The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-23 00:00:00

as far as was proposed by thrrbill, he thought they had
better not attempt to legislate at all. No measure short of
that of the noble lord would at all meet the exigencies of
the case. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WIIITESIDE observed that in 1782 Pitt said he
could not venture to touch the ark of the constitution with
unhallowed hands, and Mr. Fox remarked that if all the
wise men in the world met in solemn conclave they could.
not frame a perfect constitution. He (Mr. Whiteside) was
inclined to that opinion. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member
for Halifax said there was an apathy on the subject of the
Reform Bill, and accounted for it on this principle—that the
English people had become "rigid philosophers." But he
(Mr. Whiteside) believed that whenever the English people
felt deeply they expressed themselves strongly. (Hear,
hear.).
,Tf they approved of this Reform Bill they would
speak out unmistakeably on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Birmingham said the bill was intro-.
duced in accordance with a promise made by the noble lord
(Lord J. Russell) when he sat on the Opposition side of the
house.

➢lr. BRIGHT—I did not say he introduced the bill on
that account. (Order.)

Mr. WHITESIDE said the words of the hon. gentle-
men were, that the bill was introduced in redemption of a
pledge given by the noble lord when he was on the Opposi—
tion side of the house. That was substantially the state-
ment made by the hon. member. (Hear, hear.) Now, a
worse argument than that could not be adduced. He (Mr.
Whiteside) admitted it to be a fact that the noble lord,
when on the Opposition side of the house, threw out a hint
as to what a reform bill ought to be; but now the hon.
member for Birmingham had informed the house that they
bill was brought forward in redemption of a pledge. Was
that an argument to justify the introduction of the bill ?
The right hon. member the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster said the Government could not succeed in re-

taining the confidence of their Supporters if they brought
in a bill which conferred a lesser extension of the franchise.
(Hear, hear.) Now, the confidence of the house meant the
confidence of the majority. But did this prove that the bill
was a good one ? It Was the duty of enlightened statesmen.
not to pander to the prejudices of the majority, but to intro-
duce such measures as would be conducive to the permanent
welfare of the country. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentle-
man who spoke last gave the house a specimen of statistical
rhetoric, from which it might be inferred that, in his opinion,
the interests of the whole of Great Britain and Ireland were
concentrated in Leeds. (Laughter.) When the right hon.
gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire spoke of the
homogeneous mass of persons that were to be added to the
electoral body, the hon. member who spoke last imagined
that they would be' all plasterers. (Laughter.) The hon.
member for Carlisle—who was a chip of the old block—(a
laugh)—said- the ballot was said to be unfit for small
boroughs, and was cet tainly not so applicable to them as to
large ones, 'but in the supplementary Reform Bill which
must follow, the small boroughs would be extinguished.
The lion. member for Birmingham said that the transfer
of seats was the pith and marrow of every Reform Bill,
but that the measure before the house did not settle, but
unsettled that question. According to high Parliamentary
authority, then, they were about to unsettle everything
and to settle nothing—a piece of statesmanship that did.
infinite credit to these hon. gentlemen who occupied seats

on the Treasury bench. The hon. member -for Bir-
mingham went further, and declared that it was impos-
sible the question of reform could remain permanently
where it, was about to be placed by this bill. The old
doctrine, then, of finality was exploded, and one Reform

Bill was only regarded as valuable because it led further
change. Would the hon. member for Birmingham permit
him to ask was his principle to reform the constitution or
to reconstruct it ? If he desired to reconstruct, then his
task was not one or reform, but of revolution, and he (Mr.
Whiteside) declined to argue the question with him.
(Hear, hear.) When the hon. member announced that the
population of England was six or seven millions, and that
only one million were voters, what did he mean by that
argument ? Did he .mean by that to infer that the rest
should be admitted to Ile enjoyment and exercise of the
franchise? At what time did the English constitution re-
cognise the sovereignty of the people? At no time. To
argue that the masses should be admitted to the franchise
was to argue against law, against the history of England,
and the principles of the constitution. They had made
improvements in steamboats and' railways, but they were
!surpassed in political wisdom by the abnormis sayentia of
their ancestors. He should like to know whether a£B

voter, such as was now proposed, could discharge the duties
which the elector discharged in former times. There was
no instance on record of men being repreiented because of
their numbers. Were hon. gentlemen opposite going to ad-
mit the working classes to the franchise because they were
working classes? The only ground, for admitting them waa
that of their having an independent will, sufficient property,
loyalty, and political capacity. It did not matter in that
case how numerous they were. The more the better. No
proof, not an iota, had been adduced to show that those
bodies of the working classes possessed that political capa-
city. The hon. member for Birmingham had spoken of the
admirable workmanship of the artisans of Manchester, but
at present they were net seeking for a good stonemason or
plasterer, but for persons who had political capacity. As a
proof of the state of feeling among the working classes of
the metropolis, be referred to a pamphlet by Mr. Potter,
secretary to the trades unions. He did not think that the
employers of these men would got their votes if they had
them. In the pamphlet iu question the writer spoke of the
want of courtesy on the part of the masters to the men whcP
waited on them, cf their conduct as being tyrannical over
individuals and insulting to the whole body. It they went
on to speak of the conduct of the masters during the strike,
and that nothing remained for the workmen but the right
of combination in order to compel the masters to give
them the same pay for nine as for ten hours' work.
(Hear, hear.) That, the workmen said, was their political
economy. The writer went on to attribute the soul and
body crushing effect of toil to the failure of mechanics' in-
stitutes, as well as the small number of workmen who had
risen to a better poSition, compared with those who had
given no more proof of spiritiml or political capacity than
the brutes that perished. Ought they to give political
power to such men ? In mercy to the men ,themselves,
they should refuse them a power which they admitted they
wore not qualified to exercise. In another pamphlet, en-
titled " Trades' Union Strikes; their Philosophy and In-
tentions," from which he read several extracts, it was con-
tended that labour might be stolen by the predatory capi-
talist, and several false ideas of the relationship between
master and workmen were put forward. These men said
that they would persevere until they succeeded in obtain-
ing the nine hours movement. This was the result of this
great organisation amongst the working classes. The right
hon. gentleman then went on to quote further extracts from
the work, to show that the best men of the workingclasses
were identified in the views to which he had already ad-
verted ? The theory of these views was this—that they
did not seem to sympathise with the hon. members for Bir-
mingham (Mr. Bright) or Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), and he
(Mr. Whiteside) wished to ask the house how it was justi-
fied in transferring so much political power to a class of
men who entertained the notions which were here enun-
ciated. Did hon. members read the proceedings which
had taken place in the American Assembly, and which
had appeared in the journals that day ? There an eminent
orator showed that a minority of slave owners had suc-
ceeded.in getting rid of every law of the country to pro-
mote their-own selfish object. If such had been done in
that country, the institotions of which were so much ad-
mired by the hon. member for Birmingham, what might
not be effieted by an organised minority in this country
having the same purposel'in view ? (Hear.) He was
sorry the hon. member for Birmingham was not in his
place to hear this. He was seldom so at the right
time. (Laughter.) Looking then at the measure before
the house as it stood, he asked why was it that they were
asked to make this jump in the dark ? (Hear.) The late
Sir Robert Peel, in legislating en the Catholic question, said
they could not gbvern a country with a large body of free-
holders.
The Irish.4oB. freeholders were not an immoral
body of men, but they were ignorant, and in their ignorance '
they would have got rid of church, law, and property. He
then got rid of the 40s. freehold system, and raised the
franchise to .ElO. That franchise was subsequently altered
to a £l2 rating clause in counties, and an £8 rating clause
in boroughs and cities. The Attorney-General for Ireland,
however, proposed now to change that rating to a lower
sum, although the alteration was not asked for by a "tra-
velling, tinker or a loquacious barber." (Laughter.) He
could not comprehend what was the nature of the bill be-
fore them; but he trusted the house would consider it
calmly ; and he was sure that Parliament would listen to

any suggestions that could be made for its improvement,
by which the constitution of England would be secured to •
the people in all its purity and integrity.
Mr. EDWIN JAMES moved the adjournment of the
debate.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he was ready to go or. with the
debate, but as the house seemed disposed to adjourn it, h•
would not interfere with the wishes of the house.

Lord PALMERSTON, in'reply to Mr. DISRAELI, said
that in all probability it would be better at once to move

that the debate bo'adfourned until Monday.
It was accordingly adjourned to that day.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS (No. 3) BILL (LORDS).
This bill passed through committee.
__

The Con;olidated Fund (£850,000) Bill was read a second
time.

The house then adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock. .-

BIRTHS.
CusT.—On the 22d inst. at 13, Eccleston-square, the Lady
Elizabeth Cust, of a daughter.
FORDYCE.—On the 21st inst., at 7, Dacre-park-terrace,
Blackheath, the wife of Colonel Fordyce; Bengal H.A.,
of a son.
PAGET.—On the 20th inst., at Stuston Rectory, Scole, the
Hon. Mrs. Edward Paget, of a son.
TYSSEN.—On the 15th inst.. at Yarmouth, the wife of Com-
mander Tyssen, R.N., of a daughter.
MARRIAGES.

GOLDSMITH—BULLEN.—On the 20th- inst., at Charlton'
Kent, Henry P! Goldsmith, Esq., to Ellen, the eldest
daughter of Richard Bullen, Esq., and niece of the late
Admiral Sir Chas. Bullen, G.C.8., G.C.H.
SYnEs—COOPER.—On the 20th inst., at All Saints', Nor-
wood, Nicholas Richard Sykes, Esq., to Catherine Eliza-
beth, second daughter of the late Richard W. Cooper,
Esq., of Longford Ledge, Kingstown, co. Dublin.

DEATHS.
BALFOITR.—On the 20th inst., at Pilrig House, Edinburgh
James Balfour, Esq., W.S., aged 87.
BoucliEn.--On the 20th inst., John Boucher, Esq., of Bel-
ford Lefl7e, Clapham-road.
CAMPBELL —On the 20th inst., at 10, Houghton-place,
Ampthill-square, Robert Campbell, Esq., aged 82.
FOTHERINGHAM.—On the 19th inst., at Kingsbridgo
House, Southampton, Lieut.-Col. Robert 11. Fothering-
ham, aged 82.
;.(
PHILLIPS.—On the 19th inst., at 67, Oakley-square, N.W.,
William Lovell Phillips, R.A.M., aged 43.
TYSSEN.—On the 21st inst., at Yarmouth, Eleanor Mar-
garet, wife of Commander Tyssen, R.N., aged 39.

LONDUN Printei and Punished by MURDO YOUNG
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the mat/ ° f
511641e5a, Friday, March 23, 1860.