The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-01 00:00:00

a fair Redistribution Bill, but this, although pro-
mised by the Ministry, was not forthcoming. No
argument was necessary to prove that a complete
measure ought to be laid before the House of Com-
mons. He voted on Earl Grosvenor's motion against
the Government on this first issue, and he never
gave a vote in his life with a firmer conviction not
only that he was right, but that he could justify that
vote to a Liberal constituency whenever the time
should arrive for doing so. (Cheers.) Lord Gros-
venor's motion was lost by five votes, yet practi-
cally the Government were defeated, and the best
proof that the minority were right was that the Go-
vernment undertook to introduce a Redistribution
Bill. It was conceived unwillingly, brought forth
in anger and disappointment, and received not
merely with coldness, but with something like con-
tempt and derision on the part of the House of
Commons. If ever there was an absurd and pre-
posterous bill it was the Redistribution of Seats Bill
of the late Government. The hon. member pro-
ceeded, amid the laughter and cheers of the meet-
ing, to give some examples of the groups proposed
by the bill, and of the anomalies which it created.
Another principle of the bill was to give an ad-
ditional member to large towns such as Bir-
mingham and Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds.
But what did the bill do for Lambeth ? No-
thing ; and the elite of the working classes would
still have been excluded. He objected to giving
additional members to large existing constituencies.
He was not afraid of a large extension of the fran-
chise ; but let the great constituencies be separated,
and boroughs like Lambeth divided into wards.
By a division of large towns two objects would be
attained—a practical representation of the working
classes, and a full and complete representation of
the opinions of the electors of the borough. At
present as a rule only one-third of the electors
of the larger boroughs recorded their votes,
and in Lambeth out of 26,000 voters 14,000
did not vote at all. The result of the present
system was that the supposed minority did not come
to the poll at all. The hon. member next proceeded
to defend his vote on Lord Dunkellin's motion for
a rating instead of a rental qualification. In the
Reform Bills of 1852 and 1854 a rating qualifica-
tion was adopted, and in 1860 Earl Russell advo-
cated a rating clause. At all events, a member of
Parliament might be allowed to have an opinion of
his own on such a subject without being politically
excommunicated. (Cheers.) The Government,
however, being defeated resigned office in the same
spirit in which they had brought in and discussed
the bill--namely, in a spirit of anger and disap-
pointment. It was not expected on th.. Liberal side
that they would resign, but when they did so he saw
no cause for clothing himself in sackcloth and ashes.
(Laughter.) There was but one feeling, that
it ought to have been withdrawn long before the
division on Lord Dunkellin's motion ; and it was
apparent to every one, when it was introduced, that
it bore upon its face the marks of haste, incomplete-
ness, and indecision. It was said to be a step, but
it was a step in the dark. No two of its supporters
agreed as to what it would do. Mr. Gladstone
asserted that 204,000 working men would be ad-
mitted by the bill to the franchise. Mr. Bright
said it would only enfranchise 116,000. Mr. Glad-
stone said that when the bill passed it would place
330,000 additional voters on the register. Mr.
Bright put the number at 179,000. The difference
between more or less might seem unim-
portant, but the difference between £6 and £7
might be imagined from Mr. Gladstone's statement
that he did not take a £6 franchise because it would
give a numerical preponderance to the working
man. The first blunder was the denial by the Go-
vernment of independent judgment to individual
members. The Liberals were to receive the Bill with-
out inquiry, and accept it without hesitation. They
were to open their mouths and shut their CyeS and
see what their leaders would send them. (A laugh.)
The language of Ministers, and of a portion of their
Press, was, "Differ from us and you are politically
excommunicated." (Laughter.) He, on his part, pro-
tested against the illiberality of those who said that
because he voted against a Reform Bill he was there-
fore opposed to Reform. This was tyranny under
the guise of liberty. (Cheers.) Mr. Bright said that
the House of Commons ought to accept no Reform
Bill from a Conservative Government, but this was
not the language of an honest Reformer. It was
not that he loved Reform less, but agitation more.
(Cheers.) He (Mr. Doulton) was not one of those
who believed that the agitation of the past six
mouths had advanced the just settlement of this
question. If, as he believed, on the contrary, the
coming assembling of Parliament would find class
more bitterly than ever arrayed against class ; if
there were more distrust and suspicion on the part
of the working classes against the House of Com-
mons, it would not be difficult to fix upon those
who would be responsible for such a state of things.
(Loud cheers.) Five years ago he had told them
in that room, when seeking their suffrages, that he
should go into the House of Commons as an inde-
pendent member, supporting measures, not men.
If he continued to be member for Lambeth, it
would be to support the same principles as an inde-
pendent member, and not as the nominee of any
party. (Loud and continued cheering.)
The Hon. MEMBER afterwards proposed " The
Health of the Electors and non-Electors of Lam-
beth," humorously expressing his obligations to
certain of the latter body who had attended the
meeting at the Walworth Institute, and had denied
him a hearing.
After the usual compliments to the chairman and
to the hon. secretaries the meeting broke up.