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

they would be much more liberal now if they had
not been so greatly increased in numbers during
the last 100 years. (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. I do 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 lie 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. I am always sorry to have
to say things m,hich appear injurious to the character
of the Church. The Church religious is one thing ;
the Church political is another. (Cheers.) Do not
let any labourilg, earnest Protestant clergyman in
Ireland think lam undervaluing any service he may
render to religion. I speak of the Church as a poli-
tical institutior, 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 natu.'e of the human mind, there never
ought to be, tontent and tranquillity in Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) And this is not all that we suffer.
Look at Amerba in connexion with this question.
How many Irigamen have emigrated to America ?
Myriads have gahered there whom rage or fear drove
from their wasted homes; and in America they form
a portion of the oeople perpetually hostile to England.
The Scotch who emigrate—and the Scotch are a
people no moredisposed 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 unchan ge -
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 I am 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 dismission 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 ? In 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 its power 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 rat 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 niost 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 lauds 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),
to 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 anguster 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 May Hatley, aged 17. Harriet liatley, 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."