The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-05 00:00:00

which-they have introduced and in the time of introducing
it, the character of the house is also implicated by the mode
in which they deal with that measure. (Hear, hear.) Now,
sir, there are two different questions which arise ; first,
with regard to the substance of the measure, and next,with
regard to the time in which we propose now to proceed with it
in committee. With regard to the substance of the measure
I will only mention one point, but it is that point on which
during the second reading almost all objection rested, and
upon which the description of its being a measure
destructive of property, giving ignorance power over intel-
ligence, tending to confusion in the state, was based.
What I speak of is the borough franchise:; and that fean-
chise, without now mentioning particularly the rate at
which it is proposed to be placed, is intended to be conferred
with a view, certainly, of giving more power in the repre-
sentation of this house to the working classes. (Hear, hear.)
To that proposition two objections of different kinds have
been made. It must be admitted, I think,;without entering
into what was done in 1g32, that at the present time very
few persons belonging to the working classes have the right
to vote. An hon. gentleman, at present the membertor the
West Riding, stated in the course of our discussion in the
past year, that though he had many men in his employment
of great intelligence, householders of good character and
great respectability, in whom he entirely confided, not one
of those men had a right to vote. Other statements have
been made by other hon. gentlemen of a similar kind. Well,
then, is it the objection that some of the working classes
should be admitted to the franchise, or is it the objection
that this bill would give such a power to the working
classes, that they would overwhelm the rest of the consti-
tuency, and thereby have an undue influence over property?
(Opposition cheers.) With regard to the first objection, I
should say that so long ago as 1852 the right hon. gentleman
the member for Bucks said he wan pleased--I do not quote
from "Hansard," but I have it perfectly from memory—
he said he was pleased that I admitted that the working
classes ought to have the franchise. Again, when we were
discussing the measure last year, the proposition whichwas
made by me to the late House of Commons, and which was
carried by a majority, was in the first place that the trans-
fer of the freeholders' votes from counties to boroughs
ought not to be made, and in the next place that the bill
did not contain a reduction in the borough franchise ; that
is to say, the objection was that there was not an admission
of the working classes by the hill. Well, parliament was dis-
solved upon that vote and the government returned here.
The righthon. gentleman the member for Bucks stated on
a former occasion that the Government to which he be-
longed and of which he was the leader, had made up its
mind that there should be a reduction in the borough fran-
chise, and that he was prepared to assent to a reduction,
accompanied with such provisions as would guard the safety
of our institutions. The right hon. gentleman spoke, and
I hope he still speaks, as the organ of the great party oppo-
site. I have seen it stated, I have seen it in print, that the
right hon. gentleman has no longer the confidence of that
groat party. (Murmurs from the opposition.) I will state
where I have seen it. I have seen it in the periodical which
k supposed to be the organ of the Conservative party, the
Q earterly Review. I was happening to be coming to town,
end I real in the Quarterly Review great abuse of my
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was
not surprised at that. There was also great ['false of myself,
and a number of motives were invented for me by this ob-
scure writer. That I was not surprised at either. But as
I went on to read I was very much surprised, for I found
this organ of the Conservative party declare the right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks, for certain faults im-
puted to him, unworthy of the confidence of the Conserva-
tive party. (Cries of "No, no," from the opposition.) I
quite agree with that expression of dissent from that opi•
nion because the right hon. gentleman has won his way to
the high position which he holds—(cheers from both sides
ef the house)--by great ability in the conduct of public affairs,
and whenever it has been his fortune to pass from that side
of the house to this and to lead the house, his conduct in the
management of those affairs showed that he was fully qua-
lified to conduct the business of the country. Therefore I
am taking note of the opinion of the right hon. gentleman
as still possessing the confidence of the grea conservative
party. (Cheers from the opposition.) Well then, I say,
with regard to the question whether or no any of the
working classes should have the franchise, and whether
there should be a reduction of the borough franchise for that
purpose, we have not only the affirmation of the liberal ma-
jority of the last Parliament, but we have the consent and
tho co-operation of the right hon. gentleman the organ of
the party which was lase) ear in office. The present Govern-
ment have introduced a bill which they. thought did not
carry the franchise lower than it ought to be placed. You
may decide if we have had too mach confidence, too much
Lush, in the working classes whose houses are at a moderate
rant. That you may say, but that is not a question of prin-
ciple—that is a question of degree; and, indeed, if you dis-
sented altogether from the reduction of the franchise, it is
quite clear you ought to have opposed the second reading of
the bill. (Hear, hear.) You did not do so; and therefore I
conclude that you are ready to consider the question of the
reduction of the franchise. Therefore I am justified, I think,
in asking both sides of the house to go into committee, be-
cause, the principle beixg admitted, the question is to what
degree the principle should be carried. After due delibera •
tion we have proposed the franchise which is in the bill. I
have heard many objections to that franchise. I have heard
it stated that it would in effect overwhelm property and in-
telligence. That again is a question for the committee. This
I will say, that if you will propose any measure that has
been mentioned this evening, either by raising the fran-
chise by making it a rating instead of a rental franchise, or
by raising the amount of rental, or in another way which
has been mentioned this evening, by admitting a great num-
ber of voters who are distinguished by the possession of pro-
perty or a high degree of knowledge rather than as belonging
to the working classes—any propOsition of this kind shall
be fairly considered by us in committee, axd I certainly will
not take the course of saying that we are completely wedded
i n our opinion to the franchise that we have proposed. I
think if we fairly agree in committee to a franchise that the
house should prefer, it will then be our duty to say whether
we think the bill, with such an alteration, would be a valu-
able bill, and to declare, though we might not think it a
change for the better, whether we could adopt it. I will
not speak, there is no necessity to speak, of other parts of
the bill. There is no necessity to speak of the county fran-
chise. I will only say that I think we are in a position to
go into committee on the bill todec de that important ques-
tion. If you object altogether to a reduction of the franchise
it was your duty to have opposed the second reading, ?end
to have refused altogether to refer the matter OA com-
mittee; but having agreed that the second reading should
pass without opposition, it is now the duty of the house to
consider in committee what are the particular propositions
which the Government have to make. Well, now I will
take the first objection which is made in regard to the fran-
chise, and that is an objection which an hon. friend of mine
is about to rake by moving "that in order to obtain a safe
and effective reform it would be inexpedient and unjust to
proceed further with the proposed legislative measure for
the representation of the people until the house has be-
fore it the results of the census, authorised by the bill
now under consideration." Now, I must say that,
without imputing any desire to cause delay, I cannot re-
concile that motion with any wish to have a bill for the
extension of the franchise. (Cheers.) It -would be three
years before the census would be before the house in an
authoritative form, and it is proposed that for three years
we should not go into this question—that whatever may
be the circumstances, whatever the demand, however
;strong the feeling may be, there shall be no amend-
-Inent in the representation of the people for three
years. And now with regard to the borough franchise.
One may say that the objections to the borough and the
county franchise comprise all the objections to the bill.
During the six nights' debate on the second reading those
were the objections that were raised. And how does the
census of 1851 bear upon these objections ? We have re-
turne—you find fault with them, but we have returns up to
the year 1858—which do not depend on the census of 1851,
but on the rate-books for the year 1858, and you might have
them to a later period. Therefore, the main question in
dispute has nothing to do with the census of 1851, and this
amendment is a mere evasion—it is a mere putting off on a
very hollow pretence that which is the question before the
house. (Cheers, and " No.") Can any man contradict me ?
Neither the £6 borough nor the £lO county franchise is in
any way affected by the census. You may say that the £6
holder is too poor, that he is ignorant, and will be bribed,
but when you have got the new census you will be no wiser
as to the character of the £6 and the £lO voter. There is
only one part of the bill that it does affect, that relating to
the distribution of seats. We have taken a certain num-
ber of seats from boroughs with a population under 7,000,
not because the number of 7,000 was absolutely and geo-
metrically and arithmetically necessary in order to entitle
a borough to return two members, any more than in the
bill of last year the number of 6,000 was, in the opinion of
the late Government, necessary to return two members; but
have taken the boroughs at the bottom of the scale, and
have. aid it was desirable that places with a large popula-
-140 11 which are now insufficiently represented should have
senomtietleodf the members which the smaller boroughs are now
urn. There might a transposition of one
or two otfo rethoset bor be
oughs, but no one can alter their posi-
tion. They are the boroughs which have the smallest po-
pulation, and have the
up 5o
esra smallest importance. It may be that
one borough has gone
and another gone down 500,
and if we wait till the year 1863 we shall arrive at the fact
as regards the one borough or the other; but as regards
the material interests of the country, as regards the
great question of representation, it has' no importance.
I have made all the observations that I wished to offer on
this question as on a question affecting the
charaeteeprroefstehnet house, and not as saying thafterthwear objections opponents
Government were bringing to the bill
for purposes of delay. (Hear.) If hon,
gentlemen opposite
say, "Here is a dangerous and a revolutionary bill, which
we do not think it our duty to entertain," i believe that the
but
they public might think that opinion hasty,
would at
all events regard it as sinoere. If, however, they say say that,
though they have already entertained the bill and given it
a second reading, they • will not proceed with it any farther,
alleging the paltry pret(mce that in three years they would
have more information. as to the amount of population in
certain boroughs, then 3say that nobody will believe them.
(Cheers.) I now come' to the other excuse, which I have
seen made for not proceeding with the measure, viz., that we
have arrived at the ,7;10, and that it is too late to cuter