The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONIiON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14 1865,

and they have been resistedwith the power and force

which that party possesses. But he says further—
and this is rather a remarkable exproskion—" I
think I may sum up the condition of parties in

one brief expression. While the Whigs and the
Tories are quarrelling, Republicans are advancing."
(Cheers and laughter.) Now I suppcse, unless we

are greatly mistaken, we know what the Whigs are,
•

and what the Tories are ; but up to this moment

we have no practical guide as to who are the Re-

publicans of whom he speaks. (Cheers.) I presume
he must mean the Liberals who are Liberal without

being bound to the Whig party ; and if so, I am
not certain that it would not include a very large
portion of this meeting ; and possibly he might fall
into the mistake of including me in that list.
(Cheers and laughter.) Now 1 should like to give
Sir J. Pakington and a friend of his a little advice.
I have to complain very much of the inaccuracy—
and I would almost say the untruthfulness—of two
right hon. gentlemen of your neighbourhood—Sir
John Pakington one, Mr. Adderley the other.
(Laughter.) I think since I was here last Mr. Ad-
derley has made a speech at a dinner within your
town, and in that speech he took the liberty of say-
ing, in reference to me—l speak from memory—
. _ _ _

that I was one who would wish to substitute a

President for the Queen of this realm. Now, I
make a good deal of allowance for Mr. Adderley.
(Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Adderley, if he speak

_ .
to the questions belonging to his party, has not be-
fore him a very lively subject, and he never was a

very lively speaker ; and although it may be con-
venient to make personal, and what I call the inso-
lent and untruthful remarks which he made

respecting me, with a view of giving a little spice to
his speech, yet I think, considering the position he

holds in the county and in the country, and also

the position which he has held in the Government,

he ought to be a little more careful of what he says.

(Cheers) And I would say the same to Sir J.
Paldngton. (Laughter and cheers.) He has no
right to say that a political party which includes the
vast majority of the people can fairly be styled
in this monarchical country as republican. He

is doing what, in my opinion, is not a very wise
thing ; and what, if he does not know that we are

Republicans, is not a very moralthing for him to do.
But these men,your Pakingtons and Adderleys, I dare
say they have read history—although I would not
guarantee it—when they were at Oxford or Cam-
bridge—(laughter)—but they appear to have gained
no knowledge from what they have read. We have

seen republican triumphs ; we have seen monarchies
overthrown. But what does history tell us of those
events when the English monarchy was overthrown
200 years ago ? Who were the persons really re-
sponsible for that catastrophe ? Why, every reader
of English history must know that Buckingham and
Strafford, and Laud, and the duplicity of Charles 1.,
were responsible for the great catastrophe which

happened in English history. And if you come to
the close of the last century, and examine into the
history of France, and ascertain how it was that
one of the oldest and one of the greatest monarchies
came to an end, and the King himself to an end
equally terrible with that which befel Charles 1.,
you will find that those evils came from a corrupted
Church, from a tyrannous and a profligate Court.
(Loud cheers.) And if, coming to our own day,
within the last six years, you ask what has destroyed
and extinguished the dynasty which ruled over the
Neapolitan kingdom, you will find it was the dark-
ness of the priesthood and the feebleness and cor-

ruption of the administration. And further, if you

ask what it was that convulsed the United States—

what it was that spread the horrors of war over a
country on that continent equal in extent to half a
dozen European kingdoms—you will find that it
was not the friends of freedom, but the conserva-

tive slaveholders. Those are the men who endea-

voured to destroy the most free Government, and,
as has been proved, the most powerful nation on
the face of the earth. (Cheers.) But in Birming-
ham it seems a work of supererogation to talk of
these things, for the very stones of your streets
could teach us something of these matters. Thirty

years ago, or a little more, your streets resounded
with the tramp of tens of thousands of men gathered
_ _

together in favour of reform. The air was full of
menaces of war, and the very ground seemed to be
trembling beneath their feet. And what happened ?
The revolutionists of that time—the boroughniongers
and the Tory Peers—succumbed. That great crisis
passed, and there was no disturbance of the
public peace. (Cheers.) Look now at the great
changes which have taken place since that stirring
event—changes, all of which, with scarcely any con-
siderable exception, have been in favour of freedom,
and in favour of the rights and true interests of the
great masses of our population. But leaving out of
view the question of the effect upon the people,
what has been the effect of these changes upon the
position of the Throne? Does any man deny that
the Queen of England is not more secure upon the
throne of England than any monarch who has sat
1 upon that throne during any preceding period of
English history ? (Cheers.) There is no man in this
island certainly who wishes to wrest the sceptre from
her hand. The realm has been tranquil for a longer
period than at any time of our recorded history ;
and the cause of it is this—that the people feel that
the Throne is in no manner the enemy of freedom,
nor is its influence lent to that faction of which Sir
J. Pakirgton is the latest spokesman. But now,
why is it that these gentlemen either feel or pretend
so much alarm ? " Russell and Reform" is a vision
of 30 years ago. But, after all, if these men had a
little more courage, and would examine the question
a little more, they would find that their fears were
foolish and childish. The bill of 1860, I suppose,
will be the foundation, and probably somewhere
very near the bill which will come into Parliament
next month. When it was brought into the house
in 1860 it passed a second reading without a divi-
sion. The Tories did not object—they could not,
dared not, object to its principle; and I believe it
wanted very little to have induced them to allow
the bill to pass the House of Commons without a
division. They themselves brought in a bill in 1859
--it was not a very honest bill—it was too clever by
half. It proposed a £lO qualification for counties,
and as a balance to shut out all freeholders in
boroughs from voting in counties, the object being to
continue the county representation strictly in the
hands of the landed proprietors. It did not presume
to reduce the rental franchise in boroughs, but it
proposed several modes of allowing in a few people
who happened not to be in, but who for the most part
are not really of those whom it seems a pity to ex-
clude in bulk, namely, the working classes. But
even in regard to that, two very respectable mem-
bers of that Cabinet, Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley,
\
differed from their colleagues ; they were in favour '
of reducing the borough franchise from £lO to £B7
and differing from their colleagues they resigned]
and left the Government. There does not seem to
be such a frightful chasm between certain main
propositions of that bill and that of the succeeding
year, that a man was to be
over
it.
frightened outAs s
uo
mf
ihni
gs
senses if he were asked to leap
that the Government will bring in a bill—l am not
authorised to say anything about it, for really I know
nothing about it—but assuming that the Govern-
ment will bring in a bill which will give the franchise
to £lO occupiers in counties, and in boroughs either
to all persons rated to the relief of the poor or to all
householders—either of which would be much better
than the proposition to give it to the occupiers of
£6 houses—whichever of these propositions they
offer to Parliament and the country, I should like
to know on what authority Sir John Pakington
dares to assume that those who are in favour of
this measure of emancipation are Republicans and
hostile to the constitution and monarchy of this
country. (Cheers.) Lord Aberdeen was a Minister
of the greatest probity, of great wisdom and mode-
ration, and he approved of a measure almost pre-
cisely the same with regard to the borough franchise.
But was Lord Aberdeen a Revolutionist or a Re-
publican ? Was Mr. Sydney Herbert a Republican?
Was the late Duke of Newcastle a Republican?
Was the long-experienced Sir James Graham a
Republican ? Was one of the most learned states-
men of our time--the late Sir G. C. Lewis—a Re-
publican ? Is Air. Gladstone deserving of that
name ? Or Lord Russell himself, politically repre-
senting one of the wealthiest and most powerful
and most honourableans' tocraticfamiliea of England,

is he one of the party upon whom a ban is to be laid
by styling them Republicans, and therefore revolu-
tionists? (Cheers.) But we may go further. What
of the Queen herself ? In 1860 the Queen gave her
hearty consent to that measure, and I do not suppose
that the Queen does not know what she is doing.
The Queen has never been merely a mechanical
Sovereign, putting her hand and signature to public
documents without understanding them. She has
a great responsibility upon her. She studies these
questions, and she comprehends them. She gave
her support to the bill which was about to be brought
in—(cheers)—and not only in 1860 did the Queen
do so, but the Prince Consort—he who was then
at her side, a wise and loving counsellor, gave his
support to that measure. All the persons I have
mentioned knew, and all those who are now living
know, thoroughly well that the throne is only safe,
not when it is based on the privileges or the mono-
poly of a faction, but on the affections of a trusted
and well-governed people. (Cheers.) Sir J.
Pakington cries for what he calls the formation of
a great constitutional party which shall command
in the House of Commons on the broadest and safest
principles, and whose cry shall be " Conservative
progress." Now I should like to ask Sir J. Faking-
ton a little bit about constitutional history, but I
dare say it is the point that he has not very mi-
nutely examined. We have been accustomed to
understand that the political constitution of this
country involves the existence of the Crown, of the
peers in their house, and of the commonalty in their
house. Now we are commons. In this noble hall
there are assembled several thousand persons, and
it would not be possible in any building or hall in
the Uniied Kingdom to eollect together more than
five or six thousand. Therefore it might be said
with accuracy that we are the commons of England.
I said at the beginning of my observations that the
sentiments uttered here to-night, and the resolu-
tions which will be passed, will meet with the ap-
probation of the people—(cheers)—and I say again
as I said before, that we here assembled are speak-
ing in the name of the Commons of England.
(Cheers.) Now, the history of England—the his-
tory that is to be relied upon—has not a page of
ancient time on which there is not written some
account of a system of representation. We have
had a representative Government, more or less per-
fect, from the earliest times. We have a monarch
wearing the crown and bearing a sceptre. Does any
one dare to affirm that the Crown at this moment is
not in all its powers free and unmolested? 'fiat
branch of the Constitution is still perfect and power-
ful, although not so powerful as it once was. We
come next to the peerage. Within the last 100 years
the peerage has been almost or about doubled in
numbers. We are not calling into question any of
the rights which belong to them under'the Consti-
tution, or their wealth, or their wisdom in their own
chamber. But if the Crown be free from molesta-
tion, and if the privileges of the peers in the main
are independent, have not we, the commons of Eng-
land, an undoubted right to examine whether we are
fully and fairly represented—(cheers)—whether the
people are fully and fairly representedin that branch
of Parliament which we call theirs. They are the
nation. These five millions of men, the heads of five
millions of families, are entirely unrepresented, and
not by any mistake. It was not by any mistake in
the Reform Bill of 1832 ; it was anintentional deed
which shut the doors at £lO, when they knew that
the great body of the people did not live in houses
of more than £5 value—shut them out with abso-
lute purpose of exclusion. They represent 25 million
of people—men, women, and children—who, as
times go, constitute a considerably large nation and
comprise a very large proportion of this community.
I should like to know from this new constitutional
party—it is most obsequious to the Crown, it de-
lights to circle round the throne, it is deferential to
the House of Lords—l should like to ask whether
they think this question, this demand of five million
of men, is a reasonable request to be granted, or a
dangerous concession, to be resisted to the utmost ?
(Cheers.) If Sir J. Pakington were here he would
probably get up after me and try to give an answer
to this question. I hope that, when it comes to be
discussed in the House of Commons, we shall hear
what he has to say in reply to it. Does any man
doubt ? Is any man so utterly incompetent to com-
prehend any question of history as to say that the de-
mand the people are now making would change the
character of the monarchy, or alter the constitution
of the house of Peers ? Does any man dare to say
that this demand of being represented in the House
of Commons is one that is not right and constitu-
tional for you to make? (Cheers.) If anyone dares
to say so, I must refer a little to history again.
There is a book recently published by Mr. Forster :
it is the life of Sir J. Elliot. He was a great man,
a great friend of freedom, and in the first year of
the reign of Charles I. he was a great Parliamentary
leader. He struggled with that monarch for the
rights of Parliament and the rights of freedom. By
illegal and tyrannous conduct he was incarcerated
in the Tower for a long time, and died during that
imprisonment. Mr. Forster's book is a valuable
addition to English history, and especially with re-
spect to the times of Sir J. Elliot. I find that in
1628, on the occasion of a great many petitions
being presented in Parliament immediately after a
general election, the electors complained that people
were shut out from voting by a small clique who
had returned the sitting members. There is the
case of the neighbouring town of Warwick. The
question whether the mayor and corporation, or the
Commons should return the members, the decision
was in favour of the latter—the Commons in gene-
ral. It is also a remarkable fact, that a counter
petition was got up by the mayor and corpozation,
who had induced upwards of 200 persons to sign it
and disclaim that right to vote for their members.
The committee rejected their petition, and resolved
that the right of electing their members rested with
the Commons, and with no mayor or town council.
The electors of Colchester had to petition. The
dispute was between the bailiff and the common
councilmen, who met in the upper room, and the
burgesses who assent to it in the lower room. The
power of election was adjudged to be in the common
sorts of burgesses exclusively. From the borough
of Lewes there was a petition. In that borough
neither mayor nor bailiffs existed, and the election
had been made by a small number of constables.
It was taken from them and given to the inhabitants.
At Bridport the question was whether the electors
resided in the commonalty in general or in the
bailiffs and the thirteen capital burgesses, and the
decision was in favour of the commonalty, and the
resolution on the journals of the house was that the
commonalty ought to have a voice in the election of
burgesses for Parliament. At Boston there was a dis-
pute between a select number and the commonalty,
and it was decided in favour of the latter, and the
house declared that nothing should restrict such rights
but prescription and constant usage beyond memory.
In 1628 Parliament, which made a most magnani-
mous struggle in favour of therights of the common
people, declared that in all cases the right of election
in boroughs resided in the commonalty in general ;
but coming to a later period I will give you an autho-
rity no less important, and this authority I recom-
mend particularly to the notice of the Prime Mi-
nister. (Hear.) In the time of William lll.—in the
year 1702—there was a question discussed relative
to the passing of the Occasional Conformity Bill.
It was a bill of an infamous character passed by a
ewvietrhy
the man n
Established
i the
k in
violent Tory majority in the House of Commons.
The object was to cut off from the elective franchise
cg dhounrio whoh7o r
who
os
would
oo connected
not
o tk
t a o
the teststliat only members of the Established Church
could take ; therefore it would have disfranchised
all the dissenters throughout the kingdom.
At that
time Lord Somers was a very
important person in
the House of Lords. He was the most distinguished
man ever connected with the -Whig party in this
country. He was not a man of aristocratic birth
and connexions, but the son of a solicitor in Wor-
cester or the neighbourhood. But he was a man of
extraordinary ability, of great industry, and of re-
markable knowledge and acquirements. He came to
have the greatest authority in this country under the
king. He opposed that bill, and there was a conference
between the two houses; the Commons determined
to pass the bill, and the Lords were determined, if
possible, that it should not pass on that occasion. The
Lords were more liberal than the Commons, and

they would be much more liberal now if they had
not been so greatly increased in numbers during
the last 1007 ears. (Cheers.) Now what did Lord
Somers say at this conference ? I hope every
person in this room will carry away with him the
language of this most distinguished statesman. He
was speaking for the Lords in this conference, and
he said that " The Lords, allowing that no man can
claim a place by birthright, yet conceive that giving
a vote for a representative in Parliament is the
essential privilege whereby every Englishman pre-
serves his property, and that whatsoever deprives
him of such vote deprives him of his birthright.'
(Cheers.) If you want to see more about this mat-
ter, and will turn to the life of Lord Somers, in
Lord Campbell's " Lives of the Chancellors," you
will read a very interesting biographical history of
one of the most remarkable men who have ever in-
fluenced public affairs in this country. Yet Lord
Somers says distinctly—and it is on record, and can-
not be unwritten, and no greater authority can ever
exist on the question—" The Lords conceive that
giving a vote for a representative in Parliament is
the essential privilege whereby every Englishman
preserves his property, and that whatever deprives
him of such vote deprives him of his birthright."
(Cheers.) But these men we are discussing now,
Sir John Pakington and his fellows, are an inferior
race of statesmen altogether. (Laughter and cheers.)
If you go back to the opinions of Mr. Pitt you will
find that he was not afraid of Parliamentary Re-
form. If you seek the opinions of Charles James
Fox, of Lord Grey, or of the Duke of Richmond of
that time, you will find that they were far more in
accordance and in unison with ours than with the
opinions of the men Sir J. Pakington represents.
Go also to the time of the Reform Bill and to the
opinions of the late Lord Durham—he was a most
eminent and distinguished man, and we owe it to
him to a great extent that the Reform Bill was as
good as it was—doubtless if he had had his way,
and if Lord J. Russell, who was not then in the
Cabinet, had also had his way, I believe that the
Reform Bill would have been better than it was. I
have mentioned other men of Lord Aberdeen's Go-
vernment, of that of Lord Palmerston's, and who
are in the present Cabinet, and I ask you as men
of practical sense whether the opinions of all these
authorities are not such as to outweigh the dic-
tum of Sir John Pakington, or the opinions
of any- of those statesmen with whom he has been
associated? (Loud cheers.) I wonder, for my own
part, how these men propound any opinions at all.
(Laughter.) If you had a lawyer who invariably
lost every cause with which he was connected, who
always gave opinions which the judges on the bench
reversed, you would not then, I should think, have
much confidence in his legal knowledge. (Laugh-
ter.) If you had a doctor, and it was an invariable
rule that every house he entered to give advice he
entered again to attend his patient to the church-
yard, you would not have much faith in such a doc-
tor. (Laughter.) You would say indeed that this
lawyer and this doctor would have a marvellous
effrontery to dare offer an opinion at all, and still
more to take a fee for it. (Laughter and cheers.) I
should say that men of this character were audaci-
ous pretenders. These very statesmen, after having
howled and shouted danger to the crown, danger to
the constitution, danger to the church, danger to
everything, ever since we were little children, even
now at this very moment when everything they have
cried is falsified by the event, are just as ready to
shout danger as they were before. The other day
there was a meeting at Maldon. Ido not know
much of that part of the country, but judging from
what we heard from that quarter, I should say that,
politically speaking, it is by no means a lively part
of the country to live in. Several members of Par-
liament spoke on that occasion. One of them with
a flippancy positively alarming in so young a states-
man, said that if they gave the working-man the
franchise he would not know what to do with it. If
any one were to ask the working man this question
—I mean any one of the party who does not intend
to give it to him—let him turn round and reply—
" What have you done with it ? You have had a
vote ever since you were 21 years of age, and what
have you done with it ? Have you given a vote in
support of any of the government measures over
which the country is now rejoicing at this time?
You may rely upon it I will make as good a use of
my vote as ever you have done of'yours." It is just
the same as if the debtor is asked to pay a sum of
money, and were to reply that he would not until
the creditor gave him a guarantee that he would
employ it for the debtor's benefit. (Laughter.) They
want a guarantee that the working man, when en-
franchised, shall do as his employer or landlord
wishes him to do with his vote. I hope that the only
course the working man will follow with respect to
his landlord and his employer will be, to consider
the wishes of his landlord and employer, and see
whether he considers their example one that is to be
followed, and follow it if he does, but not otherwise.
If I were to tellthese gentlemen certain things, they
would not be so ready to give you a vote. If I told
them that in this civilised and Christian country a
man would be sent to prison for the sake of preserv-
ing, and to a great excess, a sport that is absurd in
this thickly populated country, they would not be
more disposed to give you a vote if they thought
that you would provide a remedy for this state of
things. Neither would they be if I were to tell them
that in the great manufacturing districts the work-
ing man has no regular education, and that half the
children are growing up without anything that is
called instruction ; and I should say that if the
people had their franchise they would remedy all
this, and there would be no danger if you did any-
thing of the sort. Foolishly underrating and not
comprehending even then our Church, they would
refuse to give you the vote lest you should do so
great a good to your people. (Cheers.) I have
just seen a report of a speech delivered last night
by Mr. Watkin, who had recently returned from
the United States. Speaking of education, he says
that taking the nine Northern States to contain
10,500,000 people, he found there were 40„000
scholars, and an average attendance of 2,133,000
children, the total cost of their education being
9,000,000 dollars; in the four Western States, with
a population of 6,100,000, there are 37,000 scholars,
and an average attendance of nearly 1,500,000
scholars, at a cost of 1,250,000 dollars. Then in
a population of 16,000,000 there/are 77,000 schools,
to which every poor child can go, at a cost of
£3,000,000 a year. He thought this highly to the
credit of our American cousins ; and I perfectly
agree with him on that point. (Cheers.) But I
venture to say that if the franchise in the United
Kingdom were as wide as it is in these Northern and
free States, within five years there would be esta-
blished in this country a system of education as
universal as that which produces such admirable re-
sults amongst our cousins across the Atlantic.
(Cheers.) If a man were to turn to Ireland—where,
I am sorry to say, things are not so pleasant as they
are in this country—what would he say if I were to
point out to him that during the lifetime of the oldest
person in this room this has been a country in which
there has been continual insurrections, or attempts
at rebellion ? In that country the principles of the
great Constitutional party, that resists all dangerous
concessions, have been carried out to their fullest
extent. With regard to the land, there have been
200 acts of Parliament passed in favour of the land-
lord, and not one in favour of the tenant. (Cheers.)
Look at their Church. lam always sorry to have
to say things which appear injurious to the character
of the Church. The Church religious is one thing ;
the Church political is another. (Cheers.) Do not
let any labouring, earnest Protestant clergyman in
Ireland think I am undervaluing any service he may
render to religion. I speak of the Church as a poli-
tical institution, set down in that country, not by
the opinion of the people, but by the power of the
Tory people in England. I say that so long as that
Church exists, there never will be, there never can
be, in the nature of the human mind, there never
ought to be, content and tranquillity in Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) And this is not all that we suffer.
Look at America in connexion with this question.
How many Irishmen have emigrated to America ?
Myriads have gatheredthere whom rage or fear drove
from their wasted homes; and in America they form
a portion of the people perpetually hostile to England.
The Scotch who emigrate—and the Scotch are a
people no more disposed to put up with insult and

wrong than the Irish—but the Scotch who emigrate,
whether to Canada or the United States, are not
there the enemies of this country. They speak of
England, of Scotland, of Britain, of the United
Kingdom, with respect and affection; and if the Irish
had been treated as the Scotch have been treated, the
whole of that Irish nation on the American conti-
nent, instead of being hostile—bitterly and unchange-
ably hostile to England—would have been, I believe
much smaller in its numbers, and just as friendly to
us as the emigrants from Scotland are. (Hear, hear.)
I should like to ask of this great constitutionalparty
—which is to be formed by Lord Elcho, Mr. Hors-
man, Sir J. Pakington, and anybody else—l should
like to ask them, whether it is intended that the Irish
Church should be perpetually maintained, or whe-
ther it should fall—as lam certain before long it
must fall—before the advancing intelligence and
sense of justice of the people of the United Kingdom ?
(Cheers.) What these gentlemen fear is this—a
transfer of power. I recollect, in 1860, when the
franchise bill was under discussion in Parliament, a
noble lord—who sits on the opposite side of the house,
and who is very acute and sometimes very candid—
rising and saying that it was nothing to him to know
that the working people were industrious and frugal,
intelligent and independent ; what he objected to
was, the transfer of power from the persons who now
held it in this country. But in 1688 there was a
considerable transfer of power. The monarchy for
a time was in great danger. James 11. either ran
away or was driven away, and the succeeding mon-
arch had his power very much limited by the action
of Parliament. Does any one believe that the mon-
arch has been worse off, or that the people have not
been better ? 1n.1832, the aristocracy of the country
—the territorial aristocracy which ruled from 1688
to 1832—was shorn of some of its authority ? Does
anybody believe that the aristocratic families of this
country, or their heads, have really suffered by that
change ? I hold that as the people grow in wisdom,
independence, and intelligence there must be a gra-
dual transfer of power. The Crown has lost the
power which it once had ; but I do not think that any
one proposes to diminish itspower. further. The peers
have likewise lost some of the power they once had;
but are they any the worse ? The people have
more than they had before ; and there is little
doubt that the people are all the better for the
change. Now, let me refer for a moment to the great
and useful changes that have been made during
the last 30 years ; but there still remain, as I said,
five million heads of families entirely unrepresented.
Now confine your attention for a moment to the case
of these families. There is among them one million,
or rai her more than one million, in the United King-
dom, who are classed in the unfortunate list of pau-
pers. There is another million just above pauperism,
but always in peril lest they should become paupers.
Their condition and prospects are not more favour-
able than that. Now look to the ignorant and lower
strata of this portion of the community. Look to
their abject condition, to their poverty, to their suf-
fering, to their utter hopelessness of any good. Why
in the United States, even in the Southern States
during the reign of slavery, every negro had an idea
that there was a day of jubilee for him. But to these
people, to this class of the lowest strata in this coun-
try, I am here to state that there is neither the belief
of anything better, nor scarcely an aspiration after
it. Have you read a paragraph which lately appeared
in the newspapers about J. Cross, a Dorsetshire la-
bourer ?He worked six days in the week—he had
an excellent character from his employer--for him
he had worked 24 years at the rate of Bs. per week.
(Cries of "Shame.") John Cross had a family of
seven children to provide for out of these wages in
his hovel—that is, his castle. For a feeble wife and
an infant child he took—legally, 1 believe, he stole—
a wooden hurdle, of the value of 6d. For the offence
he was tried before the magistrates, and sentenced
to 14 or 20 days' imprisonment. I am not defending
the stealing of hurdles. (Laughter.) No doubt cer-
tain English newspapers will say that I am. (Con-
tinued laughter.) lam not even finding fault with
the magistrates who committed the man. I will not
speak evil of dignitaries; but I tell you that many
thousands of cases like that of John Cross are to be
found throughout the country, and especially in the
south, and that their condition is such, that hitherto
the most anxious investigation has been unable to
solve the mystery as to how they keep body and soul
together. (Loud laughter.) Now cast your eyes over
the country, and look at these five millions of fami-
lies, and the desperate condition of this strata of
them. Is it not true that this unenfranchised na-
tion may be said to toil and toil, knowing almost no
rest? (Cheers.) Compare it with the ruling class ;
but if I do I shall be charged with communism.
(Laughter.) It will be said that I wish to divide the
property of the rich and squander it amongst the
poor ; that I want to take the lands of the rich and
to divide them amongst the poor. (Hear, hear.)
But compare this great toiling and unenfranchised
nation with the section which may be considered
the governing classes ; look at its wealth, look at its
ostentation, look at its luxury, behold its weariness
—for there is weariness amongst them, but it is the
weariness of satiety—and see how they rush from
place to place, as it were to seek some new pleasure.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) But that great nation
of whom I have spoken, that great nation who have
built up the power of this country, this unenfran-
chised people without whom England would be no-
thing but a Power which a division of a Continental
army might subdue and annex—that great nation
of five millions of families is excluded from any
share of political action ; and the small section—
containing vast numbers of excellent persons—is
potentially the governing power in this realm.
(Cheers.) Now let me put to you, before I sit down,
a simple preposition—and putting it to you through
those gentlemen who sit below me (the reporters),
Ito whom freedom in this country is so greatly and
so constantly indebted, it is put through them to
all the people of this kingdom—lf of the five mil-
lions who are now shut out one million were ad-
mitted—you will mark the extreme, or, as some
will say, the blameable, moderation of that sugges-
tion ; but if only one million were admitted, would
not the cry of the toil-laden and the suffering,
which even now ascends to Heaven, reach fur-
ther and be heard even on the floor of Parlia-
ment ? For do not forget that the ear
of the Supreme is nearer even to the low-
liest of us than is that of our rulers. But if
that voice were heard in Parliament, would it
not perchance do something to still the roar of
faction, and to bind the powers of statesman-
ship to the high and the holy purposes of humanity
and of justice ? I speak not the language of
party. I feel myself above the level of party.
(Loud cheers.) I speak as I have ever endeavoured
to speak, on behalf of the unenfranchised, the al-
most voiceless millions of my countrymen. Their
claim is just, and it is constitutional; it will be
heard; it cannot be rejected. To the outward eye
Monarchs and Parliaments seem to rule with an ab-
solute and unquestioned sway, and I quote the
words which one of our Puritan poets has left
for us—
" There is on earth a yet auguster thing,
Veiled though it be, than Parliament or King."

That auguster thing is the tribunal which God has
set up in the consciences of men. It is before that
tribunal that I am now permitted humbly to plead ;
and there is something in my heart, a small still
voice, which tells me that I shall not plead in vain.
Mr. Bright resumed his seat amid great cheering,
having spoken for nearly an hour and a half.
The resolution was agreed to, and the proceed-
ings were soon after brought to a close.

KILLED IN THE STREET.—Yesterday Mr. Hum-
phreys, Middlesex coroner, held an inquiry at the
London Hospital, relative to the death of a young woman
named Jane MayHatley, aged 17. Harriet Hatley, a widow,
residing in Commercial-street, said that deceased was her
daughter, and on Monday week they walked out together to
Christian-street, Commercial-road. While crossing the street
a butcher's cart, driven by Christian Otter, a German
butcher, came along at a sharp rate. Witness jumped back
and avoided it, caught hold of deceased to pull her back,
but she fell and the cart went right over her, breaking her
thigh and inflicting other injuries, from which she died in
the hospital. Mr. Christian Otter said that there was
plenty of room for him to drive past both women, but the
mother was so anxious about her daughter that she, in her
nervousness, actually pulled the girl down under the wheels
of the cart. The coroner having summed up, the jury re-
, turned a verdict of "Accidental Death."