The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-13 00:00:00

manta into which they themselves have entered. (Cheers.)
When we read such statements as this, it is necessary that
the true history of this reform bill, depending not upon im-
putations and suppositions, but upon the recorded history
of the country, should be brought to mind; and really, sir,
when I read this statement, I sought for a description of
it, and could find no other so applicable—with the excep-
tion of one monosyllable which I wish entirely to omit—
as the retort of Prince Henry to Falstaff—
These lies are like the father that begot them—
Gross as a mountain, open, palpable.
(Much laughter, and an hon. member, " Who is the father
of them ?") Who is the father of them I cannot say, and of
his dimensions I know nothing, but if he be equivalent in
size to hissrototype this description is certainly a true one
Gross as a mountain, open, palpable.
(Cheers and laughter.) Sir, the house will remember that
on a former occasion I ventured to refoz to the state of the
constituency at the present moment as compared with what
it was in 1832, and I endeavoured to show, by a computation
of which I stated the grounds, that the proportion of the
working classes included in the constituency, although to
our great satisfaction we had found it to be larger than we
had supposed, yet was smaller than was the case in 1832.
That statement had not been impuged in this house, and
I don't think it can be impugned. I don't think any gen-
tleman who has examined the figures will venture to say
that at the present moment the quantitative proportion of
the working men in town constituencies is less than I have
stated it to be—namely, less than it was in 1832. Neither
must the house forget that since 1832 every kind of benefi-
cial change has been in operation in favour of the working
classes. There never was a period in which religious in-
fluences were more active than at present. It is hardly an
exaggeration to say that since that period the civilising and
training powers of education have for all practical purposes
been brought into existence as far as the mass of the people
is concerned. (Hear, hear.) As regards the press, an
emancipation and an extension has taken place to which it '
would be difficult to find a parallel. (Hear, hear.) I will
not believe that the mass of gentlemen opposite are really
insensible to the enormous benefit that has been effected
by that emancipation of the press, when for the humble
sum of a penny, or for even less, newspapers are circulated
from day to day by the million rather than by the thousand,
in numbers almost defying the powers of statistics to fol-
low, and carrying home to all classes of our fellow-country-
men accounts of public affairs, making them feel an
interest in the transaction of those affairs, and containing
articles which, I must say, are written in a spirit, with an
ability, with a sound moral sense, and with a refinement
that have made the penny press of England the worthy
companion-1 may almost say, the rival— of those dearer
and older papers which have long given to British jour-
nalism the first fame in the world. (Hear, hear.) In every
way, by measures relating to labour, to police, and to
sanitary arrangements, Parliament has been labouring, has
been striving to raise the level of the working community,
and has been so striving with admitted success. And
there is not a call which has been made upon the working
community which has not been fully answered. (Cheers.)
Take, for instance, the Working Men's Free Library in
Liverpool; who are the frequenters of that institution?
Why, the majority of the careful, honest, painstaking stu-
dents are men belonging to the working classes, a number
of whom cannot attend without making some considerable
sacrifice. (Cheers.) We called upon them to be provident,
we instituted for them Post-office savings banks, which may
now be said to have been in full operation for four years ;
and what has been the result ? During those four years
there have been 650,000 depositors in those savings-banks.
(Cheers.) This is the way in which Parliament has been
acting towards the working classes. Parliament has been
striving to make the working classes fitter and fitter for the
franchise ; and can anything be more unwise and senseless
than to persevere from year to year in this plan, and then
blindly to refuse to recognise its legitimate upshot
namely, the increased fitness of the working classes for the
exercise of political power ? The proper exercise of that
power depends upon the fitness of those who are to receive
it. That fitness you increase from day to day, and yet you
decline, when the fitness is admitted, to give the power.
(Hear, hear, and No, no, from the back Opposition benches.)
You decline to give the working classes political power by
lowering the borough franchise. (No, no, from the back
Opposition benches.) I don't complain of the interruption
—in fact, I am very glad to hear it. (Cheers and laughter.)
I wish that cry was much louder, I wish it was more uni-
versal, I wish it came from the front Opposition benches,
and from my noble friend behind me. (Cheers and laughter.)
This course appears about as rational as the process of a man
who incessantly pours water into °. jug or bacon, and wonders
and complains that at last it overflows. Now, what are the
arguments that the busy brain of man has framed in oppo-
sition to this measure ? It is a favourite plea that we
ought not to hand over the power to govern to those who
do not pay the charges of Government. In the depository
of wisdom 'to which I have referred that argument occupies
a very prominent place, as it did in the speech of a very
distinguished member of this house, from which I am afraid
the writer in the Quarterly Review has been guilty of gross
plagiarism. (Loud cheers and laughter.) But is this what
we are going to do ? are we going to hand over the power
to those who don't pay the charges of Government ?
(Hear, hear.) I will not at this moment go into the first
portion of the proposition, although I say distinctly we are
not going to hand over the power at all—(loud cheers) ;
but is it true that the working classes do not contribute
fairly, fully, largely, to the expenses of Government ?
(Loud cheers.) This question was put to me two days
ago, in consequence of my statement that, according to the
best estimate I could form, the working classes were pos-
sessed of an income forming not less than five-twelfths
that is, nearly one-half—the entire- income of the country.
(Loud cheers.) I repeat that statement in the presence of
those who are able to correct me if I am wrong, and in the
presence of:the greatest economists of the day. The hon.
member for Derby, who is no mean authbrity upon subjects
connected with the earnings of the working classes, has
placed their.income at a still higher rate than I have done.
This is a matter on which I may be confuted, but scarcely
contradicted, because the question is not one of fact but of
inquiry, argument, and inference. I repeat that it is a
moderate estimate to put the income of the working classes
at five-twelfths of the aggregate income of the country,
whereas they are put off under the present law with only
one-seventh of electoral power. Is not that state of things
absolutely unjust ? (Loud cheers.) Perhaps I shall be told
that I have based my estimate upon the income and not
upon the property of the working classes. Probably that
may be the answer to my statement. Yes, I hear a cheer.
(Laughter.) I admit I have spoken in reference to income,
and not to property. Well, you may take it on that '
ground if you choose, but you must also take the con-
sequence of making that choice, and you
_must be prepared
to change the whole system of taxation. (Loud cheers.)
You now lay upon income the greater portion of your
taxes, to which the working classes contribute a larger
proportion, looking at the amount:of their earning; than
is paid by the proudest noble in the land. (Loud cheers.)
I,;therefore, say to those gentlemen who argue that the
working classes are not entitled to the franchise because
they don't possess property, that they must be prepared to
join hands with the hon. member for Birmingham, and
with the financial reformers of Liverpool, and instead of
raising a fourteenth part of the revenue from property and
the rest from income you must raise a fourteenth part
from income and the r
Again it is said, at leasetslt from
property. (Loud cheers.)
where the working classesli eve it has been so said, that
(Load
havecheers
a majority they vote
together as a class.
shade
Or
sharsdofrom the Opposition.)
Now is there any
such is the fact 1 (Cheers.) am wor rag of proof that
upon the patience of the house by
which
e
rearnignga lteotter trespass
I received to-day from a working man and w
shall lay before you for the especial benefit of the h
gen-
tlemen opposite. (Cheers and laughter.) 1 believe the stat-
ments it contains to be perfectly true, and that the writer's
arguments are typical of the class to which he belongs, and
their nature is such that you will not be sorry to hear
them. (Hear, hear.)
"Dear Sir,—MY motive in writing this is to remind you
of the Tories who belong to the working
ht
class, as
at the you
ri can-
not think of all you would wish, perhaps, just.g
time. We all know that there are the same variety of prin-
ciples and opinions in all classes of society. lam a wore
.g
man, and have an opportunity of knowing
,0 ha Tori s
principle, especially of the ;rtizan class, are very nume-
rous
The newwho not 'now in possession of the franchise.
Tories as know. The love
Li, Reform Bill, I think, would do about as much for
of country °!.a rsals. It would for all we
is as loyal
class.
.k Lib": constitution is confined to no particular
deuce to showlirl4 as a Tory. Is there any evi-
Franchise Bil
with it ? They kno
know
enfranchise, are not fit to be trusted
otetihese men, which the Relorm or
of their country
and
that the welfare and prosperity
welfare and prospesity.,l'asters is, at the same time, their
(Cheers.) Well, sir, in mya that opinion, the letter is conclusive
of the question. There
tent concentrative good
sense which often comes front the
d mind, tram the mouth,
and from the pen of the uneducate!man, who, I may say,
without any reproach to education, s s° m
than he would much nearer the
point at which nature osiginally placed
be were his mind more refined and
g
that there is no proof whatever that thev seated. I maintain
enfranchised, would act together as a clasosrkin classes, if
(Hear,e
Per haps you ask for proofs to the contrary, but it (Hear, hear.)i
ex-
ceedingly difficult to give a proof of that which cie—s
happen ; though in my opinion ample proof of the coerr enet
Dot
• ness of my statement does exist. (Hear.) Municipal-
franchises are almost exclusively working men's franchises
'Those franchises, if they do not quite come up to universal
suffrage, at all everts nearly approach household suffrage.
What has been the system followed by the working classes
in municipal elections ? In order to institute a compari-
son between the municipal and parliamentary franchises
we must select those towns in which the municipal and
parliamentary boundaries are the same. There are 346,00 C
municipal voters in that portion of the town constituency,
and computing as well as I can I find that there are
163,000 of them on the Parliamentary register. I deduct
from that number one-fourth as representing the maxi-
mum portion of working men, and the result is 122,000 as
the number of non-working men in the municipal con-
stituency. Thus the working men number 224,000. What
a dreadful state of things ! Yet there has been no explo-
sion, no revolution, no question has been raised about
Proleertv, nor indeed
has any attempt been made to give a
political character
the
to municipal institutions. (Oh ! oh !)
Yes, but when
0 municipal franchise was discussed in

1835 the party who occupied the seat hon. gentlemen
opposite—
Mr. DISRAELI—Where were you sitting then ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I was
sitting there it is true ; but I was not one of those who
supported the argument. But where was the right hon.
gentleman sitting at that time ? He was not sitting, in-
deed, but he was standing in the mountain behind these
benches. (Cheers.) Many of the gentlemen who were
then sitting opposite prophesied that great danger and mis-
chief would spring from the municipal franchise, because
it would political character to municipal institutions
au givedimbue
a a
all our corporations with a similar spirit. That
being the case I think I am perfectly justified in standing
upon an important and strictly relevant fact, that, as far as
I am aware, you are not able to adduce a single instance in
which this working class majority has given a democratic
—I will not say a disloyal, but a democratic character—a
character distinct from that which they bcre under the
influence of the middle classes to the municipal institu-
tions. Let gentlemen glance at the present state of things.
I have referred to the metropolitan boroughs, which
return a large number of what are denominated advanced
politicians on this side of the house. I come now to the
other end of the scale. I find that in the present town
constituencies there are eight boroughs where the working
classes are in a majority on the registers. These eight
towns are—Beverley, Coventry, Greenwich, St. Ives,
Maldon, Stafford, Pembroke, and Newcastle-under-Lyne.
What is the revolutionary character of the members
which they return ? (A laugh.) I find that these eight
towns return five Liberals and nine Conservatives. This,
then, lathe result of the working classes being in the majority.
But there is a much broader ground, to which, I think, no
reference has been made, and that is the case of the boroughs
which had open constituencies containing large majorities
of the working classes—constituencies much more popular
than those of the present day. Now, examining the ope-
ration of the new bill, I find that according to our very
large definitions of the working classes—a definition which
is employed rather for argument's sake I mean in order to
avoid contention than because it was strictly and literally
true—l find this probable result, that is 60 boroughs, re-
turning 101 members, the working classes will have majo-
rities. In these boroughs the electors form B'4 per cent.
It may reasenably be asked, is there anything very formid-
able in the character of those 101 members ? I beg par-
don ; I have made one error ; I have been computing pro-
spectively. Before 1830 there were 65 boroughs of a
strictly popular character—more popular indeed than the
classes under the bill now on the table, for the electors 60 boroughs that would have a majority of the labouring
in-
stead of being 84 per cent. of the population, numbered
nearly 10 per cent., and commanded 130 seats. If it be true.
that the majority of the working classes in a constituency
give the control of the seat, which I entirely deny (hear),
you cannot show that, under our bill, there would be more
than 101 such seats ; while, under the old Parliamentary
system, which so scandalises my right hon. friend the
member for Calne—(a laugh)—they numbered 130. We
now, therefore, stand upon the firm 'ground of history.
Was there among those 130 members at any period of our
history developed a character in any degree dangerous to the
institutions of the country ? I really do not know, but
these are considerations which I frankly confess appear to
me to be of great interest, and to be entitled to weight
when presented, if it be not done in an offensive man-
ner to the minds of considerate men on whichever side
of the house they may sit while dealing with this question,
and desirous as my noble friend is to see it settled, I frankly
own that I can see nothing dangerous to the party opposite
in the proposed reduction of the borough franchise from £lO
to £7. There can, indeed, be nothing dangerous to them in
that reduction if they will only take warning by the expe-
rience of the Reform Act. There was nothing in that mea-
sure prejudicial to the predominance or to the just influence
of the party opposite, but they chose to give it that cha-
racter by their determined resistance to its progress. As
long as I could do so, therefore, I cherished the hope that
the recollection of the Reform Act and the consequence of
their resistance as exhibited in the transfer of power to
their adversaries, would lead them to avoid falling a se-
cond time iu the same generation into so palpable a snare,
and that they would not prejudice themselves and their
credit in the opinions of the bulk of the population by
offering a resistance that cannot fail to engender more or
less of aversion and hostility. I think these facts are suffi-
cient to disprove the statement that where the working
classes form the majority of a constituency its members
work together in combination. Perhaps I may be told
that my argument goes too far, and if that be true there
can be no danger in a much larger enfranchisement than
that which is proposed by the present measure. I have
already said that in my opinion a further enfranchisement
would not be attended by danger to the State. (Cheers.)
That, however, is an opinion I cannot expect Parliament
to accede to, and though I believe some further enfranchise-
ment would not be dangerous, I am far from saying that it
would be wise to go to great lengths in that direction.
Changes that effect sudden and extensive transfer of power
are attended by great temptations to human nature, and,
however high our opinions may be of the labouring classes
of the community, I do not believe that it would be right
to place that temptation within their reach. The genius of
our country and the history of our institutions dictate and
recommend gradual progress, and by gradual progress,
therefore, these changes should be made. It is constantly
alleged, and the argument is employed with confidence,that
if we would only let the matter take its course, the enfran-
chisement of the working classes is being effected by natural
process,whereas we are endeavouring to aid this enfran-
chisement by artificial means. This is a matter upon which
I should be extremely slow to dogmatise, because it does
not admit of being brought to a test with such precision
to warrant the employment of any tone of superlative con-
fidence. But I must say that the whole of the argument is
the other way, and that I wait with anxiety, but without
expectation for the proof of this enlargement, of this natu-
ral and spontaneous enlargement, with which it is said wo
are rashly meddling. The number of working men on the
register is, I think, undeniably lessat present than in 1832,
but, of course, there is the fact that, since 1832, the work-
men men belonging to the class of freemen have somewhat
diminished. (Hear.) I do not think that the diminution in
this direction isnumerically of much importance; but there
has been a great diminution in the scot and lot voters who
are working men. This class is not, indeed, quite extinct,
and therefore in your computaticns respecting the future,
you must allow for a continuance of this dwindling process
until the whole number of scot and lot voters in existence
at the time of the Reform Bill has disappeared. It is said,
however, that there is a rapid growth of the working class
among the £lO householders. But where is the proof of
this assertion ? I believe it to be undeniable that the rate
of progress in the aggregate number of £lO householders
has been very much less of late years than in the first few
years after the passing of the Reform Bill. From 1832 to
1851, while the population increased at the rate of 43 per
cent., the £lO householders grew more than twice as fast,
but from 1851 to 1866 the constituency grew only 50 per
cent. faster than the aggregate population, thus showing a
great sclackening as compared with the earlier period. But
this can in some degree be accounted for. There were per-
sons not belonging to the working classes who were classed
under other denominations at the time of the Reform Act,
but who have subsequently appeared as £lO householders.
But it is a mistake to imagine that so large a growth has
taken place in £lO householders, and a still greater mistake
to imagine that the growth has taken place in the working
portion of the population. Let us look at the economical
facts of the case. If we take the towns we find that the
increase of the franchise has been nearly the same as that
of the population. In the population it has been 79 per
cent., and in the franchise 82 per cent., a variation so slight
that it may be altogether disregarded. It is said that there
is more than a proportionate growth in the wealth of the
working classes—but how do you prove it? Tho increase
of wealth has taken place chiefly among the middle classes
wealth
ethcoout
ofta the country. To put it shortly and intelligibly, the capi-
thle ofw nthtrye
whoarskignig•owelnasisnes a farT greaterbe
capital d ehg ra
has
e than
grown
to a far greater extent. How is that ? You
\ must remember
that in the large towns, where the area is limited, the
growth in the value of land and rents has been much
more rapid than the growth of wealth. If we inq ui
1 what is the value of land in the city of London, and corn-
parere it with what it was 20 years ago, we shall find that
its growth is entirely out of proportion to the growth in
the wealth of the city, great as that has been. I shall not
be going too far if I assert—in fact I may say that it is no-
torious—that there are large masses of the labouring people
especially in London, who, as compared with their posi-
tion 20 years ago, are better clothed and better fed, but
who live in worse houses than they did, although their
income is larger. This arises from the fact that there
is not the same limitation in the supply of food and
clothing as exists in the supply of houses, because of the
contraction of area. (Hear, hear.) I state my own opinions
with the reserve that the nature of the question requires ;
but I must say that I have heard no good argument to the
finally upon this—For a man to
contrary. And I stand
occupy a house annual setting
houses,
of £lO clear value, aside
"
lodgers in their he
only the class of men who have
ear. That clear
must have an income of from.,£9o
to £lOO autaxes, nd it is minus
annual value is minus rates and
furniture also. It is vain then to stand in the face of your
working population and st.y, "We have a law which will
enfranchise all the careful, diligent, and respectable
men
among you; no working man is intelligent or respectable
unless he can earn 355. a week." That is too severe a test
and 'my statement of facts is enough to show that it 1
tos speak of a £lO franchise, taking the country all over,
a
one which takes in all the industrious and diligent
among the lower
classes. I must now beg leave to
deny that any transfer Sir,
of power is contemplated by this
bill. That is to say, the preponderance of power in the
country now lying in one quarter is not by it to be carried
over to another. But with
vain to deal with fear. The
suspicion it is vain to deal ; it is
figures and see how they staraedasonable course is to go to
mate the maximum of this ~
formidal am now going to esti-
ble invasion" that we
are told we shall have to contend with if th
are 658 members of Parliament ; and I woulde ask bill pass. There
how far will
the character of the representation be "taii.ted," so
by the influence of the labouring classes ? To be
gto call it,
there are 254 county members. Hon. gentlemen areinawwiathr;
of the character of the county franchise ; and I think they
1011 say that that body of 2a county members is almost

is vain

free from the contamination of the working classes?' '
(Cries of " No, no !" from the Opposition.) You say not.
Very well ; but I don't endorse your opinion if you think
that one working man taints a eounty constituency like a
fly in a pot of ointment. (" Oh, oh !") I say that,
as far as I know, there are no county constituencies
where the working class is predominant. (Hear, hear.)
I really think that is a proposition not admitting dispute.
I may be told that there are a great many county members
who do not vote with the other side, who may think that a
very bad sign, as far as it goes, of the nature of the cousti-
tency by which they are returned. It is true that county
members from Ireland are returned by a £l2 rating fran-
chise ; but I presume you don't call those persons working
men unless they be tenants.
Mr. DISRAELI—There are the 40s. freeholders, of
whom a great many are working men.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You have
added these people to the fly in file pot of ointment. ("No,
no," from the Opposition.) What is the proportion ? If
we are to carry on the debate in this interlocutory
fashion, I would ask what is the proportion of 40s. free-

;ous

holders .
Mr. DISRAELI—That is for you to say.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The right
hon. gentleman interpolates questions in the middle of my
speech very fairly I admit, and I make no complaint of it
if that course be thought convenient—yet, when I invite
him to continue the argument in his own way, he declines
to follow. (Ministerial cheers.) Then I only wish to say,
and certainly I thought it generally believed, that the
proportion of working men in the county constituencies is
exceedingly small. I take it that the county constituencies
are from the predominance of
working-class
influence.in flafei ti
be not so 1 shall be obliged
independent
; free,
to put the proposition in a manner much more unfavour-
able to you, and I say I have not dealt unfairly by you in
saying the county constituencies, having only a minority
of working men, are free from the influence of the working
classes. Now the towns in England and Wales where it is
likely there may be a majority of working men in the con-
stituency have 101 seats ; the towns where they must have
a minority, 239 seats. I assume the same proportions in
the Scotch and Irish towns. The effect of that will be
that the working classes have a majority in 120 towns and
cities, and they will be in a minority in 284 towns and
cities. Then come the county constituencies-254.
Therefore the working classes will be in a minority in
538 seats against 120 seats, in the filling of which they
may be in a majority. Is that a transfer of power such as
you ought to fear? Sir, lam astonished when I find
that it positively seems to be held by intelligent men,
such is the effect of fears and suspicions, that property
is a cause of weakness, and that mere numbers, in
spite of all history and experience, are to be regarded
as stronger in determining the foree of political opinions
than similar numbers when they happen to be backed
by property. (Hear, hear.) To the very liberal statement I
have made I invite the closest consideration, and I state
that members will be returned to at least 9-11ths of the
seats of the country by constituencies where the influence
of the working class cannot possibly, as a general rule, pre-
dominate. Now, I am desirous to make well understood to
the house the position in which the Government stands. I
am not about to qualify or alter in any respect, but to con-
firm, what has already been asserted. To those gentlemen
whom we believe to be earnestly united with ourselves iu
desiring an extension of the franchise we have cheerfully
made a concession. Although we ourselves believe it to
be the wisest course to dispose of the great subject of the
franchise before we went forward to discuss in any way
the question of redistribution of seats, yet we have pro-
mised to set our views before you in the most definite and
formal manner—that is, in the shape of bills upon the
Scotch and Irish franchise and upon the redistribution of
seats—before we go into committee upon this bill. That
is what we have said; and we have also said, what I really
until the day before yesterday had always believed to be
unnecessary to say—that in speaking of this great subject
of the representation of the people as a matter vital to the
credit and therefore to the existence of the Government we
included the subject of redistribution of seats along with
the subject of the franchise. I had thought it necessary to
say this, because I felt nothing 'could be more contemptible
and base than the conduct :af a Government which could
give forth, with a view of enlisting the generous confi-
dence of its supporters, that it would deal with the subject
of Reform and stand or fall by its propositions, and at
the same time exclude from their declaration all portions
of that question but the reduction of the franchise. (Cheers.)
I wish the house more clearly to understand than they do
at present as to the mode in which the question of time
has been treated. I have seen it stated in multitudinous
forms that I have said on the part of the Government that
we will not go on with anything during the present year
except the question of the franchise. I never said any-
thing of the kind. But this I have said :—Looking at the
ordinary time of the session, and this I said on the intro-
duction of the bill, I did not believe that within that period
it would be practicable to deal with those other portions.
Allowing for full and free discussion regarding the subject,
we could not expect that the two portions of it would be
dealt with, and still less of the other portions of it, within
the ordinary and usual duration of the session. But, be-
yond that, I have stated, as is well known, that we for our
parts, from motives of duty, decline to proceed with any
other part of the subject until the fate of the Franchise Bill
is determined. When its fate is determined it will then be
for us to review our position. A portion of the work will
still, it is true, remain to be performed ; but we shall then
know the state of public business, the feeling, and de-
sires of the house. The Franchise Bill is so framed,
and professedly so framed, as to afford ample time
for disposing of the whole matter without much dis-
turbance of the arrangements of the house—l mean of
honourable members of this house. The notices to be
given with a view to registration must be given, I think, on
the 10th of June, and as the most sanguine among sanguine
men would hardly suppose that this bill could receive the
Royal assent before the next 10th of June it follows that
the new constituency cannot be in existence till the end of
the year 1867 ; and consequently this Parliament, or one
elected by the present constituency, has ample time for deal-
ing with the whole subject. (Hear, hear.) There may be
gentlemen who have a great love of comprehensive action
—(laughter)—and if they desire a prorogation or adjourn-
ment of the house there is nothing in the world to prevent
it. The appetite for redistribution seems to have grown
so enormously—(loud cheers)—within the last few weeks,
that if there be a determination to let the grouse and par-
tridges and pheasants have a holiday, and to call Parlia-
ment together whether by prorogation or adjournment in
order to get this great work out of hand, it is not for us
to plead our own personal convenience ; we shall be ready
to make the sacrifice and come up as well as we can,
though looking perhaps pale and languid enough, to set a
last hand to the accomplishment of the work. That is the
position in which we stand. And there is, as far as I know,
but one allegation made in these debates which is broad
enough to cover the opposition to the bill. lam convinced
that all attempts to show there is a self-working enfran-
chisement adequate to the cause, all attempts to show that
every intelligent, respectable, and well-conducted man can
now come upon the register, will utterly break down.
(Cheers.) They cannot be sustained on any careful inves-
tigation. There is only one allegation— Ido not say whether
it has been made—but it was that which was supposed to
have been made by my right honourable friend the mem-
ber for Caine [Mr. Lowe.—" Understood to have been
made."]—(cheers and laughter)—and I am bound to say,
as far as words have meaning, rightly understood. (Cheers.)
Of course, I accept at once the disclaimer of a man of
whom I freely confess that, in my judgment, he is not
more eminent for his extraordinary intellectual power,
in many respects never surpassed and rarely matched
in this house (hear, hear)—than he is entitled to
the utmost respect for his integrity. (Cheers.) I take
this opportunity of making an apology to my right hon.
friend for having used hastily some words which appeared
to cast a reflection on his courage. 1 did not mean any
such thing, and if I used words which appeared to convey
that I am very sorry for it. (Loud cheers.) But my right
hon. friend will allow me to explain, or rather allow me to
answer his explanations, on my own behalf. He says lwas
answering at Liverpool the speech which he made here. I
did nothing of the kind. It was an answer, so far as it was
an answer at all, to his letter to the electors of Calne ; and
I noticed the strange conclusions and the singular labyrin-
thine complications in which it appeared to me that the
artful Mr. Bishop had contrived to entangle him. (Cheers
and laughter.) But my right hon. friend says he spoke in
the speech which he delivered in this house, not of the
mass of the labouring class, whom he very greatly respects,
but of some persons in the different constituencies, I will
not dwell on the fact that he afterwards described that por-
tion of the labouring class among the several constituencies
as men who had won their way there by forethought, or
men whom it would be an injustice to mix with the inferior
persons beneath them. (Hear, hear.) But my right hon.
friend, speaking of those persons, used four memorable
words—and my right hon. friend's phrases are not like
what has been said of lover's vows :
" In vento et rapids scriber° oportet aqua,"
—he uses a pen of steel, and his words are written on the
rock. "Ignorant, drunken, venal, violent"—words easily
remembered ! My right hon. friend spoke of the labouring
classes in the constituencies. Did he speak of them gene-
rally, or merely hero and there of one among them ? If
he spoke of them generally, then I say his bold allegation
is sufficient for its end. If he spoke of a few among them,
then his allegation is worthless as an argument—(loud
cheers)—his arrow falls short of the mark, he has no
right to apply Pride's Purge to the working :class, and
say, "from you we will riddle out before we ad-
mit, you to political rights every man who is a spend-
thrift, every man who is a drunkard, every man who
has broken one of the tea commandments," while those
higher in station, but exempt from the operation of this
purge, may have been wanting in all these respects without
in the slightest degree impairing the efficiency of Parlia-
ment. (Loud cheers.) But did my right hon. friend speak
only of the members of existing constituencies ? Is there a
man here, or a man who heard my right hon. friend deliver
that speech, who forgets his favourite simile of the Hyper-
boreans ? (Hear, hear.) What were they ? They be-
lieved that though the north wind was cold where they
stood—they are the £lO constituencies ; that is where we
stand now—(hear, and laughter)—yet that by going a little

further towards the north—that is, by going successively
to £9, to £B, to £7, and eventually to £6 —at last they would
get into a warm country. (Cheers and laughter.) My
right hon. friend ridiculed these notions, and it was not the
constituencies alone—it was the masses to whom his ob-
servations applied. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend
supplied us with another proof of his meaning—though I
endeavoured to warn him off the ground—inthe use which
he made of the simile of Virgil. I said this is no " Mon-
strum infelix," no horse charged with armed men who are
to carry fire and desolation to your homes ; but my right
hon. friend rushed in haste into the trap, and with porten-
Lasis declaimed—

" Instamus tamen immemores, cteciquo furore,
Et monstrum infelix sacrata sistimus arce."
What is the "Monstrum infelix?" Who are the persons con-
tained in it ? The 7-pounders ! (Loud cheers.) Sir, lam
not seeking to tie my right hon. friend to this construction.
What I have said I said to justify myself for having believed
with reluctance and with pain, but still for having honestly
believed, that his speech a as a denunciation of the working
community. If that was wrong, by all means let us hear it.
My right hon. friend has explained his speech ; let him ex-
plain his explanation ; and when he explains it, let us dis-
tinctly understand—is this a charge against the mass of his
working fellow-cttizens, in which case it is untrue— or is it
only a charge against certain bad characters among them, in
which case it is insufficient ? (Cheers.) If that argument of
my right hon. friend can be sustained in the more unfavour-
able sense, then I admit it is sufficient to destroy this bill ;
and I think ;it sufficient to destroy a great deal else along
with this Bill. It is sufficient to destroy the hopes of
every generous heart and every intelligent mind (hear)
there is nothing to hope for England if that picture which
my right hon. friend with his matchless power strove to
draw is a true picture. I thank the House for the great
patience and kindness of its healing. On this subject men
must become warm ; it is hardly possible as we advance in
debate that we should do otherwise. But I do earnestly
intreat and conjure the house on both sides that it is not
enough for us now to say " We are ready to entertain the
question of Reform with a view to its settlement." Enough
and more than enough there has been already of bare, idle,
mocking words. Deeds are what are wanted. I beseech
ycu to be wise ; and, above all, to be wise in time. (Loud
and continued cheering.)
Mr. LOWE said—Sir, I only interpose now for two
minutes, as I shall have at a later period to address the
house upon the subject of the bill. I wish very much to
disentangle the discussion from anything of a personal
nature, and therefore I ask the opportunity in the house, as
one who has been much spoken against since the house met
last, to say what I have to say in defence of the charge that
has been again brought up by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. Sir, what lam anxious to meet is not any argu-
ment that can be drawn from my words. lam ready to
admit that any gentleman is free to draw any inference,
however unfavourable to me, from my words, so long as he
does so avowedly as an inference. But what 1 rise to pro-
test against in the face of the house, and through the house
to the country, is the gross, systematic, and wilful perver-
sion of language which has been resorted to. (Opposition
cheers.) It is entirely alio intuit°. Let the Chancellor of
the Exchequer enjoy the inference he has drawn. I am
not going to waste time in partially arguing the question,
but what I want to state to the house is this,
that I so little expected this attack to bo renewed,
after what has passed, that I have not come down to the
house even furnished with the document which would have
enabled me accurately, and word by word, to refute it.
(Opposition cheers.) I was arguing, whether well or ill,
that it was not wise to lower the franchise, and I drew an
argument, or intended to draw it, from the notorious mal-
practices that existed in many boroughs and amongst a
large number of the constituencies. I meant to speak of
notorious facts proved before Royal Commissions and before
committees of this house. I did characterise the proceedings
of many electors, a 3 proved before those tribunals, as show-
ing that there was venality, drunkenness, ignorance, and
vice in many constituencies. And that that was my intention
is quite manifest from my having begun the sentence by
saying, "I have some acquaintance with the consti-
tuencies of this country ;" and then I said, If you wish to
find persons possessing the four cardinal vices," as I called
them, "where would you look —whether to the top or bot-
tom—that is of course to the top or bottom of the consti-
tuencies?" (Cheers.) Well, sir, certain gentlemen, whom it
becomes me to speak of with certain feelings of- respect,
thought fit'to get up an address to me, in which they left
out the beginning and end of the sentence. They left out
the part that showed I was referring to the existing con-
stituencies, and the words after "where would you look"
—that is "to the top or the bottom." Having thus mani-
pulated the sentence to their own satisfaction, they pro-
ceeded to severely censure me, and in that they were joined
by the penny press, the blessings of which we have heard
so much to-night. (Opposition cheers.) Now I have no-
thing to say about the Chancellor of the Exchequer: Ho
is free to draw any argument he likes from my words.
What I have had to say about him I have said in print.
But the noble lord at the head of the Government, I am in-
formed, in his address to his supporters the other day, con-
descended to read this passage to them, garbling it exactly
in the same way as it was garbled, leaving out the latter
words which showed clearly with what intent the words
were spoken ; and not only so, but the hon. member for
Birmingham, in his speech at Rochdale a few days ago,
not only left out the words "to the top or to the bottom,"
but put into the place of them "to the unrepresented
classes"--(loud cheers)—words which I never spoke, and
words not to be found in the two reports of my speech I
have consulted—words which I know not where ho ob-
tained them, but perhaps they were the Bright invention
of some of his organs in the press. This is what I protest
against ; not against argument or inference, but against
a deliberate falsification of what I did 'say—against
those mean and reprehensible arts of omission and
and suppression, and suggestion and substitution of words
never spoken. (Loud Opposition cheers.) No man in the
world has ever been subjected to more gross abuse than
have for the last month, and that abuse has been occa-
sioned by deliberate and purpose-like misrepresentations,
misstatements, and misquotations of my language ; and the
people who are about to invade and govern us have not
the opportunity of referring to original documents, but
take it from the words of the Press that instructs them and
the orators who inflamed them. (Opposition cheers.)
make my protest in the face of the house against this species
of political warfare.
Mr. 0. STANLEY rose to order amidst loud cries of
"Oh, oh," and was understood to complain that the right
hon. gentleman was abusing the licence which had been
given to him.
The SPEAKER—The hon. member has not pointed
out anything that could justify his interruption. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. gentleman is perfectly in order.
Mr. LOWE—I only wish to say, in this public manner,
that it never was my intention to say anything at all re-
flecting on the poorar or working classes of this country as
a body—(oh, and cheers)—though whatever inference may
he drawn from my speeches are legitimate matter for argu-
ment, that I must meet as I may. But Ido trust that in
this house of hon. gentlemen, although a court of honour is
not like the Court of Chancery, capable of issuing an in-
junction—yet Ido trust that the attempt will be discoun-
tenanced to put down a man who, whatever his faults and
failings may be—and I am quite aware of them— is acting
according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as he be-
lieves, with perfect integrity and good faith. (Cheers.)
Earl GROSVENOR, who on rising was received with
loud cheers, said he would take the liberty of bringing the
house down to the region of commonplace. In rising to
move the resolution of which he had given notice, he must
first of all claimthe indulgence of the house, and more espe-
cially of those who sat on his side of it—in opposition to
whom he should have the misfortune to appear to act—an
indulgence which he should not ask for in vain. (Hear,
hear, and cheers.) The task that he took upon himself
would require tho 'eloquence and ability of a more prac-
tised debater, and of higher distinction than he could lay
claim to, for the only claim he had was founded upon the
sincerity of his conviction that the course he was following
was correct and the honesty of his motives. He could
assure the house that it was not without great difficulty
and anxiety that he consented to move this resolution, and
it was not without consulting the advice of men of high
position, upon whose judgment he could rely, and whom he
thought were well qualified to advise him in this crisis.
He had been made the subjectof many violent attacks, both
in the Press and in speeches, since he gave notice of this
motion ; and ho knew of no more ungenerous and indefen-
sible attack than that which was made upon him by the
hon. and learned member for Oxford (Mr. Neate.) He did
not for a moment wish it to be understood that he referred
to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies.
His own inclination would have been to give a silent vote,
as he had on many previous occasions ; but he felt that
there were times and occasions which must give way to a
sense of duty, and he might say such an occasion had now
presented itself to him. (Cheers.) If the house would allow
him, he would say one word in reference to what occurred
yesterday, and which had been rather misunderstood. He
was anxious to have a clear understanding from the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the
course which was intended to be taken by the Government
for the redistribution of seats and the disfranchisement of
boroughs. There was some misapprehension upon the sub-
ject. There was a lengthened report in the _Morning Star
giving a detailed account of the circumstances of the meet-
ing, and several members asked him what was the object
of his rising in his place yesterday. His object in rising
was to obtain some confirmation orcontradiction as to what
appeared in print as to the course the Government would
take in respect to these bills. He was not able to put that
question at the time. The noble lord at the head of the
Government, in reply to the hon member for the Tower
Hamlets, was reported to have said that he intended topro-
coed with the bill for the reduction of the borough franchise
but he would not tie himself down to any time when he
would proceed with the other bills. He considered ho was
justified in some measure in bringing forward his resolution
from the fact, that though the Government had partly
conceded the object of the resolution by pledging them-
selves to bring in some of the bills, yet the right hon. gen-
tleman in his speech that nighthad totally evaded the ques-
tion. (Opposition cheers.) He had made no reference to the
main point to which his resolution referred, that the house
desired to have under its consideration the whole scheme of
reform contemplated by the Government. (Cheers.) For the

many years that he had been in the house he had been an
humble follower of the present Prime Minister, and he had
supported other Liberal Administrations in the measures
they brought forward which he conceived to be for the good
of the country. He acknowledged the great ability of the
noble lord, and his great and heartfelt sincerity in the cause
of reform. The noble lord said he began his political career
in the cause of reform in 1821, and he observed with pain
the disparaging remarks which had been made in the press in
reference to the noble lord since he became Prime Minister.
(Hear, hear.) He was aware that he laid himself open on
this occasion not only to the charge of deserting the Govern-
ment, but also the party of which hitherto ho had been a
member. The noble lord in 1859 moved a resolution against
the bill of Lord Derby on the question of reform, and he
(Earl Grosvenor) followed the noble lord into the lobby on
that occasion, and he might be permitted to doubt whether
he was altogether right in that course. (Hear, hear.) But
it was easy to be wise after the event, and it had struck
him since whether it was not an opportunity that might
have been used for the settlement of this question of reform
instead of upsetting the bill. (Hear, hear.) But he would
ask, did not hon. gentlemen leave themselves open to the
accusation of deserting their party, when in bringing for-
ward a measure of reform they consulted mainly what
were the feelings and wishes of hon. gentlemen who sat
below the gangway—(loud cheers)—and in that deserted
the old traditions of the Whig party ? He was, however,
proud to be in a position to say that there were a few hon.
members at all events sitting on that side of the house
who were determined to pursue an independent course, and
who preferred the real interests of the country to their
allegiance to the Government. (Renewed cheering.) With-
out in the least degree arrogating to himself any extraordi-
nary merit or virtue, he might be permitted to wonder
how it was that so many other members who sat there and
did not approve of the measure—how it was that so
many who considered it a partial measure, although
admitting that it contained some good provisions—how it
was that so many who did not approve of it as being
ill-timed—how those members on that side of the house,
who, judging from their conversation in the lobbies, dis-
approved of the bill, could yet find it consistent with their
duty and their consciences to support the Government on
that occasion, and, agreeing in the spirit of his resolution,
nevertheless, found it their duty to vote for the second
reading of the Bill. Those honourable members, however,
who were acting with him were, he believed, acting a more
upright and friendly part to the Government, and of this he
felt sure that, however their acts might be now miscon-
strued, the time would come when their efforts would be
appreciated by a party stronger and more united because
more honest in its views. (Opposition cheers.) The right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his
speech at Liverpool stated that the trumpet of Government
blew no uncertain sound. They would all recollect the
number of notices which were upon the paper previous to
the recess. Well, he supposed it was at the sound of that
mighty trumpet that all those notices disappeared in an
inconceivable manner like the walls of Jericho. (Laughter
and cheers.) His resolution, however, because founded
upon a rock, was the only one which had been able to with-
stand the terrific blast, because founded on truth and justice.
(Cheers.) They proceeded by resolution on this occasion,
because they believed that some of the provisions of the
bill were worthy of adoption. They had, too, a precedent
far that course in the conduct of the noble lord at the head
of the present Government, when he in that way encoun-
tered the measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman
opposite, and by which he succeeded in throwing out the
Bill, and preventing the settlement of the great question of
Parliamentary Ref mm. Such was th 3 horror of the reso-
lution proposed by the noble lord that the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer went into the
lobby with the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
then declared that the only part of ,the measure he ap-
proved was the redistribution of seats. (Hear.) He said that
that was no small or trivial matter ; that the question of
the redistribution of seats was in the full one-half of the
whole ; that the redistribuiton of seats and the extension
of the franchise made up the entire measure. (Cheers.)
Well, the right hon. gentleman also disapproved of his re-
solution as saying one thing and meaning another. He had
described it as valuable, not for what it declared, but for
what it did not declare, and that no man cared for what it
did declare. If the house would allow him he would read
to them the terms of his resolution, premising that it had
not been drawn up, as asserted, by a Tory hand. ,(Hear.)
It was, " That this house, while ready to consider, with a
view to its settlement, the question of Parliamentary Re-
form, is of opinion that it is inexpedient to discuss a bill for
the reduction of the franchise in England and Wales, until
the house has before it the entire scheme contemplated by
the Government for the amendment of the representation
of the people." If the right hon. gentleman was unable to
understand the plainest Eliglish ever written he could not
explain it to him further. It was impossible to deny that
the house was ready to consider the question, a statement
which the right hon. gentleman, however, passed by with
a sneer which was unworthy of him— "Ready to consider,
said the right hon. gentleman; I believe the house is ready
to consider nothing of the sort."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated
his dissent.
Earl GROSVENOR begged the right hon. gentleman's
pardon if he misrepresented him, but he spoke from the
report of his speech published in the newspapers. (Several
hon. members, " Quite right.") Now, he thought that
both sides of the house had given proof that the house was
at all times ready to consider the question of reform. That
was evident from what had happened in 1852, 1854, 1859,
and in 1860. The main point of his resolution was iden-
tical in principle with the doctrine laid down by the late
Sir James Graham in the last speech he ever made in the
house, in which he stated that the main end of reform
should be to prevent the necessity of further reformation.
Did the present bill afford any probability that that prin-
ciple should be fulfilled ? (Cheers.) It only dealt with two
points, the modification of the franchise in boroughs, and
the modification of the franchise in counties. The present
Prime Minister said in 1851, when the hon. gentleman the
member for East Surrey brought forward his county fran-
chise bill, that he (Lord John Russell) would ask the house
to consider the gravity of the question, and if it would not
be wise and prudent to reject that bill as a partial propo-
sition—(cheers)—until the whole scheme of the alteration
of the franchise was placed before Parliament. (" Hear,
hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The noble lord had,
it seemed, since changed his mind, although the principles
which were valid then were equally valid now. The bill
of 1854, proposed by the noble lord, was a tolerably sweep-
ing measure, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer found
fault with it because it went too far, and on that occasion
he made his great speech in favour of the retention of small
boroughs. With regard to the redistribution of seats, if
the inequality of representation was great now, what would
it be after the passing of the measure, when the consti-
tuencies in all the large towns would be doubled ? The
hon. gentleman the member for Derby, for whom he enter-
tained a very great respect, had told his constituents that
be would vote for the bill although he thought it would
unsettle the question, and that what he should like to see
adopted was the municipal, which was very much tanta-
mount to a household„ suffrage. (Hear, hear.) It was the
object of hon. gentlemen below the gangway to increase
the power of the lower classes, and a very able pamphlet,
written by Mr. Gibbs, of Wolverhampton, showed that the
measure now proposed would give those classes a prepon-
derance of political power, for it was clearly shown that
those classes were increasing at a ratio greater than
at which the population of the country was increasing.
No time, however, had been given them for the con-
sideration of the returns which had been laid on the
table of the house. On the other point, he wished to
call attention to the fact that. Sir James Graham,
arguing in favour of the £6 franchise, did so on
the assumption that the class of £lO voters were becoming
diminished ; and Lord Russell, in 1860, was under the
same impression, when he estimated, probably on the re-
turns of 1858, that the total number of voters in boroughs
was under 200,000, whereas they were now 336,700, show-
ing that, so far as the working classes were concerned,
there was a large increase in the number of voters. They
had since 1851 increased at the rate of 45 per cent., whereas
the increase of population was only at the rate of 36 per
cent. Now, with regard to the tone of the public press,
he believed the great majority of the respectable journals
in the country were favourable to the resolution and un-
favourable to the course pursued by 'the Government.
There was, however, one exception, for that paper which
was the organ of the hon. gentleman the member for Bir-
mingham indulged in threats and menaces against those
members of the house who ventured to entertain an inde-
pendent opinion and had the courage to avow it. (Hear,.
hear, and cheers.) He was sure that those threats and ap-
peals to physical force would not doter any member of the
house from avowing his independent opinion: (Hear,
hear.) Certainly the threat that his unfortunate son was
to be deprived of the property which it was expected he
would one day inherit would not prevent him (Earl Gros-
venor) from coming :forward to perform what he con-
sidered a great 'public duty. There was another point
which he could not pass over, as it affected him personally,
and placed him in a dirty conspiracy. He had now sat in
that house for many years, and had frequently heard the
hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham give utterance
to the grandest thoughts in the noblest language, and there-
fore it was with feelings of pain and regret he found that
the hon. gentleman, when at Rochdale, had spoken of him-
self and those who had supported his resolution in language
which no gentleman in that house would use (hear, hear,
and cheers)—and which no one who was a gentleman
would use out of the house. (Renewed cheers.) It was not
necessary for him to go into the question whether it was
wise or prudent to make such a change as was now pro-
posed. Certainly a period of thirty years was but
a small period in the Parliamentary history of this
country. It might be open to consideration how more of
the working classes might get admitted to the franchise,
but he believed they were themselves effecting that object,
and that there was no working man who might not by pru-
dence and diligence work himself up to the position of a
£lO voter. The supporters of the present measure hadgono
about asserting that those who were opposed to it indulged
in the indiscriminate abuse of the working classes. For
himself he could say he never used a word of abuseagainst
them; indeed, the whole tenor of his life had been to re-

spect all classes of his countrymen. The hon. gentleman
the member for Birmingham, however, in his speech at
Rochdale declared that there were still large masses of the
people whom the influences of religion, education, and
civilisation had never reached, and yet the grant for public
education had within the last 20 years increased from
£30,000 to £BOO,OOO per annum. Now he (Earl Grosvenor)
thought that was hardly an argument in favour of the pre-
sent bill—it was rather an argument which had a tendency
the other way. However that might be, the great majority
of the house wished to pass a moderate measure of reform
one which would be based on the two great principles—
the good government of the country and the fair represen-
tation of the people. The question they had now to ask
themselves was, whether or not they had got a bill which
would secure to them these two ends. The question was,
Had they got this? He believed they had not. Then the
question was, How could they obtain it? Would the bill
then before the house accomplish it? That was the ques-
tion, and he was bound to say that ho did not think it would
(Cheers.) He believed that no Reform Bill would ever pass
that house which first of all consults hon. members below
the gangway in preference to the great party who sit above
it, and-without consulting hon. members who sit on the
other side of the house. He believed that until their feel-
ings and wishes were consulted and the question was
taken out of the domain of party—(cheers)—there was no
possibility of any bill passing, unless, as had been sug-
gested by Earl Grey, it was put into the hands of a com-
mittee of the Privy Council, or of an unbiassed commission
For this reason he moved the amendment. He believed
that moderate opinions prevailed, and would continue to
prevail, and that a bill which was founded upon that prin-
ciple, upon matured opinionsand matured principles, would
become the law of the country. (Cheers.) He thanked the
house in all sincerity for the great patience with which
they had listened to him, and he would only appeal to those
members who sat on his side, and who agreed in the spirit
of the resolution, whether they could not in their consciences
support the resolution, because he believed the Govern-
ment bill would never pass the house. He knew that many
agreed in the spirit of the resolution, though their allegi-
ance to the Government had superior claims upon them.
He appealed to gentlemen out of doors to justify him, be-
cause he had been subjected to great abuse on account of
the course which be had felt it to be his duty to take on
this occasion. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl, concluded by
moving the resolution he had placed upon the paper, and
resumed his seat amid loud Opposition cheers.
Lord STANLEY, who was received with great applause
from the Opposition benches, seconded the amendment.
For some minutes the noble lord was very indistinctly
heard. He was understood to say that he seconded the
amendment from the strong conviction he entertatined of
the falseness of the position in which they had become
involved. He did not intend to follow the Chancellor of
the Exchequer through his long and able speech, but he
must observe, in reference to the quotation which the right
hon. gentleman made from the Quarterly Review, and by
which he seemed to wish to affix a stigma upon the Con-
servative party, that he (Lord Stanley) entirely de-
clined to be responsible for any article whatever, of
which he knew nothing and with Tihich he had
nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman also appeared desirous to have it be-
lieved that the Conservative party would wish to
go to war with the United States. Now he (Lord
Stanley) thought that this was some of the tender ground
on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was afraid
to enter. (Cheers.) Why, during the war all that the Con-
servative party wished to see was a recognition of the Con-
federate States ; but the right hon. gentleman himself it
was who declared that Jefferson Davis had made a nation.
(Loud cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had con-
cluded his speech with a powerful appeal to the house, not
only to be wise, but to be wise in time. (Hear, hear.) Ho
did not know when this necessity for urgent haste in the
matter began in the mind of the right hon. gentleman.
(Hear, hear.) The Reform bill of 1860, brought in by Lord
Russell's Government, was not thrown out by the house ;
it was simply dropped. (Hear, hear.) Those who had left
this question for six years without even an attempt to
settle it wore not now justified in turning round and saying
that the house would not be wise unless it passed this bill
with the least possible delay. (Loud cheers.) He did not
intend to discuss the details or the principle of the bill ;
but simply to support the proposition expressed in the re-
solution of his noble friend the member for Chester. What
was it the Ministry asked them to do ? They asked them
to act upon a principle which they themselves six years
ago declared to be an unsound one. In the present case
the original theory on which they proceeded was that
the question of the franchise and the redistribution of
seats were wholly independent of and distinct from each
other, and that they ought to ba separately considered.
Her Majesty's Government had now distinctly acknow-
ledged the right of the house to know what they pro-
posed to do about the seats before the house went into
the details of this measure. (Cheers.) But the Govern-
ment said, "We must have your pledge that you
will vote for the second reading. You must perform
that act of faith in us, and when you have done that we
will reward your submission and your confidence by
telling you what will be the effect of this vote you have
given blindfold." (Cheers.) He wondered that Ministers
did not see, or that seeing they did not care for, the con-
struction to which that course of policy was exposed. No
one could suppose that they had not got their plan ready.
No one could believe that they did not know what
boroughs they proposed to disfranchise and what con-
stituencies they intended to create. Those facts, however,
were kept back from the house, and why ? Because, as
the leader of the house said at Liverpool—and it was a
singular admission to come from one occupying his position
—the Government knew with whom they were dealing.
(Cheers.) Although the Government asked the House of
Commons to trust them, they were not inclined to trust
the House of Commons. (Cheers.) And why ? Because
—and he did not think he put it unfairly—they thought
that if two measures were brought forward at the same
time, and one of them were a small disfranchisement
scheme, it might so disappoint and disgust several mem-
bers as to make them indifferent to the whole measure of
reform. If, on the other hand, they brought forward a
large scheme of disfranchisement the members whose seats
would be taken away would be inclined to vote against
the whole measure of reform, and thus it might be de-
feated. He wondered that Ministers imagined so transpa-
rent a device would succeed. (Cheers.) He fancied
there was no member so young or so innocent as not to
see the net which had been spread out before the house.
(Renewed cheers.) And after all what would Ministers
gain if their device should succeed? Simply a little time.
If the bill should be read a second time, the opposition
which they wished to prevent on the second reading would
have to be encountered in committee. Under these circum-
stances he thought it was hardly worth while for Ministers
to attempt to press the bill forward at present. The fate not
merely of a member, but of his constituency, might depend
on the vote which he might give on the second reading of
this bill. A large number of boroughs were upon the border
line, and arrangements might be made which would swamp
the constituency of an enemy and save that of a friend.
(Cheers.) Eveu.the measure of 1832, sound as he thought
it was, was not free from some arrangements of that kind.
(Laughter.) But let it not be supposed that he charged the
Government with intending to make any corrupt bargain
of that kind, but thought that the house ought to con-
sider carefully the position in which they stood with
referenae to this matter. They were going to have
a large redistribution of seats. Any alteration of that
scheme was still possible, and ought the house to be asked
to vote upon a measure upon which the Government had
staked its existence, while certain influences which he had
described might be exercised upon the representatives of
certain constituencies ? Who was to guarantee the iden-
tity of the redistribution scheme of 1866 with that of 1867?
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Would the Ministers them-
selves say that they would accept no amendment, and
would not reconsider their perhaps hasty thoughts ? They
could not use language of that kind. And who was to an-
swer for the events of the next 12 months ? Might not
some domestic or foreign event occasion a dissolution of
Parliament within that time? And if a dissolution
should take place in what an extraordinary posit ion
would the house and the country be placed. If they
appealed to the old constituencies, they would be con-
stituencies which the House by a deliberate vote
had condemned. And if they appealed to the new consti-
tuencies, they would have this still more anomalous state
of things.. They would have an appeal from Parliament
to the people under a provisional constitution. (Cheers.)
Who was to guarantee that the same body which
dealt with the question of enfranchisement would be able
also to deal with the question of seats ? A guarantee of
that kind was simply impossible. He did not blame the
Government for not having brought in the bill until statis-
tical information had been laid before the house, but he did
regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not a little
more leisure, which would have enabled him to read the
book which he laid on the table containing that statistical
information, because the facts in that book turned out
quite different from what the right hon. gentleman ima-
gined them to be—(hear, and laughter)—the whole ques-
tion of Reform should be suspended till another session.
They had no. guarantee that if this measure were car-
ried the settlement of the second question would rest in
the hands of the present House of Commons. Referring
to the expression a "dirty conspiracy," he wished to know
how that term was to be defined. Did it mean a combina-
tion for a temporary purpose of a portion of the Liberal
party with the bulk of the Conservative party ? It could
hardly be that, for he had known two such combinations
within the last few years, in which part had been taken
by noble lords and hon. gentlemen who now supported
Government, and amongst them the hon. member for Bir-
mingham —once on the occasion of the resolution on the
China war, and on the case of Bernard and Orsini.
Mr. BRIGHT rose to order, but was met by so deter-
mined an opposition from the Conservative side that he
could not be heard.
Mr. DISRAELI (to Mr. Bright)—Do you rise to order ?
Mr. BRIGHT—I do.
The SPEAKER, rising in answer to cries of " Chair,"
said—The hon. member says that he rises to order, and of
course he will keep to the question of order.
Mr. BRIGHT—I do not wish to interrupt the noble lord.
I only wish to say that on the first mason— (Renewed

cries of " Order," yielding to which Mr. Bright sat down.
Lord STANLEY went on to say that the Liberal
members alluded to had only asserted their right to the
exercise of their own judgment, and their refusal to
submit to the dictation which would say to them,
" Swallow your scruples and follow your leader." He
contended that there was no similarity whatever between
the resolution proposed in 18 59 and the amendment of his
noble friend. The resolution of 1859 affirmed the principle
that no settlement of the Reform question would be satis-
factory that did not include the lowering of the borough
franchise. That resolution was objected to as unusual
and unfair, on the ground that the point raised was one
that could be disposed of in committee if the bill were
allowed to pass a second reading. (Hear, hear.) The pre-
sent bill was only a franchise bill, and it would be con-
trary to the practice) of the house to insert in a
franchise bill a clause relating to a different subject.
(Hear, hear.) This was not an amendment that nega-
tived the principle of any Reform, or that even ex-
pressed disapprobation of the principle of the bill.
(Hear, hear.) After the promises that had been made re-
specting reform, he should be unwilling to vote against the
second reading if he could avoid doing so. He would
much rather, if possible, discuss in committee any question
in which there existed a difference of opinion, but they
were cut off from taking that course by the peculiar man-
ner in which the scheme was brought before them. (Oppo-
sition cheers.) They should be able to judge of the effect of
the bill not only in the existing boroughs, but also in the
new boroughs hereafter to be enfranchised. They were
therefore asked to legislate upon a subject about which
they absolutely knew nothing. (Opposition cheers.) Their
judgment ought to be free and unbiased, and founded upon
a full knowledge of the subject. Believing that they could
not so exercise their judgment if they acted in the manner
the Government desired, he should second the amendment
of his noble friend. (Opposition cheers.)
Mr. P. W. MARTIN expressed his intention to support
he bill provided the Government would introduce a clause
io save the rights of the dockyard artificers, but not other-

wise.
Mr. HORSFALL commented with some severity on the
language used by Mr. Bright in reference to Liverpool,
which he described as most unjustifiable. He described
the freemen of that town to be quite as independent as the
£lO householders, and while expressing himself anxious to
assist in any compromise or settlement of the question
when the proper time arrived, expressed himself hostile to
a measure which would transfer the balance of political
power to the working classes, and which would enormously
increase the expense of elections.
Mr. PIM disclaimed any idea of regarding the question
of reform as one of party. He did not wish to see the Go-
vernment displaced, but he could not give his consent to a
fragmentary measure, although he was quite disposed to
support a fair and moderate measure of concession when
the proper time arrived.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON could not understand
upon what intelligible ground the Opposition were pre-
pared to give their sanction to the amendment of Lord
Grosvenor. That amendment was directed against a real
and practical proposition, and if it were now rejected it
would be impossible to tell when there would be a settle-
ment of the question. Ho denied that the measure had
been brought in at the dictation of Mr. Bright. It was
in-
spired by the pressure of long-standing engagements,
which no honourable men could longer resist. Had the
Government met the new Parliament without a Reform
Bill it would have been said that they had sacrificed their
principles to their places. The fate of the Cabinet was, it
was true, staked upon the bill, but a far more importan t
question than the resignation of Ministers remained behind
—the peace and prosperity of the country.
General PEEL reminded the house that the new-born
zeal of the Government in favour of Reform had been in-
spired by the death of the late Premier. Before the dis-
solution of George 111. the cry of the Government was,
"The good old King and no Popery," and during the life-
time of Lord Palmerston the cry was, " The good old
Palmerston and no Reform Bill." To ask the House of
Commons to sanction the principle of a Franchise Bill
without accompanying it with a plan for the redistribution
of seats was to treat it like a child. For his own part Ile
was not prepared to consider one without the other ; end'
so far as the lowering of the franchise was concerned, be
would not give his assent to a £7 occupation in boroughs
even if accompanied by a measure for the redistribution of
aeats. He considered that a£7 franchise would open the
door to endless corruption, as it would revive the old free-
men, scot and lot voters, and potwallopers, whose eli°t;
ence was destroyed, or nearly destroyed, by the bill e;
1832. If the bill were passed in its present shape it would
open the door to all descriptions of corruption, en
boroughs would be bought and sold like shares in the
Stock Exchange. The cost of every borough would bed
fixed ; a parliamentary bill of fare would be drawn up, en
the price of mint sauce for Nottingham "lambs" would eb
once be ascertained. He was not indisposed to give tiler
working classes a reasonable share of political power, le,
he was not afraid of them ; but he owned he was afraid 01
he men by whom they were likely to be led.
After a few words from Mr. KINGLABE, justifying
the withdrawal of the amendment of which he had given

notice,
Mr. BANKS-STANHOPE opposed the bill on the
ground that it was not an honest measure. It was wet
known that it was the handiwork of the member for Bir-
mingham, who had openly declared that no measure
would give satisfaction to him and his party out of door',,
which was not accompanied by the ballot.
On the motion of Mr. BAXTER the debate wan 961-
journed at half-past twelve o'clock until this afternoon;
after a pretest from Mr. Ayrton against the "feeble" ana
"uxorious" manner of conducting so serious an t
important a discussion. He expressed himself in facn/1
of sitting day and night until the division had Seri
taken.
The other business on the paper was disposed of/ n
nd
the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.