The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-30 00:00:00

with the working classes—l mean the hon. member

for Oldham, Mr. klibbert. He has recently spoken
upon this subject. He supported tho Government

Reform Bill. He says,

"It is a good bill, and I

am grateful for it. lam content with it." This is
a man of extreme opinions, who is looked on with

feelings of adoration in the densely-populated
manufacturing districts. He says the addition
to the suffrage will be about 520,000, of which
something under two-fifths will be county electors,
and 355,000 or 350,000 will be borough electors.
He entirely confirms the knowledge on which the
Government acted. But is that a Democratic Go-
vernment? Are we to be frightened at such a re-

suit as that? Are we really to believe that a con-
stituency of one million and a half—one million of

whom we know from our owu knowledge fora very
considerable space of time have exercised that suf-

frage according to the disposition of the country,
and are now to be assisted in the fulfilment of their
duty by some half a million or more—are we to be-
lieve that is the establishment of Democratic Go-
verement in England ? Why, to say that this can
be maintained even by an ex Lord-Advocate—
(laughter)—l can only look upon it as one of the
most preposterous conclusions. I say, in brief, that
Lord Derby could not have fixed upon any other
solution of the borough franchise question than
that which we have arrived at. Remember that
every degradation of the borough franchise —I used

the term originally, and I do not shrink from it ;
I used it advisedly and for a purpose—l say, that
every degradation of the franchise declaring, first,
that every man shall have a vote who pays £lO for
his house, and then that every man who pays £8
should have it, and thus through all the notes of the

gamut, £7, £6, £5, and so on—these successive de-

gradations of the franchise, I repeat, cannot recom-
mend themselves to the statesman. ILw is it that

five Prime Ministers have consecutively failed to
deal with the question ? Think of five Prime Minis-

tern—the wisest men, the chief, the prime men of

the country, representing all the great political
parties— failing in this. There must have been
some cause for this failure. The cause was this :
—Every hon. statesman in the House of Commons
—all the independent men in the house—came to
this conclusion, what was the use of these continued
changes ? I say there was only one mode of settle-
ment. When you try to settle any great question
of this sort there are two great merits which the
statesman should not forget. First of all let the
settlement be founded upon some principle ; but
that is not enough ; let it also be a change that is
in harmony with the manners and the character of
the people that you are dealing with. When you
came to this question of the suffrage for boroughs
there was a principle in saying that a man who
has a house, and by his residence and by his contri-
bution to the taxation has shown that he is an in-
dividual interested in the welfare of the community
of which he is a member, and the kingdom of which
he is a subject—there was a principle in saying
that that was a man whom you could trust in pre-,
ference to the migratory pauper. That is a prin-
ciple ; but, then, if you can apply that principle in
deference and harmony to the manners and cus-
toms of your country, I say you have a chance of
settling this great question. If you find it was the
old custom of the country that the householder
should possess the suffrage, that the man who, by
his residence and position, proved that he could be
intrusted with it--you had a principle, and your
traditionary practice consecrated your principle.
If ever there was a settlement, that was a settle-
ment. I say that under these circumstances the
measure we brought forward was the only one, and
that the settlement of Lord Derby's Government is
the only settlement, and is universally acknowledged.
(Cheers.) I think you know it must be acknow-
ledged that it is said we have not treated our friends
well ; that we have been unstatesmanlike, and, on
the whole, that we have behaved in a very extraor-
dinary manner. Well, we proceeded by resolutions,
and I say that the common sense of the House
of Commons vindicated our original course,
and though theoretically we did not pass the Re-
form Bill by resolutions, yet practically we did.
Though we proceeded by resolutions or by bill, we
had a policy of our own, from which we would
never deviate. (Cheers.) Well, then, the next
thing is about the condition of residence. That was
a fair question for the resolutions. The conditions
of residence in municipal franchise is about three
years— practically three years. A great many of
what are called the working classes communicated
with us through their different bodies, and they all
said that they were perfectlywilling, indeed anxious,
to take household suffrage, provided that they had
the three years' residence. We felt, however, that
we could not get a majority, and then we must feel
our way. The House was in favour of one year ; I
thought two years very reasonable, and divided the
House. A great many of the Tories voted with
me, a great many remained away, and a great many
who voted against me voted in the encouragement
of their leader. (Laughter.) Then there was a
third security, the reduction of the county franchise.
Mr. Locke King proposed a £lO. I went down to
the House prepared to support the proposal of the
Government. The county members of both sides
met that afternoon. They said that a £l2 rating
franchise was, in their opinion, perfectly satisfac-
tory. Why, what was Itodo ? Of course, I
thought myself very fortunate to prevent Mr. Locke
King carrying his £lO franchise, and to make an
arrangement which my own party desired. There
is one point I must introduce, if I have not tres-
passed too long on your attention. (Cheers.) I
speak of an animal not known in Scotland, and,
thank God, no longer known in England—the
" compound householder." (Laughter.) The com-
pound householder is a being who wants to vote
without paying rates. Well, that we opposed ;
nothing in the world would induce us to consent to
any man having a vote who did not personally pay
his rates, and I believe that is a sound principle. Of
course, we know very well that:it is a difficult thing
to deal with, because no doubt there are a
great meny men who are compound householders,
who do not pay rates, and there is the apparent
injustice, of which every one is sensible ; but we were
firm upon it, and would have withdrawn the bill if
that had been insisted on. We were perfectly right.
As for attempting to do away with the compound
householder when Parliament first met we should
have had all the vestries of London agitating, and
Mr. Gladstone himself, quietly contemplating our
difficulties, had announced that the laws under which
the compound householder existed were the result of
the civilisation of the age. (Laughter.) But as the
thing went on we got a little stronger, and our
opinions were more understood. Months afterwards
the Liberal party themselves proposed to do away
with the compound householder. What was the
course we ought to take ? We bad insisted that no
man should vote who did not pay his rates. We
had sympathised with the compound householder by
having clauses prepared by which his vote might be
facilitated, and if he choose to come forward and
commit suicide, he would no longer be a compound
householder ; he would give up those privileges and
restrictions and pay rates. 1% hat was our duty to
do ? It would have been most inconsistent in us to
reject that. I say that the compound householder
bowing down, giving up his peculiar position, and
seeing that to exercise the franchise he would pay
rates, was the very triumph of the principle of our
bill—(cheers)—and in the municipal franchise to
show that household suffrage, which very much
influenced Lord Derby, could not be a very danger-
ous affair, he always used to refer to this—that when
the Municipal. Act was passed in England every
man who fulfilled a certain residence, and paid his
rates, had a vote, and nothing could be more satis-
factory than the elections under the Muncipal Act
in its first 12 years. No man was ever elected
hostile to the constitution of the country. Ad-
mirable measures for the sanitary improvement of
towns were passed, but at last there was no
doubt considerable corruption in these muni-
cipal elections, and there was a committee of
the House of Lords, and a report by the com-
mittee to Lord Grey on the subject ; they re-
ported that everything went on admirably in the
municipal elections until the compound house-
holders, who did not pay rates, were allowed with-
out paying rates to vote, and the consequence is that
by the alteration in the law you not only prevent
the compound householder voting for an English
burgh, but you prevent him exercising the muni-
cipal franchise, and therefore we have greatly im•
proved the municipal elections in England. (Cheers.)
Now, my lords and gentlemen, you have, by what
I have told you, some notion of what a speech in
detail is in the House of Commons. There must

be considerable zeal for party to induce you to
listen with so much attention to a narrative of this

description, and yet is it not expedient that state-

ments of this kind should be made by those who,
however unworthily, occupy great positions upon
these questions, especially when, week after week,
and month and after month, the enormous nonsense

that you have listened to—(hear, hear)—has been
circulated through the country, and, therefore, I
think that, as you have been so kind to me as to ask
me to be your guest and offer me your congratula-
tions and your encouragement for the work that I

have done, my observations are not altogether out

of place. I think I have shown to you, if you will
allow me briefly to summarise what I have said,
that we were perfectly justified as a party in dealing
with this question, that it ought to be dealt with,
and that we have dealt with it in a proper manner.
(Hear, hear.) I think I have shown to you that
the story that we have democratised the country
by establishing household suffrage is a fable. 1
think I have shown to you that the assertion that

we have misled and betrayed our friends by giving
up all securities which were talked of is unfounded,
and that we have carried on our bill on the prin-
ciple upon which we have always insisted. But if
I am right in this assertion, pardon some feeling
on my part when I remember that it is in con-

sequence of my conduct—in consequence of
our unprincipled withdrawal of those securities—.

laughter)—and the betrayal of our friends
. _ _

who insisted upon being betrayed—(laughter) —that
I miss to-day the presence of one of my oldest and
most valued friends. I should have liked to have

been:welcomed by his cordial heart, and by that ripe