The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-20 00:00:00

try, possessing a complicated system of taxation and a social
life, we are bound in our national Legislature to repre-
sent all the classes, and all the interests of the country, and
all those national traditions and prescriptions which are the
source of our power and the basis of our social organisation ;
and in England, while you have a represen,Aive assembly
elected upon those conditions, and upon that method, inas-
much as you have in this country the most powerful social
organisation in the world, you have a fir ,t-rate representa-
tive assembly. You have the House of Commons. (Hear.)
No one, I imagine, pretends that the existing borough sys-
tem of parliamentary representation was invented to obtain
those results ; but that borough system which secures the
distribution of parliamentary representationamongst all in-
terests has been preserved and cherished by the country be-
cause they found the ancient machinery in operation, and
because also they found that it did produce these results.
I can perfectly understand the principle which the hon.
member for Birmingham, and others who take the same
view, advocate, and which so alarms the country, for I know
that their object is to substitute the American principle of
making numbers alone the basis of representation. But
those who act upon the English principle must be im-
pressed with very different considerations ; and all they
can do in reference to the redistribution of seats is this,
that when they find new and powerful interests have risen
up which are not duly represented, then, following the
example of their predecessors, not merely parliamentary
precedent, but the conduct of the sovereign in the exercise
of the royal prerogative, they will entertain measures for
calling those new interests into the representation ; and as
it is the custom of the country, long settled, that the mem-
bers constituting the representative assembly should not be
increased, this was the mildest course presumed, to deprive
the least important of the existing boroughs in some degree
of the power of representation which they possess. The
true principle then, as I contend, to meet these wants in the
representation, arising from the claims of new interests, is
that which was adopted by the late Government, in their
bill of last year—(hear, and oh)—viz., that of calling
upon some of the least important boroughs to contribute
the means by which the desired result csu be obtained.
(Hear, hear.) But, sir, the noble lord carries his point
either too far or not far enough. (Hear.) If the present
borough system is in his mind so indefensible as the hon.
member for Birmingham and those who are in favour of the
American principle represent it to be, he should have made
a great advance ; but if, on the other hand, his principle is
the English principle, and he believes that there is no
ground upon which we can disfranchise a borough except
the great state necessity of calling unrepresented interests
into this house, the noble lord has gone much too far.
(Hear, hear.) He ought not to have made enfranchisement
precede disfeanchisement. (Hear, hear.) There are some
boroughs in the north of England whose claim to represen-
tation cannot be denied, but it is no part of our system to
disfranchise boroughs in the north without enfranchising
others in the south, for we considered that it was our duty,
and in accordance with the constitution, that we should
study distribution of power throughout the whole country.
There were one or two counties where the representation
was ludicrously inadequate, for there were large interests of
a different and contrary character. There were immense
districts in the West Riding extending over 70 miles whose
interests, being agricultural, were different from those of
another portion of the same county, where manufacturing
industry was teeming, and it was advisable, therefore, that
those interests, which were not adequately represented
should be called into the councils of this house. But the
noble lord goes past that. I object to this system on two
grounds. First, he has acted upon a complete fallacy in es-
tablishing what I may venture to call accumulative mem-
bers for places already represented. Now, I want to know
from the Government upon what principle they have so
acted ? You do not act upon that principle in the electoral
body. If a man has £lOO,OOO a year he has only one vote,
and upon very good grounds, for we know that, although
the man has a large fortune, and you give him only the
same vote as the humblest dweller in a £lO tenement,
he has still an indirect influence on the community, which
asserts itself and sufficiently protects his property. (Hear,
hear.) Why should you do that for Manchester or Bir-
mingham which you do not do for the wealthy individual ?
Members are sent here to represent the opinions of places,
and not the power of places. Supposing the interests of
Manchester were assailed, does anybody suppose that they
would only be defended by the two respectable representa-
tives who now sit in this house for that important constitu-
ency ? Not at all. We know that there would be scores and
scores of members, not confined to one side of the house who
would support the interests of Manchester, and therefore I
wholly disapprove of this principle as perfectly unconstitu-
tional, and as changing the character of the house. Be
cause, if representation is to be meted out according to
population and property, you will soon have very few places
indeed represented in this house, and representation would
finally be confined to the large manufacturing and commer-
cial cities and to the large counties. I admitthat in the Re.
form Bill of 1832 you did confer upon some counties a third
member. But I believe the circumstances under which that
was done cannot be drawn into a precedent, but even if it
were a precedent—as, perhaps, I shall be told—it is a very
bad one. In the Reform Bill of 1832 it was necessary to in-
crease the county members. There were some counties
which exceeded the number of voters which authorised
the conferring of two members, and yet did not reach that
number which permitted division ; and this plan of giving
a third member in such cases was consequently had recourse
to. But some of those counties, we know, now reach the
amount of population which would justify a division, andit
appears to me that it would be better to divide them than
to continue this plan of accumulative members, which can-
not be defended, and which is entirely opposed to the spirit
of the constitution. But there is another ground equally
objectionable. It appears it is the practice—the happy
practice of the constitution, that almost every class, and al-
most every great interest and every great institution is re-
presented, and though it is the happy practice of the con-
stitution that in that sense the minority may be represented,
still I think that when a constituent body is formed, the
majority ought to decide, and the minority in that
sense ought to have no claim. It is the custom of the
country, and that is a very strong reason—(hear, hear)—
but beyond that the principle is based upon all our consti-
tutional precedent and practice, and it appears to me to be
a principle that can also be upheld upon the soundest and
wisest political reasons—even abstractedly. (Cheers.) The
noble lord in 1854 proposed that the minority should be
directly represented in this house. In my opinion a more
unconstitutional course could not have been suggested, for
there is only one way by which the minority of a constituent
body can be represented--that is by becoming the majority.
(A laugh.) That is the only way by which it ought to be
represented. (Hear.) The noble lord has proposed, not
directly, but indirectly, to secure a representation to the
minority in the usual places, in some cities and in some
counties. I entirely object to that; but it is done, although
indirectly, in this bill, for there are some counties and some
towns to which a third member is added, on that principle.
We have of late years complained of a want of distinct
parties, and a distinct principle in this house. So far as I
can learn that is a want that will very shortly disappear.
(A laugh.) I think we shall soon have distinct parties and
distinct principles for all sides. (Hear, hear.) But if any-
thing could be devised which could introduce into this
house a timid temporising spirit it is the political and par-
liamentary machinery that recognises the representation of
a minority of the constituent body in Parliament. A want
of conviction and a want of energy in public life would be
the inevitable consequence, and therefore I entirely object
to the second principle the noble lord wishes to establish
by this re-distribution of seats. (Hear, hear.) It appears
to me that the principle of the distribution of seats as the
noble lord applies it is perfectly unsound, that it can satisfy
none of those who are opposed to the English element of
parliamentary life—that it cannot satisfy those who want
to re-construct the English House of Commons upon the
American principle—while at the same time it fatally
alters the only sound principle on which the disfranchise-
ment of boroughs ought to be permitted, viz., that of
conferring representation on interests not already repre-
sented. I have adverted to the three principles of the noble
lord's bill. Now what is the course we ought to take in
respect to the measure ? That is the question. (Cheers.)
It is a very bad measure. (" Oh !" laughter, and cheers.)
That, I think, is the universal opinion in regard to it.
(" Oh !" and cheers.) In point of fact I believe I do not
know more than two individuals who perfectly approve of
it—viz., the noble lord the Secretary and the member for
Birmingham. (Hear.) And this I must say, that the
member for Birmingham, with that candid audacity which
greatly neutralises the pernicious opinions he expresses and
the dangerous course he pursues, has already told us that
no sooner does the bill pass than heshallagitate the country
in order to obtain a much more extensive change. (Cheers.)
But, if we reject this bill on the second reading, we know
what will be said—it will be said by the noble lord, " You
are against parliamentary reform—you are against extend-
ing the franchise, which when you were in a responsible
position you yourselves brought in a bill to do." I am not
against extending the franchise ' • but I say, if we are to deal
with the subject at all, I think the franchise might be ex-
tended, and safely extended, in a way upon the whole bene-
ficial to the country. My opinion, so far as I can form an
estimate from the documents in my possession, is that under
the bill of 1859 the franchise would have been more extended ,
than it will be under this bill. Therefore I am not against
extending the franchise if it be necessary, nor am I against
the redistribution of seats if it be necessary that seats should
be redistributed, in order to call into parliamentary repre-
sentation great interests that are not now sufficiently re-
presented. I wish to see whether in counties or boroughs
the constituencies—if it be necessary to enter into the ques-
tion—may not be increased, because I think they
can be increased in a manner which would
strengthen the constitution, and because I think
the means and materials are in existence by which
that object may be attained, and by which the commercial,
the manfacturing, and the working classes in towns might
have an increased power of representing their opinions in
this house, while on the other hand, that due weight and
influence, so important and so necessary to the liberties of
the country,!
of the landed interest, should be fairly and ade-
quately represented. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, so far as the
alleged principle of this bill is concerned I am; not justified
in saying, though I think the application of the principle is
most objectionable, that we ought to reject the bill on the
second reading. (Hear, hear.) We shall have an oppor-
tunity of considering the bill in committee. What will you
do in committee ? That will be deferred to a period that will
enable all parties, high and low, deeply to consider the re-
sponsibility which rests upon those who have to deal with
subjects of such importance. I do not feel called upon now
to intimate what may be done by myself or my friends when
the bill is in committee. I am not at all sure whether I shall
propose anything myself after Easter. I am not sure whether
the responsibility of the measure may not, considering the
circumstances under which it was introduced and projected,
fairly rest with the noble lord stud her Majesty's Govern-
ment. (Hear.) Indeed, if I were to take a limited and a party
view of the consequencos of this bill, it would not be for
the Conservative party that I should feel any very great
that are
toI dboe ndoeth tvh ie
rne kd tohvae tr t
thoe 0
nlOOO
cbl oars os u frhhso
so
ef i En
tne gl a nd
r es
and opinions, and habits are identical—l do not think those
100 boroughs are represented, generally speaking, by mem-
bers of the Conservative party. (Hear, kear.) And,
though it may deprive this house of a vast number of
members who now adorn it, and give to it weight and
responsibility and knowledge, and who, though they do
not sit on the same benches as myself, I should not the less
regret the absence of as a great national calamity, T should
be sorry to see the vast influence and authority of the Whig
party curtailed. It is, I think, one of the best securities for
public liberty and good government in this country that,
when a change takes place in the administration of this
country, power at least is handed over to the party who, on
whichever side of the house they sit, are prepared to exer-
cise that power upon English and not on American prin-
ciples. (Hear, hear.) I think it is something when such
changes take place that power should be handed over to
those who respect the traaitions of the country, and who
will be faithful to its prescriptive claims. Therefore I
should deeply deplore to see this serious blow accomplished
so far as the Whig interest is concerned, and from hands
from which 20 years ago we should not have expected such
a blow to come. (Hear, hear.) I shall, therefore, not op-
pose the second reading ; but I shall be curious, when the
house is in committee on the bill, to see what propositions
will be made to render it, even in the opinion of hon. gen-
tlemen opposite, who have already shown a great disposition
to make amendments, a bill that will net be injurious to the
Country. It has been said of English statesmen that they

were more remarkable for their action than for their pre-
science. I am not 'surprised at that. Man is rather an
active than a contemplative creature. It is the privilege of
most men of ability to be active in details ; but it is the pri-
vilege of very few to have the power of prediction. I think
upon the whole it is better for England that public opinion
in this country should be generally rather in advance of
public men than that it should be the reverse. One result
has been to make this assembly a practical one, and although
occasionally we may have blundered, it is better to blunder
by adhering to an old established system than to blunder by
adopting a new system that has never been tried. (Hear.)
But on this Parliamentary Reform question, I admit that
English statesmen have been much to blame. There can
be no doubt that when the Duke of Wellington was mini-
ster, and before the first Reform Bill, warnings were given
that were unhappily discarded, and opportunities were lost
that might have been seized with great advantage to the
country ; and I take it for granted that the noble lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, remembering that re-
markable instance of want of prescience on the part
of one of the greatest men this country has ever produced,
and the great advantage which was adroitly obtained by the
Whig party in 1832 in consequence, has always been
nervously alive lest he should make the same mistake, and
be deficient in that prescient prudence which a statesman is
always anxious to exhibit. Therefore I believe that when,
10 years ago, the noble lord re-opened this question, he re-
opened it from a sound and honest principle. The house
knows the history of those 10 years. The noble lord has
been in office more or less during that time. He has kept
this question always alive, so that when he was out of of
it would always be taken down out of the armoury of poli-
tics and brandished in the face of a Conservative Ministry.
The time had come when, in our opinion, the question
should be terminated, and we endeavoured to terminate it on
conditions which, I think, are now spoken of more kindly in
the country than when they were first introduced, and which
conditions, if they had been accomplished, would have so-
cured the constitution. But I believe the noble lord was pre-
mature in the measure which he introduced 10 years ago,
and that those who followed him are also, in a certain de-
gree, to blame. Our course was, to a certain degree, in
self-defence, because it was impossible to carry on the Go-
vernment of the country while the question was left un-
settled. , But I do not wish to escape from my share of the
responsibility of that premature conduct. This, however,
may be said in my excuse, and in excuse of the noble lord, and
his successors, and his colleagues, that the time was oppor-
tune if changes were required. The time was opportune to
anticipate political necessities. The country was tranquil and
prosperous ; there was a prospect of foreign tranquillity as
well as of domestic content. What is the condition of things
now ? (Hear, hear.) Is the state of affairs the same as when
the noble lord and his successors endeavoured to deal with
this question? A great military nation, matchless in valour,
with a public organisation more complete than any that has
existed since the days of ancient Rome, abounding in re-
sources of men, money, and military material, and so ena-
moured of glory that it has freely bartered freedom for
fame, no longer conceals its purpose of general empire. So
far as Europe is concerned the prospect is infinitely more
dangerous than it was in thedays of the great monarch. In
the days of Louis XI V. Europe was full of military energy.
Europe now is prostrate and spiritless. As far as England
is concerned the prospect is infinitely more dangerous than
in the days of the French Republic, or in the days of the
old French Empire. France was then our implacable foe;
France is now our unswerving friend. France then menaced
oar hearths ; France now decorates our citizens. France
then harassed our trade by a continental blockade ; France
now facilitates our commercial intercourse by treaties of
commerce. There is nothing now to keep the English people
watchful and awake. Superior to rapine, hardly condescend-
ing to force, France is building up a colossal despotism by
all the advanced arts and artifices of the most decided and
declared liberalism, byuniversal suffrage—(hear)—bysecret
voting—(hear)—by electoral districts. (Cheers.) Will you
never be warned ? (Opposition cheers.) Is this the time
and the condition of affairs when you should attempt feebly,
but in the same track, to imitate those political doctrines
Is this the time when you should still further deviate from
that old, that free, and that aristocratic constitution which
has framed the liberties of Englishmen and secured the
empire of England ? I must say that is not my opinion.
The noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
since the night when he entered into the fatal pledge, when
he sat on this side of the house, which has placed his Go-
vernment in consequence in a position of great embarrass-
ment, has been called upon to preside over an office of the
State very different from that which he then contemplated.
The noble lord is in receipt every day of information re-
specting our foreign affairs which may well make him look
grave, and the perusal of which I think cannot but
teach him that it is a great thing for a Minister if he can
fall back upon the ancient institutions of a country which
have proved by their existence their ability to stem any
storm. (Cheers.) Well, sir, that being the case, I will
not relinquish the hope that before we are summoned to go
into committee, a relieved House of Commons and a grate -
fill people will learn from the noble lord that this unneces-
sary, this uncalled for, and this mischievous measure will
be withdrawn. (Cheers.)
Mr. LEATIIAM considered one of the great merits of
the bill to be its simplicity, and that no attempt had been
made to puzzle them with a variety of franchises. (" Hear,
hear," from Mr. Bright.) One of the great defects of the
bill was the timid and tender way in which her Majesty's
Government proposed to deal with the microscopical con-
stituencies of the country. So chivalrous was the noble
lord that he let every borough in England, however small
and however corrupt, retain its members, and consequently
its power, the same as the gigantic borough of Salford. The
noble lord had told the house that large commercial consti-
tuencies did not send up great statesmen; but the noble
lord himself represented a great constituency, and so did
the noble viscount at the head of the Government, until,
probably for motives of personal convenience, he retired to
Tiverton. The Chancellor of the Exchequer likewise re-
presented a great constituency, and so did the Secretary for
Ireland. It appeared to him (Mr. Leathern), on the contrary,
that great cities and counties vied with each other on that
point, and that if they did not send up any more statesmen
it was
io nt, (m
because there wore.o..bantomm) regrettedoregreats thattatesm totbenele
noble
(Laughter.)
lord should expend all his c0mp...1.” upon the electors of
these small boroughs, and have none for in,,,,dreds of
thousands of electors unrepresented all over the country.
He regretted also that the noble lord should not have dealt
with the great national question in a more statesmanlike
manner than by referring to parliamentary majorities. On
one occasion the noble lord had acted otherwise, and had he
done so on this occasion, though he might have lost the
confidence of the house, he would have won, as he did on
that occasion, the confidence of the country. The noble lord
was misled when he stated that the people of the country
cared nothing for Parliamentary reform ; they were, on
the contrary, narrowly watching the course to be taken by
the house, and though no violent agitation was manifested
in relation to Reform, passions were asleep which it would
not be wise to awake, and powers that the house would not
care to face. He regretted, finally, that her Majesty's Go-
vernment should have taken the course they had done, be-
cause the work which engaged them that day would have
to be recommenced on the morrow—(hear)—and recom-
menced, too, with the arrears of legislation; and he regretted
it all the more, as a great opportunity was thus thrown
away of winning the confidence of the people of the coun-
try—(hear)—of adding a new light to the State, of adding
a new lustre to the Crown, and of adding a glorious contri-
bution to the history of England. (Hear.)
Mr. H. J. B AILLIE could not concur in the advice
given by Mr. Disraeli that the bill should be withdrawn.
On the contrary, lie hoped the time had arrived when the
house would be able to pass a satisfactory and permanent
measure of Parliamentary Reform ; for he thought
that it was far better that our institutions should have a
more democratic basis than that year after year the question
should be bandied from hand to hand, and made an instru•
ment of agitation by the leading statesmen in the house.
One defect in the bill, however, was the retention of small
nomination boroughs, which he regarded as an anomaly in
our representative system ; and he thought that a house-
hold rating franchise would have been preferable to the £6
rental proposed by the bill.
Mr. BAXTER supported the bill, which with all its de-
fects he believed would be a great improvement, and add to
rather than detract from its proposer's fame.
Mr. ROLT took the true principle of the measure to be
the severance of the representation of 'the people from the
property of the country. It was a step towards Ameri-
canising our institutions, and the effects he anticipated from
it he regarded with dismay. Thenceforward the policy
of the Government and the legislation of that house
would be tinctured by the feelings of a class of the popula-
tion lower in education and intelligence than the existing
constituency, and cease to be the reflex of the deliberate
and matured convictions of statesmen and legislators. So
thinking he should give the measure an emphatic " no."
Mr. W. F. CAMPBELL said his opinions were founded
on the merits of the bill itself, and he was not influenced by
party or local ties. The first remark which he had intended
to make had been anticipated by the member for Hudders-
field, who observed that this bill contained no protection
for the voter against illegal influences. He (Mr. Campbell)
would venture to submit to that portion of the house which
was in favour of such protection that if it wore ignored in
such a measure as this, at such a moment, the position of
the question becomes far less hopeful. It was one thing for
the Government to refuse the protection of the ballot when
demanded as an isolated measure, but it was quite another
thing for the Government to ignore and pass over that pro-
tection at the very moment at which they presented to the
house and country a scheme by which it was hoped that the
country would acquire reform. The measure was supposed
to be pregnaEt with repose, and by it the ballot would be
flung to a greater distance and made more untenable than
before. He contended that the measure was not founded on
sufficient information as to the classes which it affected.
The returns presented afforded them no means of ascertain-
ing in the counties the proportion which the freeholders
would bear to the new electors under an extended Chandos
clause. If they wanted proper statistics, they should go to
a man like Mr. Newmarch, who, in one of his valuable
papers, read not long ago before the Statistical Society,
computed that in 1853-4 the number of freeholders in coun-
ties was 315,196. These returns pointed out to them that the
number of occupyingtenants of £lO and upwards in counties
waa567,560, giving to that class over the freeholders a ma-
jority of 252,364, or 80 per cent. It might be said since 1853
freeholders had increased. It might be contended also that
some deductions should be made from the gross number of
occupying tenants in the counties of £lO and upwards ; but
freeholders;hoptst hhtvooi eereluylt
tethhdoh ratbiecodnerwtpnet o means of ascertaining what deductions from
pause
ta sunehsaseeAnc
owbdd
predominantemetu
nfrhoieenrtrequisite.
ssatfimrtraa
ten consented
considerations
nonh
isnests
noei epVet
element.drhrh eaetastAoeit4oerotnvyvhs
seee.
the present
rpnhc
freeholdersraheguia nsool
eidngapt
eet inducea
measure,
hei eaaoeymsu:
rigtemohhnes
e-tt:
which would thrust those freeholders throughout the coun-
ties into a minority. He referred to a speech made some
time ago by the hon. gentleman the member for Rochdale
(Mr. Cobden), who did not hesitate to tell his hearers that,
looking to the temper of the public mind—looking to the
fate of previous propositions—looking to the boundless dif-
ficulties which attended all judicious changes in the Reform
Act—the best and wisest course for any Government to
pursue was to renounce ambitious schemes warned by pre-
vious failures, and, session after session, to direct their legis-
lative care to those pasts of our system in which practical
remedies could be applied to demonstrated ends. (Hear.)
The main question, as it appeared to him, was, how long
this alteration of our representative system would stand;
and before the house could come to a conclusion upon
that point they ought to consider how far the measure
took away any causes which contributed to the puma-

nency of that system and introduced new elements of die- i
turbance. One of the first of these disturbing elements •
was to be found in the policy of his hon. friends below the
gangway. To their influence the country owed the bills
of 1852, 1854, 1859, and the present bill. Were any of
them prepared now to say that they accepted this bill as
a settlement of the question? But even if some of them
did say so, a more exact consideration of the facts would
show that this could not be the case. Their conduct ever
since 1833 had at least the merit of consistency. Ever
since the Reform Act was passed they had declared that
they looked forward to its alteration ; but so long as there
had been common evils to abate, and common measures to
advance, they had been content to act with the main body
of the Liberal party in this house, and to keep this ques-
tion in abeyance. When such questions were exhausted,
hon. gentlemen below the gangway would have no choice
left them but to urge upon the country those organic
changes which they had so long advocated. That was one
cause which threatened the perthanence of the new arrange-
ment proposed by the noble lord. Another was the desire
for change which sprang up from time to time among the
working classes, and that would not be in any way affected
by the bill. Another was the impulsive and restless feel-
ing that occasionally pervaded the electoral body itself ;
and a fourth was the effect which Continental changes and
revolutions had upon the public mind at home. All these
causes of disturbance, threatening as they were to the per-
manence of the new institutions, would be left wholly un-
touched by the bill. It might, however, be said these ob-
jections were of too general and abstract a nature. Let
them, then, descend to particulars, and first take the £lO
rated 'occupiers in counties. The house was asked to place
in the counties, as a defensible and permanent body of
electors, the very class who had just been proved not to be
defensible in boroughs. (Hear.) Did they think that the
franchise which they had been unable to maintain in the
boroughs would act better in the counties ? (Hear, hear.)
He knew that right hon. gentlemen opposite proposed that
franchise last year—(hear)—but he did not understand that
they were now committed to such a scheme, and for his own
part he saw many and grave objections to it. As regarded
the £6 franchise in boroughs, there was no reason to sup-
pose that that arrangement would be more enduring than
the £lO borough franchise had been. The £6 franchise
did not coincide with any natural division of society, it in-
cluded a large class, who, from their poverty, must, with-
out any blame or reproach to them as individuals, sympa-
thise with all agitations or movements for political and
social changes. If the measure was carried, therefore, they
would not have the same men to defend existing institu-
tions as they had now. Men did not defend institutions
unless they stood behind either an epoch or a principle, and
in this case he saw neither the one nor the other, and on
that ground he saw nothing in the bill which should recon-
cile the country to the adoption of the bill. The measure,
however, ought not, he would say, to be judged on that
ground alone. The question also arose whether, if carried,
it would le- sen some of the most acutely-felt arid the most
generally acknowledged defects of the Reform Act. These
defects came home to the perception of all parties in that
house—they had been experienced for the last 30 years, and
the question was, whether the bill proposed any remedy for
them. One of these defects arose from the nature of the bo-
rough franchise ; it was uniform on the one hand, and at
same time it was not equal on the other, and thishad caused
at once a difficulty in either maintaining or extending it. If
it was rapidly extended the mere numerical majority would
become the predominating power in the State. In the bills
of 1852, 1854, and 1859, that had been met by providing a
variety of franchises, but no such provision appeared in this
' bill. Even the noble lord himself was inconsistent in this
respect, and failed to meet one great defect. The pressure
of the masses upon the intelligence of the country would
be augmented, not diminished by the bill, and it would be
more difficult to defend the defects of this bill should it
pass into a law than it was to defend and maintain the act
of 1832. One great defect in the borough constituencies
he believed all parties in that house were most desirous to
put down, though, with the desire which existed for seats
in Parliament, he did not see that this bill did anything
to diminish it. It was the corruptibility of the borough
electors. (Laughter.) So long as there was this strong
and uncontrollable desire to become members of that
house—(laughter)—he saw in that measure no means
of preventing eorruttion. There was no reason to suppose
that voters with a qualification between £lO and £2O would
be less liable to be influenced by bribery and corrupt
motives than those who would have a qualification of £6
and under £lO, but the contrary. Gentlemen who were
well acquainted with constituencies knew that the region
• of venality lay mainly between the £lO and the £2O voters
—(great laughter)—and the question was, what proportion
of such voters would be added to the counties. Allowances
i must be made for the excess in some respects over the ac-
tual number of rated occupiers in counties between these
sums ; but taking the returns as they stood, they would give
rated oceupiers above £lO, and under £2O, 365,987 ; rated
occupiers at £2O and upwards, 255,990 ; being an excess of
109,996 of voters under £2O. He would ask whether that
fact gave the house any hope that the corruption and bri-
bery which existed under the present act world be dimi-
nished if this measure was passed ? Between 1688 and 1832
there were four great cases of exclusion from this house,
Lord Bolingbroke, when Mr. St. John, was without a seat
in the house between the periods when he was Secretary
for Weiland Foreign Secretary. Passing over 100 years they
then came to Mr. Sheridan, who was gut of Parliament
from 1812 to 1816. Then there was Lord Brougham, who
was also excluded for four years. Then there was the right
hon. baronet the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) who
was without a seat from 1820 to 1826. Then again the pre-
• sent Earl of Carlisle,when Lord Morpeth,was excluded from
the house. The house and the country had also for some
period lost the services of the hen. members for Rochdale
(Mr. Cobden) and Birmingham (Mr. Bright). Even Lord
Macaulay was excluded and had to resign his position in
' the Cabinet. Those wereexclusions which he believed neither
Parliamentary nor national feeling would sanction ; but on
the contrary he thought it would hasten to prevent them if
it had the power to do so. No man either in Parliament or
out of doors—even those electors who took an active part in
causing those exclusions—would deny the persons whom
he had enumerated were not entitled to seats in Parlia-
ment. (Hear, hear.) The conclusion therefore was that
the Parliamentary and national feeling were without a
voice in those respects. A general election, though an
effective engine for expressing the national opinion, had
proved insufficient for a return to Parliament of all men
seises. the public voice would desire to send there. Now,
assuming those wetter. 4., 1.. —n, al—. „.,,,,,,,o„ in which
the present bill affected it demanded the serious considera-
tion of the house. (Hear.) Unfortunately the present bill
but aggravated the evil—(hear)—because while it left four
it disfranchised 25 seats, which were open to the whole
range of political society, and open also to the whole range
of Parliamentary ability, and had called into existence seats
which, while they wore meritorious and valuable in their
own way, were not always so. He did not disparage large
cities nor counties; but no one would venture to maintain
that the latter presented a fair field, except to those who
had large properties in those counties, nor the former ex-
cept to those who were largely mixed up with manufactur-
ing and commercial interests in the boroughs. It was not
his intention to ask the house not to read the bill a second
time ; but merely to prevent that stage being adopted with-
out submitting that while it offered no protection to the
voter, it left them in doubt,. and more than doubt, as to the
position of the freeholders in counties. The bill, in fact,
gave no guarantee of permanency, and imparted no good
result, unless a dissolution should be viewed in itself as an
object to be coveted, and an end to be pursued. (Hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL apprehended that persistence in this
course of legislation would inevitably result in placing all
power in the hands of the " mob," by which he meant the
least wealthy, the least independent, and the least intelli-
gent portion of the community. He believed the country
was apathetic upon the subject of Parliamentary reform, for
the obvious reason that it was contented with the existing
system ; and he warned the house to proceed with caution,
lest by the adoption of a crude and inconsiderate scheme
they destroyed the great landmarks of the constitution.

Mr. BRIGHT said that in one respect he was in the same
position as the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks :
he did not rise for the purpose of asking the house to divide
on the second reading of the bill, but he did not concur with
the right hon. gentleman when ho endeavoured to con-
vince the house that the bill was a dangerous, if net a fatal
measure. On the contrary, he would discuss it in the
spirit of a person anxious for the passing of a sound and
useful measure, and willing to make considerable allow-
ances for the difficulties which the Governmust must be
placed in in dealing with the question. From what had been
said in the house, as well as out of doors, it, was evident
that there were two kinds of objectors, namely, one class
who thought it went too far, and another for whom it did
not go far enough. This bill was offered to the house in
the fulfilment of a pledge given by the noble lord the mem-
ber for London during the existence of the Government of
Lord Derby. The noble lord said he would bring in a bill
differing from the scheme of the right hon. gentleman then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from a measure which
he (Mr. Bright) had taken some trouble to explain to his
countrymen. The noble lord said that in any bill he should
introduce he should extend the county franchise to £lO
occupation, and the borough franchise to £6, and that with
regard to the distribution of seats he was not prepared to
disturb more than 25 or 30. (Hear, hear.) They who had
seen the bill and who had heard the noble lord's declaration
must admit that, if the measure passed, the zoble lord had
redeemed his pledge. In regard to the question of the dis-
tribution of seats, be confessed he was one who for a great
many years had held the opinion that it was much better
to have this question of reform approached by successive
steps. (Ironical cheers.) The difficulty was notorious, of
disposing of 50 or 60 small boroughs which ought to be dis-
posed of, and so far he agreed wieh the hon. member for
Inverness (Mr. Baillie), that the Government would feel
itself incompetent satisfactorily to arrange that matter. He
took the liberty of recommending to the noble lord about a
year and a half ago, and repeatedly since in. public, that
the Reform Bill should settle the question of the suffrage
simply and generously. He thought after what had been
done both the country and the public would be better pre-
pared to give attention to small boroughs, and to come
to some more satisfactory arrangement than could be
done by a bill introduced such as this was. He said so much
because he was not going to complain of a bill because it
was not a great disfranchisement of small boroughs and did
not propose a great enfranchisement of the electors. He
regarded the measure as one which did not settle the ques-
tion of enfranchisement more than on the outside. (Hear.)
He was only telling them what they were all already aware
of. The bill did not settle the question of enfranchisement
—it rather unsettled it. It would only add one more pre-
cedent to the measure of 1832, and would justify what fur-
ther demand the country might make in regard to that one
branch of Parliamentary reform. He considered the ques-
tion of the transfer of members' seats from little boroughs
to large constituencies to be the pith and marrow of the
question of Parliamentary reform. The right hon, gentle-
man opposite, the member for Buckinghamshire, in his
speech to-night, succeeded in perplexing his followers on
the point of the bill being too extensive. The right hon.
gentleman was peculiarly misty when he endeavoured to
make the bill appear in the light of something very dread-
ful, and yet it was impossible for him to make the house
believe that it was a measure extending beyond that which
the Government ought to propose or that Parliament ought
to pass. Now, the Parliamentary representation of this
kingdom was either a reality or a sham. What could be
thought of it when no more than one million of men out of
seven millions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland were entitled to vote for members of that house ?
In the case of a great many counties the representation was
as good as dead. There was no opportunity for bribery in
Mich couuties--(hear)—and he had heard it spoken of as a