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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28,

( Continued front page 3.1

modified according to the vicissitudes and cirournstances of
the country. Yet, notwithstanding, the original scheme
of the Plantagenet' which constituted thaw, of the pro-
prietors of laud, of burgesses, and of skilled artisans, has
remained to this day. (Hear, bear.) These are the
elements which I wish to foster, and if neomeary, to
increase, but I wish to retain the original character of the
constitution, and I wish to legislate in the spirit of the
constitution, not departing from the genius of the
original scheme. (Hear, hear.) The elements of the
estate of the Commons must be numerous and ample on an
age like this, but above all they must be choice. They
must be numerous enough to be independent, and
select enough to be responsible. (Hear, hear.) We in this
house represent not an indiscriminate multi tude, but a
body of men endowed with privileges which they enjoy,but
also invested with duties which they are bouboundto per-
form. (Cheers.) We hid to consider this question in 1&58
and 1859, and to discover if we could what portn io of the
skilled artisans, following out the scheme of the Plantage-
net', was proper to admit within the pale of the constitu-
tion. We found upon inquiry that the number who at
that time were admitted was about an eighth of the whole,
which did not seem to us to be enough. We therefore bad
to consider whether a proper representation of the working
classes could be made by a reduction of the borough franohiee.
We believed that it would be most dangerous to reduce the
borough franchise, but we endeavoured to obtain the same
result by other means. We calculated that by means which
we suggested, and which have been partly adopted by the
government, we should have doubled the amount of the
constituencies. The house knows what was the fortune of
these efforts of ours. But I do not wish to dwell upon that
subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secre•
tory of State taunted me that, because in 1859 I had ex-
pressed a willin,gness on the part of the government to re-
duce the borough franchise, if necessary, I was inconsistent.
There is no inconsistency in that, because after we appealed
to the country, and when it was difficult to know
where the majority lay, we felt bound not to
desert the subject. But has nothing happened since 1859?
Why, seven years—and with regard to this question seven
of the most remarkable peers—that ever happened in the
history of England have happened—(bear, hear)—because
though the working classes, full of business, prosperous
and contented, may not have studied the ohms-
tion of representation, or the principles on which
it should be founded, the intellect of England,
the thought of the most cultivated and the most
enlightened cheeses of the country, intensely studied the
principles of representation, and considered those
questions which hitherto have baffled statesmen. I
do not give it as my opinion, but I give it as my observa-
tion of the public ju.4nient of this country, that the oph j
nian of the cultivated and thoughtful, the impartial and
responsible, though desirous that the chosen members of
the working classes should form part, and no unimportant
part, of the estate of the Commons, recmileal from obtaining
that end by a gross and indiscriminate reduction of the
franchise. (Hear. hear.) That I believe to have been
the opinion of the intelligent portico of the country.
No one contributed more to fonn that opinion than the
hon. member for Westminster. (Loud deers.) I confess
J listened to his speech the other night with surprise, be-
cause I did not think it was consistent with his writings
on this subject, and with those opinions of his which have
most influenced the convictions of society. (Hear, hear.)
I do not refer to his writings of 25 years ago, but the
latest edition of his last book—written since 1859,
and after the failure of Earl Itosaell, when his-
mind was full of these events. As I understand
the purport of his writings, the lion. gentleman is in fo-
your of a gross and indiscriminate reduction of the fran-
chise, even to an unlimited extent. But though in favour
of that extension he qualified it with conditions of a cha-
racter that probably might induce every member of this:
house to support his propositions, namely, the representa-
tion of minorities and plurality of voting. (Laughter.)
But we did not bear anything of the representation of mi-
norities or of plurality of votes in the speech of the hoe,
gentleman the other evening, and, therefore, I
think he has not been consistent with himself.
The first principle of the hon. gentleman is that the vote
should not be confined to the dark sex—(laughter)—
and that women had as much right to vote as men, and I
do not know that be is not right in regard to a country
where women hold manorial courts, and sometimes elect
churchwardens. (Laughter.) There is :mother condition
of universal suffrage, proposed by the hon. member for
Westminster, to which I call the spacial attention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, atal that is that no man
should exercise the suffrage who did not pay taxes. (Hear,
bier.) That is an excellent provision. I know it
will be said that all men pay taxes who consume
tea, sugar, and tobacco. (Hear.) But the hon. member
for Westminster did not refer to indirect but to direct
taxation. (Hear.) Indirect taxation is, in the opinion of
the hon. member for Westminster, no security for the
prudence of individuals, or of their fitness to possess the
vote. You must, he says, have a direct tax. (Hear.)
That seems to be a difficulty. I have immense confidence
in philoaophers. I knew the difficulty would be solved.
Statesmen and politicians are to aril race who have
nrthia; but experience to guide them. (Laughter.)
But a philoeopher is an exuberant an imoginative being,
and accordingly we find the honounitle member ready
with an admirable expedient. It is a poll tax. (Hear.
hear.) Every 1113.11 is to be subject to direct taxation, and
it is to be collected by means of a poll tax. It is a great
thing to have, is future, and now we know what the future
will be. If the philosophic cabinet, which I understand
in in contemplation, should take its place on that bench,
we shall have a poll tax for Englual as a measure of
li-iance, and we know that there are other measures in
ti e same armoury. We are to have cornaiilaory education
mid compulsory cleanliness. ILiughtai.) The scheme will
be the admiration of cosmopolitan Era„).'-, but I fear that
before nine months the whole coontry will be in a state of
insurrection. (Hein, hear.) There is one point of primary
importance which might not to be avoided in this debate.
I have stated my view as to the positon of the working I
classes with reference to other toeialora of the constituency.
I wish them to take their proper place is the Commons,
sod to have an adequate share in the Ere. .t privileges of j
their order. But what is the number of that class j
already enjoying the franchise: That is a subject I
uimn which a great deal of r-ystery exists, and
which seems to have startled everybody—no-
body more than ministers :La a.selven, and it is
a subject upon which we should hay- correct information
before we proceed with this hill. (Hear, hear.) I want
tap have further information respecting e important fact.
Y.'a used to be told that before thy Kef.irm Bill all the
freemen were working men, freen co and scot and lot
voters ; but it now turns out that ..t no jariod were the
working nien in the majority. The free....en and scot and
lot voters, it appears, belonged to various classes of
society, and included many of the gentry. We have a
return of the number of freemen at the ;,resent moment.
At present there are 50,478 scot anal lot voters, of
v 'mom 2'4,000 belong to the wrirkine; dos, or 45 per
cent. At the time of the Itcform Bill the num-
bers were 108,000 and 48,000, anal the freemen
1;1,000 to 106,000, and workiiig men altogether
were estimated at 1-12th. I think it was 1-9th. The
working men in the franchise have, I calculate, increased
9) per cent. since the Reform Bill. At ;•-'-sent the rate of
it crease is 10,000 a year, and in ten the working Medlin
the franchise will be 180,000 ;again 400,9larlsorough voters
nr one-third of the borough popultt lan. Now I think one-
tit int would be a rather fair proportion, hit the Chancellor
of the Exchequer says it is one-fourth. while as regards
the boroughs and counties together it c one-seventh. I
think, however, that to put the 's( oniglis and counties thus
together is a fallacy. and that if you want to show the
amount of the working classes ir. the borough constitu-
encies,
you must take it in the borough constituencies alone,
otherwise you will have the result which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer SO much aleprecono. ti...t of giving them
too great a predominance. (In this point we have not suffi-
cient information, but we have somethiag at which the
house will be startled. The Chancialor of the Exchequer
thought that the working classes haul little or no electoral
position in the country. I thought so too, but I do
not think so now. Look at the effect of the land
societies. (Hear, hear.) In Eavka and Hertfordshire
in which, when I was first inonounted with them,
there was not a single working ::.an voter, more
than one-sixth of the constit 1,--,cy are now work-
irg men. Here is a 'tats-oeat which was
forwarded to me by one of the best authorities in York•
shire. He dosses the voters in his township in four
classes--upper class, middle class. lower middle class, and
working class, of men living on wages leas than 30s. a week.
Ile says thot in hie township these are four voters of the
upper class, 12 of the middle china 24 of the lower
noddle class, and .10 of the working class. He
says further, and speaking from as intimate know-
ledge of the whole of the West (hiding, that in
it there are upwards of 15.000 woe king men enjoying the
franchise—(hear, hear)—men livii.g epon wages and en-
joying the suffrage in the West The hon. member
for Birmingham says " No," but he may digest the state-
ment at his leisure. Here is anoths r scion from a con-
servative agent. He says there are .nore 40s. freeholders
iii South Derbyshire than there are voters on the large
estates and small holdings put toget 'ler. This shows what
is the condition of the working choses at this moment.
Have they or have they not their fair proportion of the
setae of the Commons 7 I say I hive ehown you that
which ought to make you hesitate, that yoo ought to in-
q :ire, that you should paose. that you simala endeavour
to obtain accurate information, hut, above all, that what-
ever proposition you make, you %tumid legislate in the
spirit of the English constitution—lhear, hear)—that this
house, whatever you do, should re ,ihin a House of Com-
mon, and not a house of the people - (hear, hear)—not
the housed an indiscriminate multitude which no one can
attsch a definite idea to, which is not responsible to society,
11•:d which has no specified duties or proileges given to it by
the constitution. (Hear., What we ought to do into act In
the spirit of the constitution in settling this matter. We
are asked not to act in the spirit of the constitution. We
are asked to act in the spirit of the American constitution.
(Cheers.) Now lam no decrier of American institutions,
an members know who recollect what I have said upon the
subject. I approve of American institutions, for the mason
that they are adapted to the country in which they flourish.
I see none of those conditions existing in this
coontry which exist in America, and which have
mule those institutions flourish. If I could see a
rest body of intelligent men here in possession
of an immense expanse of cultivated land, bounded by
andlimitable district, where men may soon become wealthy
landowners, then I say I see a state of men to whom
Buy be entrusted the gravity and responsibility of

sovereign power ; but what I understand to be the
blot of the American political system, is not essential to
it, but accidental—it is those turbulent and demoralised
mobs that exist in the cities of their coasts. But if we
were to introduce those institutions into England we
would not have that which is excellent in the American
institutions, but that which is not essential to it. and
which is its most disgraceful and demoralising
accident. You would have the rule of mobs
the rale of great towns, the domination of multitudes.
(Cheers.) Or if they were to succeed in their avowed
object, and were to obtain the land in England, as in
America, that could only be after a long struggle, in
which all the elements of our great civilisation must dis-
appear ; our capital, and our credit—more wonderful than
our capital ' • and when they had got the land it would be
only a very limited area, so that from a first-rate kingdom
we should become a third-rate republic. (Cheers.) I say,
therefore, I am entirely opposed to the American prmaiplea,
and I regret to see that they are advocated in this house
by persona of very great influence. The member for
Montrose deprecated any allusion to the member for Bir-
mingham. Well, that is a very convenient arrangement.
(Laughter, and " Hear, hear.") It is very convenient to
Make speeches in two places, and not to be answered in
either of them. (Hear.) lam not one of those who de-
preciate the talents or the character of the hon. member
for Birmingham. I admire his great abilities ; I listen to
his eloquence often with delight ; and I recognise his
unexampled energy ; but I regret that such gifts
as he possesses should be exercised I am
sure conscientiously—in favour of principles which
if successful I believe will be fatal to this country.
(Cheers.) It is very disagreeable to met as it must be to
any gentleman, in oar debates to be arguing with or com-
menting upon the conduct or words of an individual mem-
ber. I feel the embarrassment and pain of the poaition.
But it is not my fault. If the hon. member for Birming-
ham was in his right place this would not occur. (Cheers
and laughter.) I have to make remarks upon gentlemen
opposite, and they have to make remarks upon tie.
But it is the policy of the government we oppose, and it
is the manoeuvres of the opposition which they expose.
(" Hear," and a laugh.) There is nothing painful in
dealing with a corporation; it softens the necessary asperity
which sometimes must occur in our political contests. (A
laugh.) U the hon. member for Birmingham were seated
on the Treasury bench, as he ought to be seated— (loud
cheers and laughter)—we should not hear the hon. member
for Birmingham any longer, but her Majesty's ministers,
and therefore I am bound to say, that disagreeable as it
is to me, if the hon member for Birmingham, who now
avowedly dictates the policy of this country, is not in
the position in which he ought to be, I must
be permitted to comment upon the conduct,
sayings, and doings of so eminent an individual. (Cheers.)
Some of my friends have spoken with indignation of the
manifesto which the hon. member thought fit to publish
when the house separated. (Hear, hear.) My feeling
when I read his letter was not indignation nor contempt—
nothing of the kind ; it wee a feeling of pain, mortifica-
tion, and disappointment. I felt that I had totally mis-
apprehended the character of the individual with whom
I bad so long been placed in communication, and which I
thought at least was dignified. I thought, for example,
that the hon. member for Birmingham was proud of being
a member of the House of Commons, and I con-
fess myself that I saw sometimes, not without satisfaction,
that the house seemed not disinclined to be proud of
him. (Hear, hear.) But when he held us up to public
obloquy, that was not, to my mind, a cause of indigna-
tion, but of deep regret and pity. (Cheers.) He was the
lest man—knowing what I know of him in this house—
that I should have supposed would have held up the
House of Commons to public reprobation. (Cheers.) It
is not for me to vindicate the Howe of Commons—that
is not my proud position, it is the privilege
of another person. (Loud lauugghter and cheers.)
I must say it was a source of utcmishment to me that the
Trader of the House of Common', who must have been in
that part of the country at the time—l don't know
whether he was at the same meeting, but with no lack of
opportunity—who was attending dinners and making
speeches in theatres and amphitheatres—(cheers)-1
say it was a subject of astonishment to me that he
should not have coins forward and noticed that address,
tSat he should not have vindicated the honour and cha-
racter of that assembly of which it ought to be his greatest
pride to be the leader.--(loud cheers)—he who is the
champion of our honour and our privileges. (Hear, hear.)
These were not hurried words, and he had not the
excuse of excited oratory, but they were penned with
malice prepense. The right 'honourable gentle-
man could find time at one of those dinners, given
to him by the financial reformers of Liverpool—
(no, no)--well, attended by. one of the moat distin-
guished of those provincial fanatics—(opposition
cheers)—he could find tune to criticise the comparatively
insignificant letter of the right hon. member for
Calne—that was the staple of one of his speeches ;
but he could not find time to comment upon the letter of
the hon. member for Birmingham, although it was an
attack upon the honour and the character of those
of whom he is the leader, and of the house of
which he ought to be proud to be the chief champion.
(Cheers and counter cheers.) But, sir, although I
have not the honour to be the leader of the
House of Commons—although that proud position is not
mine— I am, at least, by the favour and indulgence of my
friends the leader of the tory party. (Cheery.) I there-
fore take this the earliest opportunity of telling the hon.
member for Birmingham that the attack that be has made
upon the tory party is one which he cannot substantiate
in fact, and which would convey to the country an
impression that it is impossible for hint to demonstrate by
any reference to anything that has occurred. (Opposition
cheers.) The hon. gentleman has said that the tory party
were only anxious to plunge this country into war to
divert it from that domestic progress and public
concord to which he has devoted all his energies.
I want to know from the hon. member what
grounds he has for making that assertion. (Cheers.)
We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer
enough during the recess of the last 30 years. I have
been in this house for nearly those 30 years, and I believe
the hon. member for Birmingham had sat himself more
than two-thinla of that time in this house, and therefore
he has had some experienoe in public affairs, or at
le :tat in our deliberations has taken an eminent part.
(Hear, hear.) What war have we plunged the
country into in that time? (Cheers.) There was the
Crimean war. Were the tories the authors of that war?
(('heers.) They might have carried it on 11 a different
mode, but they were not the authors of the Crimean war.
When he charges us with this great offence against the pros-
perity and fortunes of the realm, has hcforgotten theta man
who I suppose he still reveres rose in that very place
where the hon. member now sits, and declared before God
that he believed that if Lord Derby's government had not
been turned out in 1852 the Crimean war would not have
occurred! (Loud opposition cheers.) Those words were
uttered in this house by Mr. Cobden. There was another
war. Did we take advantage of the Italian war to
piunae this country into it Is it nat upon
reaord, although those records were not published
until the delusive amendment which turned us out of
°thee was passed—is it not upon record that every fair
means was used by this country to prevent that war— (hear.
hear)—and that nothing but the headstrong conduct of
Austria caused it Then, I repeat, what reason has
the honourable member to say that the tories
are always anxious to plunge this country into
war to divert attention from progress and reform ? There
lus been another war in Europe during the last thirty
years—a war between Denmark and Germany. Did we
want to plunge the country into war on that sub-
ject ? (Cheers.) Is it not notorious, and cannot it be
roved bydocuinenta on this table, that both the late Prime
inister of England and the present Prime Minister of
England did wish to plunge us into that war? (Opposition
cheering.) Are not the despatches in existence inviting
France to join England in going to war! (Hear, hear.)
Indeed, nothing but that policy could justify the promises
they held out to betrayed Denmark. And who prevented
that war? They resolved to wait until the meet-
in; of parliament to decide on their policy and
to control their rebellious colleagues. But the
conduct of the opposition, and the declaration I
made, with the full consent and by the advice of those
with whom I acted, prevented that war. (Cries of " No,
no," and cheers.) Why, it was notorious, and I believe
the hon. gentleman himself has said that we prevented
that war about Denmark. (Hear, hear.) How.
then, can he justify these statements, made by
a man of his Feat leading in the country,
caliunniatinal, I will say, a great political party?
(Cheers.) But the hon. member in the same manifesto did
not conrine his statements to Europe alone. The interest
of some hon. gentlemen had been enlisted on the side
of the Southern States in the late war, but the
opposition in that house had not in any way ex-
pressed an opinion on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
They did me the honour of consulting me upon the sub-
ject, and I endeavoured to moderate their opinions. They
said the cabinet was divided, and it was only by our hold-
ing back that prevented a war with this country. Had we
no cause for this belief ? Can this be denied And yet the
hon. member for Birmingham accusesme personally of wish-
ing to plunge this country into war with America.
Can he deny that those who were desirous of re-
cognising the independence of the Southern States
had every encouragement from the government? Is it
not notorious that the chief organ of the government in
this house made one of those pilgrimages of passion—
(cheers)—which we have lately had a specimen of, into the
provinces. (Hear.) Was it not a matter of discussion
that the cabinet were on the point of acknowledging the
Southern States? (Hear, hear.) And yet this minis-
ter is the tried friend of the hon. gentleman,
who is not content with imputing to us an anxiety.
to involve this country in these external calamities, but
nays the tory party are the cause of all the wretchedness
which has afflicted the people for the last 30 years. I will
u.k what has been the conduct of the tory party during
that period! There have been 9.6 measures introduced
into this house, the object of which has been to ameliorate
the condition of the people and to reduce their hours of
labour-{cheers)—and to secure to them payment of wages
in the current coin of the realm, and to save them
from torture and oppression in mines and collier:ee,
and to extend to all their ingenious arts the successful
ameliorations which had been introduced into the
factories. (Hear, hear.) These measures were passed
with immense difficulty. (Hear, hear.) Never was there
an opposition exercised against measures stronger or more
resolute, and who proposed these measures! Why, gentle-
men who sat on his side of the house, and they were
passed by the united energies of the tory party. (Cheers.)

The liberal government of the day invariablybut mainly and I
chiefly under the influence of a Glass, but especially of that
one indiaidual who exerted himself upon all occasions
to oppose these measures, but his opposition was ulti-
mately defeated, and that individual was the hon. member
for Birmingham. (Cheers.) Shall I be told that these
measures were merely the schemes of dreaming philoscs
phers and maudlin humanitarians! The hon. member for
Westminster says we know nothing about the working
classes, and the hon. member for Lambeth, in one of his
freakish speeches, repeats that statement. 'Why
my house was day after day and year after year
full of these men. They paid for deputations
to come to the metropolis constantly to see members of
parliament, and they communicated with me; and I be-
came so well acquainted with them, that during their re-
cent calamity in the north they frequently wrote to me
upon it. My noble friend (Lord Stanley) near me also
know, something of the working classes. When be used
to pass through the lobby of she old house of parliament
they, and their wives and children would cling to
us, and ask us to support these measures, upon
which their future happiness and prosperity depended.
They felt that we were their only friends—)" oh, oh,"
and laughter)--and they feared the opposition of those
who now say that they are the friends of the working
classes. (Cheers.) I hope I was justified in vindicating
the great party upon this side of the house from the elabo-
rate attack made upon us before the people of England by
a man who wields so much influence, and whose policy
the government follow, but whose opinions, I confess, I do
not believe the people of England will rally round. (Cheers.)
His eloquence, unrivalled energy, and great abilities may
place them before them in a captivating manner, but to
my mind they are opposed to the instincts and character
of the English people. I believe that English and not
American principles predominate in this country. (Cheers.)
The hon. member for Birmingham has at least the
' merit of candour—he never conceals his opinions, but
speaks with a frankness that we don't find in the
measures of the government. (Cheers.) We know
, what he wants and intends to do, and though
I believe his principles are dangerouse, and may be
fatal, we can guard against them. (Hear.) But the great
and extreme danger is this, that the hon. member for
Birmingham, to use a phrase borrowed frouithe practice of
one of our noblest pastimes, has a confederate, and he sits
on the treasury bench. (Opposition cheers.) I have put
before the house the principles on which parliamentary
reform ought to proceed. It ou.Ot to proceed on English
and not American princtiples—(ere)—and on the ground
that we are the House of Commons and not the house of
the people. If we are to admit the working classes to
the suffrage—and I do not grudge them the suffrage—we
ought to do it in the spirit of the constitution. But the
leader of this huuae, and a counsellor of the sovereign,
goes to Liverpool and advocates American principles in
their widest signification. (" Oh, oh," and counter cheers.)
I do not make a statement which I am not prepared to
substantiate. The right hon. gentleman, following the
example, as he always does, of the hon member for
Bineunghani—(laughter)—went down to Liverpool, and,
joining in au agitation, expounded his policy, which was
founded on American and. not on English principles.
(Hear, hear.) He said he had put forward a very mode-
rate reform bill, which would only introduce 400,000 addi-
tional voters, but if his views of the English constitution
are the same as mine, that is a very great addition to the
estate of the Commons. (Hear, hear.) He observed that
this moderate measure was opposed and treated
with great obloquy and contempt, and that a noble
lord had proposed an amendment the common sense of
which I think has been recognised by the country-4" oh.
oh," and cheers from the opposition)—for the purpose of
defeating the bill. The right hon. gentleman went on to
say that notwithstanding the moderation of their measure,
4,500,000 were excluded, " tiring and breathing men,
citizens like ourselves, payers of taxes like ourselves, bound
to every civil duty like ourselves, and having interest,
in the common welfare of the community like ourselves."
(Ironical cheers.) Now, I don't object to your having
American principles—(" oh, oh,")—only let us clearly un-
derstand what you mean. (Hear, hear.) There is only one
interpretation I can put upon the right hon. gentleman's
speech, and that is that these 41 millions have as much
right to form a part of the constituent body as the 400,000
to whom he proposes to give the franchise. (Cheers.) Then
we all remember the speech of the right hon. gentleman a
year and a half ago, which confused the house and
perplexed and agitated the country, and in
which he based the franchise on the rights
of man. (Laughter and cheers.) He afterwards
published that speech with an explanatory preface which
no one could understand— (a laugh)—and the thing passed
off. He published the preface to please his colleagues,
but he never changed his opinions, and when
he went to Liverpool he again expressed his
belief and opinion that the suffrage was a moral
right and ought to be so considered. (Hear, hear.)
I will read another passage on this subject, the words of
one of the wisest men that ever sat in this house—Sir
George Lewis. He said, " You may talk of the rudeness
of monarchical government, but I defy you to point out
anything in monarchy so irrational as counting votes in-
stead of weighing them—of making a decision not on the
knowledge and ability or fitness of the judges, but on
their numbers." These were wise words. Sir George Lewis
was a great loss to this country, and a greater loss to the
House of COMMOIIs. He would not have built up a consti-
tuency on the rights of man ; he would not have
counselled the whig party to reconstruct our institutions
on an American mosiel. It is because I wish to avert
from this country these calamities that I shall vote for the
amendment of the noble lord. (Loud cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose,
and was received with cheers, again and again repeated.
He said :—At last, sir, we have obtained a clear declara-
tion from an authoritative source, and we now know that
a bill which in a country with five million adult males
(cheers)—proposes to add to a limited constituency 200,000
of the middle and 21)0,0000 of the working classes is
in . the judgment of the leader of the tory party
a bill to reconstruct our institutions on
American principles. (Cheers.) Rising, sir, after
1 o'clock in the morning to review as well as I can a
debate of eight nights' duration, I would gladly have passed
by the defence. as he calls it, which the right hon.
gentleman has made for himself and his friends. I have no
desire to interfere in that controversy. I will not attempt
to follow him through its details—l have too much respect
for the time of the house to weary it with matters which
it is in my power to avoid, and I have too much respect
for the judgment of the house and the judgment of those
who will be acquainted with our proceedings, to have the
slightest apprehension that any of the mistakes or misap-
prehensions which have proceeded from the right hon.
gentleman will have any influence on the house
or the country. I fun afraid I have much
to say and I will begin by endeavouring to clear
out of 'the way some misapprehensions which the right
hon. gentleman has assisted to propagate. In the first
place, I must presume to say one word on the subject of a
great name in this house and the country—l mean the
name of Lord Palmerston. It has been assumed by gentle-
men who have spoken to the amendment that they honour
the name of Lord Palmerston, by describing him as the
enemy of parliamentary reform, and of that which con-
stitutes the essential point, the very hinge of thia bill,
namely, the reduction of the borough franchise.
I will, therefore. read a few words which Lord Palmer-
ston used in proposing the bill of 1860. He said
the provisions of that bill were open, as are the provisions
of our bill, to consideration in committee, but there is one
fundamental principle of the bill which we cannot consent
to have infringed, because that would destroy the measure
altogether, and that main principle of the bill is the re-
duction of the borough franchise. (Hear, hear.) Now,
it has been supposed that the life of Lord Palmerston
was a security against the introduction of a measure of
reform. I think it not less due to Lord Palmerston than
to his colleagues to Ray that, so far as I am aware, there
never was a difference of opinion between him
and his colleagues upon the question of reform.
The introduction of the bill of 1860 was an important step
in redemption of many solemn pledges. The abandon-
ment of the measure, though it was plain that it would
become necessary, was a matter of great difficulty and re-
sponsibility aa regarded questions of the precise time and
circumstances. I know of no member of the cabinet in
whose opinion its revival at any subsequent period after
its abandonment, and before the dissolution of parliament,
would have been wise or warrantable. The right hon.
gentleman has grossly misstated the effect of my speech,
for I declared that in my opinion it would be wrong
to take up the question again till there arrived a state of
public opinion which held out some prospect of success.
It is true that we slid not go to the country at the last
election as the patrons of reform ; but we left the country
to pronounce its own impartial judgment ; and all the
members of the cabinet were of opinion, after what took
place on the hustings, that the time had come when
it would be our duty to recur to the subject. No one has
the smallest right to suppose that Lord Palmerston dif-
fered from that opinion. I cannot say positively that he
agreed in it, because no cabinet was held before his death
to consider what measures should be adopted. But Lord
Palmerston, shortly before his death, remarked to one of
his colleagues that he thought it would be right for the
government, within a limited time, to introduce another
reform bill. (Hear, hear.) So much for the honour of
Lord Palmerston, which, I confess, does not appear to me
to have been in very judicious hands during the chief
part of this debate. (Cheers.) Now I come to the hon.
gentleman the member for Birmingham. It has been
charged against us that, while we are the nominal minis-
try, he is its irresponsible but its real bead. To that
charge I shall make no answer ; for such persons as make
it are inaccessible, if not to reason and justice, at
any rate to anything that I could say. It would have
been discreditable to government not to have consulted
all the great organs of opinion of its different sections, and
it would have been culpable in usif from cowardice we had
refrained from referring to the hon. member. But in point
of fact we know no more of his opinions than the lion.
gentlemen opposite, and our knowledge is obtained through
the same channels of information. Of the four points
which he recommended we concurred in only one—namely,
the policyof separatingthe franchise from theredistribution
of seats. In my opinion we should have been the most
contemptible of poltroons in the world if we had shrunk
from acting upon our own convictions, because we very
well knew that the leader of the tory party, forsooth—
(cheers)—would found upon that circumstance a charge of
subservience which he himself knows to be as unfounded

as it is unjust. (Loud cries at " Oh," and counter cheers.)
Why here we not got the 101. franchise adopted,by my hon.
friend and the right hon. gentlemen, and tue 61. franchise
introduced in 1860 under the sanction of the member for

Caine, and declared by Mr. Bright to be the highest figure
that could be admitted into a Reform Bill! My hon.
friend with great wisdom supports the bill,
which gives far less of popular franchise than
was given by the bills of Lord Palmerston and
Sir G. Lewis : but is it not strange that party spirit
can change the whole current of men's thoughts and
opinions? It is my firm belief that those who adopt Mr.
Disraeli's t with regard to Americanising our insti-
tutions area=nmuch against their will to increase the
influence of Mr. Bright; and if he lathe dangerous man he ia
supposed to be,and has these wicked schemes in his breast, he
wiunot be able to give them effect by any arguments, or any
course adopted by the government, but by the argu-
ments of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) The noble lord
opposite (Lord Stanley) complimented me on my reverting
to what is termed the flesh and blood argument. The
noble lord, the right hon. member for Hertfordshire, and
the hon. member for Caine, foundedan immense amount of
declamation, on thee supposition that I used the
fact of the wgeking classes being flesh and blood as an
argument in favour of admitting them to the franchise.
The bon. member for Caine answered the argument com-
pletely, but the fact was, I never used it at all in that sense
—(cheers)--but as a reproach to hon. members opposite,
when I heard the hon. member for Caine describing the
workmen as an invading army that was to bring ruin upon
a devoted city, and when I had he has not recanted those
opinions, I say it is time to fall back upon the statement,
that those men whom you are seeking to exclude,
against all reason, are your own flesh and blood.
With regard to the noble lord who commenced the debate
to-night, I shall submit to any censure he can bestow, and
he bestows censure with • tolerably good hand, when he
can show that I have said elsewhere of members of this house
what I would not say on its floor (Hear, hear.) Whether
what I said was platitude, or truth, or revolution—any
doctrine, for it has been called all this—l said it in reply
to the tumultuous and tempestous cheers of hon. gentle-
men opposite when reference was made to the
working classes. But after what was said by
the honourable member for South Lincolnshire
and the hon. and learned member for Suffolk on the
question of the malt tax with regard to the working
classes, I cannot believe that the opinions of some hoar.
gentlemen on that side of the house are shared in by all.
(Hear, hear.) And now, with regard to the speech of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, I at once con-
fess my disinclination to measure swords with such a
champion. (Hear, hear.) I understand the meaning of
ch that eer, but it followed and did not precede my
own admission. (" Hear," and laughter.) I cannot
forget the service which, as • public man, he
rendered to the government and the country ; but I may
express the hope that when he next rises on this aide to
support the views of hon. gentlemen opposite he will ex-
press himself with more moderation. The right hon. gen-
tleman used a weapon of great keenness, and he wielded
it with so much force and rapidity that I cannot withhold
from him my admiration, though I was the object of most
of his cuts and thrusts. (Hear, hear.) But when I come to
the end and aim of that speech—(loud cheers)—l hope Ido
not use too strong an expression when I say that the
weapon of the right hon. gentleman was, I will
not say degraded, but misapplied. (Loud cheers.
When I recollect how the right hon. gentleman as he went
on exaggerated more and more ; when I recollect how he
went back to his Australian experience, and told the house
that anarchy must be put a stop to in the colonies by the
paramount interference of the government of the
mother country ; when I find that such is the
end and upshot of the exercise of his magnificent powers,
the admiration which I felt is lost in grief. (Cheers.)
My right hon. friend reminds me of a story written
by the Princess Palatine of Bavaria for the Duke of
Orleans. All the fairies were invited to bestow gifts on en
infant, but one of the fairies was omitted in the invitation.
The others bestowed on the child every good gift, but
the fairy that wasnot invited came, and said the child has
all the talents but one, and that is the talent of
not knowing how and for what to use them. (Cheers.)
My right hon. friend assumed that we bad insulted the
House of Commons. Is that a true charge? My right
hon. friend never deals in mere generalities. He endear-
Toured to substantiate this charge by adding that I had
used these words, " We knew with whom we had to deaL"
He says, " That means the House of Commons, and conse-
quently that the House of Commons is offended." Now,
the fact is that we did not mean the House of Commons.
There is no more common political and rhetorical artifice,
than when a man finds himself stung by a political argu-
ment, for him to try and turn the sting from himself to
the House of Commons. I'll tell my right hon. friend to
whom we did apply the words. Not to the right
hon. members for Oxfordshire and the University of
Cambridge, who agree in the necessity of a reduction
in the franchise. Does my right hon. friend recollect
the passage in Ariatophanes, where a rebuke is addressed
to • certain character, and where the audience is addressed
as follows : " Now, all yon Athenians, preyrecollect that I
am not speaking of the city, not of the public—l am speaking
only of certain deformed and crooked little men ?" Now,
using these words strictly ins metaphorical and parliamen-
tary sense, I may say to my right hon. friend that when
using the words "We knew with whom we had to
deal," we were not speaking to the House of
Commons, but to certain deformed and crooked little
men. amongst whom my right hon. friend himself stands
the foremost. (Loud cheep and laughter.) We have to
deal with him. (Hear, hear.) He is opposed to the
borough franchise, and to reform in any shape and form.
But he will not consent to oppose this bill on the second
reading, he votes for an amendment which says that to
this bad bill you are required to add another bad bill.
("Hear, hear," and cheers.) I think, therefore, I was
justified in saying to my right hon. friend, "We
know with whom we have to deal." We are
contending for a reduction of the franchise ; we are
opposed by open as well as concealed antagonists ; we
wish to take off the concealment ; and to let the people of
England know with whom they have to deal. (Loud
cheers.) My right hon. friend accused me of saying we
could give no more statistics. I said nothing of the
kind. The member for Northamptonshire knows
that we were quite willing to give the statistics they
required. Thirdly, my right hon. friend says the infor-
mation respecting the redistribution of seats is kept back
out of mere wantonness. We never said we should
withhold it from the committee; but we knew
with whom we had to deal, and that ob-
struction would be attempted when the wilderness
of details connected with the subject was produced.
It has been imputed to us that the question of the re-
distribution of seats was reserved with • view further to
influence the public mind. Such a latent purpose would
be totally unworthy of gentlemen in the position of mi-
nisters, or of any man in any capacity or station. I cannot
wonder when such opinions of the government are enter-
tained by its supporters to hear them expressed by gentle.
men opposite. Those who have general confidence In the
government, and at the same time think them capable
of any such act as that, I should advise to withdraw their
general confidence and make it their first business not to
propose such a motion as that of the noble lord, but to put
the government out of office by the most direct means.
(Loud cheers.) Now as to the charge of tyrannising over
the house—and I have some personal advantage in ad-
dressing the liberal party upon that subject . If Thal been
a man who at the very outset of my career, half a century
ago, had brought forward in two great groups measures
of which the leader of the tory party for the last half
hour of his speech seems never to have heard—l mean
the removal of religious disabilities and parliamentary
reform—if I had been the man who in my early youth,
in the first stage of my parliamentary career fixed upon
those questions, and made them my own, and prosecuted them
with sure and unflagging interest till encomia was won—
whose name has been associated for forty years with every
measure of beneficent legislation—if I had been Lord Rus-
sell—(loud cheers)—there migiilt have been some tempta-
tion in me to exercise some uthority, and apply some
pressure to the house in itself unjustifiable. But lam not.
The right hon. gentleman, secure in the recollection of his
own consistency—(great laughter and cheering)—has
taunted me to-night with the error of my boyhood. The
right bon. gentleman when he addressed the member
for Westminster showed his magnanimity by declaring
that he would not take the philosopher to task for what
he wrote 25 years ago ; but when he caught one who, 36
years ago, when just emerged from boyhood, and still
an undergraduate at Oxford, had [expressed an opinion
adverse to the Reform Bill, of which he has long and
bitterly repented, then the right hon. gentleman could not
resist the temptation—(loud and continued cheering)—and
he. a parliamentary leader of 20 years, is so ignorant of the
House of Commons to this day that he positively thought
he had got a parliamentary advantage in exhibiting
me to the public as an opponent of reform. (Renewed
cheers.) As the right hon. gentleman has so exhibited
me, let me exhibit myself. I was bred under
the shadow of the name of Canning, and every
influence connected with that name governed the
politics of my boyhood and youth. With Can-
ning, I rejoiced in the removal of religious disabilities ;
with Canning, I rejoiced in the character which he gave
to our policy abroad ; with Canning, I rejoiced in the
opening he made towards the establishment of
free commercial intercourse between nations ; with
Canning, and under the shadow of that great name
and under the yet more venerable shadow of the yet
greater name of Burke, my ignorant youthful mind and
belief were impressed, just as the mature mind of the
right hon. gentleman is now—{langhter and cheers)—with
terror and alarm at the first Reform Rill. The only dif-
ference between us is that having these opinions I moved
the debuting society in Oxford to express them in the
clearest, plainest, most forcible, down right English
—(cheers)—while the right hon. gentleman is obliged to
skulk under the cover of an amendment like this. (Pro-
longed cheering.) I envy him not one particle of the
polemical advantage he has gained by his discreet reference
to the proceedings of the Oxford Union Debating Society.
(Cheers.) I have none of the claims Lord Russell has upon
this question. I came as an outcast, driven from those
with whom I acted, and I came before you in forma pau-
pests, with nothing to offer but faithful and honourable
service. You received me with kindness, with indulgence,
with generosity, and even in some measure with confidence,
and in the relations between us you never can be my
debtor, and I must he for ever your debtor. (Cheers.)
Now let me endeavour to state the position of this ques-
tion, for this is a historical debate. This is a starting point
for parliament The charge brought against us is that we

1866.

have introduced a franchise bill. Is that a great
offence? There were two reasons that might have
moved us. One was the reamnableness of the
.policy which
might lead us to avoid independent combinations of per-
sons to reject the bill on different grounds. We were not
Influenced by that, but the conclusive reason was that
which I mentioned in introducing the bill, that the paring'
of a combined bill was impossible in the time we had at our
disposal. Had we introduced a combined bill not only
would there have been another failure, but that failure
would have been attended on our part with great dis-
honour. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn
frankly owned that the alternative was to postpone the bill
for another year. I ask the noble lord to put himself in
our position. We were the authors of two or three
failures. We had most of us taken part in rejecting the
bill of Lord Derby; we found on inquiry that we could
obtain all the information in time for legislation. Wm it
then a great offence, to be visited with extreme severity,
that under these circumstances we thought it more to our
own honour to do at once that which we could do at once,
and to postpone to an ulterior stage that which required to
be postponed, and must either be postponed alone or must
be postponed along with the whole subject? Had the
house shown a disposition never to entertain the subject
of the franchise without the subject of the redistribution
of seats? No such thing. The bill of the hon. member
for East Surrey was discussed spin and again in this
house, and carried by large majorities without one word
being said as to the redistribution of seats. The same
as to the bill of the hon. member for Leeds.
Then there is the case of Ireland. Ireland has
the smallest boroughs and the smallest constituencies
in the United Kingdom, and yet the house, without the
slightest scruple, passed a measure extending the franchise
in Ireland without touching the question of the redistri-
bution of seats. But there is other evidence. What did
gentlemen say when they went to their constituents? I
have found the addresses of 117 borough members who
entered particularly on the subject of parliamentary re-
form, and out of those no more than 16 referred to the
question of redistribution of seats ' • and I believe every
one of these 16 is going to vote for the amendment.
Those who spoke of the franchise alone were no fewer
than 101 ; and therefore it cannot be said that there is any
great guilt attaching to the government in this respect.
The noble lord (Lord Stanley) has argued this question on
very high ground ; but what did he do in 1859? The ques-
tion of boundaries is now regarded as the most important
of those which have been raised, but the noble lord threw
it entirely in to the future , for his bill only directed an in-
quiry to be made which might lead to after legislation.
(Cheers.) Besides the noble lord had actually recom-
mended the scheme of his government for equalising
the borough and county suffrage, because it
would peeve it open to parliament to enfranchise
or disfranhise as much as it pleased. (Cheers.) And yet the
noble lord comes here with his excellent speech—excellent
in everything except its effects to the noble lord himself—
about the intolerable inconvenience of making any separa-
tion between the two branches of reform. (Cheers.) Then
the noble lord illustrates his argument by stating that the
financial measures of the year are never considered sopa-
parately. That is true. But does the noble lord for-
get that controversy, of historic fame, which was
closed five years ago? Till that time, when for
the protection of the just rights of this house,
the present system was adopted, the practice was exactly
the reverse ; and from what quarter of the house did the
chief arguments in favour of separate legislation then
come, if not behind the noble lord? (Cheers.) The right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has come forward with a
helpful suggestion, namely, that we should proceed by
resolution ? But while I convey to him my acknowledg-
ments, I would ask him how he would early it into
effect? If we put the names of the boroughs to be
disenfranchised into a resolution, in what respect would
it differ from a redistribution bill?
The hon. member
for Birmingham has truly said that it would be possible
to redistribute the meats so as to frustrate the effect of
your reduction of the franchise. If we were likely to in-
troduce a scheme of that kind the remarks to which we
have been subject would be just. But we are not persons
who have given no indication of our views. We believe that
redistribution of seats!. altogether of secondary importance
as compared with the extension of the franchise, and that
there is nothing in it that can materially effect the
question of what the suffrage shall be. The right hon. gen-
tleman's proposal might be very well if we were desirous of
cooking theseate,butwedisdainany suchintention. (Cheers.)
Sir, we have been asked to do some things and have done
them. We have not said that the Redistribution Bill
should be brought in next year, and that nothing should
be done in it till we have settled the franchise question ;
we have said nothing of the kind. We have offered to
prolong the sittings through the autumn for
the purpose of settling the question of redistribu-
tion, but no response has been made to that offer. We
have been taunted with having changed our front to suit
liberal members, and consented to lay the Redistribution
Bill before the house before the present bill goes into com-
mittee. The noble lord is afraid of dissolution, but that
would be no gain to us ; on the oontrary, if you did not show
so much distrust of the working classes you would be more
likely to gain by a dissolution than we. There are persons
in the house who desire more than we do. Our object is
to draw a separation between those who desire
the reduction of the franchise in counties and bo-
roughs and those who do not. We shall be
loth'to quarrel with those who manifest a feeling of com-
munity with ourselves, but we cannot undertake to lose
the ground we have gained. We will not have procrasti-
nation, and no concealment shall exist if we have the
power to unveil it to the public. (Cheers.) Now, sir, it is
well understood what is meant by the second reading.
(A cry of " Time " from Sir R. PeeL ) I am
sure I am greatly pained to have to address
the house at this late hour. This is no question of the
disfranchisement of dockyard labourers, or as to the
number of the leasehold votes. We believe they are few,
and, if not, that is a question open to reconsideration ; nor
do we pledge any honourable member as to the exact
figure of the reduction of the franchise, but we ask for a
reduction of the franchise in counties, and especially in
towns, as a matter of principle. We have reasons for
asking the house to read the bills second time. We have
been assailed by the hostility of my noble friend the mem-
ber fur Chester, acting in concert with the party opposite.
Mr. C. BRUCE—I do not believe it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
member is not the leader of the opposition. I only re-
cognise the right honourable gentleman the member for
Bucks in that capacity. Ido not complain of my noble
friend or of his language. If we are to be dragged at the
chariot wheels of anyone, I would as soon be dragged
at the chariot wheels duty noble friend as as anyone else.
My noble friend has repented of the vote he gave in 1859.
But strange inconsistency of human nature, at the very
moment that he repents of his sin the temptation again
presents itself, and again he falls—(" hear, bear, and
laughter)—and in the very act of making confession, he
repeats the offence. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend the
member for Caine quoted Reliant as to the duties of mi-
nisters. It is quite true ministers have a double duty to
perform—a duty to the crown and a duty to the house.
It is their duty also to consider what their own honour
requires, what is expedient for the public interests and
the efficiency of the house, and after all the promises
and m•scamages of so many reform bills, we did feel that
it is essential for the credit of the house that when they
were asked by the responsible advisers of the crown to
give its opinion on the question of the reduction of the
franchise in counties and towns, that that question should
not be affected by the shadow or substance of a redistribu-
tion of seats. (Hear, hear.) My noble friend aims a blow
at the government, but as one of the verses in that book to
which, my right hon. friend and I have referred
says, "Let me die in the daylight"—(cheers)---I ask
of my noble friend that we may die in the day-
light (Cheers and counter cheers.) I honour
my noble friend for what he has done, but he
should state what he means in plain terms (Cheers.) Sup-
pose that the government brings in a bill for the distribu-
tion of seats, will my noble friend support the Franchise
Bill ? (Cheers.) I challenge my friend to answer that
question. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend says he knows
nothing of the 204,000. He ows them very well, for he
said they were hyperborean who, as you descended, be-
came more and more drunken, more unfit for
the franchise. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) I
admit the excellence of the House of Commons,
but I cannot admit that it may not be improved.
There is a homely phrase attributed to an individual still
alive. He said the old parliament jobbed for individuals
and the reformed one for classes. My opinion is, that for
the interests of the general public the house is too weak,
and that an infusion of thewor • classes would strengthen
the pure public interest. My right hon. friend says we
have no reason. I think the desire of the public is a reason.
The hon. member for Birmingham said there were • hun-
dred meetings in favour of the bill. (" They were got up.")
Do you go and pt up meetings spinet the bill, if you can.
(Loud cheers.) I ascertained that there were 187 petitions,
and 600,000 signatures. The British constitution is not
going to be destroyed—it is merely to be restored. The
right hen. member for Oxfordshire said the working classes
had more voice in legislation with the old scot and lot
system. These voters are now gradually dying
out. The electors in boroughs have increased 24
per cent. since 1851, and the population had
increased 28 per cent. I ask gentlemen to consider these
figures. You have a growth of electors lower
than of population, whilst you have an enormous increase
of wealth. In 1851 the income tax was worth about
800,000/. per penny, and now it it worth 1,400,000/. per
penny. (Hear, hear.) The working classes are worse re.
presented than they were thirty years ago, and
now, when you admit their greater flutess
you will not increase their franchise. (Hear, hear.)
Canning and Burke have prophesied like the right hon.
gentleman, but these prophecies, as those of the right hon.
gentleman will be in time to come, are selected by teachers
for the beauty of their language to be translated into
Greek and Latin for the declamation of school boys.
(Laughter and cheers.) Consider the enormous but silent
changes which are going on among the working classes. I
ask you, in the language of Sr Robert Peel, to
" elevate your vision," to raise it above the fears,
suspicions, jealousies, attacks, and recriminations,
and look onward to the time of our children and
our children's children, and consider whether
there is not a steady movement of the labouring dames
onward and upward which calls for our attention and
demands that we should provide for these things while
there is yet time. What is the right bun. gentleman
going to do with the family he has collected around him?
(Cheers and laughter.) There ought to be some unity of