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

PROTECTION TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, whether he had heard that complaints had
been made of the insufficient protection afforded to British
subjects in the kingdom of Naples, and in the immediate
neighbourhood of the disturbances in Sicily, by the
English representative and British men-of-war on
that station; and whether there was any truth in these
complaints; and if he walld state which of her Majesty's'
vessels are on that station, and whether the instructions
had been to give assistance to all persons rightly claiming
the protection of the English flag; and, whether, to his
knowledge, it was true that Austrian troops had been em-
ployed to aid in the suppression of the efforts of the Sicilian
population to obtain a better form of Government ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Government had re-
ceived no official complaint on tho question of the protection
of British subjects in Naples, but three vessels of war were
stationed at different ports in the kingdom of Naples for the
purpose of affording such protection. One vessel was to be
permanently stationed at Palermo, and another in another
place, which would afford the necessary protection. He
was in possession of no official. information relative
to the interference of the Austrian troops in the way re-
ferred to by the hon. member in his motion.
ASSISTANT CAVALRY SURGEONS.

Mr. BEEDES asked the Secretary of State for War
upon what principle a deduction of Sid. per diem was made
from the surgeon and assistant-surgeon of a cavalry regi-
ment for each horse kept by them for the public service,
when the rate of pay of those officers is precisely the same
as that of the medical officers of infantry regiments ?
Mr. S. HERBERT said that infantry medical officers
were exempted from the deductions in question by a special
warrant the cavalry officers did not possess.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.-
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. BLACK said he felt constrained by a sense of duty
to give utt crane° to the sentiments which he had more than
once expressed before, both publicly and privately, and
which were participated in by a majority of his constituents.
A mixed Government supported by Parliamentary repre-
sentation had proved by experience to be the most effective
and powerful machine for the production of good govern-
ment. It might be said not to be perfect, but that was only
saying that it was human, and if it got out of gear, or re-
quired repair, it must be attended to with the utmost care•
fulness; but there should be no perpetual tinkering at it.
(Hear, hear.) Before altering the machine, two things
should be ascertained with certainty—first, that there
existed a defect, and secondly, that the alteration proposed
to be made would remove the defect and improve the ma-
chine. (Hear.) Was the elective franchise a right or a
trust ? If a right, upon what was it based ? Some said
that all who lived under the laws had a natural right to a
voice in the framing of those laws ; others maintained that
taxation and representation ought to be coextensive. But,
if the latter principle were accepted, every man who took a
cup of tea or who smoked a pipe might demand a vote.
(Hear.) Ia his opinion the people had a right, not to the
franchise, but to the best system of government which could
le provided for them. You were not bound to gratify every
demand of theirs which would not tend to promote their
happiness. It might be asked, " And who is to decide
what shall tend to their happiness P" His answer was that
this duty must devolve upon the Government of the day.
(Hear, hear.) The responsibility rested on the present
House of Commons, and a tremendous responsibility it :was
to make any change in the existing system. (Hear, hear.)
As to the proposed reduction of the county franchise to
£lO, he thought they were justified in adopting that as an
improvement. Was there any reason to suppose that £lO
householders in the counties were not as intelligent and
as independent as those of the same class in the boroughs ?
(Hear.) Believing them to be equally well qualified,
he should support this proposition. Again, in
England there were 40s. freeholders. Why should there
be a distinction between England and Scotland in this re-
spect ? He thought the 40s. freehold franchise was worthy
of adoption in Scotland, not merely because it existed in
England, but because it was an ancient franchise, which,
as it had worked well in one country, might be expected to
work well also in the other. (Hear.) However small a
man's property might be, he took as great an interest in all
that concerned it as the proprietor of large estates. If ho
had acquired this small prope► ty, you might safely assume
that he was industrious and well conducted ; Hire inherited
it, you might in the same way assume that ho was tolerably
well educated. But did hon. members believe that they
would improve the electoral system by the reduction of the
borough franchise to £6, and the infusion into these con-
stituencies of a large body of persons possessing little edu-
cation, intelligence, or independence ? (Hear.) It was
said that you might find as intelligent men among the £6
as among the £lO householders. That might be true, but
he spoke of the class, and not of individuals. (Hear.) There
had been too great a disposition to talk of the virtues of this
class, and to flatter them on every occasion. (Hear.) Now,
he did not wish to say anything disrespectful of them, but
was it consistent with common sense to suppose that men in

their position could have had such-an education as would
enable them to understand difficult questions of policy?
(Hear.) Were men in the lower ranks of life likely to have
the same amount of education, of inform•ttion, mid of inde-
pendence as those above them in the social scale ? (Hear.)
There could be but ono answer to such a question. (Hear.)
Nothing was more difficult than to decide intelligently
upon political questions, and would Parliament be justified
in intrusting the power of deciding those questions to a

large mass of half-educated persons, whose passions and
prejudices were so easily aroused, and who were so open to
tbo iZaWNICte, of wascrupuslous agitators, (Hear.) Witbiii

the last few mouths there had been a melancholy example
of the way in which the working classes managed their
own affairs. On being told that by agitating they could get
10 hours' pay for nine hours' work, they wont out on strike,
exposing not only themselves but their wives and children
to great sufferings. No doubt they manifested great self.
denial and mutual reliance, but these virtues only made
them the snore formidable. Well, it was now proposed
not only to introduce such persons into the constituencies,
but to introduce them in large numbers, in, some boroughs
increasing the susmiicr of elccters to onc-fourth, in etlszr,
by ono half, while in others the new constituencies would
outnumber the old ones. There was thus to be a new in-
fusion into the present electoral body which would lower in
quality the whole aggregate of the borough constituencies.
Now, if an hen. member had any important business to
transact, and wanted some persons to take charge of it,
would he like to go into the lower streets of Westminster or
St. Giles's and take the first half-dozen men ho met there,
or would he not feel himself much safer in selecting bis
agents from—he would not say Belgravia, but from Cheap-
side or the Strand ? By conferring the franchise on such a
large mass of half. educated people you would not raise the
character of the constituencies, but, on the contrary, must
inevitably bring it down in some degree to the level from
which the new body of electors sprang. (Hear, hear.) Would
that be an advantage ? If so, it should be done at once ;
but, if it were doubtful, it would be prudent to hesitate be-
fore taking a step which could not be retraced. (Hear,
hear.) Some hon. gentlemen were not aware of the extent
to which combinations such as trade unions and their affilia-
tions were carried. In a recent instance they had seen a
small executive body sitting in London issuing orders and
receiving obedience from all parts of the kingdom. It was
stated that the number of those who were governed by that
executive in London alone was not less than 600,000.
(Hear, hear.) It might be true that all those persons
would not be admitted to the franchise under this bill,
but a very considerable proportion of them would be
admitted. Supposing that the executive committee, com-
posed probably of men who were energetic, en-
thusiastic, and aggressive, chose to issue their mandates,
how many men eonnected with that body would dare to
disobey them ? In fact, every man of that body would be
either a voter or a canvasser, and the house could conceive
the immense effect which such a combination would have
upon elections. Hon. gentlemen opposite said that the new
electors would deal injuriously with the taxation of the coun-
try, :and that would be only natural, for all men liked to
shift burdens from their own shoulders to those of others.
But they would also agitate other schemes. When he was
pursuing his canvass at the last election he met many
thousands of that class, and the question was put to him,
" Would he support an Eight Hours Bill ?" He said at
once that question showed how dangerous it would be to
intrust them with the franchise. (Hear, hear.) No sooner
would those men receive the franchise than it might be
expected that they would make the eight hours question, or
the abolition of the tobacco duty, a test for election, and no
doubt some candidates would be found to swallow the test.
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for Stamford
(Lord R. Cecil) had said that, having sat upon several
election committees, he had found that the class usually
bribed were the freemen—persons of the same grade as the
£6 householders. (No, and cheers.) He could give another
proof. (Hear) There were no freemen or potwallopers in
Scotland to be affected by the Reform Act of 1832, and there
had been no corruption among the £lO householders in that
hountry. But in England the old constituency was partly
affected by the dry rot of bribery, and the taint was commu-
nicated to the new electors. In fact, bribery and corrup-
tion extended to the Tweed at Berwick, and there stopped,
for bribery was unknown in Scotland. (Hear and a laugh.)
There was another view which must be taken of this bill.
There had not been much agitation about it, but there had
been some meetings, at nearly all of which resolutions in
favour of manhood suffrage or something of that kind had
been submitted. It was, however, argued by the leading
speakers at those meetings that they should be content with
this bill because it was a step in the right direction, it was an
instalment. (Hear, hear.) Those persons were justified in
regarding this bill as an instalment, and, if it were passed,
they need not fear that the whole sum would not be paid in
due time. (Hear.) If this bill passed, we should have
gone down a certain distance on the slide; we might still
go on by stages, but it was certain that at last we must
come to the bottom. (Hear, hear.) The question had got
a shove which would carry it down the whole distance, and
there would be no standing-point until it arrived at manhood
and universal suffrage. (Hear.) If, however, the house
thought manhood suffrage would benefit the people or im-
prove the representation, why not go to it at once ? (Hear,
hear.) • That would save all the agitation which might be
expected from proceeding by degrees to reach that point.
The house might be sure that it would be impossible to go
back when once this step was taken. The opinion of the
late Lord Macaulay upon this subject had been previously
referred to; but he thought the house would not object to
a short extract from the noble lord's letter to Mr. 11. S.
Randall, of New York :
" I havo long been convinced that institutions purely de-
mocratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty, or civiliza-
tion, or both. In Europe, where the population is dense,
the effect of such institutions would be almost instantane-
ous. What happened lately in France is an example. You
may think that your country enjoys an exemption from
these evils. I will frankly own to you that lamof a very
different opinion. Your fate I believe to be certain, though
it is deferred by a physical cause. . . . But the time
will come when New England will be as thickly peopled
as Old England. Wages will be as low and will fluctuate
as much with you as with us. But you will have your
Manchesters and your Birminghams, and in these Man-
cheaters and Birminghams hundreds and thousands of ar-
tisans will assuredly be sometimes out of work. Then your
institutions will be fairly brought to the test. Distress
everywhere makes the labourer mutinous and discontented,
and inclines him to listen with eagerness to agitators, who
tell him that it is a monstrous iniquity that one man should
have a million while another cannot get a full meal. In
bad years there is plenty of grumbling here, and sometimes
a little rioting ; but it matters little, for here the sufferers are
not the rulers. The supreme power is in the hands of a class,
numerous indeed, but select—of an educated class—of a
class which is, and knows itself to be, deeply interested in
the security of property and the maintenance of order. Ac-
cordingly, the malcontents are firmly but gently restrained.
The bad time is got over without robbing
.the wealthy
.to
relieve the indigent. Tho springs of national prosperity
soon begin to flow again, work is plentiful, wages rise, and
all is tranquillity and cheerfulness."

It was said that if they adopted this measure it would be a
settlement. A settlement! When they had the Bill of 1832
before them it was to be a final settlement (hear, hear) ; but
that bill had not been in operation many years until there
arose a cry for the extension of the suffrage. If they made
one change was it not likely that they would be required to
make another ? (Hear, hear.) He was one of the most ardent
supporters of that Bill, but there was a most material dif-
ference between it and the present measure. The electors
then introduced were from £lO upwards. They had then a
constituency composed of all classes—the most highly edu-
cated, the most opulent, the most influential, the higher and
middle, and a considerable portion of the lower elapses.
(Hear, hoar.) But in the present Bill they had got but one
class (cheers)—a large class--whom there was great danger
of its overweighting the machine. If it was considered de-
sirable that a certain portion of the working classes should
be admitted to the franchise, there was a way of doing that
without diluting the aggregate body of the electors. He
should have no objection to give up a certain number of
boroughs to manhood or any other suffrage (a laugh) ; but
don't let them leaven the whole lump with a £6 franchise.
(Cheers.) It was painful for him to differ from statesmen
for whom he had the highest respect, and whom he held in
the greatest honour for their invaluable services to their
country, but be could not, from the mere influence of
affection, permit himself to appear even to acquiesce
in what he did not approve, nor did he wish that his
constituents should imagine that he had said one thing
to them, and another to the House of Commons. (Cheers.)
Sir E. B. LYTTON (who was cheered in rising to speak)
said—Sir,—lt is obvious, as had been observed by the hon.
gentleman who has just sat down, that the consideration of
this bill involves a question on which gentlemen opposite
have an interest fully equal to our own; and, therefore,
imitating his example, T will state my views in a spirit that
shall be as free from party bias as I can possibly form and
express it ; and as T think it very important that we should
have clear perceptions of the nature of our dispute, and of
the consequences of any mistake we may commit, I will
first entreat the house to bear with me for a few minutes,
when I try to consider whether at least we cannot agree as to
the broad principles upon which all good representative sys-
tems must be based. Sir, I will assume that every popular
reformer, and every sound political thinker, who seeks to
estimate the proper standard at which to fix ar, electoral
franchise must, in abstract theory, start from the same
point—(hear, hear)—and that point is the prima facie right
of manhood suffrage. Where you find a civilised commu-
nity in which all the members are equally free, and where
by a system of indirect duties every man is more or less
taxed to the support of the State, I can readily understand
that every man should consider that he has arriwa facie
right to proffer his claims to vote for those who superintend
his affairs aid regulate the machinery by which his welfare
is controlled. But here, from the origin of all poli'ical
societies, commences another view of that same question,
upon which reformers may differ—l do not know if they
do—but on which all who are acknowledged to be sound
political thinkers aro agreed. And it is—Granting that
every man in a free community may thus put forward
his claim to the electoral franchise, still every member
of a community merges all his individual rights, and
many rights much nearer and dearer to him than an elec-
toral franchise, in the paramount consideration how the
State itself can be best sustained for the general safety and
the social advancement : or, in the words of the hon. gen-
tleman who has just spoken, how the greatest happiness of
the greatest number can be secured from attacks without
aigl within, from foreign dangers or its own, mistakes, for

the longest probable period.. That question has been largely
discussed by political reasoners for more than 2,000 years—
(hear, hear)-,-bilt I think the substanCe of all that has been
said by theii;beSti authorities mayTke fiktrid in This very
sCinple definition free State will be thus best :sustained
and advahiTd, by securing to its legislittii-e councils the
highest average degrce,cif the common sensed the comi sou
interest. (Hear, hear.) Thus,
,intelligence is requisite,
but not intelligence alone; you might have a legislative as-
sembly comprised of riffea Indisputably-intelligent—nobles,
lawysrs, priests, win mighthonestly believe they used their
intelligencefor the common interest, when in fact they used
it for their own. (Hear, hear.) Hente it follows that no
one class interest must predominate over all the others, (Jr
the common interest is gone. (Cheers.) Gone if that class
be the great proprietors, gone if that class be the working
men. But there is this distinction between the working
class and every other, that, granting their intelligence to be
equal to that of others, granting that it is not more likely
to be misdirected, *still when it is misdirected the conse-
quences are, if they are invested with the eketoral power
that determines legislation, immeasurably more dangerous
both to the common interest and to their own. (Cheers.)
For they are the roots of society, and it is the roots of so •
ciety that their errors will affect, while their timbers are
SO great that their votes could overpower the votes of all the
other classes put together. Where this happens, the in-
stinctive safeguard of the rich is corruption; and the in-
stinctive tendency of ambition, where it is not rich, is to-
wards those acts which give dictatorship to demagogues.
(Cheers.) The honourable and learned member for Mary-
lebone has done me the honour to quote expressions of
mine in praise of the labourer and mechanic. I neither
retract that praise, nor the qualification with which
it was accompanied. The working class have virtues
singularly noble and generous, but they are obviously
more exposed than the other classes to poverty and to
passions. Thus, in quiet times, their poverty subjects
them to the corruption of the rich, and in stormy times,
when the State requires the most sober judgment, their
passion subjects them to the_ambition of the demagogue.
(Hear, hear.) To every man who has read history, these are
no unsupported propositions. The history of the old repub-
lics is uniform as to this truth, and as all those republics,
at least where democracy was established, employed vote
by ballot, so the same history tells us that the vote by bal-
lot is no cure for the evils. (Hear, hear.) Hence it is that
those eminent writers on the Liberal side, who have lately
examined this very question of a new franchise for Eng-
land, with political courage as well as speculative acuteness,
have all specially dwelt on the extreme danger of basing
that new franchise widely and exclusively upon a principle
that, once conceded, must expand—a :principle that, by
avowedly reducing your borough franchise so as to admit
manual labour, without any equipoise, without any test or
condition beyond that of finding a way to cover it at 2s. 4d.
a-week, must end by giving to manual labour the political
power over the capital that employs and the mind that
should direct it. An hon. member in the course of this de-
bate referred to the opinions of Mr. John Mill, than whom
no severer reasoner adorns our age; but what are Mr. Mill's
opinions ? Dead against every argument by which the pro-
posed franchise is defended. He would give, it is true, a
vote to every man, but, in order to counteract the effect of
numbers so created, he would give to a man of superior edu-
cation or property, such as a farmer or a tradesman, four or
five votes, to a man of still high6r education and property,
five or six votes. More lately Mr. Mill has declared in fa-
vour of the propositions by which Mr. Hare, in a very re-
markable pamphlet, would insure the representation even
of the smallest minorities. These ideas are so against the
taste of the house and the inclination of the public, that
their adoption is impossible, but I mention them to show
there are consummate reasoners whose doctrines of Gove rn-
meat belong to the boldest school, and who are yet more
anxious than the highest Tory among us to secure to pro-
perty and intelligene pow er that shall not be overborne by
the influence of numbers. (Hear, hear.) The mem-
ber for Birmingham says there is no cause to fear
the influence of numbers or of the working class, in the bill
that is now before us. He says, first; that the proposed ad-
dition as regards the boroughs is not considerable ; second,
that the total constituency will still be very small in pro-
portion to the adult population. (Hear.) But the member
for Birmingham fails to see or to grapple with the argument
of my right hon. friend the member for Buckinghamsb ;re.
It is not with my right hon. friend a question of numbers
alone, but rather of fitness. In fact, though I accept the
opinion of the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary,
that all possible pains were takento obtain accurate returns,
yet he must pardon rue if I say that, without entering into
the dispute between him and the member for Mai yleboue,
these returns must seem incredible to any gentleman who
will use his own power s of inquiry and observation, for a
£6 house is a house at 2s. 4d. a week, but if any gentleman
will inquire in the small rural towns or even the larger vil-
lages in his neighbourhood, he will find that there n-e
scarcely any houses in them that are let to the most ordi-
nary artisans at less than 2s. 6d. a week; 2s. 63. a week is
generally the lowest rent paid by a journeyman labourer in
a small rural town. What must it be, then, in a large
borough? Just consider. Many gentlemen, no doubt,
have built plain cottages for their own day labourers ; tho.
cottages cannot cost them less than about £BO each; they
would be contented with a small interest for their money,
because, as it is truly said by the Duke of Bedford, who
has conferred benefits on the working classes, the more
signal, because so nobly unostentatious, the country gen-
tleman does not build cottages for immediate remunera-
tion ; but in a borough town such houses are built by small
capitalists on speculation, who would not be satisfied with
less than 71 or 8 per cent for their outlay—that is, more
than 2s. 4d. a week, more than £5 a year, for a house
equal to the humblest cottage you build for your hum-
blest labourer. But, granting the returns to be correct
as to the present number of £6 householders, they can
affard no criterion of what the number £6 voters
would be if this bill passed into a law, for the poorest
labourer who now pays 2s. a week for a hou. e (and less
than that he could not pay for any hovel in a borough town),
would gladly pay 2s. 4d. to secure a vote es a go 1 specula-
tion, which will give him a claim on the wealthier trades-
men of the town who take an interest in elections, should he
want a job of work or a charitable donajon at Christmas—
those small gleanings of calculating benevolent a which are
the perquisites of poor electors ; and, on the other ha at' a
landlord who now lets houses at 2s. or 25.2d.a-week will scs ow
them up to 2s. 4d. in order to increase his political importance
by having a numerous tenantry at his command, in cons i-
tutional proof of the legitimate influence of propel ;y. And
you must take with you the fact, which you seem to ignore
s--marnely, that every year, as the prosperity and popula-
tion of the country increase, the £6 franchise will become
wider and wider as to numbers, lower and lower as to the
condition of the voter. The £lO occupation is now, in the
large towns, a very much lower franchise than it was 30
years ago. You are legislating for posterity in a direction
you can never retrace, and in less than 30 years a £6 fran-
chise must, in the larger towns, be equivalent to household
suffrage. We have, therefore, no fair criterion as to numbers;
but, in the meanwhile, we find, even by your returns, that
the addition proposed is quite enough to overbear the exist-
ing constituency in about half the present boroughs; it
must mates Tally influence elections in most of the other halt.
We then ask if that addition is composed of a variety of
classes ; we find that it is confined to a single class, and we
object to overbear the existing constituency by a single
class, without any equipoise or relief. (Hear.) I shall make
our distinction more clear by proceeding at once to the second
assertion of the member for Birmingham. (Hear.) He says
that the entire constituency, which he estimates at 1,000,000,
will be very small compared to the adult male population,
which he estimates at 7,000,000. (Hear.) But when he
would thus make manhood suffrage a standard by which to
compose a suffrage, that, if more limited, should fairly re-
present the diversified character and opinions of the whole
adult male population, he forgets to omit from his 7,000,000
not only about 700,000 paupers, but more than a million
and a half composed of soldiers, sailors, mercantile marine,
domestic servants, and rural peasants, whose tendencies
might counteract the opinions of the special class this bill
selects for the franchise; and the right way to look at the
present suffrage, and at the proposed addition, is evidently
this :—The present suffrage is a selection, made less than
30 years ago, from those classes of the male population with
whom popular liberty is most safe, excluding rural peasants
as too muoh under the influence of landed aristocracy ; do-
mestic servants, as too much under the influence of mas-
ters ; soldiers and sailors, as too much under the influence
of the Crown.
(Hear.) But if, while you continue to ex-
clude from your constituency large masses of the population
that represent Conservative elements, you admit a new ele-
ment which our common sense tells U 3 must be exclusively
democratic, you destroy the fair equipoise of representation
even by number, end you do not impartially extend the
area of a national franchise, but you pervert the national
franchise into the monopoly of a single class. I close, then,
this part of my argument with these plain propositions :-
Ist, that it is not consulting the common sense of the com-
mon interest ; 2dly, that it is not a fair apridcation of the
doctrine of representation by numbers to introduce into a
constituency alre.idy so popular that in this vast metropolis
and in many of our great towns the richer classes are not
represented at all, a new selection from that special class ef
artisans who, crowded together in large towns, always have
been and always will be the most democratic and the most
excitable part of the population, without any selection of an
opposite tendency ; so that the more some town has been
rendered populous and flourishing by expenditure of capital
and activity of educated intellect, the less capital and edu-
cated intellect will have a voice in the representation of the
place the prosperity of which they created and maintained.
(Cheers.) And now, sir, let me observe that it was well said
by the hon. member for Leominster, in a speech which the
Home Secretary censures for being animated—(greet
laughter)—l cannot retort the charge on the right hon.

NEW-SPAPEh
,-VW;II7„MZ
. „
dleman, who spoke us if "he can)e,*
ise him"— (con tinue(l laughter)-I)Tats+-' 1,14/
teas been conducted on premise.L.
trite. !• It hag been. too much assumed thaMl thqiet-
, lass. are excluded •by the present franchise: We tft as.
to open the door, as if the door had been kept rigidly locked
and barred against them. But is that the ease ? I apprehend
that in all the metropolitan boroughs artisans must form a
considerable part of the constituency. In fact, if your re-
turns are 'correct, and we must prefer them to the calcula-
tions of the member for Marylebone, it is clear that the main
reason why artisans living in X. 13 houses do not add largely
to the metropolitan constituencies must be because a large
number of artisans in met ropolit al constituencies live in £l.O
houses. But, take any borough, any county—have not all
and each of us several working men among our constituents?
The working classes arc, therefore, admitted at present.
The door is not locked. You say admit more, many more ;
open the door much wider: Very well, du : but, since per
cannot admit them all, do let us try and est a'oli.•11 seine
better test than that of a certain amount of poverty.
(Cheers.) Do not lower your franchise upon the express
prim iple of ale:it:leg. i!io poer solely and wholly !Kean
they are pour. (Cheers.) The member for Halifax, in a speech
of much promise, and in the excellent taste of a gentleman
who can unite ardour for a cause with courtesy to opponents,
said " The best test of fitness for the franchise is the desire
to possess the franchise." Let him reflect f r a moment, and
ha is too good a logician not to see that his position is un-
tenable. Desire is no proof of fitness. We all desire to be
rich—is that any proof that we deserve riches ? 'We all de-
sire to be strong, healthy, and wise, and how few of us take
the smallest pains to be strong, healthy, or wise I (Laughter
and cheers.) We must have, then, a better test than desire.
In our bill we, the late Government, sought to take that
simplest test by which the human being vindicates his claim
to reason—l mean the habit of frugality aid forethought for
the morrow in the man who lives by the labour of the day.
We this did expand the franchise to the working class, not
by regarding them as the mere symbols of four crazy walls,
but in proportion—l do not say as they had a stake in the
country, for every man, woman, and child just born has a
stake in his native country, but in proportion as they showed
they were sermaele of that stake, and had by the mere exer-
cise of a virtue most useful to themselves—the mere prin-
ciple of saving for the uncertain morrow—entered into the
Blass of proprietors, and had become participators in that
prudent regard for order which is the safeguard of property
and the main distinction between liberty, which is always
thoughtfal, and licence, which is always reckless. (Cheers.)
You dismiss these attempts of ours to modify, refine, and exalt
a mere popular franchise, dismiss them without one effort of
your own to improve them—and I believe they could be
greatly improved and enlarged by a Government in whom re-
formers had confidence, and whom this house honoured with
a majority ; you dismiss not only our notions, but all the
theories and all the warnings of your own ablest writers,
and you, who came into power upon the presumption of
superior capabilities for a comprehensive scheme, you con-
tent yourselves with what ?—rudely creating an additional
constituency upon the express and sole principle that it is
to be poorer and less intelligent than the present, without
a single franchise of 'a higher nature ; and you make that
addition so numerous that in most of those large towns
which are the centres of energy, which the member for
Rochdale once told us " govern England," it is that poorer
and less intelligent class that must take the lion's share of
political power. (Cheers.) And when wo are told by the
hon. member for Birmingham and the hon. member for
Leeds that a £6 franchise is not so rigidly confined to the
working class, but that there are several £6 occupiers who
are not actually working men, I say that in no way touches
our objection. They are equally men subjected to the con-
ditions of poverty and passion ; and though wo aro willing
to admit poverty and passion into the franchise, we are not
willing to give them the lion's share of political power over
capital and knowledge. (Cheers.) And I say this not as
against the representation of the working er the poorer
classes, but on behalf of their genuine and true-representa-
tion ; for if you reflect a moment you will own that their
true representation must be snore or less perfect in propor-
tion to the knowledge which may exist in this house of the
inseparable connection between their interests and all our
legislative functions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in a speech which, whatever we may think of the budget it
introduced, will remain among the monuments of English
eloquence as long as the language lasts, told us truly that
"the interest of the working man was consulted less by
our cheapening the articles he consumes, than by our
stimulating the trade which gives him wages and employ-
ment." I advance upon that argument, and I say, there-
fore, that the true representative of the working man is in
every wise legislator who stimulates trade, who strength-
ens credit, who exalts the standard of society, in which
the working man rises with every step that raises the
common interest of us all. (Hear, hear.) I say that he has
a true representative in every profound lawyer who renders
justice more accessible; in every enlightened philanthro-
pist, who ameliorates the condition of humanity ; nay, in
every naval or military officer whose professional science
suggests sounder defences, not only fur the land we inhabit,
but for the prof action of the commerce which employs the
millions, and which rises or fills with the honour of the
flag that is only the safeguard of our wealth, because it is
the symbol of our power. (Cheers.) But, are hese the kind
of representatives the working classes would generally pre-
fer if they were the great majority of electors ? I say boldly,
No. (Hear.) For even in u nrerica, where education is far
more equally diffused than it is svith us, it is the common
complaint that such are not the kind of representatives they
prefer. Just hear what is said on that score by an Ameri-
can toldre,is;ng his fellow citizens—not a political malcon-
tent declaiming on a popular hustings, but a man of high
e lucation (fir. Poherty), calmly addressing the literary
societies of Lafayette College, and the title of his lecture is
" Fears for th-_, future of tl Republic." After stating, as
a well-known fact, that the more respectable citizens even
of the commercial and indust:al classes will tell you that
they " scosa to mix in politics, their time can be better
employed," he bees on to say, "Thus, the vast machinery
of this huge republic in all its departments is for the most
part left to the control o bands of men who make politics a
trade—men who laugh at integrity, are insensible to patriot •
ism, are regardless of intellect, who hate the man who tells
the truth and will not cringe to them, and love the one who
lowest bends, yet ckeats them in the end. Surely it is of
vital importance to the wellbeing of a State that its Legis-
lature reflect the wishes of the people ; yet there are those
who legislate for the diffsrent States e; the Arne' ican Con-
federacy who arc unable to read, much less to frame a sta-
tut 3 ; who know nothing of our past history, present wants,
or future prospoets ; who are ignorant of the constitution,
and would not dare to fill the huufak of clerkships, yet
occupy seats in legislative halls. But their ignorance is
their least fault. Cerruption swarms around each
Capitol, daring the pee and defying the power of out-
raged constituencies ; legislatiox is bought and sold. 'Within
a year it has ,we to light that in one of the vigorous
States of the 'West the majority of the Legislature, with
many of the State officers, in violation of their oaths and of
honour, were purchased each for a given price. Better fur
us and for our posterity, better for our peace at home, our
character abroad. that the Legislature of Pennsylvania
should meet but once in 10 years than that the State should
be disgraced by such representatives and dishonoured by
such laws." (Cheers.) Yet those are the sort of repre-
sentatives whom the majority of the working classes elect,
mainfluenced by that aristocracy to whom the hon. member
for Birmingham ascribes all the evils we endure. (Hear.)
So much for America. Now look to England. Let me
ask who in our time has been the man who has had the
largest share of the especial confidence of the working
classes ? Not the hon. 'member for Bir:uingham—(hear,
hear)—but Dlr. Feargus O'Connor. (Hear, hear.) And is
there any member present who would say that at this mo-
ment the interests of the...working classes arc not better re-
, presented in this house by such gentlemen as I have de-
scribed, and whom we may recognise wherever wa turn our
eyes, than they would be if they could turn this house into
a synagogue of Feargus O'Connors ? (Laughter and
cheers.) But this bill is to amend the representation. How
will it do that? Will it make the House of Commons
wiser? 'Will it make our councils more enlightened? Will
it increase the knowledge, the integrity, the pecuniary in-
dependence, and the mental discipline without which we
should have no strength in public opinion if we ever had to
protect our freedom against an able tyrant and a standing
army? We read in that masterly contribution to our his-
tory which Mr. Forster has just published that when
Charles I. attempted illegally to seize five members of this
house all London rang with cries of " Parliament I" " Pri-
vilege I" and why ? Because at that moment this houso
represented property, station, and knowledge, as well as
patriotism and valour, and, therefore, it had strength in
public opinion. But a few years later Cromwell expelled
all the members and locked up the house itself; and there
were then no cries of "Parliamentary privileges I" (Hear,
hear.) There was scarcely a murmur heard out of doors.
Why was that? Because the house was but a Rump Par-
liament. It had ceased to represent property, station, and
knowledge; and, therefore, it had no strength in public
opinion, though its large majority were stanch Reformers—
nay, they were actually discussing a new Reform Bill, not
very different from that of the hon. member for Birming-
ham, at the very moment when Cromwell and his pilsemen
entered. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) Is there any gen-
tleman here who will tell us he expects to return to Parlia-
ment a wiser man—a sadder man, perhaps, he may be—
when he knows he has ceased to represent property, staticn,
and knowledge, and has become the delegate of the poorest
householder in the borough he represents. (Hear, hear.)
But how will this measure improve the constituent body ?
When that guntion wins asked in the debates on the gre,t
Reform Bill, the answer of the reformers was crustiinx. Yo s
hen got rid of the boroughmenger, who eoid his borough,
and the potwalloper, who sold'his vote ; and your substitute;
were trade, commerce, manufactures—that combination of
various interests which is found in the middle ranks of so-
ciety, which cannot he called a class, because it contains all
classes, from the educated gentleman to the skilled al tiean
—(hear, hear)—and which, therefore, does represent a high
average of the common sense of the common interest.
(Cheers.) You then did not merely extend the frenchise.
To use the
feu words,xal
t I
ed think,t of the late Lord Grey, ",you
purified,
constituency." (Hear,' hear.)
ee
But when you are asked, " How does the little Reform Bill
purify and exalt the constitueraey,7 what. will youjanewer ?
(Coutiaued. 41 our fourth. page.)