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

NINO' APRIL 27, 1860.

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
been the trustees of this infant constituency, it would surely
be well if we could render accounts to the 'wed 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 •
dente with a very dark page in history that the appeal to
numbers should be simultaneous with a deficit which ire
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 I" 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 cbtain 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 them, 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 conceded 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 committee
instead of 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 wore.
Mr. DENMAN said he cordially, fn the main, approved
of the bill, and thanked the Government for bringing it
forward. lie 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 en 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
gentleman m
a shouldd
made
to
defeathv ereferred
the
bill
of h
i 83
has indulged, and the attempts to show that wild democracy
have is about to overspread the land, are exactly those which I
w 2 satisfactionow h
surprises
irp t o r the
I iee
efforts a
heard made 30 years ago. (Hear, hear.) But that the hon.
h
me, for it is notorious that, since the passing that bill,
the most useful measur • •
es of legislation have from time to
time been adopted. (Hear.) Our municipal corporations
have been subjected to legitimate popular control • the
question, which led to continual bickering b tithe
s
clergy and their congregations, has been sa7tisfaeettweeriLln sthee
tied ; we have utterly abolished slavery in the Wesetiest-
we have completely altered the tenure of ourlndian empire;
wo have by the adoption of free-trade measures, which
am persuaded an unreformed Parliament would never have
passed—(h ear)—inereased the wealth of the country. I will
riot refer to statistical returns to allow how unparalleled
that increase has Bean, 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 On-
stantly kept has been removed. Tn 1817 the Governmene of
the day proposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act,
in consequence of the prevalence of dangerous conspiracies.
In 1819 they proposed six different measures of severe Co-
ercion to suppress the people, who were then believed to
be aiming at the destruction of the Crown and the institu-
tions of the country. (Hear, hear.) In 1830, not long be-
fore the Reform Bill was introduced, any one who travelled
through the country at night might have seen fires blazing
in the etackyards 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 durirg thz 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 the it of loyalty and content-
ment ; and the people, whether it lac the artisans of our ma-
nufacturing cities, or whether it bes 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 a fter 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, havenever taken
the pains to reconcile the provisions of the bill with their
alarm, or 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 produced 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 28,000 who have the right of voting; 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 be 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 are 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
LlO 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 arc 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 Marylebone. 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 right of
voting to householders who might represent the ancient
right of voting. I heard the hon. and learned member for
Dorsetshire—to whom the hon. 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
Glanville ; and the report oithat 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 me ushers 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 scot 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 frauchise—that great numbers
of them were not substantial 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 ascertained
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 toy low that would be an error which could
net 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 of this debate on the other side of the home,
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 er £7 franchise;
but they objected to this particular franchise which does in-
troduce a great number of the working classes. Therefore
I soy—and I can come to no other conclusion, and that is a
powerl
f
ctfeir‘
vfoefel alrattilsahlhmsultiyeelsseistvhs(l
were
classes?
TieatolebhirNorirokt(ee members.
snni
di
'Theye.
apparent.
odoesg
Trciat‘bool_hanheapnul
eddiseloirnos
rsnge:faNletini
Edinburgh
eeliheoin
idweeeat
aes(iblinretlsse.
shmtihtrnho:
et;oenf,
iger,
eiecd,errhibGontEsmefuaoptgs,
Edinburgh
speeches
eelt anohficcinsebhsothe:auire'obtypi
rssanoelpginnatid.
very serious conclusion to come to—that a spirit of distrust
t
t
n
t
ietdaih(he'
teco‘
that
yrNlhht
eoi
aseseouvptesor;
speeches
impres-
sion.
ought
cf)bghi ruhetlre-
fuge in which the working classes might be allowed to vote
some-
thing of that kind might be allowed, although he did not
not to trust the franchise to the working classes—(cheers,
ihsscerso, oeersatsfliayhwio gentlemenof
l'
oppo-
site.ca

and no, no)—and that they ought not to be generally ad-
mitted to it. Well, let us look at what the right hon. gen-
tle-in-an the membe-r 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, howeveT, 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 t'2e 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 o
the borough franchise and the introduction of the workini
classes by lowering the franchise in boroughs, and by actim_
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 on 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. He
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 lealer 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 from 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 thy; 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 ever 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 thehullion 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 unsound, 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 admit therefore, that
if you seek to make people in general, be they £6 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 far
Edinburgh in thinking the cllnsfituency 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 common error to suppose that
they are always in a state of discontent, either with the in-
stitutions of the country or with the 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 moistly 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] be 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 member s ; 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 less 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,
or 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 those
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 one 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 Rill 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 N ery
little alteration in the character of the representation. (A
Voice—" Bravo 1" ) The general frame of tho represeno-
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 31854, that those boroughs, being no'. merely nomi-
nationboreughs and having a certain number of elpctors, and
often vdiy independent electors, there would be such a resist-
ance on the part of the representatives of those boroughs as,
joined to the objections of the Censer-at:dive 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-
Okkeineftt of 60 or 70 seats, ad proposed in 1854, how are

they to he distributed ? We proposed in 1844, that a great
number—l think 47 or 48—should bo 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, wit!! retard 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, inhabiting houses for which they pay rents and rates,
and in which they have had certain length of residence. A
proportion of these are not working then, 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 jor
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 en this
subject altogethei. (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—(hear, 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 Rill could be settled at any time, and the cense-
quente was it was settled in the midst of agitation. Who
will assure you that events not 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, ani 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 ori 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; for 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 mea-
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 safely on this question
her Majesty's Government has introduced this Reform
Bill. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking-
hamshire told you last year that it wo.a right to admit 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. DISRAELI—You have not read the extract cor-
rectly.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I have read every word of the pas-
sage.

DISRA.ELI—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 xel 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 promise
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.