The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-27 00:00:00

self-sacrifice will equally characterise the new constituency
and their new representatives ? (Hear, hear.) No doubt
we shall have members just as anxious for what is called
the honour of the country, who will make high sounding
speeches against truckling to absolute sovereigns, and insist
on the right of the House of Commons to become the gar-
rulous confident of every secret which cabinets would keep
to themselves. (Laughter.) But will the new represen-
tatives of the new constituency be as provident of practical
defences as they may be lavish of verbal provocatives ?
(Cheers and laughter.) Will they as readily submit to the
taxation which is necessary to self-defence, so long as the
world shall see wars commenced for the propagation of
ideas and peace concluded by the acquisition of domains ?
(Loud cheers.) Sir, it is possible that they may possess
all such requisite qualities in a higher degree than ourselves
and our constituents ; bui; at least there is a doubt the other
way, and, seeing that doubt, it would be no such great in-
felicity if at a juncture so critical we could be contented to
let well alone—if we could defer putting this great nation
into the lottery of chance until we could see more distinctly
whether the goddess who presides at the wheel be indeed
the Fortune who smiles upon peace and commerce, "domi-
na cequoris," or rather that more terrible deity, " ounces
menu gestans aena," whose attributes are calamity and war.
(Hear) But still mere do I think it would have become
this Parliament to remit to its successor a less formidable
balance-sheet of deficit and revenue. I say nothing here
against the budget or the treaty, on which I have
refrained from all other opposition than that of a
silent, and, I will add, a reluctant vote, partly because of
the sincere, and, may I say, in his absence, the affectionate
admiration in which I hold not more the talents than the
character of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; partly be-
cause, though I doubt the prudence of both those measures,
I fully recognise the generous and enlightened hopes upon
which, whatever the issue, they may rest their vindication.
(Hear, hear.) I say nothing, then, against the financial
scheme of the Government ; but I do say to this house,
which has sanctioned that scheme by so large a majority,
that if we, the Parliament of Lord Grey's Reform Bill, have
bees the trustees of this infant constituency, it would surely
be well if we could render accounts to the ward whose year
of attaining majority we so impatiently advance, without
presenting to its earliest consideration a debt or deficiency
of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000, which we leave its inexpe-
rience to settle without an effort on our part to lessen its
embarrassment or to warn its councils. (Cheers.) If we
are to assemble this new tiers etat, it is a sinister coinci-
dence with a very dark page in history that the appeal to
numbers should be simultaneous with a deficit which we
have not the happiness to supply,and a problem in the science
of taxation which we have not the courage to solve. But all
this is for consideration, the consideration of the Queen's
responsible advisers, and of the majority by whom the late
Government were displaced, rather than for any exclusive or
obstinate resistance on our part, which, if unavailing, would
be obviously unwise. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Duchy
somewhat scornfully asked us " Why don't you divide ?"
and answered his own question in the breath " Because you
know you would have a majority against you!" In return,
I ask him, not scornfully, but in a sober appeal to his love
of truth, " Granting the fact of that alleged majority, does
it not contain members more than enough to turn the scale
in our favour if they voted according to the opinions they
express in private ?" (Prolonged cheers.) As the member
for Leominster said truly, if members in this house could
drop their votes into that blessed ballot-box of which we
hear so much, I think we might go to a division with the
tranquil certainty that we should see no more of this Re-
form Bill. (Laughter.) Now, it is because there is at pre-
sent to be no division, because we would not, if possible,
make that strict demarcation of parties which would not
faithfully represent a real difference of opinions, that I hope
I may, without presumption, solicit the serious reflection of
those enlightened reformers who do not desire change for
the mere sake of change. (Hear, hear.) I know, indeed,
that there are some persons who believe that progress
consists in always stopping on the road to alter the springs
of the carriage in which we travel. (Laughter.) I know
that there are some who think that man was made for no-
thing better than to pass his whole existence in the ecstatic
contemplation of interminable Reform Bills. (Laughter.)
" For that alone Hope spreads from goal to goal,
And opens still and opens on the soul."
But let us flatter ourselves that such amiable enthusiasts are
to be found chiefly out of doors and not among us, to whom
education and knowledge of the world may fairly be sup-
posed to have given the ordinary attributes of common
sense. (Hear.) We cannot disguise from ourselves that.
from the reasons I have stated, both at home and abroad,
this is a somewhat critical moment in the destinies of our
country ; one in which we would rather summon the highest
wisdom, the ripest experience we could obtain for our guid-
ance, than merge such wisdom as we do possess, such expe-
rience as we have acquired, in the arbitration of men who
have never been hitherto called upon to judge of questions
so complicated and grave, and from whom, if you once ap-
appoint the a, you can never have a court of appeal. (Hear.)
I do not say that the reasons I have urged as to the state of
Europe or as to our own financial deficit are reasons that the
Government could openly put forward for openly withdraw-
ing this bill; but they are reasons which their own sup-
porters might privately urge upon them, and they are rea-
sons which might satisfy their own good sense and justify
them before the public if, having honourably fulfilled their
pledge to introduce a Reform Bill, the bill was withdrawn
on the obvious and unanswerable ground that it failed to
give general satisfaction_ (Laughter.) Nor do I consider
that failure a serious reproach to this or to any Government.
A Reform Bill, so easy to the theorist, is very difficult to
the practical statesman. The hand of the true artist may
well tremble when he applies the hammer and the chisel
to the palladium of his country's laws. (Hear, hear.)
I do not presume to think that anything I can say will
have the least influence upon the Government, but they
would be wrong indeed if they did not respect what may
be said, or if not said, what they know is thought by their
own temperate and tried supporters. (Hear, hear.) If
however, you tell us that be the bill good or bad, you are
resolved to persevere in it ; that what we think its defects
' you hold to be its main principles; that you will not wait
for the report of the committee you have oonceded to the
other house; that you will avail yourselves of the natural
reluctance which the members for boroughs may feel openly
to declare against those new constituents to whom, next
December, you would condemn them to appeal—if that be
the course which, as the Queen's advisers, you deem it your
duty to pursue, then I can only express a fervent hope that
the result may justify your reversal of all the rules by which
the statesmen, even of republics, would rather seek in simi-
lar times to strength the hands of the executive rather than
transfer to the wide circle of an unaccustomed multitude
the nice and permanent adjustment of national finances,
and the cautious preparation against perils which already
alarm the boldest statesmen and menace the strongest
thrones. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid
prolonged cheering.)
Mr. MARSH said ho had no hesitation in saying that he
would not support the bill in its present shape. (Cheers.)
Unless there was an £8 franchise introduced in commit tee
instead of £6 he would not give his vote in its favour.
Sir J. FERGUSSON said that no one had risen to sup-
port the bill, or answer the objections to it. He complained
that small boroughs in many parts of the country were re-
presented by two members, while towns having a large
population, and possessing greater influence, had only one.
Then, again, there was the inequality of representation.
Take the West Riding of Yorkshire, to which it was pro-
posed to give two members. At the last election no less
than 11,000 voters were polled, and yet in the present bill
no attempt was made to have the large minority represented.
Here an HON. MEMBER moved that the house be
counted, and several hon. members stationed themselves
outside the door to prevent the ingress of the absentees,
but it was ineffectual. Forty made their appearance, hav-
ing left their dinners to take care of themselves, and the
debate was resumed.
Sir J. FERGUSSON proceeded—He thought the bill
was an utter failure in its attempts to grapple with the
present registration system. As they extended the fran-
chise, unless they protected the people from bribery and
corruption, it would have been much batter to have left
them as they were.

Mr. DENMAN said he cordially, Nip) main, approved
of the bill, and thanked the Government for bringing it
forward. He hoped that if the bill passed, and he believed
it would pass, it would prove eminently conservative of
their constitution in every sense of the word.

Sir J. WALSH was of opinion that it was a proper course
not to divide on the second reading, inasmuch as, if the bill
were carried, it would at least have the effect of nailing
certain hon. gentlemen to principles which they disliked in
their hearts.

Lord J. RUSSELL—It is agreeable to be reminded by
the hon. baronet of a time when we were younger than we
now are. The prophecies of ruin to the country in which he
has indulged, and the attempts to show that wild democracy
is about to overspread the land, are exactly those which I
heard made 30 years ago. (Hear, hear.) But that the hon.
gin efforts e
en,t lf
oemrh e
m it ade
as
nhd
oao
tutolordi
o uh defeatsave that,
there fsei rnbrcei
le dl
the
ow i
phBa3s2ss,ai
ntl i
gsofwaocnft it
aohunar
ttporbi tai hlel ea
tt hi
me
emboasetn useful
adopted.
.) ormunicipal have from
corporationtim e t os,
have been subjected to legitimate popular control • the tithe
question, which led to continual bickerings between' the
clergy and their congregations, has been satisfactorily set-
tled ; we have utterly abolished slavery in the West Indies;
we have completely altered the tenure of ourindian empire;
we have by the adoption of free-trade measures, which
am persuaded an unreformed Parliament would never have
passed—(hear)—increased the wealth of the country. I will
not refer to statistical returns to show how unparalleled
that increase has been, and the flourishing condition of
England, whether with regard to manufactures, commerce,
or shipping. And while all this has been done the state of
alarm in which the Government of this country was con-
stantly kept has been removed. in 1817 the Government of
the
consequence
proposed
of h
thet eprevalencesuspension
of dangerous
of the Habeas C
conspiracies.o rpus
in
In 1819 they proposed six different measures of severe co-
ercion to suppress the people, who were then believed to
beftoi aimingh atßeform
co
ort
nuhine
Billt dr
ye s. t r u( ieoanr ohf e the) Crownn 18 a3no,d
notth i
longnst i
bt ue
--
through the country at night might have seen fires blazing
was introduced, any one who travelled
in the stockyards' and houses of the farmers, and the pea-

sentry were in such a state of discontent and insubordina- '
tion that the Government were kept in a state of perpetual
apprehension. (Hear, hear.) And what has been the case
since that time, especially during the last few years? Have
there been disloyalty and conspiracy, or general discontent
with the laws? (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, the general
feeling of the country has been that of loyalty and content-
ment ; and the people, whether it be the artisans of our ma-
nufacturing cities, or whether it be the farmers and their
labourers, have been enjoying a degree of comfort and pros-
perity not known to them before the passing of the Reform
Bill. (Hear.) Therefore it was with surprise that I heard
the observations of the hon. baronet who spoke last relative
to the first Reform Bill. It seems the hon. baronet and
others believed, at the time that bill passed, that the settle-
ment it made could not be final. But has that prophecy
been fulfilled ? Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that
we are even now, 28 years after the passing of the bill, again
in the midst of agitation ? for if we are not again in the
midst of agitation what becomes of the prophecy ? And if
we are again in the midst of agitation, what becomes of the
statement about the total apathy of the country ? (Hear,
hear.) The prophecy was wholly misplaced—it was a mis-
take ; it has not been fulfilled, and is not likely to be ful-
filled. (Hear.) In listening to this debate, while I have
heard many expressions of alarm and much eloquent de-
clamation, especially to-night, from the right hon. baronet
who spoke early in the evening, it has appeared to me very
singular that the gentlemen who have spoken with so much
dislike of this bill, and with.so much alarm, have never taken
the pains to reconcile the provisions of the bill with their
alarm, er to show that their arguments followed naturally
from the contents of the bill, (Hear, hear.) They seemed
to think it sufficient to say that it is a bill which admits the
poorest classes of the community to the franchise, and not
only so, but that it gives into their hands the whole repre-
sentation of the country. (Opposition cheers.) They have
a perfect right to say so ; but what I have to complain of is
that not one of them has attempted to prove it. (Hear.)
We have had eloquent declarations to the effect that the
poorest classes of the community will entirely overbear the
other classes ; that the institutions of the country will in
some degree be impaired ; that our finances will be injured,
and that a great deal of mischief will be done ; but what
has never been attempted from the beginning of the debate
till now is to show that we have really done what is alleged
against us—that we have either, in the first place, proposed
to put the power of voting into the hands of the poorest
class of the community; or, secondly, that we have given
the entire representation into their hands. (Hear.) Now, it
is worth while to consider a little, which I shall endeavour
to do, some of the facts connected with this point. The hon.
bart. (Sir J. Walsh) seems to be persuaded of the accuracy
of the statistics prudueed by the hon. and learned member
for Marylebone, and I cannot say I am surprised at it, for
probably he has not examined the grounds on which they
rest'; but to any one who has looked into the returns made
by the Poor Law officers and to the facts must see that the
blunders made by the hon. and learned gentleman were per-
fectly ludicrous. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman
says that in the Tower Hamlets there are 67,000 persons
who live in houses above the value of £lO, and that there
are only 25,000 who have the right of Toting ; and that in
Liverpool there are 39,000 who live in houses above £lO,
and that only 18,000 have the right of voting. But if you
pass this bill you would suppose, from what the hon. and
learned gentleman says, that every one of these persons will
possess the franchise. Now, in order to have it happen
that all these persons should immediately become voters,
there must bo some alteration in the state of the law which
this bill does not make. (Hear.) The law of registration
that now exists is continued in the present bill, the only
exception, as I am reminded, being in the case of the
assessed taxes. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) In all
other respects the state of the law remains the same.
(Hear.) There is a deduction of 50 per cent. to be made for
the persons living in £lO houses, and who do not enjoy the
right of voting, and the reason is that there are various re-
strictions by which the £lO franchise is bound and confined.
If any gentleman will take the pains to go through the re-
turns from the largest boroughs, including the metropoli-
tan boroughs, he will find what these restrictions are.
In the first place, there are many men who at the time of
registration have not been in occupation for 12 months, and
who, therefore, cannot be put on the register. Such a man
may remain in the house for a year, but in the meantime
if an election takes place he will have no right to vote.
There are many others who have not paid their rates—some
from negligence, many from poverty, and immediately the
registration takes place their names are struck off the roll.
There is another class of a very numerous description whose
rates are compounded for by the landlord. The landlord
compounds because he then pays a diminished rate, but the
consequence is that, the names of the occupiers not being in
the rate-book, they ai e not included in the register. (Hear,
hear.) But it may said, though it would be a most extraor-
dinary thing to say, that though not above 50 in a hundred
£lO householders have the right to vote, yet between £6 and
£lO a much larger number will be placed on the roll. The
very contrary, however, will be the case. There will be fewer,
for those living in houses between £6 and £lO are a poorer
class of people. (Hear, hear.) Many of them will not pay
their rates, and they are much more likely to go from one
town to another, and so be often changing their residences.
(Hear, hear.) All these were left out by the hon, and
learned member for Marylebonc. He does not seem to have
taken them at all into his consideration. It was our endea-
vour at the time of the Reform Act to give the rich; of
v.ting to hnuaohorder3 who might represent the ancient
right of voting. I heard the hon. and learned member for
Dorsetshire—to whom the hen. baronet gave the palm of
having struck the heaviest blow at the bill—l heard that
hon. gentleman say that we were endeavouring still more
to separate representation from property. There was once in
this house a very learned gentleman, as learned a person
probably as the hon. and learned gentleman, though that
is saying a great deal—that gentleman who was at the head
of a famous commtttee in this house—l mean Serjeant
; and the report of that committee was, that where-
ever there was not a right of voting settled by law or char-
ter of the place the common law right of England entitled
every person paying scot and lot to vote. Did Sergeant
Glanville think that he was separating representation from
property ? Did he, or those who acted with him, believe
that they were injuring property or its representation by
what they so did ? On the contrary, these men were the
founders of the liberties of England. These were men who
thoroughly understood our institutions, and they said that
scot and lot was the common law right of this country.
But not only was this the plan of Sergeant Glanville two
centuries ago, but at the end of the last century the Reform
Bill proposed this plan that 400 members should be elected
in different electoral divisions of the country by all house •
holders paying scot and lot. Thus after so long a time the
principle of householders paying soot and lot was acknow-
ledged by the authority of Lord Grey. When we were en-
gaged in framing the Reform Bill it seemed to us that there
had been that change in the manners and habits of the
country that it could not be said that every man paying scot
and lot was entitled to the franchise—that great numbers
of them were not snbstantial householders as householders
were two centuries ago—that many of them were in a state
of poverty, and more especially as the payment of scot and
lot, which was the payment of the poor-rate, taking place at
the time of the election gave room to a great deal of abuse,
the candidates generally paying the rates at that time. We
therefore proposed that this household suffrage should be
accompanied as of old by the obligation to pay poor-rates,
that that obligation to pay poor-rates should be ascettained
at the time of the registration fixed in July, and that no
person should be entitled to the franchise unless ke occu-
pied a house of the value of £lO. Well, we sometime after-
wards—at least I, as a member of the Government—con-
sidered that there were many reasons why we should
reduce the money-value of the franchise. In the first place
I think the committee who framed the Reform Bill were
very prudent and cautious not to place the franchise too
low. We considered that if we placed it too high it might
not be very difficult, or at least not impossible to reduce it ;
but if we fixed it too low that would be an error which could
not easily be redressed. 'We therefore placed the franchise
high in fixing £lO as the qualification—perhaps it was un-
reasonably high ; but, in the next place, there had been a
very considerable change in the condition of the house-
holders of this country. By various measures that had been
introduced they were placed in a state of great comfort,
education had made great progress, the taxes which
immediately fell on them had been very much reduced.
There were, therefore, persons with houses much under £lO
who were entitled to the franchise by their property and
their intelligence. Now I have heard much said—indeed
the greater part cf this debate on the other side of the house
has been conducted on the principle—that no extension of
the franchise should be allowed to reach the working classes.
(No, no.) I think the representation generally has been
that the working classes are entitled to all our respect, but
they are very poor—the working classes are persons whose
good qualities we exceedingly esteem, but they are very
ignorant—the working classes deserve all our care and our
affection, but they are very corrupt; and, being poor, igno-
rant, and corrupt, they are not entitled to the franchise.
(No, no.) Gentlemen say "No," but I really have heard
one speech after another to this effect, and that speech
which on this point most excited my surprise was that of
the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire.
The speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman the
member for the University of Dublin, and many speeches
since, have all gone to that point. They have none of them
said that the working classes, having a very great share of
the £lO franchise, ought to be more largely admitted to the
right of voting-- they did not propose an £8 or £7 franchise;
but they objected to this particular franchise which does in-
troduce a great number of the working classes. Therefore
I say—and I can come to no other conclusion, and that is a
very serious conclusion to come to—that a spirit of distrust
of the working classes as holding any portion of political
power is apparent in the speeches of hon. gentlemen oppo-
ineg in o
ft whichhat kind
then d workingmigh might
beclasses
allowed,
oppo-
site. (No, no, and cheers.) Gentleman say "No ;" but
what is their proposal for the admission of the working
might
although
be allowed
he d toi dn
vote
o t
classes ? They allowed there might be some cities of re-
or
for members. The member for Edinburgh said that some-
fthug
tell us that Edinburgh was one of those places. (Cheers.) It
!Tall?, behoves hon. gentlemen to reconsider their speeches
if this were not their meaning, but I say the whole impres-
sion I have derived from their speeches is, that you might
not to trust the franchise to the working classes—(cheers,

and no, no)—and that they ought not to be generally ad-
mitted to it. Well, lot us look at what the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Bucks said upon this question last
year. After saying that the bill they had introduced would
admit about 500,000 persons to the franchise, speaking on
the 7th of June, 1859, on the subject of another Reform
Bill which might have been introduced by her Majesty's
then Government, the right hon. gentleman then said—
" The question of the borough franchise, however, must be
dealt with, and it must be dealt with, too, with reference to
the introduction of the working classes. (Cheers.) We
admit that that has been the opinion of Parliament, and that
it has been the opinion of the country as shown by the hon.
gentlemen who have been returned to this house. 'We can-
not be blind to that result. We do not wish to be blind to
it. 'We have no prejudice against Vie proposition. All we
want is to assure ourselves that any measure that we bring
forward is one required by the public necessities, and will
be sanctioned by public approbation and support, and there-
fore we are perfectly prepared to deal with that question of
the borough franchise and the introduction of the working
classes by lowering the franchise in boroughs, and by acting
in that direction with sincerity; because, as I ventured to
observe in the debate upon our measure, if you intend to
admit the working classes to the franchise by lowering the
suffrage in boroughs, you must not keep the promise to the ear
and break it to the hope." (Hear.) I must say that the right
hon. gentleman went en to argue most fairly on the subject.
He said you might contrive a franchise so that it would ap-
pear to allow a great admission of the working classes, but,
in fact, rather restrict than extend the qualification. Ho
said, if you deal with the question, deal with it fairly, and
provide for the admission of the working classes. But, al-
though that was his opinion last year—although, speaking
with the confidence of Lord Derby and the whole Govern-
ment he represented, as well as the great party of which
he was the leader in this house, he laid it down as a sub-
stantial proposition that in any Reform Bill to be intro-
duced you must have a reduction of the borough franchise,
and by that reduction of the borough franchise he meant
the admission of the working classes, how, I ask, is this to
be done ? Let hon. gentlemen opposite, if they don't ap-
prove this £6 franchise, frame some other proposition by
which the working classes would otherwise come in.
(Hear, hear.) Some gentlemen, indeed, have said what I
remember I suggested in 1837, that the proof of frugality,
by a considerable deposit in the savings-book, might form
a claim to the franchise ; but, although that would admit
some, the numbers admitted would be so small it could not
be said to be a substantial admission of the working classes
to the franchise. 'What other propositions have they made,
and in what other way do they mean to admit the working
classes ? Depend on it, much as gentlemen have talked of
the danger of passing this bill, suppose their anticipations
were realised and no such bill as this were passed, if no
other measure were introduced by which the working
classes were to be admitted, whatever might be the feeling
now, all that expectation which has endured for the last five
or six years being then disappointed, the working classes
considering themselves as the mark of stigma, as the objects
of the distrust of this house, would be in a very different
temper frem that in which they have been for the last few
years. (Hear, hear.) Successive Governments have pro-
posed measures on this subject. The Government of which
I had the honour to be the head, the Government of Lord
Aberdeen, the Government of my noble friend near me;
and, lastly, the Government of Lord Derby, although they
did not propose to alter the £lO franchise, have all intro-
duced bills on this subject of reform, and I own it is my
opinion that, if you have a Reform Bill without a reduction
of the franchise, that will be more perilous than passing this
bill. Now, so far as the character of the working classes is con •
cerned, it needs no eulogium from me, and I am of opinion
that every gentleman in this house, although he may not
wish that they should be the recipients of political power,
will admit that so far as their conduct and intelligence are
concerned they are deserving of the highest praise. My
hon. friend the member for Edinburgh seems, it is true, to
have a great distrust of them, and contends that they are
not good judges of difficult political questions. (Hear.)
But let me remind my hon. friend that one of the greatest
political philosophers who over wrote has said that it is re-
markable that while persons in general are not good judges
of political questions in the abstract, they are able to form
a very correct opinion with regard to the men in whom it
is desirable that their confidence should be placed. Sup-
pose, for instance, that Mr. Huskisson had presented him-
self to the freemen of Liverpool, and had delivered a lecture
on the bullion question, it is doubtful, although he was
right in the views which he held on the subject, whether he
would be able to get his audience to concur with him. The
probability is, indeed, that they would have regarded his
views as unwound, and that it was expedient that paper
money should be abundantly issued ; but when the question
was put to them whether it was likely Mr. Huskisson would
make a good representative for Liverpool they had no dif-
ficulty in replying in the affimative, being aware of his
eminent qualities, his perseveringindustry, and the general
estimation in which he was held. I admft therefore, that
if you seek to make people in general, be they or £lO, or
even £2O householders, judges of difficult questions, either
of political economy or constitutional right, it is not impro-
bable you may find that they will come to a wrong decision
on those points ; but if the question submitted to them be
to whom they should intrust the privilege of being their
representative, although they may sometimes make a bad
choice—(hear, and a laugh—yet I believe they will, as a
general rule, be found to make a good selection. I cannot,
I may add, agree with my hon . friend the member for
Rdinburgh in thinking the constituency of that city
the most enlightened in the kingdom, because I am
of opinion that there are few counties or boroughs
in the country which would have rejected such a man as
Lord Macaulay ; but, be that as it may, there is another
point connected with the working classes which is well
worthy of attention. It is a cemmon error to suppose that
they are always in a state of discontent, either with the in-
stitutions of the country or withthe circumstances by which
they are surrounded, and that they therefore seek to pull
down to their own level those who are above them in station
and wealth. For my own part, I believe that the poem of
Burns called "The Twa Dogs" contains more philosophy
on the subject than most of the speeches to which I have
listened. After describing the poverty of the poor labourer
in Scotland, he says,—
" But how it comes, I never kend yet
They're maistly wonderfu' contented."

Indeed I cannot help thinking that the working classes take
things more as they come than either the upper or middle
classes, and that they are, whether from a spirit of philo-
sophy or a true Christian feeling, as a general rule more
satisfied with their lot in life. It is not, therefore, I main-
tain, because they are discontented that we ought to refuse
them the privilege of exercising the franchise. I now come
to another part of the subject—l allude to the allegations
wnich have been over and over again made without proof,
that we are about to intrust to this class the whole repre-
sentation of the country. In answer to that charge let me
take the representation as proposed by the present bill. It
must] he borne in mind that there are a great number
of boroughs and also a great number of counties which send
members to this house, which are not at all likely to be
swamped by that.flood of £6 householders of which some
hon. members seem to be so apprehensive. On referring to
the returns, I find that boroughs, having a population of
20,000 return 137 members ; and those having from 20,000
to 8,000 return 109, and that boroughs having less than
8,000, return not less than 87. Taking also the smaller
boroughs having a population of loss than 1,000, I find that
no fewer than 111 return 172 members, which added to the
159 members which are returned for counties constitute a
majority in the list of returns. No one, I may remark,
can fairly contend that with regard to those smaller
boroughs any very great change will be accomplished,
er that property, so far as they are concerned,
will be less adequately represented than at present; for
there can be no doubt that in them property rather than
population is the prevailing influence, whether that influence
be exercised through the medium of the landlord or the
neighbouring squires. lof course quite concur with these
who think that property and intelligence, as well as popu-
lation, should be represented ; but if any one were to attempt
to frame a scheme by which the three should each be duly
represented, I believe he must fail in the endeavour. The
right hon. gentleman (Sir E. B. Lytton) who spoke with
so much ability and eloquence this evening referred to the
proposition of Mr. Mills, to the effect that a man of a cer-
tain degree of intelligence should hAve five votes and that
another of greater intelligence should have seven or eight
votes, as the case might be, and the right hon. gentleman
very properly set aside that plan as one which it was not
desirable to adopt. In the sentiments of the right hon
gentleman on the subject I entirely concur. Mr. Fox said
and I believe with truth, that if the wisest man who ever
lived were to set about framing a constitution he could not
invent ono which would be even of a tolerable character.
Concurring in that view, I, for one, while I am a reformer,
and while I am desirous to improve our present political
system so as to render it suited to the changing circum-
stances of the times, am prepared to stand by the old con-
stitution of the country. (Opposition laughter.) Hon.
gentlemen have been talking for so many nights of a new
constitution that one might really think that this is a bill
to introduce a new constitution to that house. (Cheers.)
The Reform sill of 1832 did so to a certain degree, because
at one blow it struck off 157 seats. This bill takes away 25
seats, and of these 15 are taken from small county towns
and given to counties. This is a change that makes ery
alterationlittle in the character of the representation. (A
Voice—" Bravo I" ) The general frame of tho represen-
tation will remain very much what it has been. (Hear,
hear.) Then we are asked, " But will you be able to
stand there, and will not other changes be intro-
duced ?" For my part I think that the question leads
to two very difficult problems, and I cannot say which
is the more difficult. One is—Should we attempt to induce
this house again to disfranchise a very large number of
boroughs ? Any one who tries that task would find, as we
found in 1854, that those boroughs, being not merely nomi-
nation boroughs and having a certain number of electors,and
often very independent electors, there would bo such a resist-
ance on the part of the representatives of those boroughs as,
joined to the objections of the Conservative party, would
create an opposition to such a proposition that would be
irresistible. (Hear.) Then comes another question, on
which the hen. member for Birmingham and I very much
differ. That question is, supposing you obtain the disfran-
chisement of 60 or 70 seats, as proposed i 4 1854, how are