The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-21 00:00:00

THE SUN,

lion. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden).
This was a cause ie which he (Mr. iiieg) took the
liveliest interest, fair he [eight heee state that his
Either fought the !settle of free trade single liendel for
many a year before either the Hon. Member for the
West Riding, or the lion. Member for Wolverhampton
(Mr. Villiers), or even the people of England, had had
their ate, mime called to it.—(Hear.) Ho hoped that the
Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, with the enlarged
views which he had recently adopted, would attempt to
not coalesce with the electors who had been created
under the 50/ Chandos clause to answer a political pur-
pose.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted the lion. Member
would go with them for an extended suffrage, and that
they would no longer hear any thing about what he be-
lieved he might say had now been partially renounced—
he meant the re-establishment of the dangerous doctrines
of protection, for he held protection to be very much
akin to Communism in its worst shape.—(Hear, hear.)
Protection he regarded as the few taking from the
many; and Communism, in its general acceptance, as all
taking from all. An attempt had recently been made to
establish Communist principles on a large scale on the
continent by that celebrated man Louis Blanc; and what
had he done? He attempted on behalf of his party to
obt tau a loan of money from tne Government. The
agriculturists had got their loan. M. Blanc bad also
attempted to obtain relief for his party—the very thing
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was now at-
tempting for his.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. King) hoped
that a measure like the present, which might be shown
to be one of sound policy and perfect justice, would not
be reused by that House. lie trusted that the day
would not come when the people would find that it was
only particular classes who could obtain a hearing in that
House; when the law would cease to be a refuge to the
oppressed, and become, instead, the arm of the op-
pressor; and when it should be said, with truth, that that
House had at its disposal false instead of equal weights
and balances.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving. in the terms of his notice.
Lord J. RUSSELL spoke as follows:—The Hon.
Gentleman who has made this motion has done it, cer-
tainly, in a most effective manner, and has stated his
case as fairly, and laid it before the House with as little
exaggeration, either as to its merits or nature, as the
Hon. Member possibly could have done. I must like-
wise say, as he stated at the commencement of his
speech, that there can be no objection to the time of his
making the proposal, and that the reason, which he says
truly was a reason against the entertaining of his propo-
sal last year, is not a reason which I can urge on the
present occasion.—(Hear, hear.) I will make even a
further admission with respect to the nature of the mo-
tion itself. I think it differs from several other motions
which have been brought forward for the extension of
the suffrage, inasmuch as I • do not think any reasonable
objection can be urged against the class of persons Whom
the Hots. Member proposes to include within the fran-
chise. I admit at once teat they are persons who, if
intrusted with the elective franchise, would probably use
it with intelligence and integrity—(Hear, hear)—and I
certainly cannot pretend that there is any such supe-
riority in the inhabitants of towns over those in coun-
try parts as to enable me or any one to say
that the inhabitants of the towns who ate invested with
this franchise are distinguished by any superior qualifi-
cation over those not having the franchise in other parts
of the country.—(Hear, hear.) But the question really
is whether this proposal would effect an improvement in
our representation; because I have always considered
that this was really the important question which the
House had to decide in respect to any proposition of this
kind. I never could think with the Hon. Member for
Montrose and others, that the chief point to be consi-
dered was, whether certain persons with certain quali-
fications should be entrusted with the franchise, and
whether it was not a hardship, or, to employ a much
stronger term, as the Hon. Member was accustomed to
do, whether it was not a species of tyranny, to exclude
them from the franchise. But I always considered,
seeing the immense power this House possesses, seeing
that this House represents the country at large, and that
succeeding periods have increased its means of control-
ing all other branches of the Legislature—l have
always considered that what was really important to
this country was not so much that any particular
persons should be enabled to vote at elections, but
that the general result should be advantageous to the
country, and that this House should fully and fairly
represent the intelligence and will of the people.—(Hear,
hear.) Now, if we consider the present poposal in refer-
ence to what has hitherto been the case in this country
in regard to the franchise, it is obvious that the proposi-
tion is in manifest opposition thereto. There has always
been, till a very late period, this distinction in principle
between the representation of counties and the represen-
tion of boroughs, though not certainly uniformly carried
out in every instance—the representation of counties
was a representation by tenure, the persons voting there
in consequence of their tenure, while the persons who
voted in the boroughs voted by virtue of occupation,
the one class being usually denominated freeholders,
and the other householders, in whom, in the
absence of any particular law to the con-
trary, it was decided by ancient authory that the right
of voting existed. In the course of the discussion on
the Reform Bill a proposal was made to make a very
great change with respect to the representation of coun-
ties, so far as to admit voters who did not hold by tenure,
being neither freeholders, nor having a tenure for
any number of years, but merely holding by occu-
pation. The Marquis of Chandos, who made that
proposal, succeeded in carrying it by the votes of
many of those who were Reformers, and who, on
that occasion, thought the Government which had pro-
posed the Reform Bill had been in error in not giving
the franchise to that class. Lord Althorp at the time
pointed out the objection to the proposal, but those ob-
jections did not prevail with the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose and others, who thought it desirable to add this
class to the constituency, and a decision of the House
taking place in favour of Lord Cbandos's proposition,
the Government in the next Reform Bill introduced a
clause in conformity with that decision; but I own I
my self never considered that was any improvemt nt of
our representatior. I have always considered that, so
far as it dineiniihed the power of the 40s. freeholders, it
did, on the contrary, rather weaken and enfeeble than
strengthen the independence of our representation; and,
looking at this question not merely with regard to the
ancient poliCy of the country and. the ancient division of
counties and boroughs, but looking at it practically, I
must say my experience with respect to these electors
in counties has led me to observe that often a candidate
might ask a farmer paying a considerable rent for his
vote, and the farmer would say, Whatever my
wishes may be, it is impossible for me to give you
my vote, considering the opinions and politics of
my landlord, and therefore. I cannot enter into
the question whether '.I agree or disagree with your
views." Such an answer have I myself and others re•
ceived, while, on the other baud, upon canvassing some
of the smallest and poorest freeholders, I have seen a de-
termination and independence on their part to give their
votes according to their opinions, highly to their honour,
and showing thus that their position was more indepen-
dent than that of the others. Well, the proposition of
the Hon. Gentleman is to admit a very large number of
voters by occupation, and thereby exceedingly to di-
minish the power of that other valuable class to which I
have just alluded.—(Elear, • hear.) In looking over re•
turns relative to tee various counties of England, I find
that the 501. ocupiers are at present in a minority, cer-
tainly, as compared with all the other electors who vote
in great part by freehold tenure, but all by a tenure for
some considerable period at least. In Berkshire the
number of 50/. voters is 971, and all the other voters
4,270. In Cheshire the number of 501. voters is 4,022;
and the other voters 11,901. In Derbyshire the 501
voters are 2,663, the others 10,508; and in Devon
4,920, the others 14,018. I do not know that I
need quote any more of these particular instances,
but in the whole of the English counties there are abotit
100,000 electors who voted by 50/. occupation, and
375,034 of all other kinds, the greater mass being 40s.
freeholders. Well, then, if in addition to these you ad-
mit t 3 the position if voters 350,000 others, who would
have a right of voting as 101. householders, it is quite
obvious that you would, so deluge the 40s. freeholders as
to diminish their importance in county elections,—
(Hear, hear.) Now, considering the value of these 40s,
freeholders—considering the antiquity of their privilege,
and the importance that they should still possess the
weight they have, I should be sorry to see a change made
diminishing their influence in counties—(Hear, hear)—
but beyond this I think that our object should not be to
introduce that uniformity which the Hon. Gentleman
rather recommends. His argument is nothing more than
this—you have a 101. franchise in the boroughs, therefore
have a 10/. franchise in the counties. I have rather con-
sidered, the different times this subject has come before
me, that it is an advantage that there should be various
rights of voting, and that the same class of voters which
carried the elections in one place should not be the
same which decided the choice of representatives in
the other.—(Hear, hear.) I therefore think it would
not be an improvement to introduce this uniformity.
The Honourable Gentleman says, and it is an argu-
ment which has been used by many persons, but it is
not one founded on just observation of things:—" You
have given the right of voting to occupiers of 12/. value
andtaresausrel the
Yoccupiers in England of the
well deserving of the franchise as
and, at least, you ought to extend the fran-
chisevi na
theylu Ireland,e
a ofre ;l2
in England so far." But the Hon, Gentleman
does not remember that in Ireland we have completely
disfranchised that large class of voters, the 40s, free-
holders; and when I said, in supporting the Bill for the
extension of the franchise in Ireland, that I thought it
most desirable to place Ireland on a footing of equality
with England and Scotland in this respect, it was because
I took into consideration the extinction of the 40s. free-
holds, therefore I thought it right to give that franchise
to persons in Ireland, no doubt well qualified to hold
it, which franchise not renewing the abuses which the
405. tenure led to there, would at the same time enable
the Irish to consider that they were treated with as
much fairness as the people of England and of Scot-
land. That result in a great degree has been attained.
From the number given as the number of voters in the
Irish counties, I should conjecture that they bore
about the same proportion of the population, or some-
thing resembling it, as the number of voters in
the English counties. But if you were to say, because
we have done this we must introduce a similar franchise
into England, then you propose a new inequality—be-
cause then you would have the 40s. freeholders and
voters of other tenures together with a 10/. occupation
franchise—because there are in the Irish counties 12/.
voters, and no 403. freeholders. I cannot think, there-
fore, that the proposed measure would tend to improve
our representation. I would rather continue the variety
now existing, and keep up the ancient distinction be-.
tween the voting from freehold and other tenures in
counties, and the household occupation in boroughs.
The lion. Gentleman has said that I cannot say the pre-
sent is a revolutionary project, or one tending
to any
great democratic change. Undoubtedly I make no
charge of that kind ligatues am; and, 02001 thick

Oat his plan would be no improvement, lam fa from
retyieg that the cla'ts of voters which he proposes to
create. in a class from which we lease anything to fear.
But there is another question to which the Hore Great,:,
rain has alluded, and on which I will :try a few words
before I conclude. Though I have stated that it is not
edviealf.e to adopt the present proposition, yet on
other o .ca. dons I have stated that some extension of
the franchise was desirable.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
But the House will recollect that I did not think it an
evil to have counties, end large cities, and small boroughs
respectively returning Members to Parham r.it, but that,
on the contrary, if we had merely a representation of
numbers, that then it was my opinion that this wealthy
and intelligent country would not be so well represented
as at present.—(Hear, hear.) With these opinions, I
certainly could nut be a party to that which some Mem-
bers of the House seem to wish—the entire abrogation
of our ancient system, and a sweeping away of the Re-
form Bill, together with all other Acts and customs with
which our representation is connected. Bat Ido think
it desirable to introduce a measure for some further ex-
tension et the suffrage, by which, as I have said, there
would be au opportunity for the working classes to
have votes at elections.—(Cheers.) Still, my answer
to the Hon. Gentleman when he asks whether the
Government are about to introduce any measure for
the extension of the suffrage—my answer to him is,
that we Lave not that intention. There are reasons
both peculiar to the present time and general reasons
of policy why I think such a course unadvisable in the
course of this year. The peculiar reasons are, that it
is absolutely necessary to commence this year with finan-
cial measures—thA the attention of the House of Com-
mons must be immediately taken up with those financial
measures, and that if cry question respecting the alter-
ation of the Reform Bill and the extension of the suf-
frage were introduced it must necessarily be postponed
till a later period; besides there are certain questions re-
lating to the administration of justice in the Court of
Chancery and relative; to the general administration in
Ireland, which I propose to bring before the House,
and with which it is very desirable to proceed as speedily
as possible. There are general reasons of policy like-
wise, which I partly stated last year, why it is not ad-
visable
to proceed just now with a measure for the ex-
tension of the suffrage. It has always seemed to me,
when great changes were introduced in this country,
that it wes desirable that we should, while the minds of
the people were unsettled and unfixed as to the effects o f
these changes, avoid very frequent elections, and the
perpetual agitation of those que'tions in which the feel-
ings of the country were deeply involved. It is far
better, after sufficient time has elapsed, and after discus-
sions such as those which take place in this House, that the
country should have an opportunity of calmly and delibe-
rately deciding on the value of these changes. I have like-
wise thought, with respect to late years, that we have not
had many changes in the legislation of this country; but
we have seen great political changes going on in foreign
countries, and I have thought that anything tending to
the stability of our institutions, anything that showed
that we were proceeding quietly with the maintenance
of our institutions, was an advantage to this country, and
preserved us from many evils which another course
might have entailed.—(Hear, hear.) But I can see no
reason why, after this session has passed, there should
not be laid before the House at the commencement of
the next session a proposal on the subject of the ex-
tension of the suffrage—(Loud cries of" Hear, hear")—
and, if I should then be a member of the Government, I
should feel it my duty to present my views on the ques-
tion to the House. I know perfectly well that those
views are not such as will meet with the approbation of
the Hon. Member for Montrose, and those who agree
with him, but I have so often stated that difference of
opinion existing between us, that it will create no sur-
prise in the mind of that Hon. Gentleman that I come
to a conclusion different from that which the principles
which he has from time to time laid before the House
lead him to adopt. However, I think it desirable, seeing
that it is now 20 years since thepassing of the Reform Bill,
that we should after the lapse of that time consider
whether there are not a great number of our fellow•
u of
i t qualifiedw u u l tdo t e n d exercisetu
a n the
countrymen
suffrage,
but 'not o
su only
fully
y im-
provement of the character ofthis House.—(Hear, hear.)
exercise
For myself, I am perfectly satisfied with the experience
we have had of the Reform Act; I believe the repre-
sentation since 1832 has been such as to give confidence
to the people at large—(Hear, hear)—which they would
not have had in a House of Commons where the Mem-
bers for Old Sarum and Gatton had seats, and where no
Member for Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham was
present.—(Cheers.) I am, therefore, perfectly satisfied
that the influence of that Reform Act has been salutary,
and I believe that in any changes we make we ought to
consult the spirit of that Reform Act, the temper and
genius of the people of the United Kingdom, and that
we should not attempt to construct on any other basis
but the old foundations, endeavouring at the same time
to add to the symmetry and convenience of the edifice.
Mr. HUME said the Noble Lord seemed to complain
that they were going on proposing changes from year
to year, but he was sure that no one who looked at the
condition of the country could doubt that much of the
peace which we enjoyed, while other nations were dis-
tracted and disturbed, must be imputed to the state of
our representation having been improved by the measure
of 1832. Now that we were in the enjoyment of peace,
it was the duty of Parliament to, see if they could not
give more safety to the State by further concessions to
the people. He saw no reason why one citizen should
enjoy privileges which another did not. It was true he
(Mr. Hume) had given his vote in favour of enfranchis-
ing the 501. freeholders, but he had also been desirous of
extending to them the protection of the ballot; and if, as
the Noble Lord stated, this class of voters were under
the influence of the landlords, the Noble Lord, who had
refused them the protection of the ballot, must take the
blame, and not himself.—(Hear.) There could be no
better time than the present for enlarging the suffrage,
seeing that it was a period of profound tranquillity.
The suffrage was the right of a free citizen; and, if so,
what right had the Noble Lord to deprive these 101.
householders in counties of the franchise? The Noble
Lord, in opposing this motion, was blind to his own po-
sition and to that of Hon. Members who supported him.
Mr. COBDEN had hoard with great pleasure, and he
was sure the country would participate in this feeling,
the declaration just made by the Noble Lord, that he
would propose next session a measure for the extension
of the franehise.—(Cheers.) He only hoped that the
country would give that attention to the subject which
would enable them to secure a real measure of reform in
our present most faulty system.—(Hear, hear.) Let the
House remember the scenes that they had witnessed and
read of during the last three or four weeks in the elec-
tions for some of the smaller boroughs—Falkirk, St.
Albans,• and one or two other boroughs with 300 or 400
electors. He declared that when he compared those
elections with what had transpired upon the continent
during a general election in which 6,000,000 of people
had been polled, ho found more violence, more drunken-
ness, more bloodshed, and more mortal combats in one of
these insignificant boroughs than occurred in the whole
of Frasice among those 6,000,000 voters. The Con-
clusion to which be had come was, that in those consti-
tuencies of 200, 300, and 400 electors, with open voting-,
so much bribery, corruption, and intimidation took place,
that these small boroughs ought to be utterly extir-
pated from our electoral system.—(Hear.) He hoped
the Noble Lord would address himself to the task before
him in the conviction that the country had been for a
long time looking for some measure of reform—(Cheers)
—and he believed that, after the declaration just made,
the Noble Lord would be mistaking the sense of the
country if he, or any one else who might be in his posi-
tion, did not bring in a measure commensurate with the
evils of the present system, and one that should meet the
wants of the people.—(Hear, hear.) He should not have
risen but for the promise just made by the Noble Lord;
but he begged to offer a few remarks on the immediate
question before the House. The Noble Lord admitted
that the 10/. householders in counties, whom the Hon.
Member wished to bring within the pale of the constitu-
tion, were persons wholly unobjectionable in point of
circumstances, character, and integrity. The Noble Lord
also conceded that the 101. householder in counties was
as good a man as the 101. householder in a large town.
If, indeed, property were the test of character, a man
who rented a 10/. house in a village or small market-town
would generally be found to be in superior circumstances
to the 101. householder in a large town.—(Hear.) But
the Noble Lord said he objected to the motion because it
would be an innovation upon the system of votingby 40s.
freeholders in counties; and the Noble Lord adduced
the innovation upon that system of voting by the en-
franchisement of the 501. tenants at will under the Re-
form Act as a reason why the House should not
agree to a further innovation upon it by the addition of
a 10/. constituency. But having given the 501. tenants
at will a vote for the counties, the Noble Lord had not
shown how he would increase the evil by giving
a vote to the 10/. householders. He (Mr. Cobden) con-
tended that it would give the people of counties a fairer
representation than if the House' stopped at the 50/.
tenants at will, and rejected the present motion. The
Noble Lord said the 50/. tenant at will was not so inde-
pendent a man its the 40s. freeholder. But it did not
follow that the , 101. householder would not be a more
independent man than the 501. tenant at will—(Hear.)
A farmer who rented a farm depended for his subsis-
I tence upon the employment of his capital in land. The
landlord had great power over that , individual, because
by. withdrawing the land from hits, and the farmer
being frequently unable to gain his living by any
other calling, the landowner was withdrawing the
means of living from him. But if the same
landowner went to a market town and gave notice to
quit to any shopkeeper who refused to vote for him, the
man would say, "I can find another house ; I am a
grocer, or a cheesemonger, and if you deprive me of this
house I can get another, or, if not, another will be
built for me." Now, if they looked to those counties
where the 40s. freeholders had the most influence, as in
the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire, they
would find the representatives of those counties voting in
favour of this motion; while the opposition to it would
come from those counties where the influence of the
tenants at will was preciominant. He was not sure that
the Noble Lord would not after all find it desirable to
adopt the
principle of the present motion in any mea-
sure he might propose. The Noble Lord might try
the plan of grouping together country towns and
small places ; but how would he group together into
a borough such places as he would find in the West
Riding of Yorkshire, where, in an extensive valley, a
continued series of mills, cottages, and houses might
be found? But the Noble Lord might very easily give
these places a vote for the county upon the plan of his
Honourable Friend tMr. Locke King). Where the
Noble Lord was compelled to leave out a town from
the borough representation he must give the inhabitants
a vote for the county. Take the Me of Barnsley, the
seat of the linen manufacture of Yorkshire. That was
an important town, yet it had no representative, while
Pontefract, which was not half the size, sent two Mem-
bers to the House of Commons. If they went to Ro-
therham, Dewsbury, and many other places in the ma-
nufacturing districts, they would find that they must