Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-25 00:00:00

middle classes tint they shied be trusted ; they had shown

themselves on ere

occasion wor

of tra3t, and of late
lie denied that they

years they had

;reatly improved

wouldiuterfere with the other. elasies, which they•haJ

disposition to do, and moreover, they were divided like. all
the other classes. He pa33ed a warn etilogium on the

working classes for their patience and deserts.
Mr. A. B. Hope supported the bill, which was a plain
and practicable one, whether sufficient or insufficient. Ire
considered that the practice of proposing abstract resolu-
tions in amendment to bills is playing with the dignity of
legislation, and he should vote against them one and all.
,Mr. B. Osborne said that the question of reform was in
a most anomalous state. They were told by the Treasury
Bench that no one in the country cared about reform, and
yet every one was anxious to bring about a reform bill.
finless they could pass a bill on a large and permanent
basis, they had better have no bill at all. Why did they
interfere with the Reform Bill of 1832? That bill recoe.-
nised the claims of the middle classes,, but it ignored alto-
gether those of the working classes, and it was to remedy
that defect that a future bill ought to be introduced. If
there was any doubt as to the intentions of the framers of
this bill to continue to ignore those claims, they were dis-
pelled by the splendid adoration of the. Secretary for the
Colonies, who had once spoken and voted for the ballot, but
who had now deserted the creed of his earlier years, and
inscribed no surrender on a conservative flag. That right
hon. gentleman had referred to the French revolution,
but it was by adopting the principle of uniformity of suffrage
that that revolution was caused. The ministers of that day
called on the middle classes to stand by him, they refused,
and the minister had a fate, which he hoped would not be
shared by the British ministry of the present time. He
alluded to the speech of Lord Derby in 1854, who had
declared that uniformity of suffrage would destroy the
balance of the Constitution. Lord Derby had changed
his opinion, but what had become of the balance
of the Constitution ? Let the Ministry abandon
this mischievous principle, and take back those excel-
lent colleagues who had left them on its account,
and who themselves might bring in a Reform Bill,
which he believed would meet with general support ; the
bill only recognised the working classes to disfranchise
them---it alluded to none among them except to disqualify
them. He agreed with Mr. Bright in objecting to the fancy
franchises of the bill; they were the political millinery of
Downing-street. He demanded a broad and simple test.
He admitted that such test ought to be property, which
supposed education when inherited, and intelligence when
acquainted. He ridiculed the lodging-house test, which he
said was at the mercy of a scolding landlady or a smoky
chimney. He challenged any one to show that the working
classes would derive any benefit from these fancy franchises.
It was because the 40s freeholders were independent, that
they were virtually disfranchised—that they were submitted
to the bed of Procustas cut down in the counties, and
stretched on' the town. Let not the house thus deal with
a noble body of men.. Referring to the borough question,
he declared that he objected to small boroughs, not because
they were small, but because they were under the influence
of patrons. The borough of Arundel had been cited to
show that its members represented the 900,000 Roman
Catholics of England; yet on the Ecclesiastical Title
Bill the representative of the Roman Catholics, for
supporting their cause, was obliged to resign his seat.
Could anything more effectually show the rottenness of the
system. He protested against the imputation made by the
Solicitor-General against Lord J. Russell, of being actuated
by selfish and personal motives, retorting that charge against
the hon. gentleman himself. As for the bill, it was one of
change without progress, and innovation without improve-
ment. He should therefore give his cordial support to the
resolution.
Mr. Walpole said that the progress of debate proved more
clearly in what difficulty they had placed themselves. The
bill itself contained provisions not acceptable either to the
House or the country; but he felt that the question ought to
to be settled, arid not hung up for another year, if only
they could obtain a measure containing provisions not
fatal to the interests, of the country.- It was their duty to