The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-13 00:00:00

MR. HORSMAN, M.P., ON PARLIA-

MBNTARY REFORM.

STROUD, WEDNESDAY.
Mr. Horsman, M.P., addressed a crowded meet-
ing of the electors and non-electors of this borough
last night on "the present aspect of political affairs."
Mr. Marling presided ; and at the close of the meet-
ing there was a considerable diversity of opinion
on the subject of reform as treated by the right
hon. member.
Mr. HOESMAN commenced by, allusions to the
India Bill and Conspiracy Bill of last session, and
the much vaunted alliance with France, of which,
he said, France had had all the benefit, and Eng•land
all the shame. He would say—Let us be friends
with all the world, but keep our powder dry, and take
care to have plenty of it ; and form no intimate alli-
ances except with the friends of liberty, who had
common interests and common sympathies with our-
selves. Turning then to the subject of the disorga-
nisation of the Liberal party, he said it was
owing to the perverse and, obstinate blindness of
those who had been their leaders, who had been
living in a fool's paradise of their own creation,
shutting their eyes to what all the rest of the world
could see, and stopping their ears to what all the
rest of the world was listening to. The disunion in
the Liberal party had been growing ever since the
old Reform Bill was passed. The fact was that be-
fore 1830 the Whigs were the only leaders of the
Liberal party, because they were the o aly liberals
of the governing class. But the Reform Bill made
a change in all that. It was a revolution that had
introduced a new governing power which had been
growing every year. The Whigs intending to stand
towards the Liberal party in the character of pa-
trons and protectors, never dreamt of raising them
to be their associates in power. They had not the
foresight to see that the extinction of the close
boroughs must be followed by the extinction of
close governments. Since 1830 the Liberals had
been advancing in power,while the Whigs had been
as rapidly declining, until at last they had become
an insignificant minority of the Liberal party. The
Whigs had bred in and in until all Vim political
stamina was gone, and they had been trading on a
political capital not their own. He then came to
the subject of reform, which Parliament would have
to deal with in the course of a month or six weeks.
Lord Derby's secret had been well, kept. Lord J.
Russell, who had a bill No. 2, had also kept his
secret ; and Mr. Bright—(loud cheers)—who was
the parent of bill No. 3, had communicated his
secret to Mr. Miall, who had no authority to com-
municate it to anybody else. (Laughter.) But who-
ever proposed a measure of reform would find him-
self in a difficulty. If Lord Derby proposed a large
measure of reform he would break up his party, and
if he proposed a small one he would offend the coun-
try, and he would be told that we could not afford
a revolution every ten years. Then there was the
danger ahead that, unless the Liberal party were
united, and pulled well together for a practicable
and attainable object, instead of being disunited and
in favour of what was impossible, the party would
be left in rather a worse position than they were before
(Hear, hear.) The two great points which had
hitherto excited the most interest out of doors in con-
nexion with this question were the extension of the
franchise and the ballot. On the ballot nothing
new could now be said, and the strength of parties
in the House of Commons had been ascertained. In
all probability Mr. Berkeley's proposition to have
the ballot introduced into the Government measure
would be defeated. The most important question
involved in any new reform bill would be the exten-
sion of the suffrage. On the eve of a discussion of
the new measure he thought it would be unwise to
commit himself to any opinion. (Oh, oh.) But if
they asked him what were his opinions and views
on the extension of the suffrage he was prepared to
give them an answer. (Cheers.) The difficulty as
to any plan that had hitherto ben proposed for an
extension of the franchise was this. The great de-
fect of the old Reform Bill was that it established a
uniform franchise, whereas before there were dif-
ferent modes of attaining it. This uniform franchise
was based on the qualification of property. That
he considered was defective, because if they ex-
tended it, they would extend it onlyin one direction
—that was, by lowering the qualification. Well,
Lord John Russell in 1832 lowered the franchise,
and made the qualification £lO household. Twenty
years afterwards he proposed to lower it to £5 ; but
the same argument which was given for reducing
the suffrage from £lO to £5 equally prevailed for
lowering it to five shillings, and the samearguments
would be equally adducible ten years after to reduce
it to fivepence. And then they came to universal
suffrage. That had been the difficulty in every plan
for extending the suffrage which had hitherto been
proposed—namely, :that they had the inevitable
result that it was only a stepping-stone to universal
suffrage, or rating suffrage, which Mr. Bright ac-
cepted avowedly as a compromise, as taking uni-
versal suffrage at two bites instead of one. (Hear.)
Now he would tell them the objection which he
had to universal suffrage. He was against all
class legislation (hear, hear) and universal
suffrage must place the Government of the country
entirely in the hands of one class, which were
the most numerous class, and the most numerous
class were, from the nature of their occupations,
necessarily the most uneducated class. (Cheers,
and marks of • disapprobation.) Observe—the ob-
ject of representation was that they should have as
perfect a legislative body as possible ; that is, that
their legislators should comprise men of the high-
est standard of education, morality, and independ-
ence and that it should be a fair representation of
all classes and interests in the country. They would
no doubt, all agree with him that there were three
great elements to be considered in representation—
property, intelligence or education, and numbers—
and the more perfect the combination of all the three
the more perfect must be the House of Commons.
If they had a property class, an education class, and
numbers, which were really the operative class ;
and if they found the operative class outnumbered
the others ten to one, they enfranchised the one and
swamped the others, for they disfranchised them as
entirely as if they had struck them off the roll.
The first feeling and tendency of human nature, if
they had power in their hands, was to use it. They
would have a thousand voices in favour of their
own body. Before the Reform Bill the electors and
the House of Commons were entirely aristocratic.
The Reform Bill created an enormous middle-class
constituency, and the consequence was, the present
House of Commons was as to a large section com-
posed of the aristocracy, and as to another large
section composed of the middle classes. (Hear.)
But if they went a step further, and enfranchised
the operative classes, they would swamp the other
classes ; and was it too much to say that they would
make the same use of the power placed in their
hands that others had done, and elect men either of
their own class, or those who would go to the home
bound to represent the views and opinions of that
class. (" Hear, hear," and dissent.) The result
would be, not an equal distribution of the suffrage,
but that the educated class would be swamped, and
the property class disfranchised, while the govern-
ment of the country would be placed in the
hands of the operative class, nocessarily the
most uneducated class. WAS that a desirable or safe
state of things ? But it was said that the operative
class had increased in morality and intelligence
since the last Reform Bill. If it was meant that
the operative class had so increased in morality and
intelligence as to have overtaken the classes above
them, and that the other classes had been going
back, then there was good reason for transferring
the government of the country from the rich to the
poorer classes. But was that so ? They had
universal suffrage and the ballot in France and
America. Was France free ? They had there a
military despotism, and when that ceased priestly
tyranny stepped in ; they had no personal security,
no one could speak or write in safety ; they had
police at every door and spies in every household ;
an enormous war armament in time of peace, to
keep up which the peoplowere taxed in both money
and men. Her public men were the most demora-
lised and corrupt, and used Cabinet secrets to enrich
themselves on the Stock Exchange. France was,
in a word, in a state of slavery, such as had never
been exhibited in any nation of the world in the
same state of civilisation and advancement. Then
in America their electoral system was notoriously
corrupt, as Mr. Buchanan had recently testified ;
and with immense possessions the spirit of aggran-
disement prevailed ; above all, slavery, that blot
on humanity, existed. He did not say that uni-
versal suffrage was the cause of all these evils, but
that this and the ballot, as was shown in France
and America, were no guarantees of good govern-
ment. Mr. Horsman next alluded tothe
he
erospaiod-
sition for the payment of members, which
would make a seat in the House of Commons
desirable for other reasons than the desire to do
one's duty. How long would a House of Commons
elected on universal suffrage act in unanimity with
the House of Lords ? [A Voice—We don't want a
House of Lairds.] (Loud laughter.) That was
exactly what he anticipated, and having got rid of
one of their great fundamental institutions would
they next depose the Queen ? He ventured to say,
that if they had such a monarch as they could re-
member, and not one who adorned her station with

every public and private virtue, the cry would be
with the salaried candidates for membership,
"We don't want any monarchy." (Cries of " No,
no.") , In conclusion, Mr. Horsman said it had
been the fashion to call the non-electors slaves :
that was absurd. The mere change from a £lO to
a £9 house could not constitute a man a slave, nor
a change the other way make him a free man.
At the close of the address several people rose to
speak, some of them protesting against the treat-
ment of the non.electore whom) Uley said, he had