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

they to be distributed ? We proposed in 1844, that a great
number—l think 47 or 48—should be given to counties.
We likewise proposed, both with regard to counties and
cities, that where a third member was given the minority
should have the power of electing him. lam not going to
argue that question ; but that was a representation perfectly
safe, and there was, at all events, in that proposition no ex-
cess in the line'of democracy. But that would have caused
a great struggle, and if any one should now propose to give
those seats to the counties all those hon. members who re-
present the great industrial centres of the north of England
would propOse that the greater proportion of those seats
should be given to towns. Ido not wonder that they should
make that proposal; but it would cause a very great
struggle, and would be very difficult to carry. For these
reasons we have not attempted any such changes in the
present bill. But we do not disguise from ourselves that if
this bill should pass, there would remain, with regard to
the greater proportion of the boroughs, and the whole of
the counties, very much the representation that at present
exists. 'With regard to the counties, we have not done
much more than the house has already decided. The House
of Commons has decided in favour of extending the right
of voting for counties to houses of the yearly value of
£lO. Ido not say whether that is exactly the best limit,
but we found it already decided by the house, and
no one will say that occupiers of £lO will form any very
dangerous element in the representation of the country.
(Hear, hear.) I think I have now shown that so far from
giving the whole representation of the country into the
hands of the poorer classes, the class of householders we
propose to enfranchise are very much above the poorest
class, inhabitinghouses for which they pay rents and rates,
and in which they have had certain length of residence. A
proportion of these are not working men, and a great pro-
portion of the inhabitant householders will be excluded from
this bill. With regard to Edinburgh, I have seen returns,
from which it appears that the present:constituency is about
8,000, and that by a bill of this kind the number will be
raised to 12,000. With regard to many places the increase
will not be so large. In Edinburgh there will remain about
12,000 houses for which no votes will be given. I cannot
conceive that this will be so dangerous an extension of the
franchise as hon. gentlemen on both sides think. [An Op-
position Member—" Both sides 1" and cheers.] If it is
found that we were right in choosing that franchise for
boroughs, let the house affirm it. If, on the contrary, hon.
members do not agree with us, let some variation be pro-
posed. But I own I cannot look with any satisfaction
upon the prospect of this house declining to legislate on this
subject altogether. (Cheers.) In committee any new clauses
can be proposed, and that question of the lodger franchise
may be very fairly taken. But do not be induced now by
the absence of agitation to suppose that you can take this
question up at any time and settle it when you please.
(Hear, hear.) I have seen an exemplification of a similar
faith on the part of this house, but in which they were
cruelly disappointed. Every one thought that the Catholic
question could be settled at any time. It was thought very
well that there should be a majority of five one year in
favour of the Catholics, and the next year a majority of four
against their claims. But there came a time when the
country was close on the borders of civil war, and when
yielding the Catholic claims was capitulating to a superior
force—(bear, hear)—and many of those benefits which
Mr. Pitt desired to derive from the settlement of this ques-
tion were entirely lost to the country in consequence of the
delay. Well, it was thought that the corn laws could be
settled in the same way. It was thought, too, that the first
Reform Bill could be settled at any time, and the conse-
quence was it was settled in the midst of agitation. Who
will assure you that eventsnot now foreseen and that cannot
be foreseen may not happen to make this a question most
difficult to settle ? (Hear.) I remember that when, before
the first Reform Bill, I proposed that Manchester, Bir-
mingham, and Leeds should have members, that motion
was rejected by a considerable majority. This house and
the Government of the day thought that they could settle
any such claims at any time, and that Manchester, Bir-
mingham, and Leeds might continue without members
for 20 or 30 years more. But there was a revolution in
France that contributed, not to cause the opinion in favour
of Parliamentary reform, but the agitation on the subject,
and which fed the flame of that agitation until it got to a
dangerous height. If you put this bill off to next year or
the year after, fur the sake of the census, who will tell us
what the circumstances may be under which we shall have
to legislate upon this question ? (Oh I oh I) The hon.
member treats this suggestion with great ridicule and con-
tempt, but I remember saying at a quiet time, in 1825—the
metaphor was not a very good one, but it expressed my feel..
ing—" that if Parliamentary Reform did not flow on with
the majesty of the river it would come on you with the
madness of the torrent." Then came the riots at Bristol,
and the Castle at Nottingham was fired, and you began to
think that the time had really come to settle this question.
History will tell you, and may you reflect on that history.
that it would have been better if ten years before or five
years before these events, the question of Reform had
been settled. It would have been better if prudent moo.-
sures had been taken, if the franchise had been gradually
enlarged, and if that measure of Reform had been carried
by general consent, instead of being an object of such
hostility and violent agitation. (Hear, hear) In the
belief that we can now legislate b.afely on this question
her Majesty's Government hats introduced this Reform
Bill. The right hon. gentleman tho member for Bucking-hamahiro ,
thla Itigt year that it was right to aanat the
working classes to the franchise; that you should not
attempt to hold them in a state of dependence ; that, with
regard to them, you should not " keep the word of promise
to the ear and break it to the hope. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELT—You have not read the extract cor-
rectly.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I have read every word of the pas-
sage.

Mr. DISRAELI—No ; read what follows " hope."
Lord J. RUSSELL—" When lowering the suffrage, it
should be done in such a manner as completely to effect
the object consistently with the maintenance of the institu-
tions of the country." (Cheers from the Opposition.) Well,
I say that ,we, in proposing to lower the suffrage, believe
that we shall satisfactorily and completely effect our object;
that is our opinion; the right hon. gentleman has another
way of maintaining the institutions of the country; but I
think we are as well entitled to be thought anxious to
maintain those institutions as 'Lord Derby or the right hon.
gentleman. (Cheers.) We proposed the Reform Billin 1831,
and Lord Grey advised his Majesty to declare in the speech
from the throne that a measure of Reform was proposed
with regard to the House of Commons that would respect
and preserve every portion of the Constitution. Was not that
promise kept ? (Hear.) I have shown how well it was kept.
I have shown that the institutions of the country are
stronger now than they were in 1831; does the right hon.
gentleman deny that ? Then, if we have kept that promize
and have maintained those institutions, examine this Bill ;
examine it as much as you please, and if you find anything
dangerous in it alter that part of the measure. But my
belief is that the Bill tends to preserve our institutions;
and this I think above all, that if you find
there is a numerous class that has advanced in in-
telligence, wellbeing, and comfort, and is fitted to
possess the electoral franchise, it is an injury, not so much
to them as to yourselves and the institutions of the country,
if you exclude them from it. (Hear, hear.) I remember
well the homely and forcible expression of the hon. mem-
ber for Oxfordshire last year; if you draw a "hard line,"
and will have a £lO franchise and nothing below it, I think
the "ugly rush" he spoke of may very possibly come to
pass. I hope, therefore, that you, will, by enlarging the
franchise, strengthen the institutions of the country, and,
by admitting a larger class to the exercise of the suffrage,
give those institutions an increased safety. (Cheers.)
On the motim of Mr. BENTINCK the debate was then
adjourned.

• PAPER DUTY.
The debate on the third reading of the Paper Duty Bill
was postponed till to-morrow (this day.)
SIR J. BARNARD'S ACT.
The adjourned debate on the second reading of this bill
was also postponed.