The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-12 00:00:00

who wore not then members of the house that there was
a very strong struggle upon that measure. In that case,
if my memory is not incorrect, between the passing of the
last resolution and the third reading of the India Bill the
interval was only a month. (Cheers.) Therefore, Ido not
think that the house upon reflection will object to proceed
by resolution on the groundless assumption that it s‘ ill
produce delay, if the house should agree to the principles
I have previously put forward, that there are circumstances
of extraordinary exigency which necessitate that course.
Then it is said that resolutions are vague. Well, sir, I
admit that resolutions must bo vague to a certain extent
and in a certain sense. If you would produce resolutions
With all the precision of clauses in bill, there would not
be the slightest necessity to go into committee on resolu-
tions. The object of resolutions is to obtain the opinion
of the house upon the main, principles on which your
measure should be founded ; and, upon all other questions
in which the main principles are not concerned, but which
aro of great importance, to obtain the opinion of the
house, and defer to that opinion if it does not approve
them. With regard to the application of the princ'ples to
details, of course it would be the duty of the Government
to submits with:pleasure and readiness to all suggestions
made by the house which might lead to a more perfect
and complete measure. Well, sir, upon the ground of
delay, I trust that our course will not be opposed. With
regard to the vagueness of resolutions, I will say this,
that if a Ministry are resolved, if the resolutions aro car-
ried,to introduce a bill, there is no body of men more inte-
rested in the precision of the resolutions than the Govern-
ment itself. It is not our interest to bring forward vague
resolutions. We want to get from the house such a sanc-
tion of our views, and such assistance by the expression of
their own, as that we can bring in a bill which will pass
with promptitude. And, therefore, these vague resolutions
are exactly what we should avoid, as they would not assist
us in our course. I want to meet this question fairly, be-
cause I am sure it will facilitate our future course if we can
arrive as soon as possible, and as much as possible, at a
mutual understanding. I will take one of the most diffi-
cult questions which can occur in the resolutions. Our
first resolution probably must refer to the extension of the
suffrage. Well, if I bring forward a resolution which merely
declares that it is expedient that there should bo an exten-
sion of the suffrage in counties and boroughs, I should call
that a vague resolution. (A laugh, and hear, hear.) The
house is agreed, and has agreed, not only in this but in
preceding houses, and in an unmistakeable manner, that
there should be a considerable extension of the suffrage in
counties and boroughs ; but the house, certainly not this
house, has never yet formally stated the mode by which the
extension should take place. But if a resolution is brought
forward proposing the mode by which extension should take
place, either by the creation of other franchises or the re-
duction of existing tenures of franchise, why then you have
a resolution which advances the question. If, however,
I am asked, as I am told I shall be asked, whether it is
not useless to bring forward resolutions on such a question
as the franchise without defining and describing minutely
the qualification, then I say that is an unreasonable condi-
tion. (Cheers.) I say it is an unreasonable condition, be-
cause it is a condition which it is impossible for any Go-
vernment to comply with. If you come forward with a re-
solution which declares that it is expedient the franchise
should be extended by a reduction—that is a principle
which when laid down cannot be misunderstood. Tut how
are you to settle the amount of the franchise ? Take your
borough franchise—how can you fix in your resolution,
even if you agree to the principle of the extension of the
franchise, the amount of your franchise, when that must de-
pend upon principles not less important than the extension
of the franchise? (Cheers.) I wish to illustrate this
point. The amount of the franchise depends upon many
considerations, but it depends mainly upon one principle
of the greatest importance, and that is a principle on which
this house has given an equivocal and ambiguous decision;
yet without a right appreciation and a clear conception of
which it is impossible to make any proposal to the house
which can lead to a practical result. I mean the basis
upon which your franchise shall rest, namely, the pnu-
ciple of rating. (Hear, hear.) Until you decide what
shall be the basis of your franchise, and, if you fix upon
rating as the basis of your franchise, until the House of
Commons has in a clear and ambiguous manner decided
that point, how is it possible in a resolution to come
forward and recommend a particular franchise ? I put
this forward because it is an important point which
may be thrown in our teeth if we do not propose a re-

solution in which the exact character of the borough
franchise is defined. It may bo said that we are trifling
with the subject, but I say that it is utterly impossible if
you proceed by resolution. You must have a resolution
to decide whether the basis of your franchise is to be rating
or not. (Hear, hoar.) I will not trouble the house with
too many details of the character of the resolutions, which
if the house will give me the opportunity 1 intend to pro-
pose. They will be, I hope, in tha hands of members to-
morrow morning ; but, perhaps, the house will permit me
to advert to one or two poiuts upon which I think it highly
important this house should come to a clear and unequivocal
decision. And I must say that lam anxious the house
shall decide what principles they mean to reconstruct the
House of Commons. Do they mean to reconstruct it on the
principles of the E3glish Constitution—(hear, hear) —or do
they mean to reconstruct it on the principles of the Consti-

tution of any other country ? (Cheers.) I think it very im-
portant that this question shall be decided. Now, sir, her
Majesty's Government intend, if they can, and if this house
will allow them, to reconstruct this house on the principles
of the English Constitution. (Cheers.) I will not advert
to any remarks which I may have made before on that
subject, or, at least, I should like not to advert to them,
because it. is painful to repeat oneself, but it is better to be
wearisome than to bo ambiguous on this subject. We
think that the English Constitution is not a mere phrase.
We believe that we live under a monarchy, modified in its
action by the co-ordinate authority of the Estates of the
Realm, and we look upon the Commons of England, whom
we represent, as one of those Estates. Sir, I know it has
been said that this is merely an archaeological view of the
Constitution of England—(a laugh)—but I think I can
show the house that they will be very unwise if they quit

without duo consideration the ancient traditions of the
polity under which they live, and under which this country
has so singularly flourished. Undoubtedly, under the great

vicissitudes of centuries, the relations between the Estates
of the Realm in this country have greatly altered and
changed. No doubt the Commons whom we represent
have absorbed the greater part of the authority which
those Estates once themselves exercised ; but I think I can
show the house that this is no reason why we should for-
get the constitutional scheme under which this country has
so long prospered, but rather, if deeply and fairly consi-
dered, why we should cling to that scheme as our only
surviving guide against the impending perplexities that
surround us. (Hear, hear.) No doubt the Commons of
England, by the immense increase of population and pro-
perty, have assumed a character with reference to the other
Estates which never was contemplated in the days of the
Plantagenets and the Tudors. It is a very great error to
suppose that it is merely the increase of population and
property on the part of the Commons which has brought
about the present form of the English Constitution and the
present character and functions of the House of Commons.
Take ono of these Estates. Take the peerage of England.
That is a powerful body. It is probably the wealthiest as-
sembly in the world,aud it possesses particularly the kind of
property which is most popular in England, because it is
a tenure connected with the fulfilment of duties - I mean
the land. Nor are the power and influence of the peerage
to be measured by their property. Their social influence—
I use the word in a large sets.—their national influence, is
very great. I have often myself felt that the power of the
peerage is greater in every part of Englund than in their
own House. What, then, has placed the Commons of Eng-
land in the commanding position which they now occupy ?
It is the development of our financial Constitution. It is
the claim we asserted two centuries ago - partially recog-
nised then, and now completely established, which has
practically placed in this house the taxing power. That is
the cause of the position and character of the Commons of

England. The moment that power was established, every
class, every interest in this country, sought representation
in this house, and naturally, because in this house alone
can they defend their rights and their property. (Hear.)
People complain of the influence, the undue influence of

the Peerage, in the House of Commons. Why, sir, the
influence of the Peerage in the House of Commons is not a
usurpation of our rights ; it is a deference to our authority.
(Cheers.) And so it is with all interests. Here they come
because here power is reposed, and it is here only that they
can be guarded in respect to the exercise of that power by
the presence of their representativse. The consequence is
that every class and every interest has sought, and to a
certain degree has obtained, representation in this house.
That is the cause of the variety of our character. But is
it the variety of our character that has given us our delibe-
rative power ? (Hear, hear.) It is our deliberative power
that has given us our hold upon the executive—(hear)—
and it is this hold upon the executive which is the best, ayo
the only, security for the freedom we enjoy. (Cheers.) Well
Sir, her Majesty's Government can counsel and counte-

nanco no course that will change that varied character of
the House of Commons —(hear)—they will respect and
reverence the causes which have elevated a rude popular
assembly of the days of the Plantagenets into a Senate
which commands the admiration of the world. (Cheers.)
We do not find that there is any security for retaining that
character unless we oppose a policy which gives to any
class in this country—l care not whether it be high or low,
whether it be influenced by a democratical or by an oligar-
chical feeling—a preponderant power in this house.
(Cheers.) And therefore, in any measures that we may
bring forward, wo shall assert that the elective franchise
must be regarded as a popular privilege, and not as a de-
mocratic right. (near, hear.) If, sir, we wanted to see
what are the consequences of allowing one class in a popu-
lar assembly to have a preponderating influence, what is
passing iu the world at the present time is fruitful of in-
struction. (near, hear.) I never presume to criticise the
institutions of other States. Indeed, I hold, and hold most
sincerely, as a general principle, that the institutions of
every country are pretty well adapted to the population
who live under them. But take the instance of our nearest
neighbour. There is France, in the very van of civilisa-
tion, perhaps—if I Were not in the House of Commons and
in England, I might even venture to say—the first of E uro-

poen nations, inferior to none in vivacity of mind, in acute
;intellect, in wonderful perseverance, and in that patriotic
feeling which always follows. Well, in France, this
gifted nation has a popular assembly, and it is elected
by universal suffrage. Does any one pretend that the Legis-
lative Assembly of France is equal, I will not say merely in
European, but in cosmopolitan, consideration to the House
of Commons ? (Cheers.) If there be any Englishman who
thinks that the Legislative Assembly of France can claim
that position, I am sure there is noFrenchman who does so.
(Laughter and cheers.) Butit may be asserted that our in-
stitutions are not sufficiently representative to suit the ad-
vanced state of our race, and that the constitution of France
was suddenly and rudely invented under circumstances of
disorder and disturbance. (Hear, hear.) Well, let us take
the case of the United States of America. There you have
a House of Representatives, framed by the children of our
loins, and certainly under the inspiration of as pure a pat-
riotism as over existed. It is elected by universal suffrage.
But does any one contend that the House of Representa-
tives at Washington can equal in authority the House of
Commons ? (Hear, hear.) And what is the cause of this?
Why, no doubt the American nation is inferior to us in no
point; it is of the same blood, the same brains, the same
intelligence, of equal energy, perhaps of more enterprise;
but the house is elected by one class—(cheers); there is no
variety in it. And so the Legislative Assembly of America,
like that of France, can neither of them rule the country in
which it is established. I would hardly venture to refer to
another case, but them is ono further example for our
guidance. You have now a German Parliament instituted.
Now, I am proud of our countrymen, but I don't suppose
there is any man in the house at thiA moment who will pre-
tend that for intellectual power we are superior to the Ger-
man nation. That gifted people have now a Parliament;
that Parliament is elected by universalsuffrage, and we find
that the ministers of the King are not to sit in it. (Heat,
hear.) Thus we have these extremely popular and repre-
sentative institutions elected by one preponderating class ;
and what do we see are the consequences ? Why, that the
Assembly loses allthat which we believe, and justly believe,
to be the characteristic of the House of Commons. It loses
it from the want of that variety of element which gives
various wisdom, various knowledge, deliberate power, and,
by deliberate power, such a moral command over society
that it will intrust to it a great portion of the executive of
the country. (Cheers.) Well, Sir, with these views, con-
sidering the doctrines that are now preached, the violent,
the thoughtless, the pernicious doctrines which aro now cir-
culated—we cannot pretend to enter upon the labori-
ous and responsible task which we are otherwise willing to
undertake, unless the House of Commons will, by some
resolution, declare an opinion in harmony with the general
sentiment 1 have now expressed. (Hear, hear.) There are
other subjects on which I think it is of the utmost import-
ance that the house should come to a decision, and by its
coming to a decision upon which subsequent legislation may
be greatly facilitated. I need refer but slightly to the prin-
ciple to which I have adverted as the basis of our legisla
tion on the franchise—namely, the principle of rating.
admit that in the year 1859, having endeavoured to bring
forward a scheme which founded our suffrage on the prin-
ciple, I was reluctantly obliged to give it up, the difficul-
ties were then so great, the anomalies so glaring, and the
consequences to which it would have led so absurd. But
since that time the course of legislation in this house has
greatly lessened those difficulties. A bill introduced by the
right hon. member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) on
the subject of union rating has greatly contributed to this
result. But I hope that to-night my hon. friend the Secre-
tary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt) will have an opportunity
of bringing in a measure which will entirely remove all the
remaining difficulties connected with this matter. Under
these circumstances, we trust the house will assent to a re-
solution affirming that rating shall be the basis of the
franchise. (Hear, hear.) Sir, there are one or two other
points to which, if I am not wearying the house, I should
like to allude. (Cheers.) Among them is one of the most
difficult of all questions—viz., the distribution of seats.
(Hear, hear.) Now, upon that subject there are two schools
of opinion, which are as much at variance as upon the sub-
ject of the franchise itself. There is a school that would re-
construct the electoral map of England. Wo hear some-
times that the map of Europe is to bo reconstructed. There
is also a school in this country which would reconstruct the
electoral map of England. On the other hand, there are
those who approach this question with very great hesitation.
They see an ancient and complex arrangement, but, at the
sante time, one which, for a considerable period, has contri-
buted, as they think, to the representation of a country like
England, having a variety of interests, with success. It
is impossible in this country to think on this subject and
not to be struck by the apparently providential manner in
which an almost obscure island in the days of the Norman
kings, with but a limited population and slight resources,
has developed itself into a magnificent and unparalleled
empire. Through the rude institutions of the Plantage-
nets and Tudors, however, the means have been found of
representing interests so vast, so various, so inconceivable
as those which are bound up with the England of the pre-
sent day. (Cheers.) Those impressed with that con-
viction will, I am sure, concur with me in the opinion that
upon the question of the redistribution of seats we must
proceed with caution and care. Any attempt to appor-
tion according to certain symmetrical arrangements the
representation of the country would probably end in alter-
ing the character of this house, and in altering its charac-
ter, depriving it of its authority. (Hoar.) I think that be-
fore we introduce our bill we have a right to ask the house
to give us their opinion upon, and I hops their sanction to,
certain principles
tvbuetiepelhteogegntnuoei.dhthea which we propose to act. One of
those principles is that no borough should, so far as the re-
distribution of seats is concerned, be wholly disfranchised.
(Cheers.) lam in favour of this principle for two reasons.
1 look upon it in the first place as wise and necessary
that the representation of the country should, as far
as lies in our power, be distributed; and I regard it as
unwise and unnecessary to disturb any centre of represen-
tation, because it is impossible in an age of rapid growth,
when communities so rapidly rise and vanish, when the
changes and alterations of social arrangements are so
evanescent, to proceed with too much circumspection.
Speaking, then, for myself and my colleagues, wo are of
opinion that no borough should bo wholly disfranchised so
far as the redistribution of seats is concerned—for I ant
far from saying that if bribery be proved to exist in a
borough, as we have reason to fear and believe it may be
in the case of some—we ought to show ourselves more
deficient in spirit than our predecessors, and I trust under
such circumstances we should know how to act. (Cheers.)
Our main—mind, I do not say our sole—consideration, in
bllttowhs iucphp
are,ly
from representativesa
variety
otfoc
au placesses
altering the apportionment of the representation would, in
he
ntefswheanoehentwl
iicettstluhhieeon
entitled
sanction
etnweipvdsrietteiin.gpeltdsirelpi place,d
guided
se
ehn
aeut "wet
ahoamerpeeciontti
dnhe
mtesst
eti
noWa.
question
01
ooponfuri
trnthchei
e psleeesonb yd
redis-
tribution of seats, and unless we have from the house their
arrange-
ments must prove perfectly useless, for hon membersmust
reading of the •
bill which we might introduce, founded,
perhaps, on the case of some obscure borough, but so in-
geniously worded that the fate of the measure mig ht de end
upon it. I have to apologise to the house for ha 13
so much into detail—although I have endeavoured into goneco
fine myself to those resolutions which appeared to n-
me to
involve large principles; but there is another • • - •
which
I think it my duty to touch slightly--a point
withon
which it has been found difficult to deal, whicrismat
important element in the settlement of this.questiovnerOff
Reform, and upon which I venture to say a greater amount
of misapprehension exists than almost upon any other —I
allude to the subject of boundaries. (Hear, hear) Now, I
have myself on more than one occasion not completely, but
casually, expressed the views which I entertain upon
this
subject. It is really a vital subject, and one, it appears to
me, on which no dissension ought to prevail, for if clearly
understood there would be, 1 imagine, scarcely any roomy
for a difference of opinion in regard to it. Unfortunately,
however, it is not clearly understood, and it has had raised
in connexion with it objections which have had a very
considerable effect on the house, although they are objec-
tions based on false data, and supported by false reasonng.
If I again remind hon. members of the salient facts of the
case, it is because I am anxious to place a distinct picture
before their minds. The amount of the population dwelling
in counties is 11,500,000, and that population is repre-
sented in the House of Commons by 162 members. Nine
and a-half millions is the population that live in the bo-
roughs, and they are represented in this house by 334
members. One would naturally say, at the first glance,
that there is nothing unreasonable in the eleven and a-half
millions asking the House of Commone that, as they have
such a very small share of the representation, they, at least,
should enjoy the privilege of electing them, and that a
portion of the nine and a half millions in the boroughs
should not interfere with their enjoyment of their rights.
Well, sir, we know that practically they do not enjoy them
—we know that, since the Reform Bill was passed in 1832,
the population of the boroughs has greatly increased, and
that it has passed the borough boundaries to the amount of
millions. The population of the counties has also it is true
increased; but the same remark doesnot apply in this case.
Now, if you, as we are going to propose, greatly reduce the
franchise, and in counties, many portions of the population of
these boroughs will become county eleetors. Well, the eleven
and a half millions, having the 162 members, think this
rather hard (Ministerial cheers). They naturally think
the surplus of a population ought to be contented with
being represented by 334 members (hear, hear). It is not
an unfounded complaint, on the other hand, that if you
reduce to-morrow—as you will if you follow our advice—
the county franchise, one half of the town of Halifax—not
distinct front the other half any more than the city of
\Vestminster from the City of London —will supply a large
band of county electors for the county of Yurk. Is this,
under any circumstances, a desirable thing ? It cannot, I
think, bo held so. Why, let me repeat, should these eleven
and a half millions, possessing only 162 members, be visited
with an invasion which still further diminishes their privi-
lege of seeing representatives to this house? (Cheers.) I
think you will agree with me that the question is one de-
manding attention, and that there should be no contro-
versy about
it. But there is a controversy —a great con-
troversy, a bitter controversy and like all great and bitter
controversies, it is occasioned by a total ignorance of the
subject (laughter and cheers). It is said that this cry of
having the boroughs revised and re-arranged is highly w -