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

Mr, Bright at Birmingham.

BIRMINGIIAM, Wednesday.

A town's meeting of the inhabitants of Birming-
ham, convened by the Mayor, was held in the
Townhall this evening, for the purpose of taking
into consideration the question of Parliamentary
Reform. The hall was crowded in every part. _

• Mr. YATES, the Mayor of Birmingham, presided,
and he was supported by Mr. Bright, M.P., and
numerous local celebrities. Mr. Scholefield, the other
representative of the borough, was prevented by ill-
health from being present. A letter was read from
the hon. member apologising for his absence, and
declaring his readiness to support any real measure
of Parliamentary Reform which may be introduced
by the Government in the forthcoming session of
Parliament.

The proceedings hav;,!--b.-een opened bytheMayor
in abrief

Alderman LLOYD moved, seconded by Mr.
RADFORD, " That in the opinion of this meeting the
state of the country is peculiarly favourable for im-
mediate legislation on the subject of Parliamentary
Reform, and that the repeatedly expressed opinion
and the recorded pledges of the more prominent
members of the present Government render it espe-
cially incumbent upon the existing Ministry to pre-
pare at once a comprehensive measure of Reform,
calculated to satisfy the just expectations of all
sections of the Liberal party."
Mr. BRIGHT, when the cheering with which he
was received had subsided, said—Mr. Mayor, ladies,
and gentlemen, I lament very much that on this
occasion we have not the presence of my hon. col-
league, Mr. Scholefield. (Hear, hear.) I regret it
more because his absence arises from the state of his
health. My opinion is that, like a great many men
who are in Parliamentary life, he has worked too
hard, and is suffering from over-work. I have, as
you know, before I was politically connected with
this borough, passed through a period of greatphysical
weakness, and I can sympathise with anyone suffer-
ing from the same cause. I may tell you further,
that hard work and over-work has been to a large
extent given in your service, and therefore I feel that
I may ask you to have whatever forbearance may be
necessary, and to give to Mr. Scholefield, should it
be needful, such a period of relaxation as the state
of his health may require. (Cheers.) Since I was
permitted on the last occasion to speak from this
platform a considerable change has taken place in
the condition and prospect of public affairs. Since
that day we have had the election of a new Parlia-
ment completed ; we have also got a new Minister at
the helm, and further we have a new policy avowed
with regard to the new Parliament. I hope it will
be found that there is a larger majority sitting on
the Liberal side of the house than has been found in
any preceding Parliament of our time excepting that
one which was elected immediately after the passing
of the Reform Bill. (Cheers.) With regard to the
new Minister, although he is new, yet it must be ad-
mitted that he is somewhat old. (Laughter.) He is
old in the services rendered to his country, and I
think, not forgetting any errors in his political career,
that he must be considered also in his attachment to
freedom. (Cheers.) With regard to the policy which
I have described as new, although it is apparently
now new, yet after all it is but the illustration of the
ancient policy of the Whigs and the Liberal party.
(Cheers.) Now, I fancy that in this matter we feel
that the prospects of the country—l speak now of
its political prospects—are brighter and better than
they have been for some time past—l suspect that
that is also the opinion of the country ; for I ven-
ture to say that the sentiments that will be uttered
at this meeting to-night, and the resolution to which
I believe you will givean almostunanimous consent,
will meet with the approbation and consent of the
great body of the people of the United Kingdom.
(Cheers.) But it seems in almost all mundane affairs
that everybody after all is not quite content, and
judging from writings in certain portions of the
press, and from some recent speeches, I presume our
old friends the Tories are by no means in a cheerful
mood—(laughter)—they are subjected to what I
should call spasmodic apprehension, and whenever
any change is about to take place—which a few
years afterwards they all admit was a very bene-
ficent change, and which by and by they begin
to support they behave as if they thought
the deluge was coming back again, and that there
was no ark in which they could find refuge.
(Laughter.) We have had very recently a speech
from rather a conspicuous member of the Tory party,
who represents a very small borough, perhaps
twenty or twenty-five miles from this. I speak of
the member for the borough of Droitwich. Now I
will not depreciate the member for Droitwich, and
I do not wish to depreciate the borough which he
represents. It is a borough which ought to have
been enfranchised by the Reform act. (Laughter.)
But instead of that I am told that it was made to
include a good many miles of agricultural district,
and that the character of the borough was thereby
changed. I see from Parliamentary returns that
the borough of Droitwich occupies no less than
forty-one square miles of ground, which I believe
is about three times as much as is occupied by the
whole borough of Birmingham. Still Sir John
Pakington is member for Droitwich, and he sits in
the House of Commons, and he has been Colonial
Secretary of State and First Lord of the Admiralty
and a member, of course, of the Cabinet of Lord
Derby ; being then a conspicuous man, we may
judge a little of what is going on from what he
says. When I refer to his speech, I see that he
positively bemoans the condition and the prospects
of his party. He is anxious to get rid of obsolete
fancies and old enemies. Well, the Tories have
once changed their names to Conservatives, and I
suppose that being found out, it will be necessary
to have some other name, and Sir John Pakington
asks that they shall have a great constitutional
party. Now he does not think that the Govern-
ment will be able to carry a Reform Bill such as we
want, because he believes that the House of Com-
mons will not listen to such propositions. There were
many men on the Liberal side of the House who
will coalesce with the Tories to prevent any bill of
the kind being passed. He then refers to the speeches
made on our side of the house, especially to the
speeches made last session by Lord Elcho, Mr. Hors-
man, and Mr. Lowe, which he praises highly. He
classes those gentlemen as three of our best statesmen
—(laughter)—and evidently, and very naturally,
looks to considerable support from that quarter.
As to Lord Elcho, I find that he is enthusiastically
in favour of the Governor of Jamaica ; therefore I
do not believe myself that the Liberal party, or
Liberal opinions, or a reform bill of any value, will
have the slightest need to regret if Lord Elcho has
gone away to his own proper place on the other side
of the house. But this idea of a coalition of Sir J.
Pakington's is worthy of consideration for a moment.
Who are the parties to he got rid of ? I suppose on
his own side he must get rid of Mr. Newdegate. Mr.
Newdegate is a gentleman who is generally wrong
in his views, but who is in the main sturdily inde-
pendent. I do not know, also, how he will be able
to keep such parties as the leader whom he follows,
for we all recollect that when the Aberdeen Govern-
ment was first formed Mr. Disraeli, with an oracular
voice, proclaimed that England did not love coali-
tions. I suppose, therefore, Sir J. Pakington will
get rid of Mr. Newdegate on the one hand, and his
leader, Mr. Disraeli, on the other. I do not know
how many he expects from our side of the house to
join in this coalition, but bear in mind that the con-
stituencieswill have something to say in this matter ;
and if members on our side, elected as Liberal mem-
bers on our side, elected as Liberal members, and
expected to vote for a Liberal Government and in
favour of a measure of reform, desert their pledges
and violate their promises, their constituencies, I
hope, are independent enough and liberal enough to
look after their representatives in this matter, and
e
duty or dismiss them keep them to their from their
service. Sir J. Pakington proposed to form a great
constitutional party, and he said that its cry will be
constitutional progr, ess—
not the cry of despair
which he is now uttering—a party which is ready
to grant all reasonable demands which the real in-
terests of the country require, and not less firmly
disposed to resist all dangerous concessions. All
the
blessings that we have been receiving for the
last
3° Years Sir J. Pakington and his friends were
contending ought not to be granted, bnt resisted

and they have been resisted with the power and force
which that party possesses. But ho says further—
and this is rather a remarkable expression—" 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 suppose, 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
be 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 I 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.
Pakingtou. (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 moral thing for him todo.
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)—hut 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 au 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 boroughmongers
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, vith 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
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. Pakington 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 £.8,•
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 he frightened out of his
tensesthat
a the
t if he wereasked to leap ver it. Assuming
h
Government
will bring in a bill—l am not
authorised to say anything about it, for really Iknow
nothing about it—but assuminn, that the Govern-
ment will bring in a bill whichwill give the franchise
to £lO occupiers in counties, and in
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 Mr. Gladstone deserving of that
name ? Or Lord Russell himself, politically repre-
senting one of the wealthiest and most powerful
and most honourable aristocraticfamiliesof 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. Paking-
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
its 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, arftl 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? That
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 an intentional deed
which shut the doors at £lO, *hen 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 wasa 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
violent Tory majority in the House of Commons.
The object was to cut off from the elective franchise
every man in the kingdom who was not connected
with the Established Church, or who would not take
couldhe takedts
e; tthe r
se r etfhorroeu
gi th
owuotutlhde
kh
ianvged
odisfranchised
all the dissenters throughout the kingdom. At that
t
the tests that only members of the Established Church
allt
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 thatoccasion. The
Lords were more liberal than the Commons, and