The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-15 00:00:00

THE SILK LONDON, TUES OA Y EVENING, MAY • 15, 1866,

grees entirely absorbed. You will have trains and troops of
members coming from one county and one place to this
houso. It is absurd to see six members for South Lanca-
shire walking into this house, six members for only one
RidingofaYnoetrhkesrh.ireß,
yantdhitshrsyeestmememtbehersinfeorar
bethrois town,wrbe and
o
three for
increased that, instead of this being a classic Senate it will
have something- of the turbulent character of a Polish diet.
(Laughter and hear, hear.) I know it may be said, though I
do not think it will be, that plurality of voting is no new
arrangement, because originally in the time of the Planta-
genets it was adopted. But that is a mere quibble, and no
one will have recourse to it. We know very well that while
two members were originally decided upon it was not with
reference to any political principle or organisation of politi-
cal parties which did not exist in those days. They were
days when men really never acted alone. First of all, they
had to travel to town together, for they were afraid of rob-
bers. (Laughter.) They had to put up at an inn, and were
obliges to sleep in adouble-bedded room because they were
afraid of ghosts. (Laughter.) They were afraid of taxes
and benevolences being voted; but with two members one
was sure to be present; and on the whole it was considered
a very convenient arrangement. As stated in the Paston
Letters, two burgesses going to town from Norfolk would
be good counsel for each other in the difficult task they had
to perform, which was only to vote away the money of
their fellow citizens. (Laughter.) It may be said with
some reason that the Reform Bill of 1832 did admit the
principle of plurality of representatives. That is a graver
answer ; but although I think it is most wise as far as we
can to adhere to the arrangement of that bill, it is not im-
maculate ; and the giving of three members to half adozen
counties was not an acceptance of the Government of the
day of the doctrine of plurality of members, but a rough
mode by which Lord Althorp settled the balance between
the counties and the boroughs. It was thought absolutely
necessary that there should be a certain number of county
members and a certain number of borough members ; but
the original plan was to divide the counties with regard to
the whole of England, and the whole thing was settled.
But there still was wanting a certain number of county
members, and Lord Althorp threw them to half a dozen—
I think seven—counties, which he did not think were large
enough to divide. But he did not do it for the sake of
plurality of members. The evil precedent which has al-
.ways been inconvenient, and neverpopular, appears to have
been followed in the case of South Lancashire. Had, how-
ever, the suggestion of 1859 been accepted, the house need
not have been in the situation to have followed that prece-
dent. We proposed in 1859 that South Lancashire should
be divided into two divisions, and to give it two additional
members, but now you will be embarrassed by six. It may
be said that the view I am now pressing upon the conside-
ration of the house is inconsistent with those views which
nave so long and so frequently urged as to the claims of
the counties forincreased representation. I think the house,
if it will deign to reflect for a moment, will find no incon-
sistency as far as lam concerned in the matter. In the
year 1847, in answer to Mr. Hume, when he brought for-
ward his motion for Parliamentary Reform, I first in detail
laid before the house the claims of the counties. Mr. Hume's
argument was this—he said the population was the only
principle upon which this question of representation ought
to be settled. If admonished that property had something
to do with the matter, he said, " Therefore, you must dis-
franchise small boroughs, and give their representatives to
the great towns." In general outline that was the scheme
and the theory of Mr. Hume. Well, in 1847, it was my
duty to reply to Mr. Hume's admirable motion. I then,
for the sake of argument, accepted his premises ; but I
arrived at a different conclusion—viz., that you must give
the representatives taken from the small boroughs, not to
the towns, but to the counties. Mr. Hume was an excel-
lent, a most indefatigable member of Parliament, but in
dealing with reform he did not bring to its consideration
adequate knowledge, and could not clearly discern the right
conclusion to be drawn from his own premises. We went
on then for several years, and when Lord John Russell, in
1852, in his Reform Bill, proposed a considerable disfran-
chisement of the smaller boroughs, he proposed that all
their members, to the number of 45, should be given to
counties, and he then said publicly that he did so in conse-
quence of the views which I had placed before this house,
feeling it impossible to resist the conclusion at which they
pointed. But, although Lord John Russell accepted my
premises, I never adoFted his conclusions ; I never proposed
that all those members should be given to the counties,
because I knew that by this extraordinary system of small
boroughs the counties did find a counteracting and compen-
satory influence, which, though it did not fully satisfy their
just claims, did afford, in a certain degree, if not a complete,
an ample representation of the landed interests. I did not
counsel a violent change, such as the destruction of the
small borough system would involve, bound up as it is with
so many other important interests. lam for keeping things
as they are, for I have always felt that the partial repre-
sentation of the landed interests by means of these small
boroughs gives some variety, some valuable variety, to the
elements which aro represented, some additional indepen-
dence of character, and, on the whole, I think, has acted
beneficially upon the constitution of this house. Having
shown that what I have now stated is not inconsistent with
the views which I mentioned before, I come to the general
scheme of this bill. How are all these new seats to be ob-
tained? By what arrangement aro we to have counties
sending in theirsix members and cities their three members
giving so much uniformity of elements and character to the
- representation in this house ? It is to be effected by what
is called a system of grouping. This must be considered
under two heads. In the first place, I would remind the
house that grouping is altogether foreign to this country
(cheers) ; in the second place, that grouping of represen-
tative boroughs is altogether foreign to this kingdom.
(Cheers.) The house is well acquainted by this time with
the grouping of boroughs proposed by the Governmentand
with its consequences upon the representation. My objec-
tion to this system of grouping is, that it aggravates ano-
malies, and that by a process of wanton injustice. (Hear.)
It succeeds only in producing an incomplete and imperfect
local representation. In the first place, view it with regard
to expenditure—a most important consideration. When
you come to grouprepresentative boroughs, you are group-
ing societies, all of which have organised parties, have tra-
ditionary politics, have committees and agents that fora cen-
tury and more have managed the political interests of the
society in which they live. When you address these
grouped societies, this group of boroughs, you are, in fact,
involved in a treble expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Instead of
curtailing the vast expenditure which entrance into Parlia-
ment unfortunately entails upon a member, you are legis-
lating in a mode that must greatly increase it. (Hear.)
Hence you not onlypursue a system which must greatly in-
crease expenditure, but you aggravate anomalies, and that
by a process of what I would call unnecessary and wanton
injustice. I will take a case, because, after all, there is
nothing like an illustration ; and I will take a borough
which is represented on both sides of the house. Dor-
chester returns two members to Parliament, and it
is to be grouped with the borough of Wareham return-
ing one member. Dorchester and Wareham, now re-
presented by three members, are to be represented by only
one. The united population of those places will be 14,500,
represented by one member and losing two. But close by
them only look at Poole, being just above the magical num-
ber of 8,000, and it is represented by two members. (Loud
cheers.) Take again the case of Bridport, Honiton, and
Lyme. These three boroughs aro represented now by five
members, and their united population will amount to 15,000.
Instead of five members they are to be represented by one;
and close to them will be the borough of Tiverton, which
being also above the magical number will be represented
by two members. (Cheers.) This is indiscreet and wanton
injustice. (Loud cheers.) I can understand your taking
away one member or two members from these three
boroughs, and to attain a great public object I can under-
stand your taking away three oe even four members ; but
what I cannot understand is why the boroughs called on
tc make such immense sacrifices should find their united
population of 15,000 represented only by one member,
when a borough close by with 8,000 inhabitants has two.
(Loud cheers.) A small borough may be considered what is
called an anomaly, and an ancient Constitution will be
always full of anomalies. But, at any rate, this must be
said for the small boroughs, that they aro ancient, and that
they are convenient; but these groups are neitherprescrip-
.•

tive nor convenient. (Hear, hear.) The only result is
that you create great jealousies, that you aggravate anoma-
lies, and that you produce a constituency which is not
homogeneous,and which can be only appealed to by the most
costly and complicated means, partly of corruption. Be-
cause, though corruption, unfortunately, prevails in too
many of our existing constituencies, what will result from
grouping them but the caucus system of America? Some
able manwill devote his energies—and this will become a
profession—to securing a majority in two of the boroughs,
he will then make his arrangements with the candidate,
and the third borough will be neither consulted nor repre-
sented. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer in
dealing with this question was immensely influenced by
the example of the Scotch burghs, where this system of
grouping is successful. But I think the Chancellor of the
Exchequer committed an error—which I shall have to ad-
vert to on another subject—he reasoned, I think, from false
'Bl°n% There is no analogy between the grouped
boroughs of Scotland and of England, as proposed by this
bllpdaiirnlffe. ds
rtneblnt
enecydet
Whb
ise first p
o re
rvoeeur gy,
unrepresentedesc (se ih,
deou
considerable.
ra. boroughs to be grouped are re-
presented l
e.
boroughs.ar)o—n
ea nodf it n(1
icet
(Cheers.)
reecaserast .)moAifs
neSbdcitoehft
the
in h
eEsengbolarnodugwhisllthbuesthuengriteedatardeipstlaancecde.s aNtowdhouicbht, sir
Scot-
of
land, the distances are as great, or greater; but observe this
difference between the two countries. Between the boroughs
grouped in Scotland there is nothing but the country, but
between the boroughs grouped in England there are
flourishing and rising towns—(loud cheers)—while many
of them far exceed in wealth and importance the boroughs
that are thus grouped. All those towns may have submitted
for a considerable time, and may yet submit, to what they
deem to be Ale ancient Constitution of the country. But
naturally you
say, ~D
choose to change
not h
thatave t se to so violent an
Constitution—(hear)—they
d
w
fantastic a scheme as this, the combining of represented
towns while we, in the interval, are left
utterly 3
ntunrepresented,
population,miles apart,ol3 being ing allproperty,
dtime
the persons
future
that
awaits poi
awaits us, are the persons that ought to enjoy represonta-

tion." I come then to the conclusion that any system of
grouping founded on the grouping of represented towns
must prove a complete failure, will disappoint all expecta-
tions, and is one that this house ought not to sanction.
(Cheers.) As a general rule, I should say, in periodically,
but not too often, reviewing our representative system
and making our borough representation more complete
and safe the true principle is in moderation and discretion
to reduce the representation of the old boroughs, and to
apply that redundancy to representation of new boroughs,
so that no place shall be perfectly disfranchised. It has
always been our custom in this country, and one which I
trust we shall not depart from, to treat with kindness pre-
scriptive rights, and I am quite certain that any Minister
whe dealt in that spirit with the old boroughs would re-
ceive a more sincere support than he possibly can attain by
anything so violent and fanciful as the scheme of grouping
represented boroughs which is placed before us. But am I
therefore an opponent of the system of grouping? Far
from it. I think it is one that well deserves the earnest
consideration of the house ; it is a powerful and an efficient
instrument, if used with vigour and discretion. But where
I think it may be of groat advantage would be if we were
to leave the present boroughs alone, and yet avail ourselves
of their redundant representation, applying the principle
of grouping to our unrepresented boroughs. (Hear.) Now,
I am quite certain if that were done, as I say, with vigour
and discretion, you would add considerably to the effi-
ciency of the constituencies, and at the same time you
would go a great way towards the solution of those im
mense difficulties connected with the county franchise
which beset every Ministry who attempt to deal with this
question, and which the present Ministry have not at-
tempted to encounter. (Cheers.) Let me give a striking
illustration of what would be the effect of adopting the
system of grouping our unrepresented towns. I don't
know that the advantage of the system could be put in a
more striking manner than by reference to some places
with which the house is familiar. Now, take the first of
the new boroughs to be enfranchised—and I willingly and
cordially approve the proposition to enfranchise them. Let
me take the town of Middlesborough, in Yorkshire—a town
which has very recently risen into existence, principally
from the ironstone of the Cleveland hills. In 1859 it was
impossible we could give a representative to Middles-
borough ; but it is now a town of 19,000 inhabitants, and
no doubt it is increasing rapidly. That population is not
so very large and extensive that its claim to a representa-
tive, if there was not a convenient opportunity for enter-
taining it, would disturb the country by the agitation of a
measure of Reform. (A laugh.) I don't, however, find
fault with the Government for their proposal to enfran-
chise it, because I have great confidence in its future; but
close to Middlesborough is that important and most flourish-
ing town, Stockton-on-Tees, with its population of 13,300.
I would join the two, which would make up an electoral
population of 32,300. Tbat is the way in which I would
treat Middlesborough. (Cheers.) Will the house now
allow me to call attention to Dewsbury ? I mention it be-
cause it is the only one of those places--with exception of
Middlesborough, which did not exist—that I, as the organ
of Lord Derby's Government, did not propose to enfran-
chise. I was perfectly well aware of. its claims, but its
population did not warrant such a proposal then. Even
now it is only 18,100. There, again, you would not agitate
the country by a measure of Parliamentary Reform to give
a member to Dewsbury ; but you will find that it is the
centre of a cluster of towns, engaged in the same indus-
trial pursuits, and distinguished by the same energy. I
would take all these towns, the furthest of which is not, I
believe, more than five or six miles from Dewsbury. They
are almost conterminous—Batley, with a population of
7,200; Birstall, 43,505 ; Cleckheaton, 4,721; Ileckmond-
wike, 8,600; Merfield, 9,263 ; making in all a population
of 73,289. Joining these with Dewsbury you would have
a population of 91,389. (Cheers.) Why, that is what I
call grouping. You would do more by such a system to
improve the representation of the people than you can
possibly do by those fantastic arrangements through
which you are attacking ancient prescription. (Hear,
hear.) Let us come then to Burnley. It is our old
friend ; it was introduced by us in the Bill of 1i52 ; and
every one has been trying to enfranchise Burnley ever
since. Burnley had only about 20,000 inhabitants when
Lord Russell commenced with it. It has now 28,700
—no doubt a very respectable population, but nothing very
extraoriinary. You have near it Cilne, with a population
of 6,300 ; Padiham, 5,600 ; Accrington, 13,800 ; Todmor-
den, 11,800-37,500. Add these to Burnley, and you will
have a population of 65,200. (Cheers.) That is the way
to group. (Hear, hear.) Take a fourth borough, one which
we have all proposed to give a member to. The population
of Staleybridge has increased during the last seven years;
leierdea re
but the population of towns near it—which were of im-
portance in 1859, but not of sufficient importance to justify
tuhi3r inee dealing
towns
iwithnti ria
a tedthem—hasiy connecteda s o
increased. Sta Staleybridge--
Glossop, with a population of 19,000; Hyde, with 13,700 ;
and Dukinfield, with 15,000, or with a united population
of 47,700. If you join these towns to Staleybridge you
with There
will have a population of 72,700. (Cheers.) I will say
nothing about Hartlepool, because I believe that it is pro-
posed to unite the two Hartlepools, and I am sure that such
a constituency will send us good men. Then I would add
Dartford to Gravesend, and, the population of the former
being 5,300 and that of the latter 18,800, you would have
a population of 24,100. (Cheers.) By grouping in this
way I think you would obtain a very considerable accession
to the constituency; and I believe that if you dealt with
the question in such a manner you would have the fi iendly
co-operation of the old boroughs themselves. Having
touched on the question of grouping, and on the manner
in which, if this bill should be carried, additional members
are to be furnished, what. I want to impress on the house
at this moment is the important effect which, dealing with
the subject iu this manner—if the Government would
adopt it, would have on the vexed question of the county
franchises, which I do recommend to tho earnest considera-
tion of the house. (Hear, hear.) Don't let us look on
this as a mere party measure, or as a motion such as that
of the hon. member for Surrey, which may be carried or
not this year, and for which, if it be carried and should
fail, a remedy may be found next year. Let us feel that
our legislation on this question of Parliamentary Reform
will affect the future of this country. Generations after
us will feel the consequences of what we aro doing
at this moment ; and, for my part, I should be very
sorry that when I have left the scene my name
should be recalled as that of one who supported a measure
which affected in a considerable degree the character of the
Constitution of this country—a Constitution to which we
are all so attached. (Cheers.) On a former occasion, though
I did not evade the other portions of the proposal of the
Government, I touched particularly on the question of the
county consituencies, because I thought it had not been so
directly treated. I asked the house to consider what the
effect would be on our county constituencies of a great re-
duction of the franchise when, at the same time, causes
were in operation which were continually changing the
character of th9sa consitituencies, so that they were fast
losing their distinctive character. Though I was ready, as
I always have been ready and am ready now, to treat this
question in a large and liberal spirit, what I'contended for
—not in the interests of party, not in the interests of this
side of the house, but in the interests of the country—
was that you should maintain the distinctive character of
the county constituencies. If that be true which was said
by a great master of politics—" It is wise that the energy
and enterprise of the cities should be tempered by the re-
pose and steadfastness of the country"—if that be true, it
is the interest of every one in this house - except we have
some few eccentric persons among us—that we should, if
possible, make the character of the county constituencies
really what it appears to be. Unquestionably one of the
means by which the characterof the county constituencies
is so perverted is this—that in the counties there are a
groat number of cities or towns which have distinctive in-
terests of their own, and which ought to be represented,
but are not represented. There can be no doubt that these
towns very much change the character which otherwise
would be peculiar to the constituencies of the counties
(hear, hear)—but if you were to group on the system
which 1 have pointed out you might do much to get rid
of that perversion of the character of the county consti-
tuencies. There is another way of doing it which I placed
before the house at great length on a former occasion, and
which I will now merely allude to—that is, the revision of
the boundaries of the Parliamentary boroughs. (Hear,
hear.) I was told at the time that when this bill was
brought forward we should find an arrangement which
would meet objections of the kind. But I must say I have
been entirely disappointed in that expectation. The argu-
ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point
has been utterly unsatisfactory. (Hear, hear.) I stated
that the Parliamentary boundaries is the second great cause
why the character of the county constituency is perverted.
It is difficult to contendagainst that with a high occupation
franchise. But when you lower the franchise you aggra-
vate all the sources of the injury, and at the same time you
offer no remedy whatever for the evils which exist. Now,
what do I find? The Government repudiates altogether
a general revision of the boundaries of Parliamentary
boroughs. But it says, on tho other hand, "We have a
great scheme, and that is that the boundaries of Parlia-
mentary and municipal boroughs should be identical."
[Sir G. Grey was understood to express dissent.] I read
in the bill that the municipal and Parliamentary bounda-
ries were to be identical. (Hear, hear.) It is a slight
matter, but, at all events, having gone through all the
clauses—l won't trouble the, house with details, for I have
taken up too much of its time already—l must say, if the
remedy is,as I fancy, the result must practically be that the
Parliamentary and municipal boundaries are to bo identi-
cal. These questions, however, are so rare that they won't
at all affect the main issue, nor will they remedy the
grievance of which we complain. According to the rest
of the scheme connected with municipal boundaries, you
propose to call the extra municipal population into the
centre of the Parliamentary borough, if that population
desired it. But that they would desire it, that the extra
municipal- population would become Parliamentary, ap-
pears to me very doubtful, because the reason why people
build their mills and their houses without the municipal
boundary is that they should not be subject to municipal
rates. (Hear, hear.) As the desire of the extra municipal
population is to be the centre-point of the arrangement, I
believe that very little will be done. (Hear, hear.)
Now, these are the two heads under which the great evil

of which we complain is aggravated. That great evil is
that since the boundaries have been settled there has been
an increase of 3,500,000 in the urban population, and
with that population the county electors are to be
qualified by this new bill. (Hear, hear.) It is no an-
swer to the case I have put to say that that is to be done
only with the towns where the majority of the population
is beyond the Parliamentary borough. But there was an
extraordinary argument used by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and I allude to it because it is another instance
of the false analogy in which he indulged. The Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer said—
" Take care how you revise the boundaries of Parlia-
mentary boroughs. Take care not be press the matter too
far. If we revise the boundaries of Birmingham and the
great northern towns, we must revise the Parliamentary
boundaries of other boroughs in England to which the ag-
ricultural districts have been appended."
Sir, that is no answer whatever. What I say is this, "Sup-
port the settlement made by the Reform Bill." The " ba-
lance of power," as I may call it, the balance of influence
that was settled by the Reform Bill, is what we want you
to maintain. (Hear, hear.) That settlement was not made
in favour of the Conservative party. It was made by a Li-
beral Government--a Liberal Government supported by an
immense Liberal majority, and therefore we have a right
to conclude that very little favour was shown to us. (Hear,
hear.) We find that the boundaries in 1832 have in the
large towns practically been entirely violated, and violated
to the injury of the legitimate influence of the county po-
pulation. (Hear.) And what is your answer ? Where the
population has not increased, because in that part of the
country in which the boroughs to which I allude are situ-
ated the population has not increased, in answer to us, who
are seeking to maintain the settlement of 1832, and to save
ourselves from the violation of our boundaries, you reply,
" Oh ! we must examine the boundaries of the other parts
of England where those boundaries have not been violated."
(Hear.) Well, sir, I have asked the House to consider
these questions, which are particular points in the Bill we
are asked to read a second time, and which refer principally
to the borough franchise, but upon the right understand-
ing of which the county franchise particularly depends.
We are called upon greatly to reduce the borough fran-
chise. We complain that as the franchise is now ar-
ranged there are certain evils which call for a remedy.
There is a large mass of the population to whom wZi don't
grudge the franchise, but to whom we say, " Exercise it
where your industry, capital, and interests are placed."
(Hear, hear.) We complain that with the present occupa-
tion franchise the legitimate influence of the counties is in-
terfered with. You do nothing in this bill, whether by the
grouping of boroughs or the settlement of boundaries, to
give us relief in any way for that most anomalous griev-
ance by which the freeholder of a borough votes not for
the place in which his freehold is contained, but for a
place with which he has no connexion. (Hear.) That evil
you immensely aggravate by the present bill, because all
those boroughs which we are going to enfranchise now
possess a great number of freeholders, and there again you
obtain a great increase of the county voters. In addition
to this, you burrow into the country for legions of lease-
holders. (Hear.) How are we to deal with the Govern-
ment when they meet us in such a spirit ? How aro we to
meet them ? If the Government came forward and said,
"This is a great occasion, and we are perfectly aware of
the justice of your claims. In our judgment you may take
an extreme view on this point. But we feel there is some
propriety in your requisition. At any rate, you may depend
upon our anxiety to meet in a legitimate manner the diffe-
rent wants and wishes of all classes in the community."
But the position in which we have long been placed, and
which is an unjust position, is now to be aggravated. You
have additional sources of injury to turn against us. (Hear,
hear.) Now, let me remind the house of the circumstances
under which these measures have been introduced to us.
What I say is known to every gentleman on this side, and
I believe to the vast majority on the other. If, when Par-
liament met, a measure for the improvement of the repre-
sentation of the people, temperate, well-digested, an d
tolerably fair, had been breught forward, it-would have
been my duty, with the entire advice and concurrence of
all with whom I act, to have agreed to the second reading.
(Hear.) No secret was made of that. It was unneces-
sary to intimate it. It was the course we have invariably
pursued. In 1860, when Lord J. Russell introduced his
measure, that was the line of action which we followed.
We immediately consented to the second reading, and that
measure, though defeated, was not defeated by the Conser-
vative party. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. Russell himself ad-
mitted that. Ile has left it on record, and I shall repeat
his words. In his own terse language he says :
"I was defeated by the Liberal party—and not only by
the Liberal party, but by those members of the Liberal
party who represented great constituencies."
(Cheers.) I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State
impute to us in 1860 that we loaded the paper with amend-
ments. But what is more natural ? And is it not always
understood that you are to exert yourselves to the utmost
to make a measure of the kind advantageous to the coun-
try ? (Hear, hear.) Whet an extraordinary charge to
make ! We had agreed to the second reading ; and is it not
a singular proof of the hostility of the Opposition that we
should absolutely have put amendments on the paper ?
(Cheers.) I say, then, that the extraordinary cause of de-
lay as regards this measure is not to be attributed to us.
It is difficult to know to whom it is to be attributed—l
won't say it is difficult, but I won't point out who it is.
(A laugh.) My object to-night is to touch upon things of
another kind. 1 will not advert to the unfortunate conduct
of the Government in the management of their Bills. A
great deal of time has undoubtedly been lost ; but to whom-
sover the fault may be attributed this I will say, it is not
want of time that will prevent this Bill being fairly con-
sidered, and, if a good measure, being passed. (Cheers.)
We can all of us make a great effort if time be the only
thing wanting. We can sit in the morning and in the even-
ing. (A laugh.) We could cheerfully devote ourselves to
a task which was necessary, which the country required,
the.object of which was clearly understood by us, and whiCh
was clearly understood by its projectors. The House of
Commons would soon make up for lost time ; but, Sir, the
cause of the Bill not advancing, the cause of the uncom-
fortable position in which the country, the House of Com-
mons, and the Government are placed with regard to this
measure is other than loss of time. I am sure Ido not at
this moment wish to say anything which could injure the
self-complacency of any individual in this house—(laugh-
ter)—but there are moments when one must be frank.
When there is so much at stake—when there is so much at
stake as the future of a great empire, one must be frank;
though so far from wishing to offend any one, I say that,
to use an expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if
I do offend any one, 1 apologise for it beforehand. (Laugh-
ter.) But it is not time, it is not want of time, thatprevents
our legislating in the matter. It is something else - I say
it sincerely, and I wish to speak temperately—it is the want
of maturity both in design and preparation which has at-
tended the measures of the Government in this matter.
(Cheers.) Now, Sir, permit me very briefly to prove that
statement, for it is of the utmost importance when we are
called upon to read a bill of this magnitude for the second
time after only a week's consideration. (Cheers.) Talk of
wasting time ! At any rate, that was a course that was
compensatory for such ladies. (Laughter.) When Parlia-
ment met we were promised information—papers upon the
position of the borough franchise. They were not given
to us for a considerable period. I wish to speak my own
opinion sincerely with regard to these papers. I think
them very valuable papers, and though they may have
been, and unquestionably it was proved that they were,
hurriedly prepared in some cases, I believe they wore bona
fide, and prepared with great ability and sincerity. (Cheers.)
Well, Sir, those papers were placed before us; though the
house will recollect the almost despairing expressions of
the Secretary of State when he pressed him for those
papers, which conveyed to the house little prospect of their
ever appearing, only a few days or hours before the intro-
duction of the bill, when wet from the press, and confes-
sedly, I think, not read by the Chancellor of tho Exche-
quor, they were placed upon the table. They were, as I
say, very important papers, and I, for one, received them
with that respect which,was duo to the source from which
they originated. Let it be remembered, however, that not
only were they hurriedly prepared, but that the principal
organ of the Government, the highest authority on the sub-
ject, after having examined them, rose in his place and in-
formed the house that they were utterly untrustworthy.
(Cheers.) Well, sir, there is another branch of information
which was required upon this important subject, and that
was information respecting the condition of the county
franchise. None was given to us, to the great disappoint-
ment and surprise of the house. But, although no infor-
mation, no statistics, no papers respecting the county
franchise were given, it would be unfair in me if I did not
admit we were amply and frankly informed of the views of
her Majesty's Government on that important subject, espe-
cially with reference to the point which is the origin of this
legislation—viz., the position which the working classes
occupy in the constituencies. The papers which the Go-
vernment hurriedly placed before us with regard to the
borough franchise produced a considerable sensation in
the house, because they proved, and proved, I think,
conclusively, that the working classes already possessed a
considerable status in the borough franchise. (Hear, hear.)
But her Majesty's Government, though they gave us no
papers respecting the county franchise, did frankly and ex-
plicitly give us the result of their deliberations on that
subject, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chief
organ of the Government in this house, and especially-on
this subject, informed us that in the county franchise the
working classes were an infinitesimal quantity ; and, in
fact, that no papers were produced as to their position with
regard to the county franchise because, in their opinion,
they possessed no share in that franchise. You remember
the expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I, in
an unhappy moment, not wishing to give any offence, made
an observation across the table—l will never make one

againr(laughter)—and on account of that observation I

was violently denounced by the right hon. gentleman, and,
in fact,' was almost afraid of my life. (Cheers andlaughter.)
" There may," ho said, "be some few working men in your
county who have votes, but in county constituencies the
working, man is as the fly in a pot of ointment."
Those were his words, and I never shall for-
get his look. (Laughter.) Well, sir, from that
moment .1. have been engaged with the assistance of some
gentlemen who are most practised in such matters, in en-

deavouring to obtain information upon this subject. It is
entirely foreign to my habit ever to offer to the house any
information which as a private member I may obtain. I
think that in our debates, as a general rule, nothing is more
salutary than that wo should argue, and certainly that we
should legislate, only from authentic and official statistics
furnished by the Government. But these are cases, when
the Government makes statements which you doubt—when
they do not furnish you with information—when they de-
cline to furnish you with information—when they scoff at
you for asking for information—(cheers)—there aro cases
when you are thrown upon your own resources, and I
should be grateful to any man who had been long sitting
in this house, and who had been not altogether unaccus-
tomed to the management of such affairs, if, with the be-
coming modesty which such a situation would require, he
offered—not for the adoption of the house, but for its con-
sideration—such results as he may have arrived at. What,
therefore, I am going to say I do not want the house to
accept with any unreasoning credulity, but in that spirit in
which I would accept them when in Parliamentary life I
received such communications. We did—l won't say
thoroughly, but we investigated the subject, and we had
communications from many parts of the kingdom. We re-
ceived them from mon in official positions who could,give
us authentic information, and I am bountl to say we have re-
ceived that information from gentlemen of Liberal opinions
as freely and as numerously as from gentlemen of Con-
servative opinions. We have only had one object, which
was to arrive at the result; and the result at which we have
arrived at is this—of course the details are in some respects
imperfect, but in others they are very ample—the result is
this, and I believe it will eventually be demonstrated if the
Government, as I hope, will give orders for an official verifi-
cation orinvestigation into these matters—that the working
men of England have a larger share of the county consti-
tuency than they have even of the borough constituency,
and by which the Government were so startled. (Cheers.)
I ask the house, then, is not this another evidence of the
immaturity in which all these matters have been dealt with?
(Cheers) Let me sincerely say that in dealing with this
portion of the subject—viz., the county franchise—a Go-
vernment who really believed that the working classes had
no share whatever in the constituencies were scarcely
qualified to address the house in the manner in which we
have been addressed, and told that if we did not pass these
measures instantly Parliament should never be prorogued.
(Loud cheers.) And now I pass to the third subject, on
which I venture to say the same immaturity has been ex-
emplified, and that is the subject of Parliamentary bounda-
ries. It is quite clear that when the bill was first brought
forward in this house this subject was one which had
hardly occurred to the Government, and had occurred to
them only as one of comparative insignificance. It is no
answer to me to say, "You did not vigorously deal with it
in 1859." We did something, but the years that have suc-
ceeded 1859 have immenselyaggravated the circumstances;
and what the house has to decide is not upon the compara-
tive lathes of one Ministry and another, but upon what
ought to be done for the public good. (Cheers) I say,
then, that the manner in which that subject has been
treated, and now hurriedly dealt with by the Government,
is a third proof of the immaturity of their proceedings in
this matter. (Cheers.) Well, Sir, the fourth proof, I think,
is the bill before the house. If there be a subject which
will most tax the profundity and the discretion of a Minis-
try, it is the distribution of Parliamentary seats, which is,
in fact, the distribution of political power in this country—
(hear, hear) —and I say that it was impossible to have pro
duced a scheme upon the subject more troublesome, more
vexatious,:and which, at the same time, produced less satis-
factory results. But are we to be surprised at such conse-
quences ? Is it not notorious that when the Franchise
Bill was introduced the Minister who introduced it never
even contemplated a bill for the redistribution of seats—
(cheers)—and that this vast subject, which required so
much thought, so much research, such temper, such forbear-
ance, and such firmness alike, was never considered except
in the few hasty days—or hours rather—which they snatched
from other engrossing labours during the agitated fort-
night between which it was promised and produced ? Is
this, or is it not, anotherproof of the immaturity with which
all these measures have been prepared ? (Hear, hear.) Well,
sir, I am told as I walk down to the House of Commons
every day—l am told by men in the street as I come down
Parliament-street, " lbam forte via sacra"—(a laugh)--
somebody tells me, "I hope you are going to settle the
question." Sir, ignorance never settles a question. Ques-
tions must be settled by knowledge, and it is not the vexa-
tion of an opposition, from which ever side of the house it
may come, that prevents this bill from advancing. It is
that we none of us see our way—l say it with a frankness
that I trust will bepardoned. I don't believe the question
of Parliamentary reform is thoroughly understood by the
country—(hear, hear)—is thoroughly understood by this
house—(hear, hear) ; and, although I dare only utter it in
a whisper, I don't believe that it is thoroughly understood
by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers and laughter.) I
recollect a pass age in the classic Plato where the great sage
descants upon what he calls "double ignorance," and that
is where a man is ignorant that he is ignorant. (Cheers
and laughter.) But, sir, iu legislating there is another kind
of double ignorance that is fatal to proper legislation.
There is, in the first place, an ignorance of principles, and
in the second, an ignorance of the facts upon which those
principles are based. And that is our position in dealing
with this important question. There is not a majority in
this house that can decide upon the principles upon which
we ought to legislate in regard to this matter ; there is not
a man in this house who has at his command any reliable
facts upon which he can decide those principles. (Hear.)
But then the question arises—What are we to do? I admit
the difficulty. I do not shut my eyes to the position in
which we are placed. The country, the House of Com-
mons are—it is a classical, although it may seem an
idiomatic phrase, as it was used by Dean Swift -in a
scrape. (Cheers and laughter.) And I should despair
of escaping from this perplexity and this predicament
had I not unlimited confidence in the good nature and
the good sense of the House of Commons. We must
help the Government. (Cheers and laughter. We must
forget the last two months. The right honourable gen-
tleman must recross the Rubicon, he must build up his
bridges, and we will supply him with vessels. The right
hon. gentleman is in a position in which he can retire from
this question of reform for the moment with dignity,;to
himself and to his colleagues. He must not sacrifice his
country, his party, or his own great name to a feeling of
pique. (Hear, hear.) He is still supported by a majority;
he is not in the position of a Minister whose reputation
and the fortune of whose Cabinet aro staked upon indivi-
dual measures in a house wherein it is known that he is
in a minority. That has been the unfortunate position of
others, but it is not his. He occupies a far different posi-
tion, in deference to what I believe to be the wish of the
country and the desire of the House of Commons. Now
what has he to do ? It seems to mo that the most advan
tageous and the most dignified conduct for him
.• to adop
would be this :—Let him at once give instructions tha

complete and accurate statistics shall be prepared with re-
gard to the borough franchise—not hurriedly, but with
time and with attention, and in an impartial manner, so
that no person shall be able to rise and say that we are
called on to legislate upon this question upon facts which
are utterly untrustworthy. Let him, recognising the un-
fortunate admissions which the Government under the mis-
taken views which they adopted with reference to the
county constituencies, give immediate orders that the most
ample information should be acquired as to the share which
the working classes of this country possess in the county
franchise ; let him direct that such information should be
provided with care and discrimination. I think such in-
quiries may be trusted with safety and security to those
persons who have provided us with the information we
now have relating to boroughs, and which are imperfect
merely because of the hurried manner in which it was pro-
duced. Let the right hon. gentleman, then, to-morrow,
after consulting his colleagues, give orders that sub-com-
missioners, acting under the Enclosure Commissioners,
should visit all the Parliamentary boroughs of England
and report upon their boundaries. Let the right hon. gen-
tleman give up this scheme of grouping represented
boroughs, which he must see is repudiated by both sides
of the house ; let him boldly acknowledge that the pro-
per way of dealing with tlar subject is to appeal to the
spirit of justice of the represented boroughs to spare him
a few members from their superfluity; let him prepare a
well-digested and complete scheme, which will give repre-
sentation where required upon the principle of grouping
the unrepresented towns of the country ; and, having done
all these things, let him consider the results with his col-

leagues, and when Parliament meets again he will have
the opportunity—which I am willing to give him every
credit for—of submitting to our consideration a measure
which will command the sympathies of the country, and
which will obtain the sanction of Parliament. The right
hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud cheers.

Mr. CARDWELL, on the part of the Government, de-
clined to follow the advice of Mr. Disraeli, and contended
that the measure was one of sound and constitutional Re-
form, while the views enunciated by Mr. Disraeli were
altogether opposed to the spirit of the Reform Act, He
defended the propositions of the Government, especially
with reference to the grouping of boroughs, and said that
if they wished to throw the question of Reform over alto-
gether, they could adopt no more effectual means than
sending out a commission and endeavouring, upon their
report, to group in various parts of the country a variety
of places which were now unrepresented. The bill had
been introduced, not with the view of benefiting any par-
ticular class, but with the view of benefiting every branch
of the community. Re trusted that by the moderation of
party faction, and the exercise of the good sense and judg-
ment of the house, Parliament 'would be able, during the
present session, to bring to a satisfactory conclusion this
long-agitated question.
Mr. A. WALSH remarked that the. Chancellor of the
Exchequer, according to his own showing, had been dazzled
by the splendour of Canning and caught by the glitter of
Birmingham. But was there any reason for believing that
his views and opinions were entirely settled ? The present
bill affected 79 seats, 48 of which were Conservative and 31
Liberal. He had been somewhat astonished to find 8,000
selected as the limit above which the seats should not be
interfered with, but on turning to " Dod's Parliamentary-
Companion" he found that of the 17 additional seats which
would have been affected if the limit had been 111130 d to