The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

signal for that agitation and that dissatisfaction out of doors
which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) depre-
cated. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. H. PHILIPPS always felt the greatest reluct-
ance to affirm an abstract resolution, especially when it had
reference to a bill before Parliament. The right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) pre-
dicted the other night that if the bill passed as it stood,
there would hereafter be an " ugly rush" to pass the line
which excluded the working classes. He (Mr. Philipps)
believed that if the franchise could only be reached through
taxation, that " ugly rush" would be converted into a pace
as solemn and deliberate as the "Dead March in Saul."
(Laughter.) Reserving to himself the right to take what-
ever course he pleased, if the bill should come before them
on the question of the second reading, he should vote
against the resolution of the noble lord, because it tended
to create an inconvenient precedent, and to prevent fair
Parliamentory discussion.
Mr. C. FORSTER said that on the previous night the
noble lord the member for Stamford had done him the
honour to refer to something which he had recently said to
his constituents. What he said, or meant to say, was that
as respected the bill under discussion there was perfect
agreement between the noble lord the member for London
and the hon. memberfor Birmingham,and that they would
be found walking into the same lobby. As a borough
member, he of course felt most interested in the operation
of the bill with regard to the representation of the bo-
roughs. Like his hon. friend the member for Middlesex,
be should have preferred meeting this bill with a direct ne-
gative, but not having the opportunity of doing that, he
should, whatever might be the ulterior consequences, vote
f or the resolution of the noble lord.
Mr. STANHOPE said there were two points in which,
as a county member, he naturally felt especially interested
—one relating to the 40s. freeholds in boroughs, and the
other to the £lO franchise in counties. As regarded the
40s. freeholds, he did not consider it right in principle to
deprive people of a franchise which had once been
granted ; but, on the other hand, he had never
been able to understand why a person who lived
in a borough should be permitted to vote for the
county, and a person who lived at a distance from a
borough should not be allowed to vote for that borough, the
property possessed by both being the same. It appeared to
him that there were but two principles on which the house
could act in this matter. He had a few words to say on
the principle of the bill. Were he to consider it as a mere
disjointed set of clauses, many of them excellent, while
some were more questionable, he might not trouble the
house on this point. But he found that the principle of
the measure was the assimilation of the town and county
voters. If he were called upon to affirm that as the right
principle of his political life, he must say that he felt it was
surrounded with manifold bjections and however much it
might distress him, he should feel it 'his duty to oppose that
principle. But at the same time he never would, on any
consideration, give his sanction to the sort of amendment
now before the house. Such amendments had lately be-
come too prevalent. It was an amendment affirming
nothing, and put forward with a view of catching every-
body—an amendment so general, that while it took in men
of all sides, it would not commit the person proposing it to
any course whatever—(cheers)—an amendment so vague
that he defied anybody to say what was its real meaning.
(Cheers.) It asserted that nc measure which did not lower
the franchise would be satisfactory—but to what extent ?
Was it to be a£6 or a£s franchise ? Was it to be man-
hood or universal suffrage ? (Cheers.) The noble lord re-
fused to give any statement of his views on this matter.
(Hear, hear.) If the noble lord and his friends were dis-
satisfied with the principle of the bill, let them, as he had
done, manfully say so ; but do not let them from mere per-
sonal motives endeavour to throw out a bill by an amend-
ment every part of which might be introduced in committee.
(Cheers.)
Mr. DODSON had heard it said that they ought Rot to
vote against this bill without knowing what measure was to
be brought m next. His answer to that was, he voted against
this bill because it was a bad bill, and should the next bill
be no better, he should vote against that also. As to the
resolution, every kind of objection had been raised against
it. It. meant too much—it meant too little—it meant
everything—it meant nothing. Now to his mind the reso-
lution affirmed two points of great importance—points so
important that no step ought to be taken with the Govern-
ment measure until those leading principles had been
affirmed by the house. Indeed, the resolutions seemed to
him to be an act of kindness to the Government. If they
passed the Government had only to follow the course which
it took on the India Bill, which it followed on the Jew Bill
and the Voters at Elections Bill, and acquiescing in the
resolutions alter their measure accordingly. The Govern-
ment, however, had as yet only defended to a certain extent
their measure,and it had been insisted thatthe system of county
voters in boroughs was an anomaly. But if they touched
everything connected with our representative system where
were they to stop ? It was said that there could be no rea-
son why a person having property in a borough should
have a vote for the county ; but the reason for that was
plain enough. Property in the borough was no less pro-
perty in the county in which that borough was situate, and
the holder of that property had as much an interest in the
county representation as if the property were situate in the
county. He believed that the tendency of this bill was to
create a broad line of demarcation between different classes,
and as such he should give it his opposition.
Mr. VANSITTART had listened with considerable at-

tention to the speech of the noble lord the member for Lon-
don in the hope of hearing some reasons for the mischievous
amendment now under discussion. He had, however, heard
no such reason, and to his mind the noble lord appeared to
be smarting under the want of success which attended his
efforts in the cause of reform in 1854. He was aware that
there were certain members of the other side, who were very
anxious to give the right of representation to those who
hitherto had been represented by their leaders, rulers, and
paymasters--(ironical cheers)—and he would remind the
house that these gentlemen also wished to consign a large
number of peers to perdition. (Laughter.) With respect
to the savings bank franchise, Mr. Wright, the manager of
the Windsor bank, had favoured' him with a return by
which it appeared that 20 per cent. of the depositors would
obtain the franchise under the clause. (Hear.) He trusted
that in committee on the bill some means might be found
to make the machinery of registration less expensive, and
to counteract the baneful influence exercised by rate col-
lectors at the time of a general election.
Mr. CROSSLEY.—A good deal had been said of the time
which had been occupied by reform, and they were told that
it had been a cabinet question ever since 1851. It was said
that bills had been introduced, and had been withdrawn, and
that this was the only one which they were called upon to
read a second time. He thought it very possible that this
bill might pass into a law, and still leave the question of
reform as unsettled as it had found it. (Hear, hear.) Who
now called for reform ? It was neither the higher nor the
middle classes, but those who were left out in the bill of
1832, namely, the working classes of this country. (Hear,
hear.) The noble lord the Secretary for India asked how a
man was to be distinguised as belonging to the working
class. His (Mr. Crossley's) definition was, the man who de-
pended on the labour of his hands for the bread of life. Now
that class, he contended, had been left out in the bill of 1832,
and that they were also left out in the government bill of
1859. (Hear, hear.) He thought that right hon. gentle-
men opposite had shown great industry, and had devoted
most praiseworthy attention to the business of the country,
while they had most favourably impressed all who had
found it necessary to trouble them with deputations. For
these reasons he should be exceedingly sorry to give any
vote which should have the effect of turning them out of
office, the more especially as there was no one on that (the
opposition) side of the house who had proved himself fit to
lead the liberal party. So lately as Wednesday last they
found the two noble lords who assumed the leadership ab-
sent from their posts, and, indeed, they had so often de-
serted their followers in the lobby that they were now left
with scarcely any followers to desert. (Ministerial cheers.)
The conduct of the noble lord the member for Lynn had
been very different. Openly and manfully the noble lord
had voted for the abolition of church-rates, and he (Mr.
Crossley) regretted that the noble lord must, according to
rule, serve a seven years' apprenticeship before his attain-
ment of the premiership. For his part he should rather
have a horse who had his work sal in him, than one who
had been completely used up. (Cheers and laughter.) With
great regret he should give a vote the effect of which must
be to turn out the government, but still he could not sup-
port the second reading of a bill which on the face of it re-
fused the admission of the working classes to the franchise.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. KNIGHTLEY said that the peculiarity of the go-
vernment bill was that, like the gold and silver shield in
the tub, it presented a different aspect according as it was
looked at from different sides of the house. The objection
he had always held to an extension of the county franchise
was very much mitigated by the bill of the Government,
but still he held that you should not enlarge the county
constituency unless you at the same time enlarge the county
representation. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that the
counties had never yet had their fair share of the repre-
sentation. As for the resolution of the noble lord, he under-
stood the noble lord's wish to be that the freeholders should
remain untouched. But what was the present state of the
law in this respect, and how did it operate 2 If a man had
a small house and garden, worth £l2 a year, he had out of
them two votes, one for the county and one for the borough,
while another man, his neighbour, might be worth £l,OOO
a year and have only one. This arrangement operated
heavily against the county interest. Take Middlesex for
instance. In that county, out of 17,000 voters, one half
voted for property within represented boroughs. In Lan-
cashire, out of 20,000, 12,000 held similar qualifications. It
was, therefore, quite obvious that in those counties, the
towns, as well as their own members, returned also the
members for the county. (Hear, hear.) The present bill
was,
in fact,
onlya copy of that of the noble lord ; and there
was even a greater authority, that of the late premier, in
favour of the
principle. On the same occasion the noble
lord the member for Tiverton eulogised this sort of dis
franchisement, as tending to preserve
.the balance between
Pe
county and town, and ensuring an efficient_ and
io independent
deprivend the
t n
representation for both. (Hear' hear.)
working classes in rural districts of any privileges which
were enjoyed by their brethren in the boroughs, would be
an injustice so gross and so monstrous,,tha, t if it were per-
petrated it would ere long lead to that ugly rush" which
had been prophesied by a right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.)
Under these circumstances he (Mr. Knightley) should sup-
port the second reading, though he would frankly own that
the bill was not at present in a form of which he could
wholly approve. (Cheers.)
Mr. S. HERBERT (who spoke from the front opposition
bench below the gangway) confessed that he had been much
astonished by the speeches which he had heard in the course
of the present debate. If he were blind he should have
thought that the orations which had been delivered from the
other side of the house were spoken on that, and vice versa.
(Hear, bear.) He did not himself go so far as some of his
Conservative friends. He was not prepared for electoral dis-
tricts, and he was not ready to argue the whole question of
the representation upon a mere numerical calculation of
aliquot parts. (Hear.) He had listened, as everybody
must have done, with admiration and delight to the speech
of the right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colonies.
(Cheers.) But in the midst of that splendid declamation
he had listened in vain for any indication of some course
which the Goveriuneut might adopt in order to extricate the
house from the difficulty in which they found themselves
placed. The right hon. gentleman spoke to them of what
might be done in committee, and askedtwhy those who were
opposed to the bill did not vote against the second reading
instead of moving a resolution by way of amendment. He
said that there were questions relating to the savings batik
qualification, to lodgers, to voting papers, and to other
matters ; and he added, " Prove your case. Those are
questions for committee." Of course they were (medians
for committee. Who questioned it ? No doubt they could
make many amendments in committee. (Hear, hear.) But
they were asked to vote for this bill under very peculiar
circumstances. The Government proposed to make certain
changes
which excited dissatisfaction amongst some mem-
bers of the house. The Secretary of State for India said,

guieedi that it was only by error and oversight that the