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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 1866.

ment were trying to force on a relucti nt house by every 'aunties outside the boroughs there were 2,290,000 houses,
species of political ma aceuvre, one of which WAS the ender- and in boroughsoalyl,449,ooohouses. Hecould not consent '
your by setting two separate minorities in the house to any step in the direction of reform until the government
against each other to obtain a majority for this bill. The gave proof of an intention in some degree to mitigate this
government seemed determined to force the bill on, however gross , which exiated neither in the reresentation
opposed it might be to the general feeling of the house. He of Scotland nor Ireland, but was to be found in the repro-
could see no reason for that conduct, except on the &sauna!). sentation of England and Wales. The hon. member for
lion that it was simply a bill to keep the government in Birmingham had described his proposal to correct this
office. As to any pressure from without, the thing was anomaly as democratic, but when Lord Aberdeen was at
utterly ridiculous. There may hive been some peti- the head of the government in which Sir James Graham
times in its favour, but, representing a very and Lord Palmerston were associated, they proposed to
large constituency, he had not heard a single transfer more than 60 seats, and so sensible were they of
word from any portion of it in favour of the bill. Yet this anomaly he had pointed out, that they proposed to
that constituency took great interest in political ques- give no less than 46 to the majority in the counties.
Lions, and last year they sent up numerous petitions He was quite willing to consider a reduction of the
In favour of the repeal of the malt tax. He denied that franchise; but, as one of the representatives of the people,
there was the least necessity for the bill, and he pointed he should never consent to a reform bill which did not in
out the general advancement of the country since the Re- some degree remove the existing anomalies ; while the
form Bill of 1832, and the absence of all discontent, as a majority of the people of England and Wales were repre-
certain proof that the working claims were satisfied with rented in that house by less than one-sixth of its members,
the Medal system, and entertained no real desire for a he could not consent to any reform bill which did not pro-
change. He quite admitted that prima facie there was an pose to alter that state of things. (Hear, hear.)
objection to small boroughs, but he contended that the Mr. P. A. TAYLOR said that the house had heard many
class of members they returned was a justification for their eloquent speeches against the Reform Bill, but none of
retention. The government said this was a moderate bill, them had made the issue moreplain. The real question which
which would not increase the constituency to any "Ere" they had been discussing was whether the House of COMMORG
triable extent. The answer to that argument was tat, was prepared or not to accept the principle of the eaten-
notwithstanding those observations, the addition which sion of the suffrage. (Hear, hear.) Many honourable
would be made to the constituency would really swamp it. members who
.professed to be reformers at heart
The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche made speeches in favour of the amendment. They
goer said that the working classes would not act together, certainly not only " dissembled their love " but also
but in the large constituencies of the metropolis they did kicked the object of their affections down stairs.
so, and the result was that they drove the upper classes (Laughter.) They complained that this bill was not large
from the polls. He would admit to the franchise the and comprehensive enough, but if their pain was great
members of the co-operative societies of Rochdale, and because the bill was small, their speeches showed that their
the working men of Lancashire and the West Riding, but pain would not have been greater if there had been no bill
under this bill agricultural labourers in many of the small at all. (Renewed laughter.) The noble lord the member
boroughs would possess the vote, and he had as yet heard for King's Lynn appeared to be the only member on the
no one in or out of the house maintain that they were fit opposition side of -the house who avoided committing
to exercise such a trust. With regard to the 141. franchise himself against reform in general. The noble lord the
for counties, the mode in which that was to be married member for Chester told them that the government were
would give an undue preponderance to the urban interest compelled to purchase the support of hon. gentlemen below
aver the agricultural interest in the counties. He was not the gangway by introducing a radical measure of reform.
to reform, but he objected to the measure now He repudiated the bill as one supposed to have originated
beciProcgrelhe house. It was not because a measure was called below the gangway ; but if the question had been left
by the name of reform that it must be good. This measure with them, he did not believe they would have gone back
would give a preponderance to the working classes ; it to the proposition of the Duke of Richmond, who in 1780
would unsettle the act of 1832, and discontent the upper introduced a hill for universal suffrage and annual parlia-
and middle classes, for it would not only curtail, but ment., although they might have ventured to
take away their power. This measure was not one as be. go back to the mild and constitutional course
tween whigs ancl-tories ; it was a measure which would Pursued by Charles James Fox, who proposed
raise questions as between rich and poor. It was the be- a Reform Bill giving household suffrage. (Hear, bear.)
ginning of a contest between the aristocracy and demo. Instead of the government coming to purchase their sup-
army of the country. .As he was not prepared to see pro- port, hon. members had gone to the government to render
party and intellect overriden by numbers, and an inferior it—(sheers)—and they did so because they found, for the
order of eiviliaation ruling over the higher and middle first time for many years, a government honest on the
classes of the country, he should oppose the measure of subject of reform. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that
the government this was a one-sided bill. It was so, but it was right sided.
Mr. RAIN ES said that while the hon. gentleman who (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to say this measure would
bad just spoken uttered souse liberal sentiments, he made be a settlement of the question. It depended upon the
use of words which he thought he would be glad if he had future, which no one could read, but the larger and fairer
not spoken. He said that this was a question between the measure allowed to pass now, the more likely it was
rich and poor—between the aristocracy and democracy of to be a settlement of the question. He thought
the country. the way in which the working class had rallied
Sir M. BEACH—I said it would lead to that. to the very moderate bill of the government did the
Mr. BAlNgi considered that the bill, instead of leading greatest honour to their prudence and intelligence. (Hear,
to any such consequence, would have the effect of uniting hear.) He trusted, if the house should be so short-sighted
different classes more closely than before, of strengthening as to reject this measure, that the government would at
the state and its valuable institutions. He looked on the once appeed to the public out of doors. (Hear, hear.)
measure as a very moderate one, and he supported it on Mr. It J. HARVEY (Thetford) said that as an inde-
the ground both of the personal fitness of those whom it ; pendent member, and having pledged his constituents that
would enfranchise, and also because it would not give a I he would support any measure which he considered to be
preponderance to any class of society. The grand argu. good for the country at large, he felt on this occasion—
ment against the bill of 1832 was, that the people were not I although sitting on the opposition side of the house—he
educated, and therefore not fit to be entrusted with the should not be doing wrong in giving his support
franchise. In 1832 there were 1,250,000 persons attending to the measure of the government—(loud cheers from the
day schools ; while it appears from the census of 1861 that ministerial side.) He considered it a very mild and mode-
there were 3,100,000 scholars attending them. (Hear.) rate measure. (Hear, hear.) The bill would require
This showed a great incresee in the thrifty, sober portion some amendments in committee, but it was one which in
of the population. There were 320,000 Sunday school his opinion hon. members on both sides of the house
teachers who gave instruction to 2,500,000 children. These might fairly commit themselves to. (Cheers.)
teachers belonged for the most part to the working class ; I Mr. W. DUNCOMBE said the principal argument urged
they were men of ability, piety, and good conduct, and ! by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of this bill
they were not possessed of the franchise. There was a was the pledge which had been given by a former parlia-
great increase in mechanics' and literary institutions for I ment. With regard to such a pledge, it had been proved
the working classes since 1832. These were attended ; that no parliament could pledge its successor to one line I
by the elite of the wonting classes, but they of action. (Hear.( The -house would not forget what I
wore excluded from the enjoyment of the suffrage, occurred last year. The hon. member for Leeds brought ;
In 1831 there were 31,000.000 of newspapers circulated; forward a bill for reducing the borough franchise to 6/.,and
in 1864 there were 546,000,000. All this showed a great lit was opposed chiefly upon the ground that it was a one-
increase in the education and intelligence of the people. I sided ball, and did not deal with the whole question.
The Leeds Volunteer Corps of Engineers was reported to ;It had been' argued that this was an honest measure. But
be the first in the kingdom. The privates in tnat corps lit was impossible to estimate the whole scope and extent
were all working men, yet they were excluded from the I that the reduction of the franchise would cause till they
franchise. The assertion that the measure would give a saw the other measures of the government. He would main-
preponderance to the working classes was perfectly futile, tam that it was a most dishonest measure. (Divide.) The
There were, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I noble earl at the head of the government had stated that
only 126 seats in which the working classes would have a the Chandos clause in the act of '32 had detracted from the
majority; there would 528 seats in the United Kingdom in . usefulness of that measure, but if this bill passed it would
which they would be in a minority. There were i bring into the counties so many urban voters that the
4,000,000 of adults belonging to the working class ; I independent tenant farmers would be swamped. (Divide.)
1,300,000 adults belonging to the upper and middle It seemed to him that the county members did represent
classes. Under this bill three out of four of the latter to a great extent the working classes, and he would assert
be on the register of voters, and only one in twelve 1 confidently that the county constituencies were largely
of the former. (Hear, hear.) Would this be a preponder- a Lamle up of that element, but what would become of those
&nee of the working classes' It would give a majority to ', voters after the leaseholders and copyhoblers were added
the working classes in very few of the constituencies, and to them' As to the borough franchise, he understood,
even in those cases they would be subject to the great in- t from good authority, that the ordinary rent of houses in
fineness of property and education. He knew the working towns was 6/., and it would be a very easy thing after the
elms, and he could bear testimony to the high character, I passing of this bill to raise that rent to 71., and thus, in the
the intelligence, and general qualification of the working West Riding of Yorkshire, all the working men would'
classes to whom this measure would apply. He gave his obtain the franchise, and as they had the power to combine I
hearty support to the measure as eminently safe, moderate, . they, no doubt, would do so for political purposes. The
and constitutional. (Hear, hear.) i government hail tried torsuade the house and the
Mr. NEWDEGATE joined in the tribute of praise country that they hail not flowed the advice of the hon.
which had been paid by the hon. member for Leeds to the member for Birmingham, but he insisted that they had
working classes. It would be most singular if a county done eo—(" divide")—and during the career of that hon.
member, and as one of the 160 members who represented gentleman he had tried to set class against claas—(cheers)
the majority of the working classes of the country, he —and createhostility to the landed interest, at the
should fail in appreciating those high qualities which he same ti to
me lauding the institutions of America. This was
had seen tested. He had seen them tried, not only in I a measure which would change the constitution of Eng-
prosperity but in adversity, under temptations to vio- , land, and, therefore, he should vote for the amendment.
knee, when they might have been misled by the argu. I (Hear, hear.)
mentor. not only of what might be termed radical, but Mr. L. KING would assure the house he would not
chartist orators, andbore he his unfeigned testimony to detain them long, but having on so many occasions brought
the merits, virtues, common sense, and in many cases the forward measures of reform, he could not help expressing
acquirements of the working classes. But he should be his deep regret that the great opposition to this measure
doing an injustice to the hon. member for Leeds and the had conic from his own side of the house. (Hear, hear.)
hon. member for East Surrey if he failed to object to the This was an honest and straightforward measure—(hear,
bill now before the house in the form in which it was hear)—and he regretted that the noble earl was playing
proposed. He had voted against a mere reduction of the the game of the opposition—(no)—and leading them into
county or borough franchise when it was brought forward I the lobby against it. The noble earl ought rather to have
by those hon. members, and as he wax one of those who allowed hon. gentlemen opposite to pursue their own
were not ashamed of being consistent he felt it his duty to I course. (Hear, hear.) It wan also a matter of regret
vote for the amendment of the noble lord the member for 1 that there should be a split, though only to a small extent,
Chester. But he voted fur the amendment on other I among the liberal party. (Hear, hear.) The amendment
grounds. He thought the conduct of the noble lord the had been worded tocittch the liberals, but the plot was dis-
member for Chester upon this occasion was well deserving covered, and only a few of the party would vote for it,
of his high position, and would be remembered to his while the party opposite, with a few exceptions, were going
honour for many years. And if this debate had been pro. to support it. (Hear, hear.) When he brought forward
tracted it was because they were debating a portion of a his County Franchise Bill every excuse was made for
measure of reform which was not before the house. He voting against it, but he now found to his surprise that
said, in the words of Mr. Fox, that the duty hon. gentlemen opposite were anxious to consider the
of that house was " vigilance in preference to secrecy, question with a view to a settlement. though they
and deliberation in preference to despatch." (Hear.) When wished to put it off for a time. (Hear, hear.) He
the government proposed a measure which was called could not say that he wanted a tedistribution:
a measure for the improvement of the representation of the bill to induce him to vote for this measure.
people. but which was a measure for the reduction of the He would assert that it was solely in consequence of the
franchise only, and that bill was imperfect, as it would not success of his motion for the lowering of the county fran-
adapt the representation to the extension of the franchise chine to 101. that reform bills hail been brought forward,
proposed—he supposed that when such a measure as this and that Lord Derby had agreed to deal with the question.
was submitted to the house and not explained in the first (Hear, hear.) Though he respected the talents of the
instance, but merely thrust upon their attention. that the right hon. member for Caine, and aulinired his views upon
noble lord was performing the duty which Mr. Burke de. all other questions, he regretted that he had not acted
scribed as " not yielding to the fear of differing from consistently upon this question of the franchise. But hon.
authority of leaders on the one hand, or contradicting the gentlemen opposite must not suppose that the right hon.
desires of the multitude on the other, which induces mem- gentleman would join them—of that there was not the
hers of parliament to give a careless and facile assent to slightest chance, with his enlightened views. He
measures in which they have never been consulted, would remind the right honourable gentleman that
and then things proceed by a sort of activity he, as one of Lord Aberdeen's government in 1e54,
of inertness, until whole bodies, leathers, middle was a party to a 6/. borough franchise, and also, in 1860,
men, and followers, are all hurried with every as one of Lord Palmerston 's government, and both those
appearance and with many of the effects of unani- bills went to a second reading. Where then was the right
nuty into schemes of politics in the substance of which bon. gentleman's consistency in opposing aV. franchise ?
no two of them are fully agreed, and the origin and authors He had swallowed the camel, and was now straining at a
of which, in this circular mode of communication, none of gnat. This question of reform had been obstructed on
them find it possible to trace." The house must be eon- many occasions. There was an obstacle to its settlement
vinced that the noble lord had not yielded to anything but in 1852 by Lord Derby. Then the Crimean war created
a sense of public duty in the comae he had taken, and difficulties ; and then, in 1859, Lord Derby's government, I
had discarded every feeling of family as well as party and since that time Lord Palmerston, had been a great im-
connection, in order to perform that duty which the house pediment to a settlement ; and he might say that even
would appreciate more fully hereafter, perhaps, than the Chancellor of the Exchequer hail himself been, though
it did at present. But they had been relieved not meaning it, an obstacle to a settlement. (Hear, hear.)
from ell doubt as to the origin of the conduct They had some reason to complain of the manner in which
of the government, for the hon. member for Birmingham a liberal government had placed men in office, because the
had informed them that six years ago he recommended to chief objectors to a measure of reform on that side of the
the noble lord at the head of the government to adopt the , house were exactly those who had been trained by them.
course of proposing merely a reduction of the franchise (" Oh," and loudenes of "Divide.") The hon. membermade
without any redistribution of seats. He had a distinct some ineffectual attempts to proceed with his speech
objection to that course. Much had been said of the vices amidst adverse cries from the opposition, and was at last
and dangers of democracy, but they might have all those compelled to resume his seat, after having intimated that
vices and dangers by the undue aggregation of those who it was his intention to support the bill.
formed a minority of the electors, and that would be pre- Mr. DISRAELI, who, on rising at 25 minutes past 10
cisely what would be the state of things if this measure o'clock, was received with loud and continued cheers from
passed and there was a dissolution, and the house was
repress with an exaggerated constituency, and without a the opposition benches, said—Mr. Speaker,—Before
representation adapted to theaggregation of voters about I advert to the amendment of the noble lord, I
to be created. The effect of tha3r:errii Bill of 1832 was to would make one remark on the alleged reasons for
raise the qualification by the abolition of the scot and the introduction of the government measure. They are
lot voters and the gradual extinction of freemen ; twofold—parliamentary pledges anti ministerial promises'
but that bill so distributed the representation
that the will of the people could be expressed adequately The first must be fulfilled, the second have not been vio.
through their representatives. Though he felt the force of late& (Hear, hear.) Now, the house should be cautious'
the speech of the right hon. member for Caine, and re- in accepting some views on this head of the subject, which
joined that one of the small boroughs had vindicated its have been advanced in the course of the debate. They!
claim to the long period of existence they had had, by are touching on very dangerous ground. Hitherto the ,
sending to parliament a representative capable of bringing
to the memory of the house the nature of the constitution freedom of parliament has been the boast of our prude-'
Under which the country had risen to its greatness, and censors. That freedom of parliament did not merely mean,
showing how fallacious were sonic of the views which midi- freedom of discussion or freedom from arrest. It meant
fated against the base of that constitution, still as repre- above all our other privileges, the liberty of legislation.
senting a constituency created in its present dimensions by (Cheers) And when we hear of parliament being pledged,
the act of 1832, and as connected with the representation '"
of Birmingham, which was increasing in population at the are we to understand that the conduct of the preceding
rate of more than 6,000 a year—when he saw in the case of parliament is to deprive us of the enjoyment
BirminghamandNorthWarwickshirethattheelectoralbody of the highest and moat exalted of our tune-,
increased in a greater ratio than the population by a tions ? (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, in this t COun ry,
natural process, he felt it his duty to enter his protest
. great authorities on them subjects have been so jealoua
against any measure which proposed to extend the fran
chise without adapting the representation to it. The of any attempt upon the liberty of legislation enjoyed by
population of the counties, according to the return laid parliaments, that they have often maintained that in a
before the house with a view of inducing it to adopt this general constitutional country like England such a thing
measure, was, in round numbers, 11,427,000 ; gross esti- as a fundamental law cannot be recognised, but that ins-
mated rental of counties, 69,000,000/. ; and electors for muniment is only to he found in an imperial chancery.
counties. 542,633 ; and yet they were represented by only I would not myself maintain a proposition of that kind
162 members in that house. The population of the boroughs without great reserve ; but in this, I think, all must agree,
was only 9,300,000, property 41,000,000/. and electors that no parliament can be bound by the acts of its prede-
-014,000, and they were represented by 334 members. In onion, except so far as they take the form of law, a form

which the new parliament has the privilege to revise and to
remit. Sir, the conduct, no doubt, of preceding parliaments
is for our example aad instruction, and we should indeed
be indifferent to the high sources of political wisdom in a
country so practical in its politics as England if we disre-
garded the precepts of those who preceded ue in this house.
But, air, I hold that it cannot be for a moment maintained
that we can be at all estopped in our course by any casual
vote of a single house of parliament—for that is all that is
alleged. Our course is free. Well then, air, let us look to
the plea that is founded on the conduct of public men.
It may be possible that a statesman may have entered ,
into reek engagements on subjects of vital importance. No
one will, I think, for • moment maintain that parties
and parliaments are to pursue a course of which
they disapprove because they have entered into
engagements beyond their strength. (Cheers.) Such con-
duct on the part of a public man may be a very good
reason for leaving the public aervioe or retiring from public
life, but it never can be the ground for appealing to the
country to support him for his honour and consistency in
a course which the country and parliament may deem to
be most unwise and inexpedient. (Hear, hear.) Now,
air, I hold that the only one ground upon which you can
appeal to parliament for its support is when you have a
policy which they believe is wise and expedient,
and when you bring forward a measure and sub-
mit it to their consideration—a measure which is
adapted to accomplish that object. But I will take
the question out of the region of abstraction in which
for the convenience of argument I have for a moment con-
sidered it. Is this parliament pledged on the subject of
parliamentary reform? If ever there was • parliament
lees pledged to that subject than another it must be
the present. (Cheers.) We know that a cabinet council
was held before the dissolution of the late parliament to
consider the subject and to decide on the course which the
ministry should take. We know that the representative
of the government in this house in the absence of the
Prime Minister expressed what the decision was at which
the cabinet had arrived on this subject, and that the
cabinet had arrived at a decision that they would not
go to the country on the question of reform, or in any way
pledge themselves on that question. We know that under
these circumstances the chief minister issued immediately
afterwards wiled in this country is practically looked upon
as the programme or manifesto of a political party—an ad-
dress to his constituents, in which the very word " reform"
does not appear. (Hear, hear.) We know also that wken
the new parliament assembled, the government, with great
discretion, having themselves decided probably on sub-
mitting a measure of reform to the house, did not commit
the House of Commons in the address to the crown is a
manner which could fora moment be supposed to offer
any expression of opinion. Papers were promised, and when
those papers were produced the opinion of the government
Was promised in consequence. Therefore, so far as the present
parliament is concerned, I should think that every gentle-
man on both aides of the house will agree that we are per-
fectly free to act on this subject, and that we ought to act
with those convictions which should guide us to do what is
hest for the country. (Hear, hear.) Now, let me see if
existing statesmen have broken their promises. That is a
very serious charge to make, and it was made by a high
authority—the Secretary of State for the War Department,
who represents, as he informed us on a memorable occa-
sion, the educated portion of the community. (Laughter.,
He imputed broken promises to public men, among'
whom chiefly figures his own leader; but it is
my duty on this occasion, as it has been once
before on the same subject, to vindicate the conduct of
Lord J. Russell—(a laugh)—which lam now prepared to
do. Lord J. Russell thought fit in 1852 to introduce a
new reform bill. That hill in itself was n very good one,
and probably a long time will elapse before we see so good
a one. (Hear, hear.) There was only one great fault
alleged against the bill—nobody wanted it. (Laughter.)
' Years elapsed ; Lord J. Russell did not relinquish his
policy, and in 18.19 he had an opportunity of asserting that
policy and inducing a party to support him ; he
changed the government and became a minister,
pledged to bring in a reform bill. Did he por-
form that pledge ? He brought in a reform bill.
Does anyone doubt the sincerity of Lord J. Russell in his
conduct throughout respecting that measure? I never
did. Some allusion has been made to the motion when
he withdrew that bill. I saw nothing in it for the subject
of derision, and I publicly expressed wy synpathy. with
the noble lord. But I want to know where is the violated
promise? (Hear.) Lord J. Russell felt souse emotion
when he withdrew the bill—that is on record. Therefore
Lord J. Russell fulfilled his promise, and at a great sacri-
fice, and so far as he is concerned I hold that the charge of
, the Secretary of State of broken vows on the part of public
men has no foundation, and I take it for granted
that Earl Russell may be looked upon as a
fair representative of the whig party. And before I allude
to the conduct of an individual who may be looked upon as
• fair representative of the tory or conservative party, let
me refer to an observation made by another Secretary of
State, the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for
the Home Department, who reproached this side of the
house with having defeated the Reform Bill of 1860.
(Hear, hear.) Who said " hear ?" because that gentleman
cannot have been a member of the House of Commons at
the time, or he has not availed himself of that authentic I
information which is at everybody's command. Now, in
1861, an earnest reformer—or, as I may observe, availing
myself of a new epithet which has been adopted by
all their journals—a robust reformer—(a laugh)—abso-
lutely moved an amendment on the address, reproaching
Lord J. Russell with his treachery to the reform party, in
which he was slightly supported. But on that occasion
Lord J. Russell made a statement of his views, his position,
and conduct respecting the reform bill, and to that state- i
ment I refer gentlemen who wish to have accurate informa-
tion on the subject. This is the pith, and these are the
very words he used. He said he gave up the Reform Bill !
because he found it was opposed by the liberal party, and
not only by them, but chiefly by members of the liberal
who represented large constituencies. He also said,
partyl expected the country would have supported me. I
expected there would have been indignation meetings !
called throughout England, but they have not been called.
I find the greatest apathy, and I find that the country
has approved of the conduct of the liberal party, and
therefore I give up the whole question of Reform." He I
left the house, and the only time since then until this
bill was brought forward, when we ever heard Lord J.
Russell give an opinion on this subject, was on that
memorable occasion when he recommended the whole
country to " rest and be thankful." (Hear, hear.) I say,
therefore, that the whig party, as represented by Earl
Russell, has broken no vow—(hear, hear)—and I want to
know what has been the conduct of the party on these
benches on the subject. Lord Derby was sent for by the
Queen in la.lB. There was in the House of
Commons at that time a majority against the
friends of Lord Derby of more than 140, and
under those circumstances Lord Derby thought it wax his
duty to decline the great honour her Ma)esty had been
graciously pleased to offer him. His special reason which
he gave to her Majesty was, that he was in a great mi-
nority in the House of Commons, and that such was the
position of the question of parliamentary reform, that he
felt conecious the instant he took office it would be brought
forward, and he would be put in a minority. The house
is perfectly well aware that though Lord Derby declined
office at that period, her Majesty, upon delibera-
tion, felt it her duty to send for him again,
and if the majority against him had been 240
instead of 140, it would have been impossible for him
to have refused to obey her Majesty's commands.
But that happened to Lord Derby which he anticipated. I
don't think we were six weeks in office before a question
was brought forward by the hon. member for Surrey. and
we were placed in a minority. Well, what was the course
we should pursue It was quite impossible for Lord
Derby to retire from office. The discord in the liberal
party which caused the break up of their government
still prevailed. It was absolutely necessary that Lord
Derby should consider his position. And now I come to
what was the real reason that made Lord John Russell in
1852, and Lord Derby in 18.19, bring forward reform bills.
An accurate knowledge of these facts is moat necessary
now. (Hear, hear.) If there was any one subject of
which a man could be master, Lord John Russell was
master of the subject of parliamenty reform. It was to
him what the currency question was to Sir Robert Peel.
No man knew its points more completely or all the
bearings of the case. Lord John Russell and Lord Derby
were the only two existing statesmen who had been con-
cerned in the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, and it is
well known that it was to their youthful energies that
the success of that measure was greatly, if not entirely
due. (Hear, hear.) Therefore neither Lord John Russell
nor Lord Derby could look with those bigoted prejudices
upon the subject which are imputed by different sec-
tions of politicians to both those statesmen. Lord John
Russell was naturally satisfied with the settlement of 1832,
land he resisted the efforts of those who year after year
moved for further changes, and always resisted them suc-
cessfully. But, sir, afterwards a new school of reformers
arose, who were called piecemeal reformers, bit-by-bit
reformers is the elegant and parliamentary ex-
pression, and they met with very different suc-
cess, because those who were called moderate
men, who did not give themselves the trouble to
think, took it into their heads that piecemeal reform was a
very harmless thing, that it only offered to do a little, and
that it was well to stop agitation. Well, Lord John Russell,
who knew the whole question, who knew that the dis-
tribution of power, which is the real point—(cheers)--
depended upon the whole question being consi-
dered and dealt with together, and that if you
treated a single franchise, for example, which moderate
men nigh think an affair of no great importance, and did
not treat other parts of the question, you might
effect a great change in the English constitution—Lord
Russell, long pressed by piecemeal reform, came to the
conclusion—and it was the act of a statesman—that the
only way to prevent the pernicious effect of such reform was
that he should advise a large and comprehensive measure.
(Hear, hear.) You know what happened to Lord John
Russell. He went out of office. Lord Derby was in a
similar position. He was met immediately by piecemeal
reformers. He either had to resign the government of the
country, which, not only as a man of honour, but as a
practical man, was at that moment impossible ; or at once
to meet the question, and by considering it generally, to
baffle the pernicious efforts of the piecemeal reformers.
Sir, both Lord J. Russell and Lord Derby were animated
by the same views and had the same object. But the moat
singular thing is that Lord Russell is again minister, and
that we now have him introducing a measure of piecemeal
reform. (Loud opposition cheers.) Well, sir, I have shown
the house that parliaments were not pledged, that there
have born no broken vows on the part of the great parties

in the country, represented by their chief men, Lord
Russell and Lord Derby. What, then, is the origin of the
present measure, (Hear, hear.) It is this, that only some
sixteen or eighteen months ago, one tine summer's morning,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the Howe
o: Commons, a morning appropriated to one of those dreary
debates aboift the W. franchise, which we all look back to
with dread and horror—(a laugh)—and made a most
remarkable speech, in which he established the suffrage
upon the rights of man—(loud opposition cheep)—and,
at the same time announced his oonviction that

the working classes of the country, on whom he delivered
a panegyric, possessed no share or only an infinitesimal share
in the suffrage—the inevitable consequence being of course,
that a large measure of reform ought to be brought forward,
based upon an approximation to the rights of man, which
would include the great mass of the working classes.
(Cheers.) Well, that speech was received with great enthu-
siasm by a party in this house—not • numerous party, but
represented by great talent—at least in one individual by
commanding talent—(hear, hear)—who possesses among his
followers men of great activity and intelligence, and ex-
perience in organisation. They have also a party in the
country. And from that moment that party has been at
work—working upon the declaration of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer—(hear, hear)—and not checked by the
prudence of Lord Palmerston. It was felt that if he unfor-

innately left us, a new character would be given to
the administration, and the consequence has been the mea-
sure now before us. —(opposition cheers)—a measure of
piecemeal reform. (Renewed cheering.) Sir, I oppose it as
a measure of piecemeal reform, and I support the amend-
ment of the noble lord to which I am now going strictly to
confine myself. My great objection to the measure of
the government is this, that I cannot—although others I
may—l cannot really calculate its consequences. II
cannot fathom what may be the result of its provisions,
unless I have before me the further measures that are pro-
mised, or that some say are promised, because I am not
clear about this promise. (A laugh.) But if Ido consider this
measure without reference to any further measurel think.

I can show the house that it mat land us in a condition of
such confusion, so little contemplated, I believe, by the
ministry themselves, or by those who support it, that I
verily declare, if this bill is passed, and if it should on a
subsequent occasion become the duty of the government
to advise her Majesty to appeal to the sense of the people,
1 believe they would prefer to have an autumn session to
revise and modify this bill to advising a dissolution of par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I propose to show, in the
first instance, the inconsistencies, inconveniencies, and im-

mense injury that, in a most glaring manner, may be
produced by this bill if it passes alone, as alone we must
consider it. It is given to us as a complete measure, and
we are asked tonight to assent to its principle. Ido not
think I could do so in a more complete manner than by
referring to the county franchise. I never have been a
. .

stickler for a contntct;4l and exclusive borough franchise.
. .

My opinions on that subject were taken frommy earliest
political friend, my predecessor in this seat, who was the
author of the Chandos clause. lam convinced that the
ground on which that clause was based was a right one.
It was supported by Mr. Hume and the leaders of the libe-
ral party. It was opposed by Lord Althorn ou what we
would consider now as an old-fashioned notion, namely, that
you should confine your suffrage in counties entirely to
property, and in boroughs to occupation. But at that
time—in IB32—when you were ostentatiously and avow-
edly, and very properly, giving a large share of the
government of the country to the middle classes, it did
meta most monstrous and inconsistent that one
most important section, perhaps the most important, of
the middle classes—the farmers of England, the employers
of labour, should have no suffrage. And the first
measure proposed by Lord Chandos was a very wise and
proper one. (Hear, bear.) Well the present bill pro-
poses a very large reduction in the occupation fran-
tibiae in counties. I want to show the house how we will
act if we pass this bill ; and I propose to show it first, by
considering the effect upon the proposed franchise in
counties of the parliamentary boroughs. The house, per-
haps, does not realize—and it ought to do so—the in-
crease in the population of parliamentary boroughs since
1832. It is very large. It is larger than the popula-
lation of several European kingdoms. The increase
is considerable—above 4,040,000; and thegreater portion of
this population is located without the boundaries of the
parliamentary boroughs. (Hear, hear.) Now I know it
may be said that a considerable portion of this increase is
produced by the boroughs of the metropolitan districts. I
think it very likely that a great portion is, although
I have no doubt that the increase of the population of the
metropolitan boroughs has a very considerable effect upon
the contiguous counties of Essex, Surrey, and Kent. I
think, however, it will lead to a more precise calculation
if I deduct them. Doing so, the increase would be up- I
wards of three millions, and the greater portion of that
increase is located without the boundaries of the
boroughs. I do not think I could give a better
instance than that of the borough from which I
presented a petition to-day, and which the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer in his opening speech referred
to as affording a conclusive proof of the undesirable pain-
tion, as regards the suffrage, of the working classes—
which was the subject of eloquent comment in his admi-
rable speech by my right honourable friend the member
for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), and which was alluded
to by the honourable member for Birmingham as affording
the main ground on which he supported the bill. I allude
to the borough of Rochdale. (Hear, bear.) When you
remember the general character of the artisans of Roch
dale—men living in a most flourishing part of the country,
who have long been in possession of a high rate of wages,
who have the reputation of having shown sonic of the
highest virtues of civil prudence—when you look at the
papers placed before us and find that they have only
the nominal share of representation of 64 or 68
votes (corrected perhaps by the petition to
which I referred ; but 64 or 290 it matters
little for the argument)—you will admit that it is a case
which strikes one very much. But when I came to examine
the facts I found that the population of Rochdale without
the parliamentary boundaries is larger in amount than the
population within the parliamentary boundaries. The
boundaries of Rochdale happen to be peculiarly limited,
extending from a central point to a radius of three-quar-
ters of a mile, and beyond that the population is consi-
derably greater than within it. It considerably exceeds
the population of the town. The great body of the work-
ing men live in a portion of the town that is beyond the
parliamentary boundaries. I saw with interest the state-
ment that the mills belonging to the fanUly of the member
for Birmingham were situate without the boundary. They
employ at this moment a thousand hands, and I believe
that they all live without the boundaries.
Mr. BRIGHT—A great number of them live within the
boundaries.
Mr. DISRAELI—I was informed that the fact was as I
stated, but I am not dealing with the borough but with
the county franchise, and there is a population amounting
to 50,000 or 60,000 without the parliamentary boundary
of Rochdale who would be voters under this bill
—(cheers)—and remember they are only to live
in 61. houses to be entitled to the franchise.
In a community bound together by every social tie ought
they not to be electors for Rochdale, ought they to be
electors for Yorkshire' I put it to every county ineniber
whether this is a state of affairs that ought to be per-
mitted. What would they say if a stalwart body of Lanca-
shire or Yorkshire farmers came into Rochdale, and on the
faith of some old franchise in the county preferred not
voting there, but in Rochdale; we soon should hear from the
hon. member for Birmingham anew argument in reference to
parliamentary reform, to put an end to such an injustice.
All the boroughs in the north are, as a rule, in this con-
dition. All the boroughs of Lancashire, and Yorkshire,
and Durham, are in the same condition. It is not easy to
give a precise opinion on this subject without authentic
returns. But that is what I complain of. We have
it in our power to illustrate the case. I take the
case of Halifax, which has within the parlia-
mentary boundary 38,000. But there is a more recent
political creation called the municipal borough. We find
within the municipal boundary the population is 60,000, so
that 22,000 of that borough population will be county
voters. Is this a state of affairs which is to be tolerated'
But take the borough of Birmingham ; why, it is more
monstrous than the state of things in Rochdale and most
of the northern boroughs. The population beyond the
boundaries of Birmingham is immense. In Aston alone
there are 2,000 who can qualify under the 101. clause, but
who do not vote for the borough of Birmingham. But he
says 1,400 of those will qualify under the new act as
county voters. (Cheers.) Is this a state of things that
ought to be permitted' If you leave all these anomalies
unremedied what will be the condition of the county con-
stituencies 1 I take it that the great body of
the members of the House of Commons wish to maintain
the legitimate influence of the landed interest as one of
the best securities for our public liberty, and the only
security for our local government. But can you do that
if you make these great changes in this imperfect manner,
without having before you the complete scheme' 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 ought to be remedied,
Lord Derby did not bring forward a remedy. This is not
an argument. (Hear,' hear.) It is a captious remark.
If they take him as their model, and avow that their go-
vernment was established on the principle of imitating
Lord Derby, then there would be something in the remark
of the right honourable gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
But that is not the case, and therefore I say
it is no argument whatever. But is it true
that Lord Derby neglected this question' Is it
not true that Lord Derby, in the reform bill which,
on his part, I introduced into the House of Commons, pro-
posed to enact that the very day that bill passed there
should be a compulsory revision of all the looundaries of
the parliamentary boroughs. Was not that plan combined
with an arrangement which would have rendered it
morally certain that it would have passed' Because the
great difficulty of passing a boundary bill is this—hon.
gentlemen know that when the great reform bill was
passed, settling the boundaries was a source of constant
controversy, misrepresentation, and imputation of injus-
tice and corruption, because the boundary commissioners
were appointed by the government ; but Lord
Derby, profiting by his experience, took that ap-
pointment of boundary commissioners from the govern-
ment, and gave it to the enclosure commissioners, and the
late Mr. :Mb', who was a great partisan and admirer of
Lord Derby's reform bill, but voted against it--(laughter)
--said that part of the bill was so perfect that we had
solved a great difficulty, and he defied au y one to make a
party question of the decisions as to the allotments by the
enclosure commissioners. He approved of that plan. •But
nothing has been done, and nothing is promised in respect

if
etlec
degree lse
ready
etoneieshe
mel
matte:
erteheie
eehotutse,eoegtoht cionnsbiydetrhetmheieieetffeyect;
of the
.immense population that has spread beyond
the. parliamentary boroughs upon the county eonstitu-
and I have shown that from these millions an immense
population may be enfranchised under the new act who
will be a county constituency, and who will have
no sympathy with the counties. I don't pre-
tend that there is any political
in
the
,anan7llthtehatreietefOsopbrerimeauy more
thenttitcurbed.
fieg uur et
thh ae
stoeftt ht
leeysolmwe'ne
treoi afs
dcothuenmolty..fra: Bcuhtiwyouanhadvie
than m the figure of 101. in the boroughs. But the ad-
to
de prescription
:'n withiconsider
5i
t. thehad
I t iis revision
nt ho et
e e da
of
f prescribedmt:ne
say there is a principle in the county franchise when you
prin-
ciple is this—it must be a county franchise • it
must be a suffrage exercised by those who have a natural
relation to the chief property and industry of the coun-
ties, and they must be and ought to be members of the
community, anti not strangers, whose thoughts, feelings,
interests, and capital and labour are employed and occupied
in another industry. I have shown what must be the effect
on the county constituencies by the thousands, and, for
aught I know, hundreds of thosands, whom
this great population may produce under this act.
I now ask the house to consider what must be the effect on
the county constituencies of the population of those bo-
roighsthat are not parliamentary. That is the next step
in considering the county constituencies. The house
knows that in almost every county in England there are
towns exceeding 5,000 in population that are not repre-
sented. When they are strictly agricultural towns, and
have a keen sympathy with the counties in which they
are placed, no apprehension need be felt of the
general population possessing votes under this bill,
because there is a community of interest and feeling, and
no doubt they would vote for those who would best repre-
sent their interests. But where large towns have arisen
with an interest adverse to the counties, if those persons
are allowed suddenly to exercise the franchise in the com-
munity with which they have little interest, great incon-
venience and injustice will be produced. In the bill of
18.19, which was referred to by the hon. member for
liimuingham, there was an allotment of seats
which he spoke of with some contempt. 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 1.5,000. That would
greatly relieve the effect the bill would have on the coun-
ties. What will be the effect on the unrepresented towns
by the reduction of the franchise among the county con-
stituencies ? The government tell us we must wait till we
see their bill for the redistribution of seats. My first
and principal answer to the government on that subject
is, what security have we if we consent to the second read-
ing of this bill ! What security have we that the subsequent
measures which the amendment calls for, and which all now
acknowledge tobe absolutely necessary, will be passed also?
Even the new device, the paid paean device of which we
have heard so much, does not in the slightest degree meet
it, because I can show to you you cannot understand the
action of this measure without having the whole scheme
before you, and, therefore, you should not be Raked to ap- I
prove of the principle, but you may go on on the pari paean
principle, and you may pass this bill, and the other bill
may be thrown out. You may pass the Frahchise Bill on
Monday, but on Thursday the Seats Bill may be
thrown out. Well, I will not insist on the
primary objection, because it has been treated on
so much, but it was necessary to my argument that I
should briefly refer to it. But there are on this subject
other objections which appear to me to be worthy
of the gravest consideration of the house. The
government say they are going to produce a seats
bill which will meet all these objections with refer-
ence to the population of the unrepresented towns. Well,
then, my question, is what are you going to do with the
counties! When you pursue that subject 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, which I will prove, for you to come to any
sensible and satisfactory decision of what the amount of
the county franchise should be. lint before I go into
that I want to know what security have we at this
moment that to bill for the distribution of seats will be
brought forward at all ? Why, the other night the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade told the house on this mast •
important subject that they had the engagement of the
Prime Minister. Now we have no engagement of the Prime
Minister. The engagement of the Prime Minister
can only be given in his place in parliament, or by
some document placed on the table of this house.
Now the Prime Minister has made no speech on the distri-
bution of seats in his place in parliament, and we have no
document on this table whichgwes us any information. The
right hon. gentleman alluded to is speech that had been
made at a private meeting of the followers of the govern- ;
ment, and which was printed in certain newspapers,
in order to influence their votes. It was neces- ,
nary for me to ask what engagement he made,
and the right hon. gentleman replied that the en-
gagement made by Lord Russell at the private meeting
was "to lay on the table of the house a bill which will
show the intention of the government in regard to the
distribution of seats, and to proceed with that bill with a
view to carry it as soon as circumstances shall permit."
A very dangerous phrase. (Cheers.) Now, I shall show
that it is 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. (Hear, hear.) It is absolutely
necessary that the house should carry in theirminti—l have
no doubt that they have it there—the comparative repre-
sentation of the land and the boroughs. lam sure the
house will recollect it, but it is in round numbers
9,1-4,000, the population of the boroughs, against
11,400,000, the population of the counties ; 514,000 elec-
tors of boroughs against 501,000 in counties, and 33 mil-
lions of rateable property in the boroughs against 40 mil-
lions in the counties. But you must bear in mind, I will
put it before you very shortly, the most pertinent and
pregnant calculation which, on a subject of this kind, was
ever made. I propose that the house should consider this
proposition—to transfer to counties the representation of
all boroughs under 500 electors. Let us see what that is.
There are 87, and see what the result would beof transferring
to counties all boroughs under 500 electors, being 87 seats.
It would be necessary of course to deduct that population
from the boroughs and add it to the counties. The
population of the boroughs would be a little under nine
millions, and the population of the counties a little under
twelve millions. The electors of the boroughs would be
493,000 against 521,000 electors for the counties. The
rateable value of the boroughs would be about 34,000,000/.,
and the rateable value of the counties 59,500,0001. None
of these great quantities much change, but instead of
the boroughs being 334 members, and the counties 162,
the boroughs would then have 217, anti the counties 249.
Therefore by disfranchising 87 boroughs under 500 electors,
and giving them all to the counties, you still would
not entirely remedy the balance. It is neces-
sary the house should bear in mind that striking in-
stance of the singular inequality in the relative representa-
tion of the counties and the boroughs. Well, sir, then I
address to the government this t uestion—what are you
going to do with the counties? You are going to increase
the representation of the boroughs, or you are going to
transfer the representation of some small boroughs to those
large boroughs in the counties not represented, and so
far going to relieve the county constituencies from the
possible danger of being absorbed in a great degree by the
population of those towns. But what are you going to do
with the counties? Are you in the first instance
going to add a great many members to the counties,
and a great many or some members to the
counties and sonic members to the large towns? On
what principle are you going to act! Do you mean to
establish plurality of representation when you shrink from
voting in your constituent body? 1)o you mean to say
members ought to come here to represent numbers and
not opinions? I ask this because on your determination
on these points and your conduct our decision as to the
county franchise entirely slepende. Or have you found
out, as others have found out before you, and I have no
doubt Lord Russell, in his long studies and numerous ex-
periments, has found out, that that plan would be ex-
tremely inconvenient and impossible, and it would not at all
faithfully represent the country? Would you have recourse
then to a further division of counties and great cities and
boroughs? We want a decision on that point, because on
that point depends the judgment we shall arrive at with
regard to the county constituencies. Take the county of
Middlesex. Half of it is a rural community, and the rest
is suburban. It is not very large, but is rich and pros-
perous. If you give it four members you will have four
suburban members with your 14/. franchise. If, on the
other hand, you divide Middlesex, and give two members
to the rural population and two to the suburban, then it is
possible that your 14/. franchise may give us two good bo-
rough}nembers and two county members. Therefore I contend
unless we have your whole scheme it is utterly impossible
to arrive at any conclusion as to the county franchise.
Therefore, I ask, what could be more reasonable than the
amendment of the noble lord? If it be that there are to
be further measures let us have them all. I say that we
have a right to ask the government, generally speaking,
what is the plan on which they mean to proceed with re-
gard to the redistribution of seats. Not a word have they
said on the subjtxt. But those who have avowedly great in-
fluence with the government have given us a plan ; they
have made speeches, and written in the press on the sub-
ject of the distribution of seats, and if we are to take
those speeches and writings as intimations of what is
coming, the course they are going to pursue is, to my
mind, most unjust and meet injurious to the landed inte-
rest—that is to say, to England—(cheers)—because I say
the legitimate influence of the land is the interest of Eng-
land. Nothing is more simple, they say, than the mode,
according to the last statement we have had, of the dis-
tribution of seats. I have always considered the distribu-
tion 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. We must have general principles
to guide us. You cannot apply them with extreme
severity. You must apply them with great forbearance
and consideration of various interests, and any one who
has to deal with the subject knows it is a subject which
requires forbearance and temper, and considerable
knowledge of the complicated interests of the country. But
that is not the opinion of these who seem to have a com-
manding influence on this question ; because the last thing
I have seen is thin There is a borough in the north o
England with a • trade and a population of 100,000.
Well, that borough has two members in this house, and
there is a small borough in the south with a population of

110,000, or perhaps 5,000, with very httle snide, or no
trade at all, quite asleep, and with only a county market.
Can anything be more anomalous than that this borough
of the north, with ita great population and great industry,
shall have two members in this house, and that this little

unknown place in the south shall have the same number?
The thing is undefensihle, and if I were in the
Music-hall in Birmingham it would not be diffi-

cult for me to pnxluce a very great effect by de-
claiming upon it. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing more
easy than to disfranchise a borough in the south of
England ; but the moment that is don, another issue
arises. That issue is no longer between the borough in the
north and the borough in the south, but between the
borough in the north and a district in the south which

perhaps exceeds it in population and property, and
which is most imperfectly and inadeivately repre-
sented. (Cheers.) Let us take an example—say West Kent.
The population of West Kent is above half a million ;
and there are several boroughs—l think four—the aggre-
gate population of which exceeds 100,000. They. are re-
presented by eight members ; but West Kent 11 repre-
sented only by two, though I admit they are both capital
ones. (Hear, hear.) The people of Kent would say,
"There is a borough close to us, in the next county. dis-
franchised, and its members are to be given to a borough
in the north, because it has a great trade ; ft has a hun-
dred thousand inhabitants, and only sends two members
to parliament." Surely the 400,000 people of West Kent,
which is a very proud county, would naturally say, "If
members are taken from • borough in the south, they
ought to be given to the county of Kent." (Cheers.)
And therefore, sir, it is not so simple an issue as those
who are in favour of these sweeping changes ima-
One. I think the argument is unanswerable, and
it is not to be answered by a statement whioh
I read to-day, and which was made by a member of
this house at a public meeting—namely, that the superio-
rity of population and property in the north would no
longer admit of the present system of representation re-
maining. I think it is most unwise to have these constant
companions made between the north and smith. We
shall soon be coming to a state like America, and we
shall be ha viii secession. or, perhaps, as
Mr. Canning sa' be bnugieg beak the Hep-
tarchy. (Laughter. I don't want to make these

• comparisons between north and south ; for a wise states-
man would take care that whatever he did the represen-
Hon was fairly distributed over the country. But as these
statements are made, and as this sort of rantipole
rhetoric prevails, I must deny that the north has a
superiority over the south in population and property.
(Hear, hear.) Taking the traditional and acknowledged
line of demarcation, namely, the Trent, the pro-
perty and population of the two portions of the
country are equal • or, rather the superiority
is with the south. I know the answer that will be

made to this. It is, that fortunately for the south,
it includes the metropolis. (Mr. Beicer : Hear, hear.)
Is that any reason why the population, intelligence, and
property of the metropolis should not prefer a claim
before
these new members ! (Cheers.) Suppose I were to
say to the hon. member for Birmingham, who cheered me,
"You are always boasting of your great predominance in
population, property, and industry in the north ; but you
know that if you take off from the north the West Riding
and South Lancashire you will not go for much." (Hear,
hear.) This plan, therefore, of disfranchising boroughs in
the south to enfranchise places in the north won't stand a
moment's consideration. The problem is a very difficult
one, and it must be approached with more calmness and
with more comprehensive views. (Cheer-.) I would atop
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. I have too much confidence in
the country. I think there is sense and spirit and creative
power enough in it to forma government, but I think that
such a system would end in the destruction of parliament.
(Cheers.) You won't destroy England, but you might get
rid of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) Suppose
the government make up their mimes--ax, for anything I
know, they may do—to meet the case on a great scale, and
to astonish the house by a grand scheme founded upon
statistics—suppose we say that they are prepared to dis-
franchise these 87 boroughs which have lees than
500 voters, and say—" We cannot promise to give all
the members to the land, notwithstanding that it is en-
titled to them. (Hear, bear.) But, looking at the matter
as statesmen, we will endeavour to establish a fair ba-
lance in the constitution, and we will, as far as possible,
represent population and property blended, and at the
same time we will every now and then allot representa-
tives to some distinctive interest." Suppose they were
to do that, what would happen! If the house will per-
mit me I will tell them. You would have • very great
parliament. If you adopt electoral districts tomorrow,
you will have a very great parliament, for the charac-
ter of individual members, for the great pro-
perties, the great interest' and the command-
ing populations it would represent. It would
include great landowners, great manufacturers, and some
merchants ; but after • short time you would find that
you had not the same hold over the executive power that
you had under the old system. The want of variety of
' elements would cause that. Well, in proportion as your
hold over the executive receded your proprietors and
your great manufacturers would cease to belong to
a house of which the influence and the importance would
proportionably diminish. Then the story would be that
the House of Commons is not what it wax ; and then you
must extend the franchise till you got to manhood or uni-
versal suffrage. You will not by that advance
your case. You will have a parliament which
will entirely lose its command over the exe-
cutive. For that is what always happens the moment
you have universal suffrage ; for every man then looks
upon himself as good as any other. When this state of
things arises the parliament will lose its prestige ; it will
have no special traditions, no prospective glory ; it will
have no evidence of historical lineage ; you will have no
great families round which men may rally in seasons of
difficulty ; no scholarship, no learning, no geuiva.
(Cheers, and " Oh, oh.") You will have a hall
filled with selfish and obscure mediocrities, incap-
able of anything but mischief, and that mischief
devised and regulated by the raging demagogue of the
hour. (Cheers and " Oh.") I now come to the amend-
ment of the noble lord, and I must say I am surprised that
it was not anticipated by the government. I cannot
understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer
should have treated that amendment with so much
bitterness ; for it appears to me to be a rational
amendment, and one expressed in language at
once clear, simple, and significant. (Hear, hear.)
I know there is nothing so difficult as to draw up a parlia-
mentary amendment. Lord Russell, in his tune, was con-
sidered as capable a man to draw up a cunning amendment
as any man could be, and if the noble lord's amendment
were merely as is pretended, a cunning device, instead of
1 being, as I believe it to be, the reflex of his own mind, the
; noble lord (Earl Russell) must, I can imagine, have felt
the sympathy of a master mind. But what is the motion
which would have suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer!
The opposition has been unjustly attacked. The house
is not satisfied with the course the government took, and
it was impossible for us not to oppose the bill. If the
noble lord had not come forward, somebody on this side
must have done so, and we must have opposed it in re-
ference to the manner in which it deals with the county
franchise, and on various other grounds. I want to know,
therefore, what is the amendment which would have
suited the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other day
I was looking over the reoords of an assembly,
not, perhaps, quite so illustrious as the House
of Connnons, but which had in it many most
, eminent men. It was about the period of the
I' Reform Bill of 1831. The country was greatly agitated,and
in that assembly the whole question was brought forward,
and this motion wax made on the 16th of May, 1831, at
Wyatt's rooms in the Oxford Union. Parliamentary re-
form was before the house and an ardent member (Mr.
Knatchbull Hugessen) moved that the present ministry is
incompetent to carry on the government of the country,
which was supported by Mr. Sidney Herbert ; but an
ardent member of the Union, not satisfied with this
bald amendment, next day moved a rider to it
to the effect that the ministers had unwisely introduced a
most unscrupulous Reform Bill, a measure which not only
threatens to change the form of government, but ultimately
to break up the foundations of our constitution. Now I
should be perfectly willing to adoptthat amendment which
was moved by Mr. William Gladstone. (" Oh, oh," and
cheers.) I only mention it to show how difficult it is to
devise an amendment to please everybody. (Cheers.) I
must touch for a few moments on the county franchise,
and the clause referring to leaseholders. It appears to me
I that that suggestion must have been made
1 without any sufficient knowledge of the subject.
I have always considered the freeholders' suffrage in towns
as an anomaly. Before the Reform Bill the freeholders
, voted in many places in towns, and Lord Auckland waa
very fprinholcdipwleas that the freeholders
shoulda There vvooteurabwhleere tothe thefree
a stout resistance on the part of the whigs, and the
only provision on which the government succumbed was
that we attempted to put the county franchise on
a broader basis, not merely because it was an anomaly
hut because a number of split votes were made in all
towns. It cannot be defended, but still there is
prescription for it. But the present government have gone
out of their way to aggravate the evil, and they must have
done it without a fair understanding of what the conse-
quences would be. The hon. member for Staffordshire
has shown conclusively that one town could send forth
5,000 voters under this qualification. Well, if there is
one topic which I have no wish to avoid it is the ques-
tion of the reduction of the borough franchise, which
no doubt is intended to give to the working clams their
fair share of the representation. (Ministerial cheers.) I
think that after the speech of my right hon. friend the
member for Hertfordshire, and the speech of the member
for Caine yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
had quite enough of the sentimental part of the
question. I may say at once that we on this side of the
house have no fear whatever of the working men. But
the question before us is not whether we are afraid of
them, bat whether we can improve the constitution. Now,
the old English oonstitution is not a phrase, but a fact.
It is founded on a distinct principle, and aims at different
ends. The old constitution is a monarchy, limited by the
co-ordinate authority of bodies of subjects invested with
privileges for their own advantage and the common weal.
They are called estates of the realm, and one of them is
the state of the Commons. Of course the elements of
which the Commons are formed must vary, and be

(Par coatiaration lee page 6.)