The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-14 00:00:00

liiiiillA.L PARLLUIENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST EVENING.
The LORD CITANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PETITIONS.

Several petitions on different subjects were presented
by Lords Chelmsford, Houghton, and Earl Grey.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Aften
Valley Railway, Bodmin Water, Neath and Brecon Rail-
way (Capital), and New Milford Docks. .
The Montrose Harbour Bill and the Dublin Connecting
Railway Bill were severally read a third time and passed.

himself with proposing a £7 franchise, which gives to the
working class not far short of half the borough constituency,
taking it altogether—viz., as 333,000 to 362,000 electors of
the oilier classes. That may be the proportion this year,
but it is not for this year that we legislate. (Cheers.) And
even granting that a £7 franchise is not lowered by Parlia-
ment, a £6 rental is raised to its level by time, and
raised so rapidly that within three years from the next
registration, owing to permanent causes which necessitate
the rise, of urban rentals, the man who pays between £6 and
£7 a year for his house will pay £7 and become a voter.
And if you pass this bill you give in all borough towns an
additional and irresistible impetus to the rise of rent.
(Hear, hear.) It will be the interest of builders, the object
of political parties, the natural desire of petty householders,
who value a vote, whether for its own sake or as money's
worth in some shape or another, to bridge over the narrow
space that divides the £7 voter from the man who pays a
trifling iota less, for It is not the rental of £6 but rather the
rental of £6 108., or 2s. 6d. a week, which forms the gene-
ral staple ofrents between £6 and £7— (cheers)—and the
hon. member for Leeds, addressing his constituents the
other day, truly said that the absence of the ratepaying
condition is equivalent to the other 10s. in the pound. So
that it must be perfectly clear to every man of sense and
candour that, should you pass this bill, that which is now a
£6 rental will be a £7 rental within three, or at most four,
years—viz., within the natural Me of the present Parlia-
ment; and thus that you will create that very preponder-
ance of the working class which the existent £6 rental would
insure, but which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us
Parliament never contemplated and is not prepared to con-
cede. (Cheers.) This does not rest on assumption ; we have
ample evidence of the fact in the case of the £lO franchise.
Look down those statistical tables and see how compartively
few occupiers there are in the £9 column, because the £9
houses have been absorbed into the £lO franchise. And
the reason why the increase of the £lO voters was more
rapid in the early years after the bill of 1832 is that in
these years the process of the absorption left less for the
following years to effect. As a general rule, at whatever
rent you wish to fix a franchise, especially if freed from
ratepaying condition; you must calculate the real numbers
so admitted to be within three years those that are repre-
sented by the rental of £1 below it. But gentlemen have
said that if the poor householder was induced by the gain
of the franchise to pay more for a bettor house that world
be a social benefit, and an argument in favour of the bill.
Yes, but the rise of rent does not necessarily mean the im-
provement of the house. (Cheers.) Many gentlemen pre-
sent know that they must now pay £3OO a year for a Lon-
don house which four years ago would have been thought
dear at £2OO. Nothing in this age of progress is so rapidly
progressive as the risers rents in all the large towns. in
Parliamentary boroug the house that is now worth £6
10s., or even £6, will remain just as squalid as it now
is. (Hear, hear.) The £7 franchise raises its rental
without bettering its accommodation, (Hear, hear,) But
then it is said the vote itself is a moral benefit to every man,
whatever his education or condition of life. It raises his
sense of dignity and self-respect. Does experience tell you
so ? Was the vote a moral benefit to the freeman and pot-
walloper ? (Cheers.) Do you suppose that freemen are cor-
rupt merely because they are called freemen? No; they
are corrupt because they belong to a condition of life in
which, no doubt, there are many upright and earnest poli-
ticians, but in which there are many others who, if two
rival candidates, prefer Smith and a £5-note to Brown and
the Rights of Man. (Cheers and laughter.) You disfran-
chised the freemen of Yarmouth. Did you extinguish
corruption at Yarmouth ? (Hear, hear.) No, you find this
very year that the same class of men are not less corrupt as
petty householders than they were as freemen. (Hear.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the first reading of
this bill, cited as an notable illustration of the soundness of
his proposal a distinguished instance of the intelligence
and self-guiding power of the working class. Where does
he go to for that instance ? To one of those eight boroughs
in which the electors of the working class are most equal
in number to those of the middle class? No, he goes to the
borough of Rochdale, where the electors that belong to the
working class aro only as Ito 20. (Cheers.) Does he not
see how his illustration tells against his argument? (Hear,
hear.) These admirable specimens of the working classre-
quired no £7 franchise to develope their intelligence and
self-guiding power. Is there anything in the air of Roch-
dale more favourable to virtue than the air of Yarmouth ?
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) No; but these voters of Yar-
mouth had been for a long series of years exposed to the
strongest temptations poverty can undergo when it is can-
vassed by wealth—temptations to which these noble ope-
ratives of Rochdale had never been subjected. (Cheers.)
But the operatives of Rochdale having been left thus free
to mature uncorrupted their self-guiding power would now,
I grant, be strong enough to resist such temptation. To
artisans of that kind, whatever their political creed, I am
willing to grant the franchise. Willing, do I say? That
word is much too cold. I wish that, like some old common-
wealth of Greece, wo might admit them to the franchise by
acclamation, too proud of such fellow-citizens to ask what
rent they pay for their houses. (Cheers.) But if you want
to make a safe experiment of a working-class suffrage, and
an experiment fair to themselves and true to the dignity of
honest and thoughtful labour, are you sure that it can be
made by the abstract principle of your bill ? That is, by an
uniform abasement of the franchise applied equally to all
boroughs, whatever their population and whatever their
character. Perhaps for such an experiment the wiser plan
would be to revive that variety of suffrage which is agree-
able to the ancient custom of the Constitution, and which
was strongly recommended by the high authority of Sir
James Macintosh, in any further extension of populous
constituencies; and having decided how many boroughs
should be devoted to majorities of the working class, then
select those constituencies in which skilled labour tends to
to create a superior class of artisans, and in which their
numbers alone would be some safeguard against the bribes
of a candidate, and, giving three such a suffrage as would
amply secure your object, decline to -apply the same low
rate of franchise to those other and numerous middle-sized
boroughs in which the skilled artisans are too few to be-
come a fair representation of the intelligence and integrity
of their class, and the electoral population not sufficiently
large to frustrate the bribery by which the ambition of the
rich man tempts the necessities of the poor. For, do con-
sider what are these boroughs in which, take them alto-
gether, we axe asked to make this abrupt and wholesale
transfer of electoral power. Are they not the predominant
influence on the legislation of this house, and therefore in
the choice and control of the Imperial Government ?
(Hear, hear.) Despite the great wealth, despite the larger
numbers represented by county members, the boroughs
have so decided a majority in the House of Commons that
no Government can last which does not obtain the sup-
port of a considerable proportion of the borough members ;
whereas a Government opposed by the large majo-
rity of county members, if it has the general support of
the boroughs, carries,all measures and secures its existence.
Gentlemen have gone into calculations as to the number of
boroughs in which the working classes at a£7 franchise
will have majorities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
estimates the number at 60 boroughs or 801 seats ; but in a
very able pamphlet by Mr. Baxter the numbers appear to
be these—Majorities in the election of 95 members—nearly
majorities in the election of 93—and from bne-third to two-
fifths in the election of 85. But if lam right in maintain-
ing that the rise of rent in Parliamentary boroughs will ra-
pidly make what is now a £6 rental a £7 franchise, the
number will be considerably increased, and in most of the
boroughs where the working classes will not actually have
the majority their proportion will be so large that the elec -
tion will be practically in their hands. There seems to me
this fallacy in the argument of the Chancellor of the Ex-
ihequer, that it is only in those boroughswhere the work-
ing classes are to have a clear majority that he considers
their influence predominant. But a class may have a majo-
rity so large as to be practically predominant. lathe county
I represent it is said truly that the tenant farmers can
carry an election, yet the tenant-farmers do not appear by
the books to be muchmorethan a third of the constituency.
(Cheers.) A class that has a third of a constituency has an
election in its power. When, therefore, you hand over the
ccce, l‘oolawranmss
sesmeeNlmtvleo,hrscaobituafwhloteiucyl
rtolomuhul
systemt i ma t
ee lf y t becomehi s
eabe
rtaht
ee
boroughs to the urban working class, it is the urban work-
maerbniatreerhsyofft ldl
tt
hh
fast
mh
sharevn
ew be
oea f
el tthhh
ea
ds (umHffi eitt.aa
igrn,
eghwe
theai
trh. )0
urban
rtßbdauant itwg eiors„s ayt
niodgu,
have not even been conscious that they were admitted,
and therefore it can be no danger to give them a half
share upon a principle which must rapidly give them a
predominant majority." Sir, that argument reminds me
of the Irishman's bull— good" If one quince can give so a
flavour to an a pple pie, how wonderfullygooids ma ustbe
an apple pie that is all quinces"—(loud cheers and laugh-
ter)—for the franchise of the working class
gene-
rous stimulant to the action of a free State. But too
much stimulant is living too fast. The physician may re-
commend a certain degree of alcohol in our daily drink, and
the more it does us good the less are we conscious of the
amount of the alcohol we have taken. But would the hardy
Scotchman who was all the better for his temp e rate glass
of whisky and water progress to a finer state of wealth, as
the Chancellor of the Exchequer implied in his speech at
Liverpool, in proportion as he swamped he water by in-
creasing the whisky. (Cheers and laugh the water by in-
creasing the whisky. (Cheers and laughter.) So much for
the persuasive kind of argument ; but the hon. gentleman
the member for Birmingham gives us instead what school-
men call the argumenturn baculinwn. He says, ac Wretched
Parliament that you are, take this change now before some
accident occurs by which the working class may compel
tu
doorsm ul tout a
the y
You to take something much worse." And it is not the fault
of the members for Birmingham if one of those accidents
does not occur in the shape of a fortuitous concourse of
this subject of
the Emperor
something is said by liontes-
aHtoonlauses,.
eefxcteonmdinmognsf.romuuCouhdarichngee-rcsr.o)ss
stc:r7tohne
quieu' which
hing to
"History of Ca3sar."
rylesmthoneawreohrld.
quoteEraeror of the French thinks suffi-
ciently with approval in his preface to the
"It is not Fortune," says lifontes-
cuh,
‘a‘cwhich
evrue
ofanadb all accidents are subject
There are general causes
battle. to those causes. If the failurey,madettle has ruined a State,
there was a general cause whichite nlnecessary that
principal cause drags with it the particular accidweno
State should perish through a single
accident
thell
then, we wish to create a general cause that may make any
particular accident of a revolutionary c. aracter fatal to the

independence and dignity of this grand assembly, letus ac-
cept this argument of the bludgeon, and proclaim to the
masses that we yield to intimidation that which we refuse
to reason. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) And, Sir,
if we desire to create a general cause that may make
any particular accident of a domestic character
fatal to the mixed Constitution of this country, let us
at once accept this bill, which, if any accident can
occur of a nature to accelerate the impetus and widen the
circle of democracy, makes the political leaders of the
urban working class the masters of the situation. (Loud
cheers.) Sir, lam not one of those who have an absolute
horror of democracy, and can only speak of it in the lan-
guage we apply to something monstrous and abnormal. I
recognise democracy as one of the genuine and legitimate
forms of national polity. Like every form of government,
it has its defects and faults. But it has also merits of its
own—merits identified in the history of the world with
marvellous achievements of individual genius, of national
energies, of passionate devotion to the public cause. I
would even here undertake the defence of our Anglo-Saxon
colonies from much that has been said against them. But
democracy seems to me essentially the government that
belongs to societies in their ycuth, and in which the habits
of men, even more than their laws, produce a certain
equality of manners and education. There is no special
form of government adapted to every varying community
in different epochs of its existence. But if there be a coun-
try in the world in which democracy would be a ruinous
experiment, it is a country like England, with, a very
limited area of soil compared to the pressure of its
population, with a commerce so based upon credit and na-
tional prestige that it would perish for ever if by any
neglect of democratic economy, or, what is more probable,
any adventure of democratic rashness, our naval power
were destroyed, and with such strong differences of reli-
gious sect that we should find it impossible to preclude de-
mocracy by that universal and general system of education
without which it would be madness to make the working
class the sovereign constituency of a Legislative Assem-
bly. I may here, indeed, quote the authority of the member
for Birmingham, who, speaking the other day at Manches-
ter on the subject of education, showed that in the States
of New England education did not follow, but long pre-
ceded, the establishment of democracy. So that even in
America, despite the unequalled bounty of nature, the
true fathers of the future republic made a period of 150
years of education, brought home to the door of the
poorest citizen, precede the establishment of a demo-
cracy the action of which is even now qualified by checks on
the Representative Chamber which, as I will show you pre-
sently, are unknown to the English House of Commons.
But this bill, you may say, does not create such a demo-
cracy. No, but it is the inevitable step to it, and it is
received and understood as such by its enthusiastic sup-
porters out of doors, who, laughing at it as a settlement of
the question, hail and applaud it as an installation of the
principle to which absolute democracy is the only goal. It
is the inevitable stop to democracy, not so much because
of the actual franchise it gives now either in towns or
counties, but because of the abstract principle, adorned by
the eloquence of members of the Government, which alone
wins to their bill the approval of the National Reform
League—viz., that every working man has a right to avote ;
and while no political community could exist for a quarter
of an hour if all rights which speculative philosophers say
we take from nature were not merged in an acquiescence
to the social compact that wo have no rights except those
that we take by law, this solitary right of an electoral
vote forms an exception and the privation of it constitutes
a wrong. (Cheers.) By this principle you create and
sanction and perpetuate a discontent on the part of every
working man whom the suffrage you bestow on his fellow-
workmen still excludes, and you gather round the doors
that your principle keeps ajar the millions whom your
principle invites to enter. (Cheers.) What, then, says
the Chanceller of the Exchequer—surely sensible that he
is treading on what he calls tender ground? "Do not
regard these new applicants as an invading army. Are
they not your own fellow-Christians ? - Are they not your
own flesh and blood ?" I share in the amazement general
among his warmest admirers how a man like my right
hon. friend can descend to a species of argument so hollow
in itself, and so perilous in its logical deductions. So hol-
low in itself, because, suppose, for instance, I introduced
a Reform Bill by which I admitted rural voters to swamp
the urban voters, as you propose to admit the urban
voters to swamp the farmers. And suppose I said, "Do not
regard these honest farmers as an invading army. Are
they not your own fellow-Christians ? Are they not your
own flesh and blood ?" (Laughter and loud cheering.)
Would you not answer then, perhaps less civilly than we
wish to answer now, "All that may be very fine, but the
mind and opinion of one set of fellow-Christians are not to
be overborne by the flesh and blood of another set." (Much
laughter and cheering.) But see how perilous are the de-
ductions to be drawn from an irrelevant platitude when it
is used as an argument by a man in authority, and in-
scribed, as the very few Liberal journals which favour the
bill say that this platitude shall be inscribed, on the banner
of Democratic Reform. I will assume for a moment—my
right hon. friend will pardon and correct me if I am wrong
—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in favour of
universal suffrage. (A laugh.) But how can he oppose it
consistently with his own inscription on his own banner of
Reform ? (Cheers.) What has he to say to the millions who
will ask him one day, " Are we an invading army ? Aie
we not fellow-Christians ? Are we not your own flesh and
blood ?" Does he think it will be answer enough to give
that kind of modified opinion which he put forth last night,
and to say, " Well, that is very true. For my own part,
in myindividual capacity—(laughter and cheering)—l can-
not see that there is any danger in admitting you, but still
you know it is wise to proceed gradually. A7£ voter is
real flesh and blood, but you are only gradual flesh and
blood. (Great laughter and cheering.) Read Dr. Darwin
on the origin of species, and learn that you are fellow-
Christians in an imperfect state of development." (Renewed
laughter.) That which is an amiable sentiment when ap-
plied to the claim of all mankind to our humanity and com-
passion becomes a doctrine formidable to those who dis-
like universal suffrage when it is applied to a principle of
political franchise by the most conspicuous Minister of the
British Crown. Sir, the most painful part of this discus-
sion is that which is forced upon us by the Government
statistics, thus sharply separating the working class from
the rest of the community, and thus rendering it difficult
to argue against the principle of democracy without wound-
ing or offending the honourable pride of men with whom
every employer of labour, be he manufacturer, merchant,
or country gentleman, is brought into affectionate and
familiar contact. Do you suppose it does not go to the
heart of a gentleman if he utters a word which, either from
his own defect of language or from an unfair perversion of
his meaning, hurts the manly feelings even of the humble
labourer with whom he has formed an intimacy as cordial
as any which exists among those equals whom he calls his
honourable and noble friends ? And what man of letters
does not revere those lofty aspirations of the educated
artisan towards a more perfect form of human society,
which may, indeed, be Utopian, but which form an eternal
link between the aims of educated labour and the dreams
of philosophy and genius? But, looking to this present
state of this workday world, it is no disrespect to the
urban working class if, in their relation to the State, I
object to cut out of them a rude slice, and, without any
test whatever of intelligence, give to that slice a prepon-
derating influence in the constituent body and the legisla-
tion of this complicated empire. I should have the same
objection to the preponderating influence of scholars and
men of science, or of great merchants, or of a territorial
aristocracy. Each of such sections, however indisputably
honest and intelligent, would fail to represent ,that
common sense of the common interest which is
best expressed by the word commonwealth, and which
can only be fairly represented where the middle class is,
on the whole, largely preponderant. Not that the middle
class has not as many faults of its own as any other class,
above or below, but that, on the whole, it most faithfully
represents all the interests and opinions which constitute
the mind and welfare of a nation, and the most felicitously
reconciles the securities of order with the demands of free-
dom. And are men to be stigmatised as traitors and con-
spirators because they desire to preserve from virtual dis-
franchisement and political subjugation the middle class
constituents of which they aro as yet the trustees ? The
Chancellor of the Exchequer lays much stress on the fact
that all the working class do not agree in politics. I do
not say that they do, but I say this : that where they ob-
tain a marked and general predominance they cannot fail
to colour and influence legislation, especially where ques-
tions in which they feel a special interest are concerned.
All clergymen do not agree in politics, but if they returned
the majority of members I fancy you would feel their in-
fluence in a division on church rates. (A laugh.) All far-
mers do not agree in politics, but if they returned the ma-
jority of members you would feel their influence in a divi-
sion on the malt tax. (Laughter.) All working men do not
agree in politics, but as soon as they return the majority of
members, rely on it you will find their influence in those
questions between laboir and capital, between manufacturer
and mechanic, between supply and demand, upon which
the very existence of this commercial England depends.
Even in foreign affairs, as welt' as domestic, the very virtues
of the working men, in their detestation of what they con-
sider tyranny and injustice, would be a perpetual source of
dangerberfor hienyormetinurnsaaysmttjhiiosribtyillofismwemanbteerds.
toTshaevme erhe-
country from the risk of war, provoked by the depravity
of Tories—though, by-the-by, I think all the wars in which
we have been engaged since 1815 had their origin under
Liberal Administrations. But what says the member for
Brighton, who spoke on the first reading of this bill
with so much ability and promise ? Why, that the work-
ing class would have gone to war with Russia on behalf of
Poland. That is quite consistent with their generous ten-
dency to side with the weak against the strong. A House
of Commons, had the large majority been chosen by the
working class, would then have wished to provoke a war
with Russia. (Hear, hear.) But a war more dispropor-
tioned to our powers, less sanctioned by our interests, and
more vainly exhaustive of blood and treasure the imagina-
tion of men cannot conceive. Why do such dangers never
occur in America and France, countries in which universal
suffrage is adopted ? Because both in America and France
the popular Chamber has no voice in foreign affairs, no
voice in creating Cabinets and determining the choice be-
tween peace and war. And the examples of both these

countries makes the fact clear, that in proportion as you
lower the scale of franchise to the preponderance of the
working class, the safety of the State compels you to limit
the powers and authority of the Representative Chamber.
The more you lower the standard of the constituency be-
low the average education of the country, the more you
will transfer the intellectual power of this house to some
upper chamber, whether it be an English House of Lords or
an American Senate. Take America itself ; no one there
cares what is said in the House of Representatives. Every
man there looks alone to the Senate on questions that affect
the general interests of the nation. The Senate there alone
discusses foreign affairs, and when it does can become the
executive body, resole© itself into a secret committee, and
exclude the reporters. The wise safeguard of. America,
against her popular suffrage is in the scantiness of the
powers she leaves to her representative assembly. I dare
say you might grant not only the £7 franchise, but even a
universal suffrage in this country, with safety as to foreign
affairs, with safety as to making and unmaking Cabi-
nets, and with safety to everything except genuine freedom
—(loud cheers) —if you then left to the House of Commons
as little influence, power, weight, and authority as are left
to the representative Chambers of America and France.
But, whatever objection there may be in the principle of

this bill itself is increased to an extent which no man can
define by the mode in which the Government propose to
deal with it. We are favoured with a volume of statistics,
by which we are to compute how many boroughs will re-
present a majority of the working class, how many will re-
present a majority of the middle class, to what degree the
balance between rural and urban constituencies will be dis-
turbed or maintained ; and yet it is perfectly clear that all
our calculations may be made utterly worthless by a new
distribution of seats and a new definition of the boundaries
of boroughs. (Hear, hear.) It is true that, before we pro-
ceed to committee the Government will give us their ideas
on those subjects. But how ? By bills with which they
do not intend to proceed till this bill becomes law. What
answer have you to the masterly argument of my noble
friend the member for Lynn ? "Supposing we were satis-
fied with the scheme submitted as to re-distribution, what
guarantee should we have that that scheme might not be
altogether changed next session ?" Possibly, during the
recess those advanced Reformers who advise her Majesty's
adviser—(cheers)—may declare that a scheme much more
comprehensive is absolutely essential, and their advice
may be taken. Possibly the material and spirit of the Go-
vernment may be as much changed next session as by
one lamented loss it has been changed since the last ; and
the Cabinet of 1867 may as much vary from the Cabinet
of 1866 in its views of Reform as the Cabinet of 1846
has varied from the Cabinet of 1865. But the Govern-
ment will, I understand, declare that, as it stands or
falls by this bill, so it will stand or fall by its other
bill—that is, next year. Well, but if it caries this
Bill and stands, before it carries the other Bills it may fall,
or Parliament may be dissolved, and the whole question as
to seats and boundaries and remedies against corruption
may be referred to new constituencies created by a Bill of
which the only ardent advocates are in favour of electoral
districts and vote by ballot. But if, having once passed
this Bill and made it law, we were then to proceed imme-
diately to the other Government measures necessary for
the completion of their scheme of Reform, would this
house be as competent as the Chancellor of the Ex
chequer assures us to the task of making that scheme con-
clusive and binding? We should be literally members
without constituencies. We should have destroyed our
old constituencies, and be without authority to act for the
new constituencies that have never chosen us. Suppose
we did deal with some 20 or 30 seats, and in so dealing
failed to satisfy the next Parliament, chosen by a more
democratic suffrage, would not our successors say, with
truth, that when we had extinguished our constituencies
we had lost the right of representatives to prejudge ques-
tions affecting the electoral bodies to which we were with-
out any existent responsibilities ? And with what heart
should we set about the most ordinary work of legislation,
with what uncertainty of temper should we address our-
selves, no longer to the men who sent us here, but to that
Virgilian threshold of our souls not yet launched into the
world, whom we must seek to propitiate even before
they are born! We should drag out the rest of our
doleful existence like those monks of La Trappe who
have no other thought but that of memento mori, and
no other occupation but that of digging their own
graves. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must forgive me
if I venture to doubt whether there is an educated
man in this house or out of it who :accepts the validity
of his reason—the want of time—for thrusting upon
us this measure, isolated and detached from all other
portions of a general scheme of Reform, and insisting that
we shall affirm its principle without ev©n a guess as to the
constituent bodies to which that principle is to be applied.
No, sir; every one must feel that the true reason for this
mode of dealing with the question is that which was so
frankly announced some months ago by the hon. gentle-
man the member for Birmingham— (hear) hear)—viz., that
if the house can be persuaded to pass this bill in its simple
and severe integrity the bill itself becomes the leverage for
lifting out of the representation, whether in this Parlia-
ment or the next, many of the very members who may
thus be eßtmpped to their own perdition—(laughter and
cheers)—many members, indeed, whom a bill for redistri-
bution of seats may spare for the moment, but whom a Par-
liament chosen by the provisions of this bill will sacrifice
to the manes of those whom they have assisted to destroy.
(Loud cheers.) Indeed, I have observed that in all the
public meetings held in favour of this bill no speaker has
accepted the reason for not proceeding simultaneously with
the question of redistribution, but every speaker has ac-
cepted the reason stated by the member for Birmingham,
often interrupted by loud cries from the body of his audi-
ence)—" Let us in, let us in, and we'll soon settle the ques-
tion of seats." Sir, no one can blame the member for Bir-
mingham for the candour with which he avowed his share
in a conspiracy to which I will not be so discourteous as to
apply the epithet of "dirty"—(cheers)—but a conspiracy in
which members are to be allured to resign "this pleasing,
anxious being," and kept so blindfold that they have even
not the privilege to "cast a lingering look behind." But,
with all deference to my right hon. friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, I think the house has a right
to complain of him that ho does not imitate the
candour of the member for Birmingham. (Hear, hear.)
Sir, the leader of this house is more than the chief of
party, more than the organ of a Cabinet—he owes a duty
to the house itself, and in all things that appertains to our
common existence we have a right to expect from him an
ingenuous frankness, incompatible with these masked bat-
teries and these crafty decoys into the dark. If there be
among us any members who, in voting for the principle of
this bill, will by the completion of the scheme it involves
destroy their own seats in Parliament, I think they have a
right to be so far warned of their fate as to have the
scheme put plainly before them by the Minister who, in
leading the House of Commons, represents that good faith
and straightforward dealing between man and man without
which no conceivable suffrage could make us the true image
of the English nation. Now, sir, before I conclude, let me,
with great respect, address a few words to those moderate
Liberals who do not desire to be buried alive in that me-
morable tomb in Westminster Abbey, in which the last of
the Whigs is to rest, and his countrymen to be thankful
that he can repose. To them I say, with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, "Bo wise, and be wise in time." (Loud
cheers.) Be wise before you cross the Rubicon and burn
your vessels. (Continued cheering.) There is a story of a
famous French preacher who, delivering a sermon on the
duty of wives, said, "I see a woman present who has been
guilty of disobedience to her husband, andin order to point
her out to universal condemnation, I will fling this breviary
at her head." He lifted the book, and every female head
present ducked and dived. (General laughter and cheers.)
"Alas!" said the preacher, "the multitude of the offenders
necessitates a general amnesty." Now, I see a gentleman
opposite who is guilty of detesting this bill, and yet intends
to vote for it; and if, in order to point him out to universal
.condemnation, the courtesies of Parliament would permit
me to fling these statistics at his head, so many heads oppo-
site would duckand dive that nothing but a general amnesty
could deal with such a multitude of offenders. (Cheers.)
Sir, I am the last man to disparage that loyal discipline of
party by which we all must so often suborn our individual
opinions to the decision of those whom we accept as our
leaders. I do not, therefore, presume to impugn the motives
of any fellow member who, though detesting this bill, yet
intends to vote for it. But I believe that the respect and
gratitude of that large portion of the Liberal public which
is represented by so powerful a majority of the Liberalpress
will be the reward of those who, on a\ question so grave,
and of which the results are so irrevocable, prefer the wel-
fare and safety of their native country to a blind submis-
sion to a Government that has not even the courage of its
own opinions, for it does not dare to invite to its Cabinet
the powerful orator who tells it the way to go ; and thus,
at least, make him responsible to his Sovereign for the
counsels he dictates to her Ministers. (Loud and pro-
longed cheering.) For Imy part I can honestly say that,
looking to the nature of the bill, the mode in which it is
introduced, and the arguments by which it is defended,
my vote against it will be given, not as Conservative
against Liberal, not as employer against workman, not as
Englishman against Englishman, but as Englishmen for
the sake of our common England. (The right hon. ba-
ronet resumed his seat amid enthusiastic cheers, which
were sustained for au unusually long time.)
Mr. J. S. MILL said that, notwithstanding the wording
of the question which would be put from the chair, few,
ho thought, would dispute —particularly after the speech
of the right hon. baronet—that the question they were
really discussing was whether the bill ought to pass. (Hear.)
The noble lord the member for King's Lynn was, he be-
lieved, the only speaker on the Opposition side who argued
the nominal issue as if be thought it was the real issue. That
noble lord, in a speech marked by all the fairness and can-
dour of his own character, and with ability even
more earnest and sustained than he exhibited on
ordinary occasions, said the very most and the very
best which cold be said in favour of the amend-
ment considered as a substantive proposition. Ho
brought forward a number of considerations well calcu-
lated to make an impression, but only on a part of his au-
; dience—upon those who, though they might not be averse
from all Reform, looked with extreme jealousy on that es-
sential feature of it—the enfranchisement of a large num-
ber of working men, regarding this less as a good to be de-

sired than as a doubtful, and perhaps, perilous experiment,
and who were frightened lest they should eventually find
themselves committed to grant a trifle more representation
to the working classes than they had been duly warned of
beforehand. (Cheers.) What was the extent, what was
the extreme, what was the orst evil with which the
noble lord had threatened the house in the event of its
being so unguarded as to pass the Bill without the other
measures of Reform which were to succeed it ? If
something happened which it required a most extraordi-
nary concurrence of chances to bring about, something
against which neither the honour of tho Government nor
the inexorable gate fixed by the laws of registration, nor
the expressed will of Parliament itself, if it should think
proper to express it, could effectively guard against—in
that almost impossible case it might happen that a redis-
tribution of seats, in spite of all that could be done to pre-
vent it, might devolve on a House of Commons elected under
the new franchise. Now, be put it to the noble lord's in-
tellect clear, and because clear impartial, was this au argu-
ment which could have the smallest effect on anybody who
thought that an extended franchise would be an improve-
ment ? (Cheers.) if the Legislature created by an ex-
tended franchise were better for all other purposes, would
it not be better for this ono also ? (Hear, hear.) If it could
be trusted to govern us, if it could be trusted to tax us, if
it could be trusted to legislate for us, could it not be trusted
to revise its own Constitution ? (Hear, hear.) Was that, of
all things in the world, a task in approaching which expe-
rience justified us in believing that Legislatures in general,
and British Parliaments in particular, would be rash, head-
long, precipitate, subversive, and revolutionary ? Why, to
him it seemed that a Parliament which would not be cau-
tious in anything else might be depended on not lightly to
trifle with the very springs of its owu existence. (Cheers.)
That formidable ono chance in thoitsand which the noble
lord held over the heads of members was doubtless a serious
thing to those who saw in the bill a vast and portentous
transfer of power to the working classes ; but to those who
thought that the very moderate enfranchising clauses of the
bill wore good in themselves, good if there was to be no re-
distribution of seats—(hear, hear) still better if there leas
(cheers) to them the phantom would have no force what-
ever. (Hear, hear.) And that, he believed, was the per-
suasion of the great bulk of Reformers, both in that house
and in the country—(cheers)—who were as sincerely de-
sirous as the noble mover of the amendment could be that
family and pocket boroughs should be extinguished, and
that the power of some noble and opulent families should
be curtailed. (Cheers and laughter.) They were quite as
anxious to abridge the power which wealth possessed of
buying its way into the House of Commons and shutting
the doors in the face of humbler merit as the richest gen-
tleman included in that assembly. (A laugh.) On these
fundamental points they were entirely agreed with the
Conservative Parliamentary Reformers, and they looked
forward with delight to the co-operation of gentlemen
opposite in the genial task of converting these
theories into facts. ("Hear," and laughter.) A measure of
enfranchisement such as the present bill gave—moderate,
indeed, far too moderate, for the wishes of the great bulk
of Reformers, would yet make the working classes a sub-
stantial power in the house, and therefore would be highly
valuable, even if nothing else were to follow. Beside this
view, not any of the questions raised in the debate was
worthy of discussion, and he should make no further apo-
logy for confining himself to it. (Cheers.) Measures might
be recommended by their principles or by their political
consequences, and if they possesed one recommendation
they generally had both. As to the matter of principle, a
bill going even further than the present would raise none
of those questions upon which the house was divided; and
he could not help thinking that his right hon. friend the
member for Hertfordshire in raising such questions was
causing the debate to deviate from its legitimate and na-
tural course. If it were necessary, as the right hon. baronet
seemed to think, that we should take into consideration all
the reasonable, and much also of the unreasonable, things
that could be said pro and con. about democracy—and he
fully admitted that the right hon. baronet had said things
both reasonable and unreasonable on that subject—the
house necessarily would have a much larger task before it.
But the present bill was not a democratic measure ; it
neither merited that praise, nor, as some would call it,
that reproach. It was not a corollary from the numerical
theory of representation ; it followed directly from the
class theory, which was the Conservative view of the Con-
stitution. A favourite doctrine, not only of Conservative
Reformers, but of Conservative non-Reformers and oppo-
nents of all Reform, was that the Constitution knew nothing
of individuals, but only of classes—(h ear, hear)—and that
individuals had no right to complain as long as the class
was represented. But if the class was altogether unre-
presented, or had not its proper share of representation,
that admittedly was a grievance. The only thing neces-
sary to be urged was that this theory should be carried
into practice. There was one class which had not the
benefit of representation ; while so many other classes,
numerically insignificant in comparison, and not supposed
to be entirely free from class prejudices— (cheers)—were
fully, he ventured to say, in some instances, greatly over-
represented. This class, the most numerous of all, and
therefore the most entitled to consideration, was weak as
yet, and consequently needed representation all the more ;
but it was growing daily in strength and becoming more
capable of making its voice heard. For this, the working
class, Reformers claimed a large and liberal representation.
(Cheers.) They demanded the representation of a class.
Let hon. gentlemen opposite prove the sincerity of their
convictions by giving the benefit of those convictions for
the first time to the great majority of their countrymen.
But perhaps hon. gentlemen would say that the working
classes were already represented. True it had lately come
to light that the working men were already the majority—
not the majority, but 26 per cant. of the constituency. But
it had required so much research to find their namesonthe
registry that their votes could not have had much effect
for good or for evil. Though they had had all that power
of shaking the foundations of our institutions, they had ob-
stinately persisted in not doing it. (A laugh and hear:)
He would remind hon. members it did not follow that a
class was represented in that house because it had a num-
ber of votes in every constituency in the kingdom. It was
perfectly possible a class might have a great number of
votes in every constituency in the kingdom and yet not be
represented at all. Tho right of voting in that casemight
be only the right of being outvoted. (A laugh and hear.)
If our system allowed elective rights to minorities—if it
were possible for those who were in a minority in one place
to join voters in another place—then the power of the
working classes in the constituency might be a very sub-
stantial one ; 26 per cent. whose wishes were acceded to
might be a valuable percentage, but 26 per cent. might be
worth nothing at all. He admitted that the right hon. ba-
ronet who had just preceded him brought forward a very
plausible argument on that point. He said that a class
which was by no means a majority in a constituency
might by a skilful management of their votes become mas-
ters of the situation ; and ho added that, in his county,
the tenant farmers carried an election in that way. It was
possible that the tenant farmers might decide the question
whether a Whig or a Tory was to come in at the election.
The tenant farmers might be masters of so small a situa-
tion as that—(a laugh)—but if they tried to carry any
question in which they were interested as a class, they
might have the remaining two-thirds of the constituency
against them, and then he did not think they would be
masters of the situation. (Hear.) You could not make a
majority of a minority by any natural contrivance. What
might be done in that way by preternatural contrivance
he did not know—(laughter)—but by no natural contri-
vance could one-third be made to outvote two-thirds.
(Benewed laughter and cheers.) The power of the work-
ing classes in the constituencies was marked by the num-
ber of members whom they might return ; but that was
only a measure of the power which the working classes
could exercise, and by no means a measure of the power
which they really did exercise. This would appear evident
if reference was made to some of the constituencies in
which the proportion of working men was greatest. If
they took Coventry for instance, he believed the gentle-
men returned for that borough generally voted correctly
in the matter of French ribands—(a laugh)—but it often
happened that they were Conservatives, so that things
were pretty much the same as if the master manufacturers
had the power of returning the members for Coventry. If
the working class of Coventry sent to Parliament mem-
bers pledged to support a proposition for taxing working
looms there would be some exhibition of power in that,
although he believed the working classes had outgrown
absurdities of that sort. (Cheers.) If the franchise were
so extended that the working class, by applying the whole
of their strength, could succeed in returning by small
majorities 200 out of the 658 members of Parliament, still
there might not be out of those 200, 50 representa-
tives of the.distinctive feelings of the working class—their
class representatives ; and even if those 200 were the repre-
sentatives of a class they 'would have two to one against
them.. Even if unanimous among themselves, they would
not by able to prevail unless they could bring over some-
thing like one-third of the remaining representatives to
their way of thinking. If they did this, in his opinion it
would be a very strongprimapcie argument that they were
in the right. (Cheers.) His right hon. friend the member
for Caine (Mr. Lowe) asked what particular measure these
was which they wished to have carried, but which could
not be carried in Parliament as it was at present constituted.
Now, that sounded very well. If be understood his right
hon. friend distinctly, he thought they ought to come down
to that house with a bill of indictment against the house
itself—(a laugh)--setting forth the things which it had
done but ought not to have done, and the things which it
had not done but ought to have done. (Hear, hear.) When
the house pleaded guilty and cried peccavi, then his right
hon. friend would give them his permission to bring in a
Reform Bill. He (Mr. Lowe) said this question was not to
be decided on prima facie arguments—that they ought to
proceed on practical grounds. He asked whether what his
right hon. friend seemed to suggest was practical. He
wished that in this case all special applications could be
left out ; for, if they descended to particulars and pointed
out this or that which they wished to be altered, but which
the house would not alter, could they suppose that the
house would be influenced by such particulars in the con-
sideration of a question like Parliamentary reforria ? The
' fact was, if such a mode of argument was pursued, theywould
not make the slightest progress or advance at all, but
would raise all sorts of irritating topics. (Hear, hear.) Sup-
' pose they were to say—he was going to adduce a small in-

stance which would not give offence—that if the working
classes had been represented in the house they would not
have found that gentlemen who had their cattle slaughtered
were to get compensation twice over. (A laugh.) Again—
only for the sake of illustration—would it be right in a
discussion on a measure of reform to drag in, the question
whether the rights of labour had been duly considered in
that house ? (Hear, hear.) Suppose the framers of the Re-
form Bill of 1832 had foretold—which they had not been I
able to do, for they did not know it themselves—that in
consequence of the passing of the bill, the corn laws would
be repealed, the navigation laws put an end to, free-trade
with the whole world without reciprocity be established
by this country, the inland postage reduced to a penny,
the exercise of legislative authority over our colonies re-
nounced, and that a great many other things which had
since taken place would come to pass,—did the house think
that.the announcement of those events would have been
calculated to make the Parliament of 1832 pass the Reform
Bill? (Hear, hear.) Whether results of similar importance
would follow the passing of the next Reform Bill, the

future must disclose; but certainly whatever measures
were to follow it did not at present appear to the house to
be required improvements, or the house would adopt
them. (Cheers.) The better way to induce those who had
power to give that power up was not by telling them that
they made unfair use of it. We were all aware of our own
fallibility. We knew that we made a thousand mistakes ;
but we could not tell which of our opinions was errone-
ous. if we did we should not continue to hold the errone-
ous ones. (Hear, hear.) Consequently all assemblies
ought to take precautions against their own mistakes,
without being told of particular instances of mistakes. If
from previous habits of mind and previous associations men
were without experience in particular matters, they ought
to accept assistance in thoso matters from persons whose
habits and associations would enable them to give it to
them. Each particular class knew something which was
not so well known by the other classes of society. He did
not suppose there was in the house a member who could
lay before them the cause of the working man's trade
unions or of the working man's strikes in as satisfactory a
manner as the class concerned would wish to have it
stated. Ho doubted that even his hon friend the member
for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) could do that. There were
none of them, he thought, who had not much to learn on
all these subjects. Probably, along with much valuable in-
formation and many just views, they would have members
of the working classes now and then pressing upon them
wrong ideas and erroneous opinions; and he was not pre-
pared to say that if that class had the predominance in
that house attempts might not bo made to carry some wrong
principles into practice. But there was now no question of
giving the working classes such a predominance. All that
was asked for them was that they should have such an
amount of representation as that their opinions should be
fairly brought before the house, that they should be met
by real argument, addressed to their own reason, and that
their sentiments should be expressed by men who could
enter into their own way of viewing the question in
which they were interested. (Hear.) When some persons
attempted to correct the errors of the working classes they
did it as if they were talking to babies. (Hear, hear.) If
they condescend to argue with them it was from premises
that hardly any working man would be ready to admit.
They spoke as if they thought everything which appeared
self-evident to them Selves must appear equally self-evident
to the working man. Consequently their arguments
scarcely ever reached the mark. Those persons hardly
ever came into real contact with the working man's mind,
because they did not know it. When questions which lay
near the heart of the working men came to be considered
there was no want of goodwill shown towards
them ; that he cheerfully admitted. (Hear, hear, hear.)
But all those artificial arrangements of society the necessity
and advantage of which required to be proved to them, and
in respect to some of which it was most essential that they
should be proved to them, wore usually taken entirely_ for
granted. He did not believe that the working classes would
be found to be unconvincible. (Hear.) It was one of the
special defects of a democracy to be obstinate in error.
(Hear.) An observant Englishman nho had long lived in
the United States lately summed up his judgment upon the
Americans in these words. He said, "They are the most
teachable people on the face of the earth." An old country
was not so teachable as a young one ; but, nevertheless,
he believed that our educated operatives—and especially
those of them who were educated in politics—would be
found to be among the least intractable portions of the
community. As a rule they were much more in earnest,
and their opinions were often much more genuine than
those of some other classes who wore actuated by the mere
desire to get on in the world. Above all, there was one
thing to which testimony would, he was sure, be borne by
almost everybody who had had much to do with them, and
of which even his own small experience had afforded not a
few striking examples. There was no class which bore so
well as the working men to be told of its faults, and that,
too, even in harsh language, if they were only convinced
that the person who so spoke said what he honestly
thought. (Hear, hear.) He could scarcely, therefore,
conceive a more noble courso of education for them than
might be found in the debates of that house, if the various
notions, right and wrong, which were fermenting in the
minds of the working classes, and some of which went
dawn very deep into the structure of society and of Go-
vernment, were fairly brought before that house and im-
partially argued there. (Hear, hear.) It was often a sub-
ject of remark with what readiness in a free country people
resigned themselves even to the refusal of what they most
wanted, if they felt that everything which they could have
said for themselves had been said for them by somebody in
the course of public discussion. (Hear, hear.) Our work-
ing classes had never yet had that tranquillising assurance.
They had always had the impression that not they them-
selves, perhaps, but, at all events, their opinions were pre-
judged and even condemned without being heard. But let
them have the same opportunity which other classes had of
pleading their cause—let them feel that it was a question,
not of power, but of wisdom ; and then, even if they did
not obtain what they desired, they would acquiesce quite as
readily as any other section of the community in the deci-
sions of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) De Tocqueville,
who was often quoted as though ho were the enemy of
democracy, instead of its sincere but discriminating friend,
said that democratic Governments, although they were
perpetually making mistakes, were able easily to correct
them, and that whatever mischief they wrought was coun-
teracted by the salutary influence of their legislation, which,
more than elsewhere, was directed towards the actual posi-
tive well-being of their population. (Hear, hear.) They
were told that our own legislation was also making very
great progress in that direction—that that house had re-
pealed the Corn Laws, done away with religious disabili-
ties, and accomplished he know not how many other great
objects. He should be the last person to disparage these
important reforms, which had probably saved the country
from a great convulsion. As little did he undervalue that
sound sense and good feeling which had enabled the go-
verning classes of this country to keep their ground and at
the same time advance thus far. " liabez pretium ; crud
non .figeris." Their reward was that by doing no harm they
were not hated as other privileged classes sometimes had
been. (Hear.) But was that all that the Legislature of this
country could offer to the people? Were they to be con-
tent with only undoing the mischief which they and their
predecessors had done in former times? Were not all the
groat and crying evils of an old and crowded state
of society waiting to be grappled with ? (Hear, hear.)
The curse of ignorance, the curse of pauperism, .the
curse of disease, the curse of a population bred and
nurtured in crime—all these things they were just begin-
ning to think of—just touching, as it were, with the tips
of their fingers. And by the time that two or three more
generations were dead and gone they would perhaps have
found out the way to cope with these evils and to make
their countrymen's lives a little more worth having. He
could not help thinking they would make more progress in
that good work if they had the classes who were the chief
sufferers from the chronic maladies of our civilisation regu-
larly among them to stimulate their zeal as well as add to
their knowledge. (Hear.) Of all the great questions whose
solution would bo most accelerated by tho presence of re-
presentatives of the working classes in that House there
was one with respect to which they perhaps flattered them-
selves that they had done the most—namely, proper edu-
cation. And let him there offer to his right hon. friend the
member for Caine, who liked facts, a practical considera-
tion which ought to have some weight with him. If those
whose children they voted money to educate had been suf-
ficiently represented in that House his right hon. friend
would never have had to resign his office through the Re-
vised Code. ("Hear, hear," and a laugh.) They would have
seen in him an administrator of a public fund who was
honestly desirous that the work for which the public paid
should be good and honest. (Hear.) They were not the
people to have preferred a greater quantity of sham teach-
ing to a smaller quantity of real teaching. Real education
was what they wanted. It was what his right hon. friend
also wanted ; and they would have understood him. (Hear.)
He had heard these things called to remembrance in his
right hon. friend's honour—aje, even in the present mo-
ment of strong exasperation— by the leaders of the working
classes. [Mr. Bright was here understood to say, "So have
I."] Unless he was much mistaken, very few years of a real
working-class representation would pass over their heads be-
fore they would have in every parish a school rate with the
school doors freely open to all the world; and in a generation
from that time England would be an educated country.
(Hear, hear.) These considerations alone, if no others
could be fairly urged, would justify them in passing the pre-
sent bill. These were some of the benefits which he ex-
pected to accrue from an enfranchisement of the working
classes; and they told with great force in favour of that
bill, without regard to any other measure by which it
might or might not be accompanied. (Haar, hear.) The
sufficient representation of the working classes in the house
was, to-his thinking, by far the most important improve-
ment which it was at present in tho power of the house to
make. (Hoar.) As ho would have been happy, and still
would be happy, to receive this greatest improvement along
with others, so he would bo very willing to accept it by
itself. Whatever other improvements were needed, there
was no doubt that they would be obtained in time ; and he
would be a very simple person who should fancy that they
would be obtained one day sooner if the Ministry were to
encumber the question by binding any of them up with it.
(Cheers.)
Mr. LIDDELL characterised the bill not only as an in-

complete but an insidious measure, so far as the counties

were concerned. He bad no fear of the working classes
themselves, but he believed the creation of those gigantic

constituencies in boroughs would lead to an enormous use
of hired canvassers at electiols, and tend to throw the
representation into the hands of interested leaders and
agitators. The only part of the bill which he approved of
was the savings banks clause; but, curiously enough, that
was a feature of the scheme which was not viewed with
favour by the Liberal portion of the house.
Mr. HANBURY regretted tho course which had been
pursued by Lord Stanley,:after the manifesto he had issued
to his constituents at the last election, when he expressed
himself favourable to the lowering of the franchise, and said
he thought the noble lord had better have contented him-
self with recording a silent vote with the noes. ,
Mr. SELWIN remarked upon the absence of agitation
amongst the working classes as showing that they were not
dissatisfied with the existing state of things. All recent
efforts to carry reform bills had been of a spasmodic nature,
and had failed entirely through their own inherent weak-
ness. He objected, moreover, in dealing with the question
in such haste and in this fragmentary manner. The present
scheme would inflict great injustice in many cases, and in
the southern division of Essex would really transfer the.
representation to the mass of town voters in the north-
eastern district of London.

Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the bill, and justified the
Government in dealing with the franchise in the first in-
stance and the question of the redistribution of seats in a
subsequent measure.
Lord B. MONTAGU had no faith in the sincerity of
Ministers, and observed that those who had once broken
faith would do it again, and that there was no confidence
to be reposed in them. They had made reform the stalking
horse t 9 power in 1859, yet they had never honestly
.set

themselves to work to • effect a settlement of the question,
whilst they continued to advertise the reform burlesque,
and their claqueurs at the Liverpool amphitheatre still
applauded the immoral farce. He believed there was no
real difference between the Government of 1859 and that
of the present day. The truth was that the Ethiopian
could not change his skin. Hence those who had once
trusted them and been deceived, looked now with reserve
and suspicion.
Sir G. GREY contended that the amendment was not s
fair or honest way of meeting the bill, and that if it were
carried, the result would be to throw back the question for
an indefinite period. He also taunted the Opposition with
exhibiting a uniform and invariable distrust of the work-
ing classes, and an indisposition to giving them a proper
share in the representation. It must not be forgotten,
however, that the majority of the house had been returned
to the present Parliament pledged to consider this impor" •
tent subject with a view to its satisfactory settlement.
Parliament was bound to treat the working classes with a
generous confidence, and the Government had adopted the
best course to effect that object. The right hon. baronet
further ridiculed the idea of the slightest good arising from
a reference of the subject for solution to any body of men,
whether the Privy Council or a royal commission, how-.
ever carefully selected, as had been suggested by Lord
Grosvenor; condemned the amendment as an underhand
proceeding; and urged that everything relating to this
important matter should be aboveboard and in the light of
day.
Mr. LAING, as the meaning of the amendment had
been disputed, explained that it meant not that there
should be no Reform Bill, but that the subject should he
dealt with in a complete and comprehensive manner. It
had been truly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
at Liverpool that the question constituted a turning;
point in the history of the country, and the great probleel
the house had to grapple with was that of extending the
franchise among the working classes without establishing
a preponderance of numbers over property and intelli-
gence. He readily admitted that the difficulty did net
arise from any moral defect in the working classes, or a°l
want of intelligence on their part; but the bill was 6,
democratic solution, which unsettled the settlement of
1832, without proposing anything that professed to be e'
complete and final settlement in its place. The first cow
dition of any settlement of the question was to deal with it
as not to swamp and overwhelm the constitution of Par"
liament, as it had existed under the Reform Act, but t°
perpetuate the spirit of that measure, and invigorate it 1)1
an infusion of the more skilful and intelligent of the er-
tie= class. Credit had been taken by the Government
for having brought in an honest bill ; but when he came
to analyse that phrase, it was clear to him that it paean
ct honest" only in one direction, and that the democratic.
The course which the Government ought to have taken,
after they found that they could not introduce a complete
and perfect measure this session, was to have postponed
it until next year, and pledged their existence as a 31inisti-
try to treat it as a whole in a satisfactory manner.
they done that the house would have believed that they_
were not trifling with the measure. They would hate
kept their party together, and saved many Liberal Yuen':
bers from the unpleasant alternative of choosing between
their party and their personal convictions.
On the motion of Mr. MAGUIRE, the debate was at
o'clock adjourned until Monday.
The orders of the day and the other business on the
paper were also gone through, and at half-past 12 o'cloo'
he house adjourned.