The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 6, 1349.

constitution which allowed things to come to that pass
without providing a remedy. The Noble Lord carried
the Reform Bill, and to enable him to do so, the con
stitution was helped on by brick-bats, and the carriages
of Noble Lords and Hen. Gentlemen, who opposed that
Bill, were smashed over and over again in the towns and
villages of the country. Well, he could not think that
constitution to be the best which required such acts as
these to give it a fillip.—(Hear, hear.) When slavery
was abolished, it was notorious that an insurrection of
the .laves in the colonies was deemed to be improbable.
And Sir Robert Peel could not make an alteration in
the corn-law until a famine occurred in Ireland, and thus
removed all pretence for continuing that law. Upon the
subject of the public expenditure, this I-louse legislated
as if there were no British nation, and tax paying was
unknown within the limits of the United Kingdom; but
if we had a House of Commons that fairly represented
the people, there would-be no one question so carefully
anti constantly discussed in this House as that of the di-
minution of the taxation which now pressed so heavily
upon the people. Again, he would take upon himself to
say that the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet had
both been aware for years that the laws, with regard to
land in Ireland, were in a most defective and mischievous
state.—(hear, hear.) lie (Sir. Bright) had not spoken
upon any Irish questions during the last three or four
years without mentioning that question ; but it was not
until 500,000 of the subjects of the Queen bad been laid
under ground by famine that the Minister dared to pro-
pose the measures which he had brought forward this
year. Now, he (Mr. Bright) must say, that he had no
respect for a constitution, or a system of Parliamentary
reuresentation, which required aids like these to keep it
in motion. But the system, if it did not work well in
this House, worked quite as badly out of doors. From
1836 there had been an incessant movement in all parts
of Great Britain in favour of an extension of the suffrage;
and out of it had sprung Chartism—which had proved
frightful because, during its discussion, passions had been
stirred up and false principles often inculcated, and ani-
mosities engendered. There was no doubt of the fact
that a wide-spread discontent prevailed in the country,
amongst a large, intelligent, and it might be a
powerful class in the country, and a hatred
of the law which men sitting in that House ought
to be the last to encourage and maintain.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord on a former occasion said that reform
was not wanted by those out of doors. The Noble Lord
referred to the comparative absence of petitions on the
subject. He admitted the fact that the petitions were
fewer than usual, but the reason was to be found in the
cause that operated to prevent the corn-law abolitionists
from petitioning the House of Lords. They felt that
the Lords had made up their minds on the subject, and
that the only argument they would be likely to listen to
was the argument of 1846, which was applied, and for-
tunately listened to.—(Hear, and cheers.) The Hon.
Member for Warwickshire had given an exeellent ad-
vertisement to the scheme for creating votes. He would
tell the House that the plan was progressing rapidly;
many towns had come into the plan. The plan was de-
scribed as a conspiracy by the lion. Member for. War-
wickshire, who said, according to the true interpretation
of the constitution, such votes ought not to be created.
Now, in reply to that, he would quote the opening of
Lord Chief Justice Tindal, who, though opposed to his
party in politics, was too upright a judge to allow
that circumstance to bias his decision. Lord Chief
Justice Tindal said, "the object of increasing the number
of freeholds, so as to confer votes, was not against law,
morality, or sound policy. It was one of the essential
objects of the Reform Act, to enlarge the number of per-
sons who enjoyed the elective tranchise."—(Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Bright) was of opinion that it was to be ap-
proved of, for a man to put by money to get a vote with.
But he would advise Honourable Members and the Go-
vernment there was one circumstance not altogether co
a favourable character connected with this new plan, and
which he wished could be avoided. The men who came
forward to Furchase these votes did so under a strong
and intractable conviction that they were buying a right
from which they had been unjustly shut out.—(Hear.)
When those men came within the pale of the constitution
in sufficient numbers to speak out, it might be they
would prove themselves the victors, you the vanquished.
—(hear, hear.) It was better, therefore, to give these
men their rights before exasperation or irritation had
imbued their minds with dislike to the institutions of
this country.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord
would not make poverty a reason for excluding persons
from the pale of the constitution.—(Hear.) Then
were 30,000.000 of people, with 6,000,000 of adults,
and only 1,000,000 of electors; 5,000,000 of men, not
slaves—not ignorant of the principles of government.
and that government affected their material condition—
not below that House in information on important sub-
jects—those 5,000;000 had asked year after year in vain
tor their rights. They stood about the hustings longing
in their inmost hearts to be admitted to those elective
rights which the constitution intended they should have
lie had shown the House that the constitution was in-
capable of governing the country before very great
changes were made. The Noble Lord said the peopl'
of the country had great influence in that House. He
denied it. The titled classes alone had influence.—
(Cheers.) Look at the Cabinets. It' there was anything
invariably be chosen from one class. The constitutiot
popular in the constitution of Cabinets they would nom
of that House was aristocratic, not popular. Of the
fourteen members of the Cabinet seven were peers
Lords Russell and Palmerston were not peers, but en
the seine class. There were four baronets, and one no
a baronet. These baronets were all connected wish peers
by blood or marriage.—(blear.) Some day the House
would find out that the people considered this was wrong
As the present system existed it was impossible t'
have a Cabinet so composed as that the interests of five-
sixths of the unrepresented should be regarded of
attended to. A change, however, would riot take place
until the danger became so great that it eculd no longee
be refused. He would ask whether the fi•P-sixths of the
people who were excluded from the franchise were
body of men for whom they telt neither respect nor con-
fidenee? Why, where would the greatness, the his-
tory of the past and future, and the security of thi
country, but for those who were denied the franchise?
All e irtne, ibda3try, integrity, morality, and religion, die
not reside in the sixth, who are represented in that
House. Was the constitution worth preserving? Were
the institutions worth encouraging which stood in fear o
this class? He was not the friend of order—(Laughter)
—he meant disorder. He believed the party he was con•
nected with was the true Conservative party in that
House. He was not unmindful of the liberties and pri-
vileges which the country enjoyed,
but he was satisfied
that all the advantages that we enjoyed would be conso-
lidated by passing the present meameasure.—(Hear.)Mr. .N EWDEGATE said a few words in explanation.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Whatever I may think of
the motion before the House, yet I cannot enter upon
the discussion of it without paying a tribute to the mo-
deration and fairness, to the total absence of bitterness
of language, which marked the speech of the Hon.
Member for Montrose in introducing it.—(Hear, hear.)
Fur my part, I ern happy he see him again amongst u
in renovated health—(Cheers)—and, although I differ
in opinion from him, I can have no doubt that nothing
but the most patriotic motives has induced him to bring
the motion under the consideration of the House with a
view to improve the representation and correct time
defects of our institutions.—(Hear, hear.) But with
respect to that motion I must say that if there was much
doubt and obscurity both in the past year and in the
present year in the views of the Hon. Member for
Montrose—if he came before the House telling us that
he meant to give the franchise to all householders, but
that who he meant by householders he was unable to
tell us—(Hear, hear)—and that the old understand-
ing of t.,e word " householder" as a man who
held a house was not his definition of the
word—if, I say, there was some obscurity about
the proposal of the Honourable Member for Mon-
trose, the speech of the Hon. Member for Manchester
has cleared it of all ambiguity—(Hear, hear)—and I
think must have shown the House that,
whatever might
be the wishes of the Hon. Member for Montrose himself,
whatever might be his respect for the ancient constitu-
tion of this House, and however he might reverence
those forms which have enabled him to act no undistin-
guishad part, and to confer no small benefit upon his
country, those who aid him, and in aiding overpower him
—(Cheers)—have no limitation in their designs—that,
to use the words of the lion. Member for Manchester,
they have no respect for the Constitution—(Hear, hear)
—that they do not propose to atop short of admitting
every adult male to the enjoyment of the franchise; and
that, although this would not be obtained by the motion
of to-night—although it would not be effectual in carry-
ing the six points of the Charter—yet that is the end
to which the Honourable Member for Manchester is
directing his efforts.—(Hear, hear.) In considering this
proposition I must refer to what fell from the Hon.
Members for Bradford and East Surrey. Those Hon.
Members having said they wished they had seen me, as
the author of the Reform Bill, taking a lead in this
movement, I must refer a little to the considerations
which actuated those who framed that Reform Bill. I
should rather say, to some of the considerations; because
I do not intend to weary the House by referring to them
all. It so happened that in the 1821 I brought forward
an enlarged plan of reform in this House, and that in
1831, as the organ of the Government, I proposed a
Bill which was carried, and the main provisions of which
became the law of the land. In framing that measure
our view was to found it upon the ancient constitution
of the country, to consider what were the defects in the
representation of the people in this House, and to amend
these defects in the spirit in which the constitution was
originally framed. Our object, likewise, was to amend
it so as that our amendments should agree with
the various parts of our ancient, free, and
glorious constitution.—(Hear, hear.) We were not
among those who professed no respect for that con-
stitution.—(Cheers.) We held that it was essential that
those who had the franchise should be possessed of
wasnot inde-
pendenceob-
and intelligenue. If there was no independ-
ence in the persons who exercised the franchise, you
happy t
could have no expression of the public will.—.(Hear,
hexer
ar,
hear.) It' they had no independence you could
tain that which is the object of representation—the
good government of the country.
lion. Member for Montrose assert to-night that which I
asserted last year—that the object of representation
should be to obtain, nut mere conformity to abstract
rights, but the welfare of the community at large, and
that therefore that system of representation which con-
tributes most to the good government of the country is
super:or to any theoretical plan of perfection which may
be devised for the purpoie by persons who are mere
speculators. Such, then, being the object of obtaining
independence and intelligence in time electoral body, let
us consider for a moment in what condition we found
he representation of the country, in both these re-
spects. We found in the counties a 40s. franchise,
which as we thought it secured as much independence
as it was possible to secure we retained. With respect
to the towns, we fouud the ancient household franchise
in existence, but, as in modern days it had become Any-

thing but an improvement upon the class of ancient
burgesses,—fte men of property and intelligence who
formerly composed this class,—we thought that this kind
of franchise required to be modified in order to enable
us to obtain the object we had in view, And let me
here observe, that much of the corruption which pre-
vailed in the constituent body in the time of the unre-
formed Parliament arose from the want of the intelli-
gence which is necessary in a constituent body. For
instance, take the question of the corn laws. If a man
were eager for the maintenance of the corn laws, or if
he were eag.sr for their abolition, be would, of course,
vote for the candidate who was most favourable to his
particular views, whatever they avt.re ; but, if a man
had never even heard the question stated, and was
entirely ignorant of its merits, and if one of the
candidates before him was ready to bribe him, that
man, being totally indifferent to higher political con-
siderations, would necessarily be easily affected by
the bribe, and would give his vote, not because he
was convinced of the merits of the candidate, but
simply because he had been bribed by him.--(llear,
hear.) .1 say, therefore, that I think intelligence is es-
sentially necessary in a body of electors. Then next
with respect to the arrangement of the representation.
We found that in this respect there were very great de-
fects—those defects being chiefly of two kinds. A large
number of the toroughs of the country were in the pos-
session of individual proprietors, and the persons sent
here were directly nominated by those proprietors, and
represented only those individuals. This was of course
inconsistent with any nations of popular representation.
Wo found also that some of the great seats of manufac-
ture and commerce had no representatives at all; that
Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and other large towns,
were entirely without representatives in this House. We
proposed to correct those defects by cutting off more than
100 members from the smaller boroughs, and supplying
their places by conferring the representation upon the
larger counties, the seats of manufacture, and the po-
hdeefeceotaunrtreyq.nireßduttowhbilee waemecnodnesdi-,
part of the constitution which
lion. Member for Montrose stated it to bo the time—
d<ptihitiederl roeeudns owtthtaoaswts enaetsnmh(o'otsherteotr us to be so defective as the

I mean that part of which comprised the sending of re-
presentatives to this House by constituent bodies of
various kinds—by large counties and populous cities,
and at the same time by smaller boroughs which are
not affected by the passions and excitement which
usually take place in large boroughs.—(Hear, hear.)
Mow, for my part, considering the varied character of
the people of this country—considering their varied oc-
cnpations—considering how many men there are of
great intelligence who take little part ordinarily in poli-
tical conflicts—considering how many men there are
who give their labours to the world in the shape of
works on political science, it may be, or who are conver-
sant with commerce, but do not enter into the agitations
relating to the immediate political questions of the day,
I certainly am of opinion that the country, taken as a
whole, is far better represented by the varied kind of
representation I have just mentioned than it would be
if we had nothing but two large divisions—the counties
sending agricultural Members and the large cities
con3nesrcial Members, or representatives of the
manufacturing interest. (Hear, hear.) My be-
lief was, and I still retain that belief, that, if instead of
the present scheme of representation you were to divide
the whole country into equal electoral districts, and to
give fifty Members to the metropolis, and twenty-five
Members to Manchester; and if in order to balance
these you were to give a similar number of representa-
tives to the counties of Devon, and Sussex, and Norfolk,
so far from your having a more complete representation
of the country, you would have a much less complete
and less perfect representation.—(Hear, hear.) You
would, indeed, have a greater number of' persons repre-
senting the interests of Manchester, but you would have,
on the other hand, a greater number of persons repre-
senting the agricultural interest; and you would have
few men not closely connected either with the one or the
other, but who, from their great attainments, are well
qualified to sit in this House, whose opinions would
have great weight in it, whose talents would add a
lustre to the representation, and at the same time be
most useful to the country.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gen-
tleman who spoke last alluded to the representatives for
Stamford, and the influence which Lord Exeter is sup-
posed to have in that borough. I confess myself that,
seeing the borough of Stamford has sent here a Right
Hon. Gentleman whose long experience of public life
end whose knowledge of financial and commercial sub-
jects are generally acknowledged, I do not think such
a man out of place in this House.—(Cries of " Oh, oh,"
and " Hear, hear.") It does not follow that I agree with
that Right Hon. Gentleman.--(An interruption.) I was
not saying that the Members for Stamford were the
the representatives of Lord Exeter. My belief is, that
,f the Hon. Member for Manchester wishes to destroy
Al aristocratic influence he must go further than he has
yet proposed.—(Hear, hear.) It may be quite true that
the Marquis of Exeter possess influence in Stamford,
out show me a county where there is a man of great
landed property, and tell me if that man does not possess
influence in that county also? Do Hon. Gentlemen mean
.0 destroy all such influence in counties?—(hear)--for
anti! I hear some such declaration, I shall maintain that it
is far better that we should have a varied representation
hat small boroughs as well as large cities should be
^epresented—than that we should have only two sets
if men representing two antagonistic classes of opinions.
—(llear, hear.) Ira saying this, I have stated the
rounds upon which I think the general alterations of
the Reform Bill was founded; and it I have stated
.hem correctly, it will be seen that they differ so en-
Lir, ly from the proposition of to.night, that it is quite
mpossible fir toe, or for any of those who took a
kart in framing the Reform Bill, and who still retain
heir opinions, to adopt any such measure as that
which the lion. Member fur Montrose has to-night
proposed for our consideration. There is another very
lifficult question with which we are not called upon to
teal to-night, but in which I may in passing allude.
[ mean the question whet:ler, in conformity with the
4eneral principle of the Reform Act, which I believe
o be a just principle, there might not be a greater
lumber of persons possessing the suffrage than at pre.
sent; whether, in feet, the working classes should not
he admitted more generally to held the. suffrage; and
vhether, in the great towns, in the counties, and in the
boroughs, there should not be another kind of franchise
ntroduced, to enable them to vote for the representatives
of such places.—(llear, hear.) I stated last year my
spinion in favour of such an extension. I stated various
nodes in which it might be done; but the Hon. Gentle.
,nan who makes the present proposition and his friends
-save always protested against any extension of that
kind. Ever mice I starated the proposition I have seen
it treated with ridicule by those who hold the opinions
if the Hon. Gentleman as a change which would not be
it all satisfactory—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Bright)—
and which ought to be derided, and not adopted. But
,he [lon. Member for Manchester, who says that the
working classes are entirely excluded from the elective
ranchise, showed, in answer to the Hon. Member for
Warwickshire, that this is not precisely the case, because,
seeing that the possession of a forty-shilling freehold
gives persons a right to vote, he stated that many of that
class were now accumulating their industrial savings to
ouy freeholds, and he read an opinion by the late Lord
Chief Justice Tindal, showing that such a project was in
strict conformity with the policy of the Parliament of
this country. If that is the Case, then no class is ex-
' eluded. When a working man has saved a sufficient sum
to enable him to buy a freehold in his native county,
there is no person in this House who will not say he is
glad to see him enjoying the benefits of his industry and
frugality.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman, indeed, in
arguing on this subject said, that he thought this a per-
fectly fair means of acquiring the suffrage; but he did
not answer the Hon. Member for Warwickshire, who
complained not of the practice of working men buying
freeholds, but of other parties lending them the money;
and thus, while putting them nominally in possession of
a vote, depriving them of all free will to exercise it.—
(Cheers.) Therefore, I can only say again upon this
subject., not considering this as the topic of to-night,
and therefore not wishing to dwell further upon it, that
there is nothing in the Reform Act, and nothing in any
opinion I have ever held, or in any opinion I hold now,
which would debar me from seeing with satisfaction any
plan by which the admission of the working classes could
be still further extended, and the basis widened upon
which the representation rests.—(Hear, hear.) The
Honourable Member for Montrose, in replying
to my speech of last year, said that there had
not been any great reform carried except at the risk
of civil war and the danger of convulsions among the
people. Now, whatever truth there may be in this state-
ment with respect to Parliament as it stood before the
Reform Act, I do not think the Hon. Gentleman quoted
a single instance since the Reform Act, in which there
was any such danger before a reform was carried.—
(Hear.) He referred to the danger of a rising among
the blacks of Jamaica, but that is a question entirely un-
connected with the representation in this House—this
[louse having never represented, or was supposed to
represent, the negroes of the West India islands.—
(Hear, hear.) Therefore the only instance he quoted
since the Reform Act was singularly inapplicable to the
purpose.—(Hear.) But I cannot concur with him in the
opinion that' he gave, that this House had been slow to
adopt reforms and changes which have been sanctioned
by public opinion. Whether the changes we adopted
were salutary or injurious, no
restriction
hase h
holding
ecbaene denynquestionsaoasnfe
d tthattlllieivimm withdnie tgunarstti
inbo ogyni
re-
spect
the seventeen years we have acted under the Reform
Act there have been great changes made in a variety of
subjects.—(Hear,
theu b je
tithect to
thet sp. —u (q laulnee
saterino,
Church.ndh—
etaoar: )
Thereg
andr eTa att lht
placed upon pluralities—the translation of bishops
almost
bishops in commenda»zecteitpitreli
entirely
accordance a blished—w(itHheatrh.e)
Next, with regard to the Dissenters. They complained
they could not marry ex
rites of the Established Church—that they could not
procure registration for their children except by going
to a clergyman of the s sme establishment. That grie-
vance had been remedied. Then take the question of
trade. How many changes have ben made with re-
spect to it? In the first instance, the China trade, which
was a monopoly of the East India CompanY,
has been
thrown open to merchants in general. Then take the
changes in the Customs when the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Sir R. Peel) was in office. The corn-laws, which
had subsisted for so long a time, entirely abolished; the
law relating to the prohibition of foreign sugar entirely
altered; other measures as to trade adopted; and ,b but
the other d
boasted of from the time of Cromwell to the present days
repealed by the vote of the present House of Commons.
I say, then, that whether these changes were wise or not,
they do show that the House has not been sloeulroadolft
alterations in our policy which
Iwleenreourreaqb led e ypublic opinion. But then the
ys een
Gen-
tleman says, public opinion has gone before
the election of 1841, and to those in
he would look to
Let him look to several of the
Lancashire particularly..
dm Members to vote against any
' 4 townsin Lancashire sen g
alteration in the corn-laws, That thia ahQuid haYe been ti 9
the House with respect to those measures. Now, I wish