The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-01 00:00:00

DINNER TO MR. DOULTON, M.P.

Last eve g a dinner was given to Mr. Mal-
ton, M.P. for Lainheth, at the Horns Tavern, Kenning-
ton. Fy a number of his supporters. About 150 gentlemen
were present. Dr. EVANA presided; and amongst the gen-
tlemen present were Mr. H. Chester, Mr. Pew, Mr.
!Wien Murphy, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Cons, Dr. Mitchell, Mr.
it. C. Barton. Mr. J. Barton, Mr. .1. B. Clark, the Rev.
Dr. Leslie, Mr. J. W. Ward, and Mr. F. Hodges.
The u-aal loyal touts having been disposed of,
Mr. G. TAYLOR read letters of apology from the rector
a Lambeth, in which the writer expressed his sympathy
with Mr. Amnon, who he said had been illiberally
treated. because he had taken a free and independent line
in the matter of reform ; from the Rev. A. Murs.ll,
also expressive of sympathy with Mr. Doulton ; and from
Mr. C. Buxton, M.P., who thought Mr. Doulton had been
very ill used.
The ChAIRMAN proposed the toast of the evening.
" The Health of Mr. Doulton," which was enthusiastic:My
received.

Mr. D„ Thine, in returning thanks, said if he had felt
any doubts as his own mind with regard to the course he
felt it his duty to pursue in the last session of parliament,
they would be removed by the communications he
bad received front numbers of persons on the subject,
and by the attendance there that day, which.
looked upon as a representative meeting, had never
been equalled in the borough of Lambeth. He
did not think it necessary to assume that all who
were present agreed with him that in the course that be
took on all occasions during the last session of par-
liament, but he thought he was justified in assum-
ing from that gathering that there was a general
feeling in the borough of Lambeth in direct opposition to
that of those who expected their representative to give a
blind and unthinking obedience to any political party.
And he thought he might also accept it as a protest against
the tyranny of those who degraded the position of a mem-
ber of parliament to that of a mere delegate, and who
would make membership of the House of Commons not an
lionoar to be desired but a shame and humiliation to he
avoided. When be entered that room he did not intend
to make any lengthened observations either upon the
reform bill of last session or as to the course that he felt
it his duty to take in reference to it, but he had been re-
quested to call their attention, as briefly as he could, to
what that bill was, and to what parts of it he felt it hid
duty w a liberal member to give his opposition. The object
of any reform bill was to give to all classes a proper share
in the representation of the country ; and inasmuch as that
proper representation did not, as he admitted it did not, at
this moment exist, any reform bill to meet the require-
ments of the day must admit a large number of the work-
ing classes to a voice in the representation of the country ;
and it should also make some provision to meet the cor-
ruption and bribery that now exist. But the bill of the
late government did not meet those requirements. It did
not attempt to deal with all of them ; it did not attempt
to deal with the redistribution of seats, nor with bribery.
It did attempt to deal with the franchise, but it still left
out in the cold those who were the most worthy. The
principle of the bill was this—that there should be one
indiscriminate reduction of the franchise—that the borough
franchise should be reduced from IW. to 71. In some
localities, in Lambeth for one, that would not have added
2.i voters to the register, but in others it would have
added 1;s h) or 2,000, and in others it would have in-
creased the electors three or four fold. His argument was
that they could not get a fair and just distribution of
political power in the country by a simple reduction of
the franchise. He admitted that the bill included a
lodger franchise, but it was so hampered with restric-
tions that even Mr. Gladstone himself said that he did
not think any considerable number of working-men would
obtain the franchise under it. Then there was no redistribu-
tion bill. It was true that a redistribution bill was promised,
and if there was one man in the house who expressed him-
self favourable to the continuance of small boroughs, it was
Mr. Gladstone, but at that period they did not know
whether the Redistribution Bill was to be in
accordance with the opinions of Mr. Gladstone
or of Mr. Bright. They knew the result. On the
motion of Captain Grosvenor, although the ministers had
a majority of live, they were practically defeated, and im-
mediately afterwards they introduced a redistribution
bill, and certainly, if ever there was an absurd bill, it was
that bill. It proposed to group certain boroughs not having
$,OOO inhabitants, and to give them one member amongst
them and it proposed to give additional members to
certain large towns. It grouped Hendon, Lyme Regis,
and Bridport, and gave them one member, and took four
away : but it left Tavistock, with scarcely 8,000 inha-
bitants, still with two nie,nbers. (Hear, hear.) Then it
grouped Andover and Lymington—he would say nothing
about the geographical absurdity—but it took away three
members and left them one ; but it left Windsor with
two. And so he might go through the whole of the bill.
Another feature of the bill was that it gave an additional
member to towns having 150,000 inhabitants, such as
Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, but it gave nothing
to Lambeth. The principle he would staid upon was
that the large boroughs should be divided. That was the
priuciple contended for by the late Mr. Cobden. If that
were done in Lambeth, the working daises could return
their member and the other classes their member. In
launbeth, out of 24,000 electors, there were 14,000 who
did not vote at the last election. He wished to obtain a
full expression of the opinions of the electors of Lambeth.
Well, after the Redistribution Bill was brought in a
bribery clause was brought forward and inserted, and
after that Lord Dunkellin moved that the qualifica-
tion should be a rating qualification, and in doing so dis-
tinctly stated that he was willing to make it lower than
71. They were told that the bill was an honest bill, but
honesty was not the only element that was re-
quired, and it was no argument to tell him
that Mr. Gladstone was sincere. Mr. Gladstone
was honest in one direction and Mr. Bright in another.
Well, Lord Dunkellin's motion was carried, and the govern.
runt, being defeated, resigned. On the liberal side of the
house it was not expected that they would resign, but
though they did resign, he did not think that on that ac-
count he should clothe himself in sackcloth and ashes, and
for this reason, that be defied them to point to any of
those liberal measures which he had advocated from that
latform which the late ministry would have passed.
Indeed, they had either opposed them or damned them
with faint praise. There was but one feeling among
the liberal members of the House of Commons—that the
bill ought to have been withdrawn. They agreed that it
was a step, but it was a step in the dark. To show the
opinions of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright upon it, Mr.
Gladstone told them it would admit 204,000 new voters
of one clue; but Mr. Bright said it would admit
only 110,000 • then Mr. Gladstone said it would
admit :430,000 working men • and Mr. Bright
said it would admit only 179,000. He asked whether
those who opposed such a bill were to be politically excom-
municated, which was the language of a portion of the
press? The hon. member then referred to the Reform
League, which he said advocated universal suffrage and
the ballot, and said there were now one million of elec-
tors, but if the league were to have its way there would
be Ave millions, four millions of whom would be on one
side and one million on another, a result which be was
sure none whom he was addressing would desire to
see. Passing from this subject to the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, he alibi that six members
voted against the suspension, and that Mr. Bright was not
one of them. He then referred to a speech made at the
late working men's reform demonstration at South Ken-
sington, and said one of the speakers, a Mr. Leicester,
described the members of the House of Commons as one-
eyed hump-backed scoundrels, and yet Mr. Bright
stood on the same platform with that man at
a subsequent meeting at St. James's-hall. He went on to
say that he was not one of those who thought that the
agitation that had been going on in the country thell tat
three months on the subject of reform had in any way
advanced ,he settlement of that question. On the con-
trary. he believed they would find greater distrust of the
working classes in the House of Commons than before ,•
and it would not be difficult to point to those who had
been the cause of this. It was now nearly five years
since he stood in that room to ask the suffrages of the
electors of Lambeth. and his conscience told him that he
had adhered to the principles he then declared. (Cheers.)
He went to the House of Commons as an independent
member to support measures and not men, and as long as
he continued to represent that borough it would be to sup-
port the principles he had always professed, and not as
the delegate of any party. (Cheers.)

RAILWAY AND °Turn BILLS IN PAILIANZNT.—
The examiners of standing order proofs resumed their
sittings yesterday. Before Sir. Frere :—The standing
orders were declared complied with in the following un-
opposed cases:—The Bradford Canal, Welland River Out-
fall. Aberdeen Police and Water, Mold Gas and Water,
Middle Level Drainage, Gateshead Improvement, Dundee
Gas and Dundee New Gas Companies, Dundee Gas, the
North Metropolitan, and the Easton and Church Hope
Railway. The unopposed Rathkesle and Newcastle Junc-
tion Railway Bill was postponed. The standing orders of
the opposed adjourned petition of the Hydraulic-power
Bill were declared not to have been complied with. The
opposed Airdrie, Coatbridge, and Wishaw Junction Rail-
way Bill was adjourned until the 12th February. The
Glasgow (City) Union Railways, and the Liverpool Tram-
ways Bills did not pass standing orders. Before Mr. Pal.
grave :—The following bills (unopposed) passed standing
orders : —Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats), Central
Cornwall Railway (No. 1), Launceston Turnpike Roads,
Richmond Gas, West Ham Local Board of Health, Kir-
rattly and Dysart Water, Prescot Oas, Hartlepool Gas and
Water, Central Cornwall Railway (No. 2), and the Fur-
ness (additional powers). The op d Great Eastern
Railway Bill also passed standing or