The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-01 00:00:00

It was, however, a fitting occa.ionlto refer to the position in
which the house stood in respect to the subject of reform.
In the month of March the Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated as the reason why the government had introduced
a franchise bill by itself, that it would be ima;
lilac during the session to dispose of more
that part of the scheme. In that view he thought they
were quite right ; and he believed that their present diffi-
culties were mainly owing to their departure from their
original policy. (Hear, hear.) It was quite true that they
had removed one objection—it could no longer be said that
the country had not the whole of the scheme before it—
hut they had thrust their heads into a hornets' nest in
attempting to settle the redistribution of seats. It was
no use disguising the fact that they would never induce the
house to sit through the autumn ; for gentlemen could not
be prevailed upon to forego their shooting except under
pressure of a great public emergency; and as to carryingthe
bill in the next two months, there was little hope of that
after the remarkable exhibition which had been made by
the great party opposite. True to their ancient tra-
ditions, the conservatives were evidently determined to
oppose in every form and shape this very moderate scheme.
In taking that course he had no doubt that they were
committing a grave mistake, not only with regard to their
interests as a party, but with regard to the interests of
°ousel-mum. It was not probable that they would ever
again have a similar opportunity of settling the question
upon terms so advantageous to themselves.
Mr. SIOWIIRAY said that when the hon. member for

that charge. and acknowledged that such were their tac-
tics. They thought that the right thing to do was to gain
as many recruits as they could from the liberal party—
(hear. hear)—under something like false pretence.s— (oh,
oh)—and to vote with those with whose speeches they did
not agree. They were not united with gentlemen on that
(the government) Ride of the house—with the liberal party
on the general question of reform—and if they ventured
to propose a resolution they would find very few
of that party to vote with them. (Hear, hear.) It
was said that the government scheme was immature, but
in what respect was it so! Hon. gentlemen opposite had
contended that counties ought to be loom largely repre•
Rented than they were atpresent. The present bill increased
the representation of counties, but were hon. gentlemen
opposite satisfied! No. What they wanted was not an in-
creased representation of the populous counties, but an in-
creased representation of the agricultural interest. The
counties were fairly dealt with by the bill. (" No. no.")
IVity then did they not propose anainenalinent?(" Wait.")
They preferred to take issue upon the question of proe„edure,
and to state that the government scheme was inexpedient,
without saying in what respect it was inexpedient ; that
it was inequitable without saying how ; and that it WAS
mature, without saying what a matured scheme would
be. (Hear, hear.) Those were the tactics adopted; and it
was natural that hon. gentlemen opposite should follow
those tactics. But was it natural that members of the
liberal party sliculd! He did not see why the case
of the lace-makers of Moulton and the rope-makers of
Bridport should be allowed to stand in the way
of the enfranchisement of 400,000 of their fellow-
subjects. The government had proposed a reduction
of the franchise and a redistribution of seats. To meet
the wish of the house those bills had been united, and it
would he unworthy of the liberal party if upon subsidiary
questions as to geographical proximity and local interests—
questions which could best be discussed in committee—
they should allow the whole bill to be thrown out ; be-
cause everyone must see that the adoption of the amend-
ment of the hon. and gallant member fur Wells would be
fatal to the bill. There could be no doubt that its object
Was to condemn the whole scheme. The word
" otherwise " was intended to catch anybody who had any
objection whatever to the united bill. The government
could not accept defeat on that amendment. The question
of grouping was a question for committee ; but it was not
a question for committee whether the whole scheme was
immature, unjust, and inconvenient. On that point the
government were prepared to take issue, and he trusted
that the members of the liberal part; who were disposed
to reduce the franchise from 101. to ai. would not be led
away because a case was made out that the dis-
tance between certain towns was too large, and that
on that account they would not refuse to sup-
port the united scheme of the government. (Hear, hear.)
He believed that the house would not consent to have a
measure for the reduction of the franchise and for the re-
distribution of seats, and which affected large classes of
the people and several very important places, relegated to a
future session in order that hon. gentlemen opposite might
unite in defeating the government upon this question.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. I'AKINGTON desired to hear some independent
unofficial member say that, now that the house had the
whole reform scheme of the government before it, he con-
sidered it worthy of acceptance as an improvement of the
representation of the people. But no speech had been
made by any such member in favour of those measures.
Turning to a general consideration of the subject of re-
form, he said he was sincerely desirous to settle this ques-
tion this session ; but that had been rendered im-
possible by the course taken by the government,
who had entered on the subject precipitately,
and had preduced only vague and immature mea-
sures. The government having culled for electoral sta-
tistics, for which they did not wait before they prepared
their measures, should have carefully considered the whole
questiou, and presented a comprehensive proposal to
parliament next year. The right hon. gentleman proceeded
to argue that the statistics in question had shown that a
large proportion of the working classes already possessed
the franchise ; that the reduction of the franchise to
71. would add 200,000 of that class to the registry ; and this
would render that class half the electors in boroughs ;
and this would give them a preponderance over the
other half, which represented property, and to this
he objected. He argued generally against the go-
vernment proposition as novel and dangerous. In regard
to the Distribution Bill, he objected to giving a third
member to large constituencies ; while as to the system of
grouping proposed, that he wholly condemned, especially
objecting to the giving away of seven English seats to
Scotland. He urged that the house should not submit to
be dictated to by the government in regard to sitting till
October in order to pass these bills. He was of opinion
that the whole question of parliamentary reform might be
advantageously considered by royal commission, with a
view to enable the government of the day to found a
measure on the result of its inquiry. He thought it pre-
mature and useless to send these bills to committee.
Mr. J. S. MlLL—Many hon. members of this house
have shown so great a desire to talk of what I may have
written or said on the subject of the franchise, and have
expressed so much anxiety that I should explain the
course I am going to take, that I should be sorry to dis-
appoint their reasonable desire for information.
But, in the first place, I must correct the right
hon. baronet who has just spoken as to the
reasons why I did not allow myself to be persuaded to
ate sas.se....siess tho motion of the hon. member
11. for Hu My reason—and it was one which would be
appreciated by both sides of the house—was that I had a
decided objection to being made a catspaw of. (Cheers and
laughter.) What other reasons I may have had will appear
in the observations I am about to make, and which will, I
trust, satisfy all those honourable members who are so
anxious about my constituency. No doubt a man ought to
feel much flattered at having his writings so fre-
quently referred to as mine have been in this and other
debates, but my gratification is, I must confess, somewhat
dashed at finding that the knowledge of the honourable
members who quote me, seems to be strictly limited to the
pewees they quote. (Laughter.) I suppose the books
:,re too dull to permit of their reading any more, and if
they had done me the honour to read a little further they
would have known more about my opinions. (Hear, hear.)
They scent to think I have recommended plurality of votes,
anal many other things as suitable to, or at least discus-
sible in connection with, the present measure ; but I do
not know where they find I recommend them in connec-
tion with a 71. franchise. (Hear, hear.) The propositions
I made had reference to universal suffrage, of which I am a
most strenuous advocate, and towhich it seemed necessary
to have some cheek to prevent the suffrage from securing
ascendancy to a class. Under a 71. franchise there is no
danger of such an ascendancy ; the notion is absolutely
ridiculous ; the effect would be, instead of creating the
ascendancy of a class, in some degree at least to weaken
it. With plurality of votes one thing must be accepted,
:and that is the representation of minorities—(hear, hearl—
and I congratulate the right hon. baronet on the limited
adhesion he has given to that principle. (Hear, hear.)
That is not intended as a check to democracy ; it is in-
tended as a check on whichever may be the strongest party
in the constitution, or the abuse of power by whoever may
be uppermost. I think that a reasonable corollary on
the principle of democracy, because thus all the
people would have votes, and all votes would
he of equal value. Without the representation
of minorities all votes have not an equal value, for prac-
tically nearly one-half of the constituency is disfranchised.
(Hear, hear.) Suppoae the legislature, that is to sae, the
Hoese of Commons, elected by a bore majority of the
people, and that the house so elected should pass mea-
sures by bare majorities of itself, the minorities in both
cases must be agreed, and a minority of one-fourth (so we
understood) would outvote three-fourths of the cont-
ermity. Therefore it scents to me that voting by mino-
rities must form partof any sy,tem of representation that is
t ) work welLand if the right hon. gentleman will move the
adoption of the principle he shall have my cordial support.
I wish, to make a brief explanation of a passage which the
right hon. baronet has quoted front one of my writings,
which has some appearance of being less polite in its lan-
guage than I should wish always to be in speaking of a
great party. The passage he quoted is one where I stated
that the conservative party was, by the law of its consti-
tution, necessarily tile stupidest party. (Laughter.) I
never meant to say that the conservatives are generally
stupid. What I meant to say was, that stupid persons are
generally conservative. (Loud laughter.) I believe that
is an obviously and undeniably admitted a principle that I
hardly think any hon. gentleman will deny it. Suppose
any party. in addition to whatever share it may possess
of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole
of its stupidity, that party, I apprehend, insist by the law
of its constitution be the stupidest party. (Laughter.)
And I do not see why hon. gentlemen should feel that
position at all offensive to them. It ensures their being
always an extremely powerful party. (Great and continued
laughter.) I know lam liable to a retort, and an obvious
one enough, and as I do not mean to allow any hon. gen-
tleman to have the credit of making it, I make it myself.
(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) It may be said that if
stupidity has a tendency to conservatism, scioninn and
half-knowledge have a tendency to liberalism. Something
might be said for that—(hear, hear)—but it is not at all so
clear as the other. (Laughter.) There is an uncertainty
about it. We cannot count upon it. We cannot
tell what the way of thinking may be. It varies from
day to day with the last book, but in any
case it cannot be equally relied upon, and there-
fore they are the less dangerous class. They are an
uncertain class. But there is a dense solid force in sheer
stupidity—(laughter)—and any body of able men with that
force pressing behind them may secure victory in many a
struggle, and many a victory the conservative party have
gained through that power. (Hear, hear.) I only rose for
the purpose of making this personal explanation, and I do
not intend to enter into the merits of the amendment,
especially as I concur in all that has been said by the
right hon, member for London (Mr. Goschen) in his admi-
rable speech. (Cheers.)
Mr. SCOURFIELI) believed that the inevitable result
of the grouping scheme of the government must be
greatly to increase the expense of the elections,
and that connecting together places many miles
apart which were disconnected in interests, and
between which great rivalry might exist, could only tend
to produce irritation.
Mr. BAXTER 'aid it was hardly worth while to go back
to the question of statistics, or of the admission of the
working-classes, which had been so thoroughly debated ;
and he hoped that the government would never consent to
send the British constitution before a royal commission.

Montrose rose he expected to hear an independent sup-
porter of the government, but lie was disappointed in that
expectation. The hon. gentleman delivered a speech
which ought to have been delivered when it was proposed
to unite the two bills together. He said that the conserva-
tive party would never have such an opportunity again,
for such moderate term would never again be proposed
for their acceptance. But in 18.52 a bill proposing a 51.
franchise had been rejected, in 1860 a bill proposing a
61. franchise had been rejected. And in 1866 they had a
TI. franchise proposed, which it was quite possible might
be rejected ulso. The conservative party, therefore,
had no reason to fear that they would lose by rejecting
this proposition of the government.
Lord F. CAVENDIsH said the amendment proposed by
the hon. member for Wells was somewhat ambiguous—
(" oh, oh" from the opposition)--for it was not clear
whether it was directed against the part of the bill
relating to the redistribution of seats, or against that
portion of the measure which related to the fran-
chise; yet, after the remarks that bad fallen from
the leader of the opposition it might be fairly
assumed that those on whose support the carrying of that
amendment must depend regarded it as directed against
the entire scheme. (Hear, hear.) He did not complain of
this, for it seemed only fair and naturaLbecause the govern-
ment seemed to have followed the same principles and
sought the same object in both parts of the measure. That
object seemed to be to adapt the institutions of the coun-
try to the changes which had been brought about by time.
He (Lord F. Cavendish) hoped the power would not be
given to leaders and demagogues to say to the people that
although their claim was acknowledged to be lust and
right, that ground was not considered sufficient by the
House of Commons ; that they must not look to the
wisdom and justice of parliament for redress, but must be
content to wait until they were pressed to urge their claims
by arguments, to which he would not further allude. He
trusted the house would nossao deal with the question as
that in time of trouble and difficulty they would leave
every class end every interest able and willing to support
the government of the country. (Cheers.)
Mr. DC CANE spoke in support of the government.
Mr. Li )WE complained of the government that they were
continually bringing in measures attacking the vital and
fundamental institutions of the country, and always ab-
stained from telling the house what was the principle upon
which they were founded. But if the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not inform bim what the principle of the
present bill was, he must endeavour to puzzle it out for
himself. There was one principle upon which a redistri-
bution of scats ought not to be based, and that
was the abstract right to equality of representa-
tion and an approximation to electoral districts. To
adopt &principle like that must result in makingrepresenta-
fives the slaves of niece numbers. A reasonable view of a
redistribution bill would be that it should be a
measure that would make the house more perfectly than it
was at present a reflection of the opinion of the country.
He admitted that there was now a tendency to a great
uniformity and monotony of representation, and a redis-
tribution bill should remedy this tendency. Another object
should be enfranchisement, by which he meat not
the aggregation of fresh members to already
existing constituencies, but the enfranchisement of
fresh constituencies, thus giving more variety of
life to the representation of the country and making
the house a collection of persons of infinite diver-
sity of pursuits and habits. And another object might
well be to diminish the expense of elections by reducing
the size of electoral districts. Passing, then, to the con-
sideration of the bill before the house ; he regarded it in
two aspects. One was the male of grouping ; the other,
the manner in which a third member was added to some of
the constituencies. Although it had never yet been ex-
plained, he assume! there was some good and cogent reason
for disfranchising the small boroughs ; but if there were,
why give them back as a friction that which had been
taken away as an integer? These small boroughs were at
present of great value as a means of sending able men, who
could not afford a costly contest, into the House of Commons
at a small expense. But group them in the way proposed by the
bill; and they would beat ouceconverted into most expensive
constituencies. The members elected for them would have
to subscribe to three times the number of local charities,
schools, and volunteer carps. In fact, it was nothing but
a polygamous arrangement. It asked a man to marry three
or four wives. Nay, worse, it was an aggravated polygamy,
for it asked him to marry three or four widows. In the
grouping of these boroughs some principle should have been
observed • but upon examining the details of this measure
it seemed to be stamped throughout with gross injustice,
and it could not therefore be satisfactory to the boroughs
concerned. In short, the principle of the thing was so bad
that it would be impossible to deal with it in committee at
all. hissing, then, to the second part of the measure, he
would assume that there was a good case for disfranchising a
certain number of seats ; but the question was, how did
the government propose to distribute them? The counties
to which they gave them were really groups of towns, and
the principle upon which a third member was to be con-
ferred upon sonic of the larger towns seemed to be simply
the worship of mere numbers. Adopt that principle, and
they would be making an approach to electoral districts.
There was no doubt that the tendency of the age was
towards democracy. In these circumstances what was
the duty of a statesman ? Surely not to stimulate this ten-
dency, but rather to seek for some palliative, and if obliged to
change, to make it as smooth as possible ; but the whole
of this bill tended to overwhelm the present state of
society and government in this country. The right hon.
gentleman then canvassed the arguments which had been
brought forward in support of the Franchise Bill. The
" flesh and blood" and rights of man" argument of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the stand upon the old
line of the constitution argument of Mr. Bright, and de-
clared that this portion of the scheme was the work
of men who had set themselves to " mend the
parts by ruin of the whole." It was a medley
which showed great veneration for numbers and a certain
amount of veneration for the old boroughs, which were to
be preserved after everything beneficial had been ex-
tracted from them ; and it was evident that it had been
prepared without information, and was a measure of an
ill-considered, inadequate, and mischievous nature. If
they abandoned the existing settlement, so far as the
pecuniary amount of the franchise was concerned,
the result would he that they must go down to
where the Attorney-General had pointed on the previous
day, household suffrage, and from that it might be down
to universal suffrage. The hon. gentleman continued :
The matter is inexpressibly important, for any error will
be irremediable. The matter is the last thing that ought
to be dealt with rashly or incautiously. We are dealing
not merely with an administration or a party, not even with
a constitution or a kingdom. To our hands is entrusted
the noble and sacred future, free self-government all over
the world. We are about to exchange certain good for
more than doubtful change—we ore about to barter
maxims and traditions which have never failed, for
theories tind doctrines which have never succeeded. (Loud
cheers.) Democracy you may have at any time. Night
and day the gate is open that leads to that bare
and level plain, where every ant's nest is a
mountain, and every thistle a forest tree. But
a government such as that of England is the work of no
human hand. It has grown up imperceptibly. It is a
creation of centuries. It is a thing which we onlyenjoy, we
cannot impart to other countries, and which we could not
recover for ourselves. (Cheers.) Because you have con-
trived to be at once dilatory and hasty heretofore, it is no
reason for pressing forward rashly and improvidently. To
precipitate a decision even in the case of a single human life
would be crueL It is more than cruel, it is parricide in
the case of a constitution which is the life and soul of this
great nation. If it is to perish—as all mortal things must
perish—give it, at any rate, time to gather its robe around
it, that it may fall with decency and deliberation.
" To-morrow ! That is sudden.
0, spare it' spare it. It ought not so to die r
—(Loud and long continued cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the resolution,
and went into an elaborate comparison of the expressed
opinions of the leaders of the opposition to show that they
were all agreed that the subject must be dealt with, but
that they differed widely as to the mode of settling lt. He
argued that the 71. franchise would admit the upper
stratum of the working classes, and need create no alarm ;
and denying that it would be impossible to take a
stand on household suffrage, he showed that the educa-
tional testa and lateral franchises advocatel on the other
side were more likely to lead to universal suffrage, and ex-
pressed the opinion that probably the next stags would be
the ancient constitutional rated household suffrage. The
redistribution scheme, he maintained, was more in harmony
with the theory of the constitution than Mr. Disraeli's
plan of eliminating the urban element from
the counties. What is the consequence (added
the learned gentleman) of the rejection of these
bills, if they are to be rejected? What will the govern-
ment which succeeds us have to do ? One thing lam per-
fectly sure of, that whatever government succeeds the
present they must attem to settle the ques-
tion of reform—(hear, hear)-and that it cannot be
settled wthout some considerable reduction of the
franchise. (Hear, hear.) If hon. gentlemen opposite

EXPRESS,' kfiIDAY EVENING,- JUNE 1, 1866.

think they have a favourable prospect of settling the ques-
tion, I congratulate them ; but I think that with all the
different opinions we kave heard expressed, by the noble
lord the member for Ring's Lynn, the hon. member for
Stamford, and the right hon. gentleman the member for
Oxfordahire, they willhave some difficulty in satisfying the
indispensable conditions of any settlement of this question.
I think that the time hu come for the settlement of the
question, and that we should seise the opportunity offered,
not to meet the proposal of the government with motions
which are illusive, and tend merely to delay, but if pos-
sible to obtain that settlement. Having read those two bills
a second time, I think it would be for the advantage of all
parties to go at once to the consideration of their detail'.
Even if the bills should pass without amendment—and
far be it from me to say they are not susceptible of amend-
ment—it would still be a great advantage for all parties
to obtain a settlement which would fix for a whole human
generation the all-important question of the franchise,
without in the slightest degree disturbing the present bases
of political power. Much better to settle the question w hilst
you have its control in your own hands than to leave it for a
time when such control would be impossible. (Hear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS moved the adjournment of the debate.
Agreed to.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

On the order for the third reading,
Mr. LAWRENCE objected to the mode in which the
bill proposed to rearrange the timber duties.
The bill was read a third time and passed.
INDUSTRIAL AND REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.
In committee of the,whole house resolutions were passed
to enable the Treasury to contribute, out of monies pro-
vided by parliament for the purpose, to the expenses of
the maintenance of children in certified industrial and re-
formatory schools.
- -----------

LUNACY ACTS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was considered as amended, and ordered for
third reading•

GLEBE LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL

This bill passed through committee.
The Marriages (Sydmonton) Bill was read a second time.

BRIDGWATER WRIT.

Colonel TAYLOR moved a new writ for the election of a
member for Bridgwater, in the room of Mr. Henry
Westrop, whose election has been determined to be void.
Sir H. VERNEY observed that the committee had re-
ported that at the last election for Bridgwater corrupt
practice did extensively prevail, and adopting the usual
course upon such a conclusion, he moved, as an amend-
ment, an address to the crown for the appointment of a
commission to inquire further into the case.

After some discussion,
The house divided—
For the motion
Against
The writ was therefore ordered.
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE BILL.