity rrevail ; but the bulk of these boroughs are acces-
sible to the influence of any man whowould come therewith
plenty of money in his pocket, and no principles or morals
in his heart. (Loud cheers.) In point of fact, without
any exaggeration we may say that all the evils which are
possible to an electoral system are amply provided for by
the electoral system of England. comprising briber),
drunkenness, and a lavish and disgraceful expenditure.
All these not only exist, but are absolutely inevitable
under the state of the law which now prevails. I yen.
tune to say, and I never said anything in my life which I
would more easily undertake to prove, that there is no
remedy for this state of things, where ambitions and un-
principled and rich men come into contact with small
numbers of voters, there is no remedy whatsoever but in
Urge constituencies and the security of the ballot. (Cheers.)
Now if I have given a fair description of the state of things,
need we wonder at the difficulty which we meet with when
we have any question before parliament? Look back at
the question of the corn-laws ; look back at the question
of the paper duties ; look back, or rather look at present
on the question of our disgraceful expenditure, and you
find, on every occasion, when the people ask for any
reform of any kind, they have to make a desperate fight
for it, just as if they were wresting it, not from country-
men and brothers, but from the representatives of a con-
quering nation. Take this last session of all—the session
which has just passed over—a session ever to he remem-
bered. The government headed by Lord Russell in the
House of Lords, and by Mr. Gladstone—(cheers)
in the House of Commons—this government,
anxious to make • step in the direction of
popular rights, brought in a bill, most honest in character,
and meet moderate in dimensions. It was a bill so
moderato in dimensions that some of us who thick much
more would be wiser to grant, found ourselves in some diffi-
culty in tendering to the government our cordial support
to enable them to carry their bill, which I hold every man
whole in favour of sny reform at all had no kind of excuse
for opposing—that bill—l may as well say so at once—was
met by an opposition as malignant and discreditable as I
have ever seen brought against any measure in the House
of Commons. There was no artifice, there was
no trick that was too mean and too base to be
made use of to retard the progress of, and ulti-
mately to destroy that bill ; and to such an extent did
they go, that even Lord Stanley—(hisses)—was induced,
I know not bow or by what evil spirit of his party, to make
• proposition which to my knowledge eminent men of his
own party pronounced to be utterly discreditable. The
facts and arguments on which the bill was supported were
not met, and never could be met. Another policy was
adopted, and to get rid of inconvenient arguments and
figures they tamed round and did not hesitate to slander
• whole mince. The name et a gentleman eminent in
this matter bee already been mentioned. If I meutios his
name, or if I quote what he said, understand that
I make no charge against him that be holds opinions
which I so much deplore. Any man may hold
what opinions he likes, and the opinions of any par-
ticular member of parliament are not of very great
importanas ; but these opinions are important, be-
cause they were addressed to 300 members of the party
which is now in power, and because by that party they
were received with uproarious and universal enthusiasm.
(Chews.) I don't think that any meeting of the working
classes held during this monis should pass off without
some reference to theme observations. Bear in mind that
sot only were they reesived with enthusiastic cheers by
the tory party, but, when the Queen seat for Lord Derby
sad mouthed to hiss the charge of forming agorernaient,