The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-10 00:00:00

Rercam Movement in the West Riding,

On Thursday evening a demoustration took place
in St. George's-hall, Bradford, in favour of Parlia-
mentary Reform. Five members of Parliament, all
connected with the West Riding of Yorkshire,
were announced to take part in the proceedings—
and out of the number, Mr W. E. Forster, Sir F.
Crossley, Mr Stansfield, and Mr Baines put in an
appearance. Mr E. A. Leathern was absent on ac-
count of a family bereavement. The body of the
hall and gallery were crowded—and in the stalls,
for admission to which a small charge was made,
there was also a good attendance. There were com-
puted to be about 3,000 persons present. The chair
was taken by Mr. W. E. Forster, M,P. ; and there
were also present in addition to the members of
Parliament already named, Aldermen Mitchell and
Law ; Messrs. S. C. Kell, A. Illingworth,W. Byles,
Whitehead, and other gentlemen of the neighbour-
hood.

Mr FORSTER said—Before I make the few re-
marks with which I must open the business of the
meeting, I feel it due to you and myself, consider.
ing the other gentlemen present upon the platform,
to state why I am in the chair. We have present
this evening members of Parliament much better
fitted, from their standing in the House, and also
from the part they have taken in this great goes•
Lion, to occupy the chair, especially my friend Mr.
Baines, who for two or three Sessions has with such
energy, with such ability (cheers), and such con.
rage, held up the standard of reform, and therefore
I wish it clearly understood that the sole reason
why I am in this honourable position is because this
meeting happens to be held in Bradford, and it was
thought that the member for Bradford, of all others,
should preside. (Cheers) This is a Bradford meeting,
and yet in some respects it may be called a West
Riding meeting. It is a meeting of the people of
Bradford, but it is such a meeting as might have
been held in any of the towns of the West Riding,
considering what the feeling upon this question now
is. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt, if it had been
determined that the first meeting upon this question
should be held either in Leeds, Huddersfield, or
Halifax, you would have had a similar meeting, and
I suppose it is to the feeling that this meeting is
one representing the West Riding that we have so
large a number of the representatives of the West
Riding constituencies present tonight. (Hear,
hear.) Why do we Reformers hold this meeting,
to be followed up by other meetings elsewhere ?
We have had Reform meetings over and over again
in this hall, until we are nearly tired, without do-
ing any good. Why, then, have we this meeting ?
Because the promoters of the meeting, being active
reformers at Manchester and elsewhere, have come
to the conclusion that now especially it is desirable
that the reformers in our large towns, and in large
districts such as the West Riding, which has al-
ways held a strong interest on Reform, should meet
together in large numbers, and should call to their
counsel their representatives to consider the present
position of the Reform question, and that especially
at this time should they do so, chiefly for this rea-
son—that this Parliament, which was originally a
Reform Parliament, which was called together as
a Reform Parliament, which has long ceased to be
a Reform Parliament—(hear, hear)—is now ape
proaching to its close. I don't say we are to have a
dissolution next session. We are very loth to die—
(laughter)—but we cannot live beyond next year,
and I suspect, even if we don't resolve upon dying
next year, that during the next session we shell be
only dead-alive—(laughter)—and that the approach
of our death will weigh upon us as a heavy cloud.
(Hear, hear.) I fancy we shall be thinking of our

dissolution, and therefore it is well that our consti-
tuents, and the errantry also, should be thinking
of the sultnct, and considering what, when Par.

liement is dissolved, shall be done with the Reform
question. (Hear, hear.) It may be said, " Must
we wait until then ?" I fear we must. I only
wish there was a chance to the contrary ; that at
the last moment Ministers should recollect upon
what conditions this Parliament was chosen, to
what extent it was pledged to Reform, and that
even at the last moment Ministers would do their
duty and fulfil their pledges, staking their exise
tence upon it, and calling upon Parliament to fulfil
its pledges, or stiking the existence of Parliament
upon it. I only wish that was probable, but I fear
we must consider that it is almost without the
range of probability. I think that as Reformers
the practical question we row have to consider is
what line we shall take and in what position we
shall place this reform question after the next dis-
solution of Parliament. (Applause.) Just for a
moment let us consider that question. Is there any
reason why, although five or six years ago we
made the Reform question a paramount question
on the hustings, we should not do so at the next
dissolution ? (Hear, hear.) Are the circumstances
now different to what they then were ? Is the need
for Reform less ? Is there any more truth,
any less falsehood, in the alleged dangers of Re•
form now than there was then ? (Cheers.) First,
as to the need. I think that in two or three sen-
tences I may pass over that. We all feel that the
need is as strong as it was before. Take our own
constituencies. We have upon this platform four
members of Parliament representing four consti-
tuencies. What are those constituencies ? Those
constituencies represent one million and a quarter
of people ; they comprise one-twentieth of the
population of Great Britain and Ireland. (Ape
plause.) What is the share of the representa-
tion that these constituencies have ? We four who
are here, and our four colleagues who are not
here, with one-twentieth of the population, have
one eightieth of the representation of the kingdom.
Again, take the three towns that are represented
here—Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax. These three
towns have a population of 320,000, I rn:ght give
more striking cases, more striking illustrations, but
I will take three townsin our own immediate neigh..
bourhood—Pontefract, Knaresborough, and Ripon.
What is the population of these three towns ?
23,000. Each man who lives at Ripon,-Pontefract,
or Knaresborough has 15 times as much voting
power as the man who lives at Leeds, Bradford, or
Halifax. And what is the especial virtue that be.
longs to the Pontefract, or Knaresborough, or
Ripon man that gives him 15 times as much voting
power as belongs to you here, or to the men of
Leeds? (" Hear, hear," and applause.) This is
the inconsistent, anomalous mode in which the re-
presentation is apportioned. Bat then going from
that, and coming to those who have votes, even
where there is representation, what are the voters
in these three constituencies of the West Riding—
Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax? They form less
than 1-25th of those free constituencies, while the
adult tax-paying men form considerably more than
one-fifth. Therefore the result is that enly one man
out of five adult taxpayers has any share in self,'
government—has any vote. (Hear, hear.) Well,
then, who are those four-fifths that are excluded ?
What class do they form ? They are almost all of
one class—labourers, artisans, working men. I
have had some practical experience of that. When
I was contesting Leeds with my friend Mr Baines,
I could have counted the working men who were
able to vote for Mr Baines or myself upon my
fingers, and I could almost do the same in my pre-
sent constituency. Yet, as I ventured to say in the
House of Commons, if we go through these towns,
and if we look at what has been dove, and
at what is doing, to what class have we
to look for the success of those towns
more than to the hard working artisans and
labourers who are thus excluded from all share in
the representation ? (Applause.) Now, I will not
dwell any longer upon the need. We feel It to be
as strong as ever it was ; we feel it is an insult and
W
a disgrace. (Applause.) We now come to the dan-
gers. Are there any dangers in this Reform, in this
act of justice, greater than they were before? 1
hear men constantly talking as though they. feared
Reform much more than they used to do, but I al-
ways doubt whether they fear Reform more than
they did ; they think there is less danger now in
expressing that fear or the appearance of it. But
why should they ? I won't anticipate my friend
Mr B tines, who, if he says one-fourth or one-tenth
part of what he has sail in the House of Commons
would prove to demonstration to any opponent or
objector that if there was any danger—and I don't
believe there was-5 or 10 years ago, there must be

less danger now, such has been the progress to in.
dustry, morals, and prosperity of the working men
themselves. But fresh grounds of danger are ex-
pressed. I hear men talking in an ominous way
about strikes for wages, and that, t'icrefore, the
working men must not have the franchise. I am not
going into the question of strikes. We all lament
these differences between labour and capital, bat
they are no argument against the extension of the
franchise. Strikes, however deplorable, are not so
common and destructive as they were in former
times,and when they do occur are accompanied with
far less violence and outrage than used to be the case.
I begin to hope that we now see symptoms of a
greater agreement between labour and capital than
we ever saw before. (Hear.) I believe co.operation
is going to strike out strikes from existence.
Whether that will be the case or not, I say, as an
employer of iabonr, that anything more fatal to our
class interests—if you choose to divide us into classes
—than this argument of the wages question against
an extension of the franchise I cannot conceive.
Then we come to what is said by those who are con.
stantly looking at the civil war in America.
" America is a democracy—America is a self-
governing republic, and there you have a civil war,
and will you venture to insist on Reform when you
see what has occurred on the other side of the At.
lantic ?'' What does this mean but that we are to
cling to our aristocratic Government, that we are
to fence it round and preserve it from the breath
of Reform ? Why ? Because the democracy of
America are engaged in a life and death struggle to
free their country from the grasp of a slave.holding
oligarchy. Let us suppose for a moment that they
had done in America jest what they have not done.
Let us suppose that the Republicans of America,
of the Nortb, had continued to allow themselves to
be governed by the man•owners of the South.
What should we have said of them ? What did
we say of them? That they were so engaged in
mammon.hunting that they forgot principle, that
they were careless of their own liberty, that they
were glad to connive at the tyranny of the South
over the negro ? (A Voice—" That is not a slave
question.") I beg your pardon ; it is a question
with which we are constantly taunted. (Loud
cheers, and another Voice—" That is not the ques•
tion.") I will bring you to the question very soon.
(Laughter and cheers.) Because they declared they
would no longer submit to be this ruled, they at
the same time said they would not submit to have
their country broken up. If they had done the
contrary, what should we have said of them ? We
should have said that they were cowardly—(loud
applause)—that those working men of America had
no patriotism ; that they preferred money and an
easy life to principle and to their country. (Hear,
hear, and applause.) And we should have said to
them, " Take care how 3- on let the aristocracy of
England lose its power and be replaced by a
democracy, which will thus allow itself to
be
.subservient to special interest.' (Applause.)
Because they have not done so, because the working
men, the artisans and yeomen of America have
poured out their lives for the last two or three years
on behalf of their country ; because at this last mo-
ment they have shown by their conduct at the late
vote that they even hated slavery more than they
loved union. (A Voice—That is not the question.)
I will come to the question. (Cheers and laughter.)
Because these working men on the other side of the
Channel have shown that they hated slavery, and
loved their country, therefore we are constantly told,
and I suppose my friend there would join in so tell•
ing us, the working men, the artisans and labourers
of England, are to be excluded from their share in
Government, and to be pariahs in their constitution.
(Loud applause.) Well, but I think the opponents
of Reform ought to be ashamed of mentioning Ame-
rica, and for this reason. Who is it that has pre-
served this country from intermeddling in American
affairs ? Whether it was right or wrong, it would
have been considered by the Americans, as it would
have been considered by us, such an intermeddling
as might possibly, might probably have led us to war
with our kinsman on behalf of slavery. I say who
has prevented this being done ? Not the aristocracy
of England ; not even the middle classes of England,
but the working men of England. (Applause.) I
am not complimenting you. I believe you would
have done it if you had been tried ; you were not
tried. But there were working men who were tried—
the working mcn of Lancashire, who were tried in
every way—(loud cheers)—who under the strongest
possible inducement, that of deep and unmerited
poverty, refused to palter with principle. They were
weong, perhaps, my friend there would say; but ho
will not deny this, that whether wrong or right,
they have shown that the working men of that
great district—and 1 do not compliment them so far
as to suppose that they did what other working
men would not have done—fulfilled what is the
greatest and most necessary condition of granting
power to any order of men whatever. (Cheers.)
That is, they have preferred principle to interest,
they have preferred the good of their country and
the principles which they professed to a mere
pecuniary advantage. (Cheers.) I dare say a
great many of you, of the working men present,
have read Mr. Mill's book upon representative go-
vernment. Yon will have seen that he, although
a friend of the people, and a strong friend of
Reform, looks with some fear upon a great eaten.
sion of the franchise, because, he says, it would
throw a great deal of power into the hands of the
working classes, and that they might use that
power to the disadvantage of their country, and
might prefer their apparent interest, the in•
terest of the moment, to the interest of the
country. I feel that this fear of his must
have been removed by what has taken place lately,
by the test which has been applied to them
within the last five years, and which they have most suc-
cessfully stood. I think I have shown the need is as great
as it was, and that the dangers are even less than they were.
Then, are we or are we not to have the reform question a
pre-eminent one at the next dissolution ? Here las met
with another objection. I ara told perhaps that " There is
ne new fact. no new circumstance. We do not imagine that
the theoretical arguments on behalf of Reform are less strong
than they were. We do not suppose there is much in this
change. But we have discovered there was a hollowness in
what you thought to be a fact before. We have discovered
that all this talk about Reform was hollow and insincere.
We find out now by the apathy with which the Reform
question is viewed, and by the manner in which those who
professed Reform views at one time do not profess them
now—we gather from all that, that those working men
whom you talk so much about do not care to have votes,
then surely we may leave them alone, and not give them
that which they do not care for." After all that is the
strongest argument we have to meet—the alleged apathy of
the people, and especially the alleged apathy of that class
in favour of whom the extension of the franchise is to be
made. Upon that point I might say this meeting alone is a
clear proof of apathy; but I will not be contented with that,
I will go into the question. if you will allow me, a minute or
two longer. (Cheers.) I don't mean to say there is so great
a call or so much need for Reform now as there was when
the great Reform Bill was passed ; I don't pretend to say
that there are the agitation and feeling in the country there
were then. There is not even the same feeling among work-
ing men as at the time of the Chartist agitation, and why ?
not because they are not convinced, as they were then, that
they ought to have a share in the Government, but because
they found out that they then exaggerated the material
advantage they supp-sed would bo obtained by any change
of Government. (Hear, hear.) But this much I will
say, there is so much feeling about Reform
among the prominent and loading men of the Liberal party
throughout all our boroughs, and even in our counties, that
I will venture upon a prophecy, and it is this, that when the
dissolution comes we shall find that the Liberal members
will be just as much pledged to Reform as they were at the
last dissolution. (Hear, hear.) The question therefore
changes itself into this—are these pledges to be taken seri-
ously ? Are they expected to be falsified or are they not ?
That is the quest ion which we have to consider, and not
merely we ourselves. I want our opponents and lukewarm
friends tbrougLout the country just to answer this question
in their own minds. Is it desirable—is it not dangerous—
that at the next dissolution members should be pledged to
Reform as they were before, and that those pledges should
be trifled with by the next Parliament as they have been
by this? (Hear, hear.) If that be the case, there will be far
more danger involved in the breaking of these pledges than
in all that is imagined by the opponents of Reform. (Hear,
hear.) It will be destructive of all political morality, it will
b 3 fraught with danger to the Parliament itself, and what
is by far the least of the evils, it will be utterly destructive,
and that for many years to come, of the Liberal party.
(Hear, hear.) I believe the question will present itself in
that active way to the Liberal party throughout the country
—will present itself with such force that they will be obliged
to give an affirmative answer; and little as we may think
of it at the present moment, I believe that the force with
which that question will present itself to their minds will
be Po great—however much they may dislike again enter-
taining it—that it will be carried to some settlement.