The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-28 00:00:00

MR. ,BLIGHT AT BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. Bright paid his first visit -to his constituents
of Birmingham yesterday. The townspeople of Bir-
mingham were. summoned by the Mayor to meet
him in the Town-hall at 7 o'clock last night, and
long before that time the large hall—galleries, floor
and all—was crowded ; not an inch of ground was
unoccupied. In addition to the Birmingham people
a great number of the hon. gentleman's friends
from Manchester
and neighbourhood was present.
The Mayor took the chair, and in a few words in-
troduced Mr? Bright.
Mr. BRIGHT' in rising to address the meeting,
was received with loud and prolonged cheering.
He said—Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, if I exhibit
embarrassment in rising to address you I must ask
your forbearance, for, m truth, as I cast my eye
over this vast assembly I feel myself almost be-
wildered, and I am oppressed with a consciousness
of my incapacity properly to fulfil the duty which
devolves, upon me to-night. It is now nearly three
yews since I was permitted, and, indeed, since I
was able, to stand upon any public platform to ad-
dress any public meeting of my countrymen, and
during that period I have passed through a new
and a great experience. From apparent health I
have been brought down to a condition of weakness
exceeding the weakness of a little child, in which I
could neither read nor write, nor converse for more
than a few minutes without distress and without
peril ; and from that condition, by degrees so fine as
to be imperceptible even to myself, I have been re-
stored to the comparative health in which you now
behold me. (Cheers.) In remembrance of all this
is it wrong in me to acknowledge here, in the pre-
sence of you all, with reverent and thankful heart,
the signal favour which has been extended to me
by the great Supreme ? (Cheers.) Is it wrong that
I should take this opportunity of expressing the
gratitude I feel to all classes of my countrymen for
the numberless kindnesses which I have received
from them during this period—from those high in
rank, ana abounding in wealthand influence, to the
dweller in one of our Lancashire moors, who sentme a
kind message to say that he believed where he lived
was the healthiest spot in England, and that if I
would come and take up my abode with him for a
time, though his means were limited and his dwell-
ing humble, he would contrive to let me have a
room to myself ? (Cheers.) I say, looking back to
all this, that if I have ever done anything for my
countrymen or for their interests in any shape I
am amply compensated by the abundant kindness
they have shown to me during the last three years
—(hear)—and if there be any colour of shade to
this picture, if there be those in the promotion of
whose interests the prime years of my life have been
spent, who, when I was stricken down and was en-
during a tedious exile, subjected me to a passionate
and ungenerous treatment—(cheers)—l have the
consolation of knowing that their act was not ap-
proved by the country—(renewed cheering)—and
that when my cause eame up, by appeal to a supe-
rior, because an impartial tribunal, their verdict was
condemned and set aside by the unanimous judg-
ment of the electors and population of this great
central city. (Continued cheering.) I shall not
attempt by the employment ofiany laboured phrases
to express to you what I felt at the time when you
conferred upon me the signal honour of returning
me as one of your representatives to the House of
Commons. I am not sufficiently master of the Eng-
lish language to discover words that shall express
what I thsli flt and what I feel now to you for
what you did then and for the reception which.you
have given me to-night. (Cheers.) I never ima-
gined for a moment that you were prepared to en-
dorse all my opinions or to sanction every political
act with which I was connected ; I accepted your
resolution in choosing me as meaning this—that
you had watched my political career—that you be-
lieved it had been an honest one—(cheers)—that
you were satisfied I had not swerved knowingly to
the right hand or to the left—(cheers)—that the
attractions _Of power had not turned me aside—
(chters)—that I had not changed my course from
any view of courting a fleeting popularity—
(cheers)—and, further, that you were of this opi-
nion—an opinion which I religiously hold—that
the man whose political career is on a line with
his, conscientious convictions can never be un-
faithful to hiS constituents or to his country. (Pro.
longed cheering.) At the time of my election you
will remember that some newspapers which com-
mented upon it took the liberty of saying' that I
had had a good deal of time for reflection, that I
had been taught a whOlesome lesson, and that I had
changed or modified my views with respect to re-
cent public policy. I have had no proper oppor-
tunity before to-night to refer to that statement,
and I beg leave to tell those gentlemen that they
were and are, if they still hol&the same opinions,
entirely mistakencheers)—that whether I was
wrong or right I acted according to what I believed
to be right, and that all the facts and all the in-
formation which I have since received have only
served to confirm me in the opinions which I had
previously expressed. (Cheers.) I wish now too—
and all this is rather preliminary—to refer to one
ingenious misrepresentation which it was of no use
attempting to meet when passion was at its height,
and when public clamour prevented any calm argu-
ment upon the question then before the country.
(Hear.) All who read the newspapers at the time
will recollect that it was said of me, and of others
who thought and acted with me—but more of me
than of any other person—that my opinion upon
such a question as any particular war in which the
country might be engaged was, after all, of no kind
of value, because, whatever was the war, whatever
were the circumstances, I shouldhave taken exactly
the same course, and therefore that argument upon
a particular war was of no avail and. was totally
unnecessary. Now, I beg leave to say that that was
a misrepresentation which no person had a right to
make. (Cheers.) I shall not trouble you more than
a moment or two on teis point, but permit me to
say7t, hat the first time I spoke in the House of Com-
mons on the subject of the Russian war was on the
31st of March, 1854, when a message from the
Crown came down announcing that the calamity of
war was about to befall the country. In the very
opening of my speech were these short sentences,
which, if you will allow me, I will read to you. I
said

"lam not going to enter into a discussion as to the
opinion of those who contend for peace at any price and
those who support peace on religious grounds alone ; but I
am merely goingto inquire on the present occasion as to the
absolute necessity of the war; to create which necessity we
must show that the objects to be attained by the war are
proper, and in some degree worthy the cost and sacrifices
we made to attain them.
And I went on to say that I hoped if a noble lord,
who was then a member of the Government, rose
to make any reply to my observations he would not
run away from the subject before the House, but
would meet me as having discussed the question in
that way, and that way only. (Hear.) Well,
now tell you, what it ought not to be necessary to
say, that from that time until the time when I last
spoke on the, subject of the Russian war I confined
myself entirely to those points ; my facts, my ar-
guments, and my case were drawn from the de-
spatches and blue-books which the Government for
their justification laid before Parliament ; and
therefore I repeat it was not open to any one who
opposed me to oppose me on the ground that my
opinion on the .Russian war was worth nothing;
because whatever might have been the cause of war
I should have held exactly the same language.
(Cheers.) Now, after all is over except the tax-
gatherer, and the sorrows of those who have lost

their friends in war, I will just in one sentence say
that I am still unable to discover what compensa-
tion England has for the hundred millions of money
she expended, or what compensation Europe has for
the three hundred millions squandered by all the
parties engaged in that frightful contest. (Hear.)
It is not easy to say how much, but of this we may
be sure, that the squandering of £300,000,000
by the nations of Europe in that struggle has had
a great influence on the enhanced price of money
during the last few years, and greatly aggravated
the pressure of the panic through which we passed
12 months avo The 40,000 lives which we lost in
the. Itusttri oviar.
some persons hold cheap ; I do
not. (Rear,
hear.) I think that the grown men of
are,
prerariTioTao 18 years of age to 50—and there
worthtmore than 40,000 of them—are
something
and the Christie. looking(o at by the statesman and
40,000 lives which Weree_rs)—and I say that the
venial* to Europe deserved to
be considered before
hear.)rttshed blindly into a war
with Russia. (Hear
point out Per myself, there-
fore, all I wish to
• , that the
man who hesitates before he Ig°ll jaSn
t
so much
a right t')
blood and so much treasure has at least
tolerancet
be received with a moderate amount otf
general
oentaerkel
and forbearance. (Hear, hear.) I intenc
an early opportunity of going into the
question of foreign policy a little more at lengtah
than would be proper this evening. I now see be-
fore me, lam afraid to say how many persons,
who are by the present constitution of this coun-
try shut out from any participation in political
power. (Cheers.) I shall take this opportunity of
discussing, and as far as I am able with brevity and
distinctness, what I think we ought to aim at this
Moment, when the great question of Parliamentary
reform is before the country. I think we may
fairly say that that question cecupies now some-
thing like a triumphant position—and at the same
time a position of great peril, triumphant, inasmuch
as it has now no open enemies, perilous, inasmuch
as, for the moment, it is taken up by those who, up
to this hour, 'have been, for the most part, the un-
eomromising opponents of. reform. (Cheers.) We
have had:four Governments pledged to Parliamen-
tary
. 'reform within the last few years. Lord John
Russell, aa prime Minister, introduced a Reform

Bill, and afterwards, in the Government of Lord
Aberdeen, Lord J. Russell introduced another Re-
form Bill, and the least said of these two bills,
especially the latter, the better. (Laughter.) The
Government which has recently been overthroWn
pledged itself to the country and the House of
Commons to bring in a Reform Bill, but at the time
when it came to an unexpected but a not unde-
served end—(loud cheers)—no bill had been pre-
pared, so that we know nothing of the particulars of
what it was to be composed. We have now a Govern-
ment under the chieftainship of Lord Derby, who,
during his short term of office in 1852, stated, if I
remember right, that one of the chief objects of
his Government would be to stem the tide of demo-
cracy. (Laughter.) Now, it maybe that Lord Derby
has entirely changed his mind, that he is as much
converted to Parliamentary reform as Sir R. Peel
in 1846 was converted to Corn-law repeal. If he is,
then our question may be in good han.ds, but if he
is not—and he has never yet acknowledged his con-
version—then I think it is but reasonable of us to
view his course with some suspicion, and to look on
the position of the question in his hands with some
alarm. (Hear, hear.) They all pretend now to be
very fond of the question of Reform, but still they
don't tell us much about it. They remind me, in
the few speeches which they have made upon the
question, of the condition of that deplorable Ameri-
can cable, of which I read the other day in the
papers that " the currents were visible, but the sig-
nals wholly indistinct." (Loud laughter.) But having
admitted that Parliamentary reform is necessary,
they thereby admit that the present House of Com-
mons does not satisfactorily represent the nation—
and it is one step in advance to receive the admia-.
sion from all those persons from among whom it
has hitherto been supposed that Governments could
alone be formed in this country. (Hear.) Now, I do
not believe that the Parliament, as at present con-
stituted, does fairly represent the nation, and I
think it is capable of most distinct proof that it does
not. Before I proceed to figures I will mention one
or two general proofs of that assertion. (Hear.)
In the year 1846, when the great question of the.
repeal of the corn-laws was under discussion, it re-
quired an earthquake to allow the people to buy
their bread in the earth's markets ; it required a
famine in Ireland—which from 1845 to 1851 less-
ened the population of that country by 3,000,000—
it required the conversion of a great Minister, the
break up of a great party, the " endangering of the
constitution," and all those mysterious/evils which
official statesmen discovered when the poor artisan
of Birmingham or Manchester, or the half-starved
labourer, asked this only—that where bread could
be had best and cheapest in return for his labour he
might be permitted to buy it. But coming down
to 1852, when Lord Derby was in office, he went to
a dissolution, and the great question proposed to the
constituencies was protection. Parliament re-assem-
bled, and protection and Lord Derby were defeated
by a majority of 19 ; but when you had only a
majority of 19 in the House of Commons against
the re -establishment of protection, 19-20ths of
the people of England were determined that they
never would have anything of the sort again.
(Cheers.) Take again the questions which affect
the Established Church. Probably many persons in
this meeting are not aware that according to the
return of the Registrar-General only 1-3 d of the
people of this country have any connection with
the Established Church. In Scotland 1-3 d only of
the population are connected with the establish-
ment ; in Ireland five out of six, in Wales eight out
of ten, have no connection at all with it. And yet
the Established Church is paramount in both
houses. If the House of Commons fairly represented
all the people of the United Kingdom, the Estab-
lished Church—it is as a political institution that
I, speak of it, I say nothing of it as a religious insti-
tution—would be much more modest, and we should
, probably get some changes much more readily than
we have ever got any before. Again, you are aware,
probably, that up to 1853 if a man received landed
property as an inheritance, if it were left to him
by will or came to him as heir-at-law, it paid no
legacy duty—l speak of freehold property. In 1853
Mr. Oladstone, by an effort which was considered
superhuman, prevailed upon the House of Commons
to pass a law to impose a succession tax, as it was
called, or a legacy duty on real property. I will
tell you how they did it. You know that if a man
in Birmingham comes into possession of lease-
hold houses, or machinery, or shares in the North-
Western Railway, or shipping, or any other
property not called real property—though, by the
way, when a man gets hold of it it is surprising
how real he finds it—(laughter)--if he be no rela-
tion to the person who left it to him, he has to pay
a legacy duty of ten per cent., and a different
degree of percentage according to the degree of
relationship in which he may stand to the tes-
tator. In the case of land—the best of all property,
with regard to its durability and certainty, for a
man to helve; left to him or to possess—thelaw is of
a different kind. A friend of mine, a member of the
House of Commons, was fortunate enough to have
left to him, by a person who was in no way related
to him, a landed estate of about £7OO a-year. This
was worth in the market 30 years' purchase, or
£21,000. There was timber on the estate to the
value of £ll,OOO, which, added to £21,000, made
the whole bequest £32,000. If it had been leasehold
houses, or stock in trade, or machinery, or shares,
or shipping, or in the funds, my friend would have
had to pay £lO per cent, on it, thatjis to say,
£3,200. But what did he pay ? that is the ques-
tion, for if we had all estates left us alike it would
not so much matter. The calculation was this :—My
friend is of a certain age—l don't know what, and
it's not material; the tax-gatherer or the people at
Somerset-house look into a table, which shows the
probable length of life of a man of that particular
age, and instead of paying £lO per cent. on £32,000,
his taxed upon the annual income of the estate
multiplied by the number of years which according
to the tables he may be expected to live. It ended
in this way, that instead of paying £3,000 to the
State, to bear your burdens and to pay for your
wars, he paid £7OO, or rather less than one quarter.
Do you think that if the House of Commons fairly
represented the lawyers, merchants, manufacturers,
shopkeepers, artisans, and all the rest of the popu-
lation, such an act as that could have passed that
house, or that if it had existed it could continue to
exist for a single session ? I could show you ine-
qualities as great and scandalous in the manner in
which the income tax, so grievously felt by owners
of certain property in Birmingham, presses and is
imposed upon the owners of the soil and those en-
gaged in professions and trades chiefly carried on in
towns, but I will not enter into that matter. Your
own experience must have shown you how unequal
that tax is. You know how every. Government has
swept aside all proposals to make it more equal and
just. And now we come to the . question of
figures. I think it is very easy to sho* that if
the present House of Commons equitably or at all
honestly represents the population of the country
figures are of no avail in this discussion, for the
figures prove conclusively that such is not the case.
I will not trouble you with a heap of statistics which
you cannot remember, but will give you as a proof
one or two cases. Take the greatest county in Eng-
land. Yorkshire shows you an existing inequality
which is absolutely fatal to all fair representation.
There are in Yorkshire 10 small boroughs which
return to Parliament 16 members—there are other
eight boroughs in Yorkshire whose members alto-
gether are 14. Now, the 10 boroughs returning the
16 members have not more than 80,000 of a popu-
lation, while the eight boroughs with the 14 mem-
bers have a population of 620,000. Now, whether
you take the amount of population, the number of
houses, the sum at which they are rated to the in-
come-tax, or the number of electors, the proportion
is in the same way, the large boroughs with the
smaller number of members have seven times the
population, seven times the number of houses, seven
times the amount of income-tax to pay, and seven
times the number of electors. I must ask your at-
tention to one other comparison, and it relates to
your own town. The present Chancellor of the
Exchequer, you know, represents the county of
BuckS. That county has a population of 164,000,
which. is not much more than half the population of
Birmingham, and yet Bucks with its boroughs has
not less than 11 members in the House of Commons.
164,000 persons in Bucks return 11 members, while
Birmingham, of not less than 250,000, and probably
much - more, only returns two members. I will
give you another illustration which refers to your
own town. In the counties of Thisetshire, Devon
shire, and Wiltshire there are 22 boroughs, which
return 34 members to Parliament. Compare the
population and political power of those 22 boroughs
returning 34 members to Parliament, with the
population and political power of Birmingham.
You have nearly twice the population, but
you have only two members to represent you
in Parliament. (Cries of " Shame.") I could
furnish you with pages of illustrations of this
kind to show you that our whole system of repre-
sentation is unequal and dishonest, But one more
proof only, and then I will quit the figures, for I
think the case will be sufficiently clear. There are
in the House of Commons at present 330 members
(more than half) whose whole number of consti-
tuents do not amount to more than 180,000, and
there are at the same time in Parliament 24 mem-
bers whose constituents are upwards of 200,000 in number, and, whiletlic to
eoneuents a the 330
Property-tax at
er
members are assessed
£15,000,000, the constituents onf members are assessed to the same tax at more than t 24000 o
00.
(A Voice in the crowd—" We'll have it altered.")
There is besides this great significant fact, that
wherever you go in Great Britain and Ireland five
out of every six men you meet have no vote. The
Reform Bill, which I am not about to depreciate,
since I know what it cost to get, and I know some-

THE'-' __SUN, _LON i)01‘1,

thing of what it has done—was so draWn as pur -
posely to exclude from the list of electors the great
body of the working °lasses of this-kingdom. But
supposing that out of the 6,000,000 of grown up
men in the united kingdom 1,000,000 have the suf-
frage, as is now the case, and supposing that that
1.000,000 returned the House of Commons by a
fair distribution of members according to numbers,
there would, in all probability, be a fair represen-
tation of the opinions of the 6,000,000, because the
opinions of the 1,000,000 would to a considerable
extent reflect and represent the opinions of their
fellow-countrymen. (Cheers.) But that is not the
case. The law has Selected.l,6oo,ooo to be the elec.:.
tors of members of Parliament, but, having got
that 1,000,000, ,they have contrived, partly by acci.
dent it may be, hut very much by arguments and
intention, so that the political power of the majo-
rity of that 1,600,000 is frittered away and fraudu-
lently dispersed and destroyed by the manner in
which members are distributed among the 1,000,000
electors composing the electoral body. Now, I wish
to ask this meeting—and let us try to take a judicial
and dispassionate view of the question when we talk
of reform—what is it that we really want ? I hold it
to •be this—that • •we want to substitute a real
honest representation of the people for that fraudu-
lent thing which we call a representation now.
(Cheers.) But there •is a very serious question to
be decided before'we can almost take a step. When
you are about to reform the House of Commons, are
your eyes to be turned to the House of Peers, or to
the great body of the nation ? The House of Peers,
as you know, does not travel very fast—even what
is a parliamentary train is too fast for its nerves ;
in fact, it never travels 'at all unless somebody shoves
it. (Laughter.) If any man proposes to reform
the House of Commons just so much and no more
as will allow it to keep. pace with the wishes of the
House of Lords, I would ask him not to take any
trouble in the matter, but just to leave it exactly
where it is.. lf you want it to represent the nation,
then it is a national question ; and, having come to
that conclusion, if we have to come to it, there is
no Feat mystery, I think, as to the manner in
which it, can lie:brought.about. . The question be-
tween the peers and the people is one which cannot
be evaded. It is the great difficulty in the way of
our friends at healquarters who are for reform,
but don't know•how to do•it. • It was the difficulty
which Lord John Russell felt. Lord John Russell
—I believe you may take my word for it—has pro-
bably, from association, from tradition, from his
own reading and study; and from his own just and
honest sympathies, a more friendly feeling towards
this question of Parliamentary reform than any,
other man of his order as a statesman. (Cheers.)
But having said this, _ I must also say—what he,
too, would say if he thought it prudent to tell all
he knew—that this is with him the great difficulty.
How can I reconcile a free representation of the
people in the House of Commons with the inevitable
disposition which rests in a hereditary House of
:Peers ? Now, we must decide this question,
." Choose you this day whom you will serve." If
the Peers are to be your masters, as they boast
that their ancestors were the conquerors of yours,
serve you them. (" Never !") But if you will
serve only the laws, the laws .of your country,
the laws in making which you have been consulted,
you may go on straight to discuss this great ques-
tion of Parliamentary Reform. lam not going to
attack the House_Lof. Lords. (Laughter.) Some
people tell us that the House of Lords has in its
time done great things for freedom. Well, it may
be so, though I have not been so successful in find-
ing out how or when as some people. (Cheers.) At
least since 1690, or thereabouts, when the Peers
became the dominant power in this country, I am
not able to discover one single measure important
to human or English freedom which has come from
the voluntary consent and goodwill of their House.
And, really, how should it ? You know what a
peer is. He is one of those fortunate individuals
who are described as coming into the world " with
silver spoons in their mouths." (Laughter.) Or, to
use the more polished and elaborate phraseology of
the poet,--
"Fortune came smiling to his youth, and welcomed it,
"And purpled greatness met his ripenedyears."
When he is a boy, among his brothers and sisters
he is pre-eminent ; he is the eldest son ; he will be
" My Lord ;" this fine mansion, this beautiful park,
these countless farms, this vast political influence,
will one day centre on this innocent boy. The
servants know it, and pay him greater deference
on account of it. He grows up and goes to school
and college ; his future position is known ; he has
no' great excitement to work hard, because what-
ever he does it is very difficult for him to improve
his fortune in any way. When he leaves college
he has a secure position ready-made for him, and
there seems to be no reason why he should follow
ardently any of those occupations which make men
great among their fellow-mnen. He takes his seat
in the House of Peers ; whatever be his charac-
ter, whatever his intellect, whatever his previous
life, whatever he he in England or 10,000
miles away, be he tottering down the steep
of age, or be he passing through the imbe-
! °jay of second childhood, yet by means of
that charming contrivance—made only for Peers—
vote by proxy, he gives his vote for or against, and,
unfortunately, too often against, all those great,
measures on which you and the country have set
your hearts. (Cheers.) There is another kind of
Peer which I am afraid to touch upon—that crea-
ture of—what shall I say ?—of monstrous, nay,
even of adulterous birth—the spiritual Peer. I
assure you with the utmost frankness and sincerity
it is not in the nature of things that men in these
positions should become willing fountains from
which can flow great things for the freedom of any
country. We are always told that the Peers are
necessary as a check. If that is so, I must say they
admirably answer their purpose. (Laughter.) But
when we come to consider the question of a reform
of the House of Commons, which the constitution
does not recognise as. the House of Commons be-
longing to the Peers, but to the nation, we will
allow the House of Peers to go for a while into
something like obscurity, and discuss it as if our
sole object were to make it what the constitution
supposes it to be—a complete representation of the
people in Parliament. With regard to the question
of the suffrage, which I state is one of the chief
points on which I should insist, I have no doubt
there are persons who'on reading my speech will say-
" Subversive d'oct'rine, violent language this. The
change which you would propose would endanger
many things which we highly value." Now, I beg-
to assure all those timid people that I do not wish.
to endanger any of the ancient landmarks of our
constitution. Ido not want to disturb this ques-
tion of the franchise beyond what has been already
sanctioned by Parliament and the country. I do•
not want to introduce any new principle or any-
theoretical opinion which it may be found difficult;
to adopt. There are many men probably among thost
whom I see before-me who are of opinion that every-
man should have a vote. (Loud cheers.) They-
are for what is called "universal suffrage," or " maiD:
hood suffrage"—something which represents tli&t
every man of 21 years of age who has not forfeited_
his right by any misconduct should have a vote.:
Let me say that, personally, I have not' he smalles4
objection to the widest possible suffrage that th(
ingenuity of man can devise. (Cheers.) Ac the
same time, if 1 were now a member of a Govern-
ment, and had to arrange a Reform Bill for next
session, I should not act upon that principle. I wilk
tell you upon what principle I would act. I end
in the country great diversities of opinion. Then:
are the Peers, of whom I have already spoken
They are citizens with ourselves, and have there
fore a right to he considered. There are the rich
and influential classes who, as wealthy men, are a
little timid of the great bulk of the people who
have not much riches. There are thousands—scores
of thousands—who imagine that they could not
sleep safely in their -beds if every man had a vote.
We are surprised that children cannot sleep in the
dark—that
,they 'fancy something dreadful will
happen to them ; and there are actually rich people
in this country who believe that if every man had
a vote it would. give him a weapon wherewith to
attack their property. There being all these diver-
sities of opinion, it clearly is the duty of Govern-
ment and of Parliament, too, to frame a measure

which shall fairly represent what may be called the
Reform opinion of the whole country. What have
we at present in the way of franchises ? We have
have the parish franchises. For generations, for
aaigl e
ours u
rp a spta r
s, t hhe
er
se. his ,vs
ebe e n
havea
Pan
oeoxrt eLnaswi v e franchise
unions,
win
which
c h
have worked generally satisfactorily to the coun-
try. We have a franchise in our Poor Law unions.
We have a corporation franchise, and, with the ex-
ception of a stupid provision that people shall
live in towns three years before they can exercise
it, that franchise may be said to have worked gene-.
rally satisfactorily to the country. I will ask any
man herewhether helbelieves that in all the parishes,
all the poor-law unions, and all the corpora-
tions men have not conducted themselves with
great propriety and managed the affairs of their
parishes, unions, and corporations satisfactorily ?
And I should like to ask them whether they would
object to have the same franchise conferred upon
them for the election of members to the House of
Commons. (Cheers.) There is one great point
gained in such a franchise--your registration
would be easy and inexpensive. There is another
point—that whatever its omissions, whatever its
exclusions, they. would not be directed against any
.one particular. class. It would admit • the working
people to electoral power just as fully as it would
admit the middle, or what may be called the higher
aundyeriicio nheorcelasses. Therefore, as regards class and
class, it would remove a great defect of the Reform.
_Bill,e and would give a suffrage so wide that I be-
would suppose it did not afford a fair

representation of all classes. I don't want anybody,
for a moment to supposelhat that particular fran-
chise is better than manhood suffrage. lam only
speaking of what Government might do, of what
it ought to.do, and of what it might do moreover
in accordance with the vast majority of opinion
which exists in this country on this question.
With regard to the counties I shall my little. I
know no good reason why the franchise should not
be as extensive as in the boroughs ; but there ap-
pears to be a general understanding that the next
step in counties shall be one short of that. But I
think it of great importance that the 40s. franchise
should be extended to all parts of the united king-
dom as fully as it is to the people of England and
Wales. (Cheers.) I come now to the question
which I believe all persons who have studied the
matter will readily agree is one of great importance
to the country—how your members shall be allotted
to the various constituent bodies. I will ask you
this simple question. What is the obvious rule
which would recommend itself to every man when
first about to arrange this allotment ? Would he
not argue in this way ? The law has given certain
persons the right of voting, and it presumes
that every person who has that right is
capable of deciding how he shall vote.
Every elector, therefore, is of the same importance
in the eye of the law, and why then should not
every elector Tote for the same portion of the whole
Parliament ? I shall be told that I am not to go
to the United States for an illustration of this. I
will not. I will go a little nearer home. Take
the kingdom of Sardinia. I was in Turin last year,
and I made enquiries as to the mode of election and
the distribution of members there ; and I found
that Genoa, with a population of 140,000, returned
seven members to the Sardinian Parliament. Sar-
dinia is not a Republic, it is a limited Monarchy
like our own. Let us go to the colonies of Australia.
Take New South Wales. The capital—Sydney—
returns eight members to the New South Wales
Parliament. In Victoria the city of Melbourne
returns 13 members to Parliament, and by the Bill
now introduced by the Minister of that colony the
number 13 is about to be increased to 18. I believe
that in Belgium and Sardinia, both countries under
a limited Monarchy, the same rule applies, and we
know that throughout the whole of the United
States the number of members is allotted according
to the population. In every 10 years this scale is
re-arranged,—in fact, it works itself. Ido not for
a moment argue that it is necessary that we should
get an actuary to apportion the number of members
exactly according to his calculations of the number
of the population, but we have a fair right to an
honest approximation, and without it there can be
no fair representation of the people. (Cheers.)
Look at London, putting aside the city ; if you
were to divide the six boroughs of which the
metropolis is made up, you would still have 12
boroughs with 300,000 population each (larger
than the population of Birmingham), and con-
stituencies of 10,000. Divide them again and you
would have 24 boroughs, each of 150,000 popu-
lation, with 5,000 electors ; and when the
franchise is extended the number will be still
greater. I say that the metropolitan boroughs and
all large boroughs ought to be divided, or sub-
divided ; they ought to have double, or treble, or
quadruple their present number of members.
(Cheers.) What a miserable delusion it is that this
great capital of midland industry, with its 250,000
or 300,000 inhabitants, sends only two members to
the House of Commons. (Cheers.) But if every
man-I see here before me had a vote, or if every.
man outside had a vote, what better would he be if
he sends two members to the House of Commons,
and some boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants, equal to
--one of the small corners of your city, have a right
to return the same number ? The whole thing as
at present arranged is a disgraceful fraud. It ought
to be put an end to, and, if it is not put an end to,
your representation will remain for the future very
little better than a force. (Cheers.) If you look at
the county seats you will find that the object of the
present Government, and, in fact, of any Govern-
ment in which the aristocracy have so Freat a power,
and where landowners are so predominant, must be
in the distribution of seats greatlyqo increase the
number of members for counties. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer is a very ingenious gentleman.
At this very moment in all probability he has got
before him rows of figures to endeavour to make it
out that the proper way of reforming Parliament is
to increase the number of landed gentry in the
House of Commons. I recollect on one occasion that
he referred to the county of Chester, and showed
that there were three boroughs in that county which
returned six members, while the two divisions of
the county only returned four, and that the four
members represented far mare electors and popula-
tion than the six members of the towns. Now, it
will be unfortunate for the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer if he ventures upon the ground. of arith-
pette in connexion with this question. We are
for arithmetic in connexion with reform, and if
he proposes to deal with it in that way we have no
objection to carry out the principle fully. (Cheers
and laughter.) r But now let me turn your
attention once more to the House of Peers. You
know that the House of Peers is a body composed
entirely of landowners, with the exception of a few
lawyers and a few sucessful soldiers. (A laugh.)
Have you ever been to the botanical gardens in
some of our towns, where a board is put up with
the words, "No dogs are allowed to enter here ?"
(A laugh.) There is a similar board at the door of
the House of Peers, and, though you cannot see it
without an imaginary eye, it says, "No traders
admitted here.' (Cheers and laughter.) The House
of Peers is a house for the great proprietors of the
*oil. The county of Chester, to which Mr. Disraeli
referred, is very strongly represented in the House
of Lords. There are the Marquis of Westminster,
Lord Combermere, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and,
no doubt, another peer or two, if our acquaintance
with them was only a little more extensive. (A
laugh.) Take Lancashire. We had the Earl of
Burlington, now the. Duke of Devonshire, the Earl
of Derby, the Earl of Sefton, and the Earl of
Wilton. They come up from their great landed
properties in Lancashire, and sit in the House of
Lords. Let us come to your own county. You
have the Earl of Warwick, Lord Leigh, Lord
Craven, I think, Lord Calthorpe, and one or two
others, for in a county so charming as this there
are sure to be many estates and mansions belonging
to the aristocracy of England. The time was
when both Houses of Parliament sat ton-ether.
They met together now, but in different eb;nthers
under the same roof, and no law can_pass, or the
smallest modicum of freedom or of justice come to
you, until it has gone through the very fine
meshes of the net of the House of Lords. Well,
then, I say that if the landed proprietors
of England insist upon a great addition to
their power, the House of Commons, with the
inhabitants of the towns and the traders of the
country, will be obliged to ask, " How is it that
we have not our share of power in the House of
!Lords ?" (Cheers.) Only one word more on the
question of the constitution. When a Reform Bill
is brought into the House of Commons by any
Government, be as watchtAil and exacting as you
like on the subject of the franchise, but never, I
beg, take your eye for one moment from the ques-
tion of the distribution of the members—(cheers)—
for in it lies the great subject of dispute, and unless
you guard your rights you will have to fight your
battle over again, and to begin it the day after the
next bill has passed. (Cheers.) There is one
other subject to which I must refer, and it is one
upon which I presume I shall have the cordial
assent of this meeting. it is the opinion of the
great body of the Reformers of the United King-
dom that any Reform Bill which pretends to be
generally satisfactory to Reformers must concede
the shelter and protection of the ballot. (Loud
cheers.) I shall not discus that question or argue
in its favour. lam quite sure that in the minds of
the electors of England it has long been decided,
and it has also been decided in the House of Com-
mons. Those who are for the ballot are for it
mainly because they wish free elections. Those
who are opposed to it are opposed to it chiefly
because they believe it would liberate the great
body of the constituencies from the control and in-.
fluence of the rich. (Cheers.) The Times news-
paper and others, but particularly the Times, in
discussing this question treat it as if it were a ques-
tion to be despised, and tell us that it is mean and
unmanly to ask that men should go to the poll and
give their votes in secret. The very man who
writes thus in the Times writes his article in secret
and publishes it in secret, and if any voter says
that he ought to affix his name to it—which, mind,
Ido not say at all—what is his answer ? He
replies " I am performing a great public duty ;
I am obliged in the discharge of that duty to com-
ment with great severity upon Ministers and public
men, and to expose abuses, and in doing that it i§
I necessary that I should have the shelter of anony-
mous writing." (Hear.) Well, I do not dispute
i)thuabtl,icbudtutiyf
duty,
ayisswise and just fora writer in the
Times to have that shelter in the performance of a
it is especially wise and just that
the humble elector in every county and every
borough should have from the law, if the law can
give it, an equal protection in the exercise of his
franchise. (Cheers.) I believe that when the fran-
chise is thus extended, when the apportionment of
members to the constituency approximates to a just
arrangement, and when you have the protection of
the ballot, you will have that kind of representa-
tion in the House of Commons which will give to
4 ;very man who sits there a real constituency, and
i vill fix him with a real responsibility. I believe
A here is no country in the world that pretends to
,gular government where there is less of real re-
ap onsibility among high officials than there is in
Ji#ll igland. There is one case which I cannot resist

THURSDAY E VENING, OCTOBER 28, 1858.