The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-07 00:00:00

wholly dissented from the proposition that Mr. Thomas
Cooper was therefore the man fitted to legislate for the
people of England, or to assist in guiding the helm of state.
For, inquiring not into the political capacity, but into the po-
litical conduct of Mr. Cooper—what did he find? He found
.11r. Cooper proceeding to the Staffordshire Potteries, at a
time when, m consequence of sonic unhappy differences be-
tween the masters and the workmen, the minds of the
workmen were in a highly excited state. He found Mr.
Cooper haranguing those fierce and excited men in
language of the most inflammatory description, in piercing
words, which a day before, were sure to lead to deeds
of violence. He found the hearers of those words, when
the address urging them on was concluded, rushing
forth to acts of plunder and of outrage, menacing the whole
district with desolation and flames, and only deterred from
their purpose by the armed interposition of the military,
beneath whose enforced fire one of Mr. Cooper's victims—
for such he must call the unhappy man--tell dead, checking
by his fall the advance of his companions, and thus saving
their lives by his death. He found that the outrages thus
created by the glowing words of Mr. Cooper were the occa-
sion of a special commission which sat for three weeks, and
spread terror and grief throughout hundreds of families com-
promised in the guilt of the insurgents. —(Elear, hear.)
Surely the House and the country would not assent to the
proposition that such a man as the inciter to these acts of
violence was a fit and proper representative to legislate for
England, or that his ignorant victims were fit recipients of
the political power asserted for them.—(hear, hear.) The
history of mankind was not the history of the masses think-
ing for the masses, but of the genius, wisdom, virtue, and he-
roism of the few vindicating the liberties of the many, creat •
ing them by their genius, informing them by their wisdom,
and confirming them by their virtue, and cementing them
with the blood offered up by their heroism. The
time would come when the masses might be
safely entrusted with a full participation in the administra-
ion and legislation of the State, but that time had not yet
arrived. The people, uninformed by knowledge, were as the
.yclop in his cavern, gigantic but blind, blind with a dark-
ness, which could alone be dispelled by the light from
science, by the light from learning, by the light from above.
—(Hear, hear.) Ile would quote, to the purpose of these
views a few lines from Coleridge:—
" My son, of these old narrow ordinances
Let us not hold too lightly-. They are weights
Of priceless value, which oppress'd mankind
Tied to the volatile will of their oppressors
For always formidable was the league
And partnership of free power with free will.
The way of ancient ordinance, though it winds,
Is yet no devious path. Straight forward goes,
The lightnings path, and straight the fearful path
Of the cannon ball ; direct it flies, and rapid—
Shattering that it may reach, and shattering what it
reaches.
My son, the road the human being travels,
That on which Bcwssiwu comes and goes,doth follow
The river's course, the valley's playful windings,
Curves round the corn-field and the hilt of vines,
Honouring the holy bounds of property :
And thus secure, though late, leads to its end."
Before he sat down he would say a word or two about the
petitions presented on this subject. There had been a great
number of these, from very respectable parties, who in va-
rious points of view were dissatisfied with this or that fea-
ture in our present institutions, though probably for the
most part with no very definite notion of the nature and
extent of the Hon. Gentleman's motion ; but he denied that
there had been manifested any pure enthusiasm throughout
the country on the subject. He denied that there was any
spirit of that kind which manifested a desire in the country
at large for great changes. There was, on the contrary, a
vast majority of right-minded and sound-thinking men who
were of opinion that this was not the time to be talking
about unsettling the institutions of this country. There were
multitudes of petitioners who would never have come for-
ward but for a speech which had better never have been
spoken.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe the nostrums
of the Honourable Member for Montrose were so inviting
as to inspire any considerable number of English hearts
with a desire to try them—(Hear, hear)—or to embark in
the struggle which his Hon. Friend was endeavouring to
excite. He believed, on the contrary, that there was a
general feeling of humble gratitude entertained by the people
At large for the institutions of the country, and also a senti-
ment of just pride, which was occasioned by the belief that
there was something in them which rendered those institu-
tions worthy of living and dying for, and in behalf cf which
the prayers of thousands of Christian hearts were daily
raised. Was it at a moment when England, by virtue of her
institutions, and by the providence of God, showed herself to
be the Thermopylm of the world, that the House of Com-
mons was to be called upon to proceed with these miserable
tamperings with institutions that weathered the shocks of a
thousand storms? He should rejoice when the condition of
the people was ameliorated, to enable them to exercise the
franchise ; but, believing that the people of this country now
were wholly unfit to receive such a boon—believing in his
conscience that this resolution was founded on a principle
leading to no end, presenting no settlement, but tending to
a succession of endless and fruitless agitation, he entered his
humble but solemn protest against the mischievous character
of this new agitation, and gave his voice with all his heart,
soul, and mind, against the first resolution, which was its
first, its mangled, but no less destructive offspring.—( Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN—Sir, I feel a difficulty in treating a ques-
tion of this kind in the same language in which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman has treated it, and if it were neces-
sary to possess the same flow of eloquence which he has used,
I should not have presumed to follow him ; but I feel another
disadvantage in following him, inasmuch as he has not given
us any facts as a groundwork of the reasons with which he
11118 favoured us. lie has mentioned it as an alleged fact,
that the country is not in favour of this motion for the mea-
sures of my Hon. Friend. Now that was the statement
made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government; and
I think it is a most important question to us, more important
probably than any other question which could engage our
attention in this House, for certainly on almost any ether
topic we may assume there would be great diversity of opi-
nion amongst the classes excluded from the franchise.
But I now put it to the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man, and I put it to the Noble Lord. the Member for the
city of London, do they or do they not deliberately
mean to say in this Huse, that the great mass of the nn-
enfranchised population of this country do not desire to
possess political power? That is the question. Will any
one in this House utter such a libel on the great mass of the
people in this country, that they are excluded from political
rights, and that they are so abject, so servile, that they even
Flo not desire to possess political rights? Sir, I should be
sorry to believe it, and Ido not believe it. I should have a
very perir opinion of my countrymen, indeed, if I enter-
tained such an opinion of them. But this is a very important
element in this discussion. If you admit with me—and
there is no one here who will deny the proposition—that the
people who are not enfranchised desire to be enfranchised,
then you are in this position. that six out of seven of the
adult population of this country are pressing, desiring, and
claiming the right which you deny to them; and if, in ad-
dition to that serious dilemma, it can be demonstrated that a
very large section of tae enfranchised middle class are in
favour of the same views as the class not enfranchised, it
becomes a serious element in the discussion of this question.
Without venturing to anticipate the result of the division
here to-night, I call Hon. Gentlemen to notice the division
to-morrow, sad they will find that in the proportion
that Members in this House represent large con-
stituencies, where the middle class, the ten-pounders,
have the free and unbiassed exercise of their opi-
nion, just in that proportion will you find their repre-
sentatives vote in the lobby in favour of this motion. And
mention this fact in anticipation, for I know it will prove
to be the truth ; I mention it with satisfaction, because I
tind in that fact a strong and most effectual appal to the
great mass of the people to shnsysthem that it is not true, as
has been attempted to be shown by more than one who has
spokenmi
middle
this
ldeb,assaest et otllvi aatntihs etrheei sa h
working
rkoisotgi lecspirit
so—ntthhaet part
just
in proportion as the middle classes can exercise their free and
unbiassed will, they are disposed to open the portals of the
constitution to their unenfranchised fellow-countrymen.
These facts being admitted—and they must be admitted, for
nobody can get up and say that the people who have not
the franchise do nut desire it—what is the assertion of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman? That we have not
had a great number of petitions and meetings. I have
been long accustomed to watch the progress of opinion out
of doors, and test: the progress of questions in this House
by what was doing out of doors; and I have better op-
portunities of knowing than he has, that there has been a
considerable movement in the country, at a short notice,
and without organization, in support of the motion. I
have taken the trouble to record the public meetings held
in favour of the Honourable Gentleman's motion, recorded
in the daily news since first he announced his intention of
bringing it forward. There have been 130 public meetings
held. I tell you that there have been more spontaneous
movements throughout the country in favour of this motion
than in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws after we had
been at work agitating for five years, because I will frankly
admit that in the movement for the repeal of the corn-laws,
we galvanised from a centre, if you please; that meetings
were got up at the instigation of a few men who were ex-
pected to attend; but on this question the meetings were
(Ip,obacjia:cl
tossof
fo ropinion,vuninvited,hichuninfluenced.
operate
meetingsple, do not deny the' discres
thethoot th
enature
so
much
ot
lei
less discrepancy, much less of the heaven of dissension, than
I have seen in times past, and lesi of discreditable dissen-
sion than many people would like to see in those meetings,
but they have been petitioners—they are in favour of the
Charter; in favour of universal suffrage in othercases; and
eat majoritylied ot
the
e casesls r e
mibneirlvf°ourr Montrose.motieSntaonfdminY
honourable
ia great
here as the advocate of the motion of the Honnurable Gen-
tleman,
universal
suffrage,have nothing
orfor to
who
nevera r enter
n forte r
the lists to oppose those men who advocate the right, as
e
the Honourable Gentleman advocates it, to the sff
instead of any other test. I should feel I was notm
fisd
in taking the argument which the Hon. Gentleman has itd,l e
and which the Noble Lord the First Minister has taken -lls
thane
;
a
addresses himself to the advocates of universal stiff
he seems to me to argue that" they have more right
those who are for household suffrage. I can understand the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, if he intends to voste for
universal suffrage, I can understand the force of the ..argu-
ment; but as 1 am not going to oppose universal snffra 4e, I
do not stand here to support it on this occasion. I will leave
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and all those who a rgues
as he does, in the hands of the advocates of universal I suf.
frage, judging that they are quite disposed to make the most
of the argument put into their hands. In advocatin g the
suffrage which the lion. Member for Montrose introduced,
and which he termed household suffrage, I must say that
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has not shown his usual
legal knowledge ; and a difficulty and stumbling-bcock is
thrown in our way as to the definition of household sr iffrage.
To judge front the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's speecb,
household occupancy has always been considered as i tothir,g
but occupying a house. Judging by the Hon. and I ,earr,ed
Gentleman's argument, it has never been decided the.t a
man living in a lodging is a householder. That I under-
stand to:be the lion. and Learned Member's argumen t. lam
not learned in the law, but the Court of Common Pleas has
decided that a lodger claiming to be rated to the poor may
claim to have a right for voting.—(Hear, hear.) WI at I
say, I say with some knowledge of the matter. am s arry
to have to correct the Hon. and Learned Sergeant in : mat-
ters of law, but under the Reform Act it has been rules 1 in
the Court of Common Pleas that a lodger paying 101. a 3 'ear
rent, where the landlord does not live on the premises, can
claim to be rated, and be upon the list of voters. Then
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, when lie advocastes
household suffrage, merely takes a similar interpretation. ,to
that which is taken by the Court of Commcn Pleas, ;end
voters; says,
ms
Y without requiring a 101. test. if you have been a lods;er
v a
er'
claim to be put on the rate book, and on the list of
andext streally l
rule a
little
tiveryo to further
rualnt
dmsaat)t.e,ri
fo ftahror 5
fan 1:
silent to
lord does live on the premises, and you claim still to be rate d,
3° may be put on the list of:voters ; and then 1. ae
oafncitLheearned Gentleman will see this altogether gi its
cal young mween
rid
faces, that difficulty which he is throwing in cur
opened a door should exclude clerks and econor
p cea
'a[eeadheadv,eand on that do not wish to get marl'
ogorroatmodthwee
haveelert sewsclia_po seed ethane soeprhicos.,ithi 1,4
of the 11011. 411 d Learned Gentleman. 'hors was one ;en;

mark, which I am sorry he introduced, on the past career of
a man who has since distinguished himself in a totally dif-
ferent walk, and who would be as glad to forget what hap
pened in the petteries as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
He did that to prove what I need not give an example to
prove, that a very good poet may be a very bad politician.
Hear, hear," and laughter.) Now, the motion of my
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose is for leave to bring
in a Bill to give votes to householders; his object is, that
parties who not only pay taxes, but who also pay rates for
the support of the poor, shall have a voice in the election of
Members. Now, one of the first difficulties of those who op-
pose such a motion is, that we are in reality acting on the
theory that that is the franchise in this country. It is an old
constitutional theory that the people do elect the members who
sit in this House. :Now, is that a sham or a reality ? If
there be one thing more evident than another, it is, that
the people of this country do not like shams.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Government of this country were what is called a
paternal or a despotic Government, desirous of first educat-
ing the people, and then handing over to them political
privileges, I could understand the present position of
affairs ; but the theory of the country is, that
the people have political power, and there is no one
on whom is devolved the responsibility imagined by the
Honourable and Learned Member (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd)
in his poetical flight, to exist somewhere, of educating
the people, or preparing them fur the exercise of the
franchise. If there had been any responsible party, I think
the work would have been done long ago. Well, now, what
danger can there be in giving the franchise to the house-
holders ? They are fathers of families, they are the people
who fill our warehouses and our workshops ; and who will
be endangered by their possessing the franchise ? When
our institutions are talked of, it is commonly said that they
live in the affections of the country. Are you afraid that
electors will be adverse to monarchical institutions? Why we
constantly hear that the Queen sits enthroned in the hearts of
of the people.—( Hear, hear.) I have no fear as to the result
of extending the franchise. Ido not believe that it will lead
to any change in the form of Government ; and I sincerely
hope that if there is to be a change in the form of Govern-
ment, I shall not live to witness it, for the existing genera-
tion could not reap the fruits of any change of that kind.—
( Hear, hear.) Ido not believe that the people of this coun-
country desire any change in the form of Government. Nor
do I join with those who think that if the people had the
wide extent of suffrage which is proposed, they would alto-
gether, or in any a great degree, change the class of persons
from which they select their representatives. I tell you can-
didly that I do not think it would make any great
change in that respect. The people would choose
their representatives from the easy class—the men of
fortune—as they do now. But I will tell you what
I think would result from the change of which I speak—
I believe it would bring not only the legistion of
this House, but the. Executive Government also, into
greater harmony with the wants, wishes, and interests of
the people.— (Hear, hear.) I believe that if the people pos-
sessed household suffrage they would advocate a severe
economy in the Government of this country. Ido not mean
to deny that a wide extension of the suffrage might
not be accompanied by some mistake,
for the liability to
error must always exist where there are great masses of
voters, but I have a conviction that the electors would not
make a mistake in the matter of economy and retrench-
ment—(Hear, hear)--and I have an equally firm persuasion
that the taxation of the country would be more equitably
levied. Well, now I ask what are the two things which
are most wanted in this country at the present time ?
W hat are the two things which the wisest political econo-
mists, and the greatest philosophers, if they sat down to
consider the dangers and the destinies of this country.
would regard as the most pressing necessities of our day?
Why a great reduction in the expenditure of the country,
and a more equitable apportionment of its taxation. By
a snore equitable taxation, I mean that the taxation
should be largely removed from the indirect sources from
which it is at present levied, and more largely imposed on
realised property. I believe that that is one of the objects
which the people at large would accoinplish.—(Hear, hear.)
The very instinct of selfishness would induce them to aim
at this, and that is one of the things which is wanted for the
safety of the country. Now do not let any one misrepresent
me. Ido not mean to say that all taxation should be levied
upon property—l would do no injustice to any one—but this
I do maintain, that you should relieve taxation on consum-
able articles by reducing the Custom and Excise duties; that
you should diminish the duty on tea, on coffee, and on wine,
and, if you possibly can, remove every exciseman from the
land; and I believe that the selfishness, to designate it by no
higher name—the selfish instinct of the great body of the
people, would, if they had the power, and could bring their
will to bear on the question, lead to the accomplishment of
those objects which it is so desirable to have secured in this
country. Where, then, is the danger of giving to the
people of this country their theoretical share of political
power ? We shall be told, as we have been, that we should
not settle the question by granting household suffrage. I
admit it. You cannot settle any question for ever by legis-
lating in 1848. Nobody can tell what another generation
will do, or what another Parliament will do. But will any
one tell me that if you include in the list of those who are
enfranchised the householders of this country, making the
number of voters front 3,000,000 to 4,000,000, instead of
800,000, that will not have the effect of greatly conciliating
the mass of the people to your institutions, and whatever dis-
affection might afterwards exist—and on that point I differ
from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just spoken
—that disaffection would not be so dangerous after you had
thus extended the basis of the franchisee—( Hear, hear.) I
do not think, however that the household test would produce
discontent. The household test is not a test of property.
Your present test is a test of property. It is a test of pro-
perty inasmuch as you say, •` you shall pay 101. a year, or
have no vote." The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
expended a great deal of eloquence on the subject of electoral
districts. When vou approach this subject with a determina-
tion to deal with it in the cavilling spirit of a special pleader
—singling out the isolated phrases or chance words of an
opponent, instead of treating the subject in a broad point
of view—it is very easy to raise an outcry and to pre-
judice the question.—(Cries of " llear, hear," and loud
laughter.) As I understand my Honourable Friend the
:[ember for Montrose, what he desires is, a fairer apportion-
ment of the representation of the people ; and when he said
that he did not want "parallelograms or squares, separating
people unnecessarily frOm their neighbours, I quite coincided
with him. Any Member approaching this question in a
proper spirit may deal with it without resorting to any such
disruption of ties. The Hen. and Learned Gentleman would
lead us to suppose that we are proposing to cut up some an-
cient landmarks, something which has existed from the time
of the Saxons. He forgets that the Reform Act cut up
counties into two parts, and enlarged all the boundaries of
the country,—( Hear.) I will meet him fairly on that ques-
tion, and I will undertake to show that what my Honourable
Friend wishes to do may be done without removing the
boundaries of a single county, or of a single parish. I
must here say, that I consider this question of the reappor-
tionment of Members to be the most important question
before us.—( Hear.) When you ask me whether I would
have a man vote at twenty-one years of age—whether
he should vote for six months residence or for twelve
months—whether he should be a householder or
a lodger—there is no principle which I can
fall back upon in order to assure myself that I am right in
my view, I agree with those who say that they do not
stand on natural right at all. I know of no natural right
that I have to vote for Members of Parliament. 1 have a
legal right, and of that legal right six-sevenths of my fellow
countrymen are now deprived; but I know of no natural
right whatever. And HI wished to cavil with an advocate
of universal suffrage, I should deal with him as I once good
humouredly did in private with one of the men who drew up
the Charter. This man urged me to support universal suf-
frage, on the ground of principle. I said, "Ifit is a ground ,
of principle, and if the principle be that all should have a
vote in making the laws by which they are governed, why
allowingrliw arNdvo einn?e'n'
should you refuse to allow a woman to vote or to servo the
°FativicoeurotOf churchwarden?"
t‘o‘ "Well,"
be
eut replied,
iepdrOp"oslitio'n'a was
ain
s
rejected."—(Laughter.) " Why, then," said I, "you are as
unprincipled as 1 am : you gave up your principle, and
adopted expediency." lint to return to the question of the
reapportionment of Members. I say, there I have a prin-
ciple before me. I say, that whatever franchise you have—
with 10/., 201., or household suffrage—the representation
ought to be fairly apportioned. Now, what is the principle
on which you proceed? I will not take the principle of po-
pulation, because I am not one of those who advocate uni-
versal suffrage. I will take the ground of property, and
there is not a man in this House who can stand up and
say a word in defence of the present system. The Hon.
Member f r Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has alluded
in playful terms to the representation of Manchester and
Buckinghamshire, and he joked at the idea of Man-
chester having seven representatives. I must frankly
av, that judging from the qualities of the two men
whom Manchester has already sent to Parliament, I
should be very glad if we had not only seven such, but
seven times seven.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I want to
know from the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, on what
Principle he would
propose to apportion the Members of this
[louse. I will compare his own favourite county of Buck-
ingham with Manchestee. The borough of Manchester is
assessed to the poor-rate at an annual rental of upwards of
1,200,000/. The assessment on real property in Bucking-
hamshire is 760,000. population of the former is
240,000, that of the latter 170,000. Buckinghamshire has
eleven Members, Manchester two. Bear in mind that the
er does not include
assessment in the case of Manchest
nd
the other ha, I admit, for I
the value of machinery. Oa
do not wish to state the case unfairly, that the annual value
of land represents a larger real value than the annual value
of houses. Bat when you bear in mind that in Manchester into
machinery is not valued, and when further you take
account the enormous amount of accumulated personal
property in Manchester, which, though it is not valued
pays taxation and sustains the commerce of the
country, I think you will allow that I am not misrepresent-
ing the matter when I say that Manchester has double the
amount of property to be found in Buckinghamshire. You
must also remember that while the labourer in Buckingham-
shire receives about 11s. per week, the skilled opera-
tive of Manchester receives twice that sum. This is not a
question, however, between the people of Buckinghamshire
and the people of Manchester.—(Hear, hear.) The Pies-
tion to be decided is not whether the men of the former
should or should not have rather more power than those
of the latter. If the middle and industrious classes of
Buckinghamshire had rather more power than the same
classes in Manchester, the evil would assume a mitigated
form.—(Hear, hear.) But when I come to look at this
darling county of Buckinghamshire, I find that the eight
borough Members are so distributed as, by an inge-
nious to give to certain landowners power
to send their nominees to Parliament. I will undertake to
show that three individuals in Buckinghamshire nominate
the majority of the Members ; and if called upon to name
them I can do so. What is that but these three individuals
having the power to send Members to Parliament to tax the
-people of Manchester?—(Hear, hear.) When this matter
was alluded to before, the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire
treated very lightly and jocularly the right of Manchester
to send its fair proportion of Members to this House; and
that jocularity was cheered with so • •
something like frantic de-
light. I venture to tell the House that that is the last time
that the argument can ever be so received. I stand up for
Manchester, and I say that it has a right to its fair propors
tion of the representation of this country, taking as the
basis, not its property, and not its population; and I ask
why should men who are engaged in ministering to the
power and greatness of the country in the four quarters of
the globe be deprived of their fair share of political powers,
aye. and not only deprived of their right, but mocked, jeered
at, and insulted by the nominees of landowners ?—(Hear,
hear.) Now, take my own case, and that of the West
Riding of Yorkshire. There is not a man of property
in this, House who will not go away in favour
of a fieish appointment of Members as far as that Riding is
concerned. The annual rent is there 3,r,76,000/. The an-
nual. rent in Wiltshire is 1,243,0001.—0ne third of the amount.
Ti ev each return eighteen Members; but six of the boroughs
Wiltshire are actually put down in " Dodd's Parliamentary
Companion," as openly, avowedly, and notoriously under the
influence of certain parties, who nominate the Members.
hv should not the people of the West Riding have the
sense proportionate share of political power as those of Wilt-
shire? Is there anything about a Yorkshireinan which ren-
ders him less capable of taking care of himself than other men
are?—(Laughter.) I hold in my hand a list of ten boroughs
ech returning two Members to Parliament. Os the some
e' list I have ten tome in the 'greet Riding, which to mot to-