The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 17, 1866.

said both sides of the house stood deeply pledged to the
question of reform, and he thought that the present
was a very favovrable opportunity for settling the
mater. He was of opinion that the bill then before
the house was a fair compromise, and a moderate
measure which would be accepted by the working
class as a settlement of the question for some time to
come. He did not think there was any reason for the
panic that had been raised in some quartersin consequence
of the proposed reduction of the borough franchise to £7
—(hear, hear)—because the house had had on former
occasions proposals for reducing it to the extent of
£5. (Hear, hear.) There need not be any fear that the
bill would weaken any of the cherished institutions of
the country. He hoped the Government would carry
the bill—hear, hear)—not that he cared much for
the Government—laughter)---but he hoped the bill
would be carried for the honour of the great assembly of
Parliament. The hon. member then alluded to the opinions
of the right hon. member for Caine, who, he said, had related
his experiences obtained by his journey to Australia, where
to use his own expression, he had seen them legislating in
their shirt-sleeves. (Hear, hear.) He was altogether op-
posed to the views propounded by that hon. gentleman,
because his (Mr. Maguire's) information, whi h
c related to
the colony of Victoria, was quite opposed to that of the
hon. member for Caine. Ile had said that the proceedings
were conducted in a way which was highly objectionable.
The voting was by ballot, there was no corruption, and
the lowest voters were high above the roughs of Kidder-
minster and the omens of Nottingham. (Hear, hear.) It
was ridiculous ppose that the free trade policy
would be swept away if the house adopted the
£7 franchise, and he could only say that he was
greatly surprised when the hon. member for Wick
made the declaration the other evening. He considered the
amendment proposed an insiduous amendment, becaus9 it
meant death to the prospects of reform during the present
year, and death to the honour of Parliament. He hoped
the house would give its assent to the bill ; at all events,
he should give his vote in favour of the second reading.
Lord DI7NKELLIN expressed himself in favour of the
amendment, which he considered shadowed forth a clear
and distinct line of policy. He protested against the house
being called on to legislate in the dark, and without having
before it the whole of the Government scheme, which,
when it was considered as associated with the redistribu-
tion of seats, must have a very different effect to what was
now supposed. He therefore preferred to take up a posi-
tion of antagonism at once instead of giving his friends a
support on trust, and probably afterwards taking an en-
tirely different course. To take any other step was to
affirm the principle of patchwork legislation, and to swal-
low the powder offered, in foolish confidence of having the
gain afterwards.
Mr. W. E. FORSTER argued that there was an incon-
sistency between the words of the amendment and the
speeches in its support. The former said that "it was in-
expedient to discuss the bill," and the orators in its favour
had all, with the single exception of Lord Stanley, argued
the bill on its merits. Although the Government might
have gone much further, yet he considered that it was im-
possible to have brought in any considerable number of
the working class element to the exercise of the right of
voting in a safer way. The educational franchise which
had been proposed was a practical impossibility, because it
would simply lead to a picking and choosing among the
electors, which would be most unpopular. It had fre-
quently been stated by the opponents of the bill that it was
not the working classes themselves which were so much
to be feared as the men who might lead them. This, how-
ever, was to proclaim the members of that order fools, in-
stead of rogues. The fact was that all who had much to
do with working men knew that they were extremely
tenacious of their own political opinions, and were by no
means so easily led as some people seemed to suppose. He
defended, also, the right of the upper stratum of the mid-
dle class to the possession of a vote, since the man whose
income was two or three hundred a year, with his indirect
contributions to the State and income tax, was really the
most heavily taxed individual in the country. He as-
sured the house that not one member of the " dangerous
classes" would be admitted to the Constitution by this
measure ; while the satisfactory disposal of the Reform
question would make way for the consideration of those
great social topics about which so much earnest feeling
was often exhibited.
Mr. M`KENNA intimated his intention to vote for the
amendment, since he considered that the medical formula
of Lord Dunkellin ought to be reversed, and that the
Government desired the country to take the jam first, and
the powder—of what sort was not known—afterwards.
He trusted the Irish members would not vote blind confi-
dence in her Majesty's Ministers.
Sir J. SIMEON declined to help on what he termed a
deplorable act of political suicide, viz., attempting to de-
stroy a Liberal Government by the help of Liberal votes.
He expressed his belief that there never had been a mea-
sure introduced which was in conception so moderate, and
in spirit so determined to do political justice to all classes
of the community.
Mr. LOWTHER referred to several of the meetings
which had been held on the reform question, and the way
in which they were conducted, and founded thereon argu-
ments against the second reading of the bill.
Sir F. CROSSLEY, as a large employer of labour,
taunted the Opposition with professions of liberality, while
in their hearts they were bitterly opposed to any extension
of the franchise. The present concession was, in his
opinion, a very moderate one, which the education and
good conduct of the industrial classes entitled them to
possess.
Mr. ADDERLEY denied that the Opposition were un-
willing to entertain the question of a reduction of the fran-
chise when they opposed the extremely injudicious, in-
complete, and inconvenient way in which this measure
had been brought forward. He complained that the intro-
duction of leasehold and copyhold voters from the boroughs
was intended not to swamp, but to annihilate the agricul-
tural interest in the counties; and denounced in.severe
terms the manner in which Mr. Bright was accustomed to
condemn the whole body of landowners, and generally to
set class ageinst class. He protested, on these grounds,
' against the Government asking the house to pass in blank
a measure dictated to them by Mr. Bright, and of the use
to which, the fact of its being passed, it might be turned,
they were entirely ignorant.
Mr. LAYARD should have desired not to have taken
any part in the debate—(loud cheers from the Opposition)
—but he owed a debt of gratitude to those who sent him
to that house which prevented him from being silent on a
subject of such importance to the working classes, of whom
lie regarded himself as one of the representatives. Scarcely
a member of that house represented a larger constituency
than himself, and of the 11,000 voters in that constituency
nearly one-half were working men. He had been sent to
the house by those men, and by their generous, disinte-
rested, and loyal aid ho had fought many a battle. Any
position be might hold he should owe to them and to them
alone. Had the discussion upon this question been limited
to the amendment proposed by the noble lord the member
for King's Lynn he should not have thought it necessary
to speak upon the subject, and he might tell hon. members
that upon whatever they might ground their arguments
the country at large would feel that the real question was
whether the bill of the Government was to pass into law
or whether it should be rejected. (Hear, hear.) Did the
right hon. baronet the member for Hertford shi re say that
he should vote for the amendment ? No, he wound up
his brilliant oration by saying that he should vote against
the bill. (Hear, hear.) The member for the Wickboroughs
said that if the bill had contained clauses for the redistri-
it
bution of seats he should have voted for it, but at the
same time he said that he should not think of voting in
favour of a reduction of the franchise. Did the hon. gen-
tleman mean that he would vote for or against the bill ?
Well, had any other hon. member spoken strictly upon the
amendment except the noble lord the member for King's
Lynn? The noble lord the mover of the amendment,
although he professed to be in favour of Reform,would have
this question referred to a Committee of the Privy Council,
as if it were the Cattle Plague or some other plague. (A.
laugh.) This morning he was surprised to see a letter from
the hon. member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh), who appeared
to have been reminded.by his constituents that he had a
duty to perform by communicating with thembefore enter-
ing that house. The hon. gentleman eame forward and
principle,gains t bolter becauseconseieint
eewasin nFecarelsisaamryenttea;
said that he would vote against this bill—not as a matter
often to
ovfotea
(Cries of "No!" from the Opposition,s° amnedt:mi ;mad
II!"
et; tactics.
hon. gentleman, in his letter to Mr. Lush, said:—
prefer meeting
the " There is, as every one knows,
in Parliamentary tactics, and to a certain extent is
at the present moment, as I should myself
the Reform Bill with a direct negative to voting for Lordin
Grosvenor's motion."
(Opposition cheers.) He could not understand how his
right hon. friends the member for Caine and the member
for Stroud, and his noble friend the member for Heading-
tonshire (Lord Elcho), could vote for this amendment, for
they had declared themselves against Parliamentary Re,-
form altogether. [Lord Elcho—No.] Well, the noble lord
had declared against lowering the franchise. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Caine, however, had de-
clared himself against all Reform. Now, the only member
of the house who had dealt fairly with this question of the
amendment was the noble lord the member fie- King's
as the could
Lynn, and in a speech characterised by
great
summed up the objections to the bill as well
ability he
tie yen who
possibly be summed up. The right hon.
about the. Government insulting and degrading the house
had just sat down in his somewhat excitedgsQpneecmh talked
--(Opposition cheers)—and about their audacity in propos-
ing the measure. (Renewed cheers.) He really could not
tal
attempt to deal with those excited statements. (Iron
cheers from the Opposition.) His hon. friend the member
for Whitehaeon (Mr. Bentinck) and other hon. gentlemen
would
the do better if, instead of making that violent noise,
were to try to answer his arguments. The noble lord
the member for King's Lynn had, no doubt, shown great
reasons for bringing °
in the two measures together. (Opposi-
tion cheers.) There were,
unquestionably,ralo weighty reasons
t
weighty
for not bringing in this m
there were reasons equally —(renewed
introducing cheersth the two
measures separately. After all it became a .
question which
course was the fairest to be taken, which the most
conve-
nient and the most likely to lead to a practical result.
That was the question with which the Government had to

--------
deal, and they dealt with it fairly and honestly, as he would
show. Now, he wished to meet the objections of the noble
lord, for he did not think they had been answered on that
side of the house. (Loud Opposition cheers.) If hon. gentle-
men would only wait they would hear the reason why.
They had not been answered on that side because the de-
bate had gone off on a different issue. Now, what was the
first objection of the noble lord? He condemned the Go-
vernment on the ground that they asked the house to put
trust in them, while they refused to put trust in the house.
(Hear, hear.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer met
that objection in his opening speech, for he said that he
treated this question as a question of confidence—(oh, oh)
—and when the Government asked that (the Ministerial)
side of the house, not the other side, to put their trust in
them, it meant that they must confide in the leaders of
their party, and if they refused that trust it amounted to a
vote of want of confidence. That was the simple question.
And was it not the case that measures were often brought
in piecemeal? Did it not constantly happen that bills which
had a natural connection one with another were brought
in in different sessions—one in one session, and another,
which was part and parcel of the first, in the next? That
was the case often in questions of finance. (Loud cries of
" Name, name," and " Order!") He must tell hon. gentle-
men opposite that there was no slight contrast between
the conduct of the two sides of the house. Every speech
from the other side had been listened to with attention—
(hear, hear)—but hon. gentlemen opposite did not show a
similar spirit of fair play. (Hear, hear.) The second ob-
jection of the noble lord was this, that there was a suspi-
cion of something lurking behind—that some sort of com-
pulsion was held over those who might vote for or against
the bill, that schedules ere very invidious things, for
some hon. members might find if they voted against the
Government that their boroughs were included in schedule
A. And the noble lord said that he had reason to believe
that such was the case in the Reform Bill of 1832. But that
cut the ground away under the noble lord's own feet, be-
cause the measure of 1832 included both subjects. The
1 whole question was then before the house, and if that argu-
ment was good for anything, it would apply to a bill deal-
ing with both subjects as much as to a bill dealing with
only one. (Cheers.) The next objection was that the
same Ministry might not be in office next year. Well, that
was a difficulty which might be solved by the noble lord
and his friends giving the Government a generous support.
(A laugh.) Then the noble lord went on to say that if the
Government were to bring in a single measure at all, he
should prefer one that would deal with the redistribution
of seats to a bill for the reduction of the franchise, and he
pointed out the danger and inconvenience of distribution if
the first bill were passed alone, inasmuch as they might
have to appeal either to a constituency already condemned,
or to a new one of which they had no experience, and he
talked of "a provisional constitution." Ile confessed he
could not follow the noble lord's argument, but it appeared
to him that the same constituency which elected this
house could elect another house to deal with a question
which the present house was prepared to deal with, and in
his opinion his hon. friend the member for Westminster, in
in his able, logical, and conclusive speech, had disposed of
that question when he said if the new constituency might
elect a Parliament fit to deal with many great questions,
why not a Parliament fit to deal with the redistribution of
seats ? (Hear, hear.) Indeed, the noble lord's plan would
appear to be much the more dangerous of the two ; for if
they had first passed the bill for the redistribution of seats,
there must either be a dissolution immediately or, if not
then they would have hon. gentlemen not representing
constituencies voting in the House of Commons. (Cheers.)
That surely would be a source of great inconvenience and
danger. But the fact was the argument to which he had
alluded had been put forward in order to delay the question
altogether. As the hon. member for Westminster had justly
pointed out, hon. gentlemen opposite were afraid of a new
House of Commons. (Oh, oh.) They were afraid of a new
constituency. (Hear, hear.) He would not dwell upon the
pledges given by the Government. The noble lord, with
his usual candour and openness, had admitted that the
Government were bound to bring forward a bill. And here
he would say a word upon an argument used by the right
hon. gentleman the member for Caine, that a member who
makes pledges on the hustings to his constituents, if, on
coming to Parliament, ho finds the promises he has given
prejudicial to the public good, ought not to feel bound by
those pledges. That appeared to him a most mischievous
and demoralising doctrine.
Mr. LOWE—It is his duty to resign. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAYARD willingly accepted the correction of the
right hon. gentleman, and he would therefore say it was
the duty of many members of that house to resign at once.
(Loud cheers.) This was no small question ; it was a great
question of principle. (Renewed cheers.) A person was
returned as representing a certain set of principles, and if
he deserted thcse principles it must have a mischievous and
demoral sing effect upon the country—(cheers and counter
cheers)—and must lower the confidence and trust the con-
stituencies ought to have in their representatives in Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) Lord Russell, like other members
of his Government, was bound to introduce this bill. Ho
would not now enter into the reasons why up to this time
he (Mr. Layard) and others for whom he might speak had
thought it right to be members of a Government who had
not brought forward such a bill. (Laughter.) Hon. gentle-
men opposite might laugh, but ho had given his reasons to
' his constituents, and they had accepted them. From vari-
ous circumstances, which he need not particularise, during
the lifetime of Lord Palmerston it was obvious that a bill
for Parliamentary reform could not be introduced.
(Cheers.) Earl Russell, however, would have been desert-
ing his principles if he had not, immediately on accepting
office, introduced such a measure. For what other reason,
indeed, was he unanimously selected as the leader of the
Liberal party ? He was selected because, identified as he
had been with Reform, his party and the country looked to
him for the introduction of a measure upon this subject.
Earl Russell was not the man either to desert his principles
or to introduce to the house a sham. It was his duty to
deal fairly with the question to show the country and the
house that the Government were earnest in their action
upon this matter, and not to bring forward any measure
without, at all events, a reasonable prospect of its passing.
He believed that the mode adopted by Lord Russell was a
fair and honest one. The difficulty in the way of passing a
bill for the redistribution of seats had been already alluded
to. The noble lord who had addressed the house in the be-
ginning of the evening had referred to the manner in which
hon. members would be fighting over their dead and dying
boroughs. In 1831, as hon. members would find, from the
beginning of February to the end of October the house was
chiefly engaged in discussing the question of the redistri-
bution of the seats, and no ono would believe that a bill
which included the redistribution of seats, the definition of
borough boundaries, and the many other subjects which
were necessary to make a perfect measure could by any
possibility be dealt with in one session. He would now
turn for a few minutes to the arguments employed against
the bill—for, after-all, they involved the real questions to
be considered. It was urged in the first place that the
working classes were already sufficiently represented, and
that the bill would admit them in such numbers as to
swamp the remaining classes of the community. The
second argument was that they were not yet fit to be ad-
mitted within the pale of the Constitution— (No, no, from
the Opposition)—and that in admitting them you would
be ettending electoral privileges to those who, from their
education, mode of thought, and moral character, were un-
fit for their reception, and who, after all, would be open to
corrupt influences. The third argument was that the bill
would be conferring the franchise upon those who paid no
direct taxes, and who therefore had not the same stake and
interest in the welfare of tho country as those who contri-
buted to our revenue in this manner. Again, it was urged
that if the bill were passed, and the franchise lowered in
accordance with the proposal of the Government, the con-
stituencies would either be purchased by wealthy men, or
would return demagogues to Parliament ; and the last ob-
jection was that there was no proof to show that the present
system did not work well, and that the house, as at present
constituted, was not fit for the performance of its duty.
There was, indeed, one further objection, which was urged
by the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, and that
was that, as all Governments existed for the well-being of
the country, it was necessary to show that the country was
not well governed before introducing any measure advo-
cating its alteration. That was an argument which might
possibly be applied to other countries, but in this land of
ours the people preferred a form of self-government, though
that Government might be bad, to any plan of government,
however advantageous, carried on by others. A fact so
notorious could not be controverted by any number of quo-
tations from Aristotle or Montesquieu, however excellent
might be the sentiments which they embodied. Now, as to
the first objection—that the working classes were suffi-
ciently represented in that house. Its fallacy had been so
fully exposed by the hon. member for Westminster (Mr.
Mill) that he need scarcely dwell upon it at any length.
The hon. gentleman had shown that, even supposing the
working classes numbered 26 per cent. of the voters, they
were not really represented in the house. He had always
held the opinion that many of the working men were on
the register, but that not a sufficient number of them were
in the enjoyment of the franchise. It would, indeed, in
his opinion, be a great advantage if some of the working
men were returned as members of that house. It was all
very well for gentlemen to state that they spoke in the
name of the working classes, but he did not be-
lieve that any man in the house could lay claim
to such a commission. For his own part, for
instance, though he deeply sympathised with the
feelings of the working classes, and though he was always
anxious to promote their interests as far as ho possibly
could, he could not expect that they would place confidence
in him. (Opposition cheers.) Until there were mon in the
house who from constant association with the working
classes and from intimate knowledge of the people were
able to give expression to the feelings and to the sentiments
which animated our artisan classes, he maintained that as
a body the workmen of this country were unrepresented.
The hon. members for Bradford and Birmingham, for in-
stance, were both employers of labour, and it was but na-
tural, therefore, that they should not be regarded as repre-
sentatives of the working classes. The noble lord the
member for Haddingtonshire appeared to entertain appre-
hension lest they should number working men among
their body. (No, no, from Lord Elcho.) He should not, for
his own part however, view the admission of such men as

Mr. Odgers and Mr. Potter with alarm, because the argu-
ments of the working men would then be put fairly before
the house, and if wrong might bo refuted in fair debate,
and if right be admitted and the grievances complained of,
if there were such, remedied. Even supposing they intro-
duced manhood suffrage, it had not been shown that the
working men would have a majority in the house. Such an
alarm was in reality a mere bugbeer, because it was
founded upon the assumption that all working men would
entertain the same opinions and pull together upon every
question, whereas working men differed from each other
in their political views as much as any other class of the
community. The electors whom his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Birmingham represented would in all probability,
from the nature of their employments, entertain different
opinions upon the subject of peace and war from the
working men of many other constituencies, and the same
fact might be observed in reference to every public ques-
tion. According to the " Quarterly Review," if this bill
were passed the working classes would have a majo-
rity in 77 boroughs, returning 133 members. In ten of
those, however, it seems that the constituencies would be
composed of 50 per cent. of the working classes and
50 per cent. of other classes, and consequently they might
be left out of the calculation altogether. But unless they
could show how far any particular influence might be ex-
pected to work in these boroughs any argument founded
upon those statistics would be useless. Personally he was
one of those who did not believe in the existence of any
artisan or working-men class, and if they wished to have
class representation in the house an inquiry ought to be
instituted by the Committee of the Privy Council to ascer-
tain how far the lawyers, members of the Army and Navy,
farmers, and others were represented as separate classes.
(Hear.) But he was surprised that gentlemen opposite
should entertain such strong objections to class legislation,
because for generations class legislation had been the dis-
tinguishing characteristic of the party to which they be-
longed. And now with regard to the second objection—
that the working classes were unfit for the reception of the
franchise. He had no desire to return to the oft-repeated
arguments of the right hon. gentleman the member for
Caine, because they had been subsequenty explained away
by the sight hon. gentleman. He wanted to show what was
said by the right hon. member for Caine, supposing it bore
the interpretation put upon it by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, was what had been said before by the right hon.
gentleman, and that when he talked of the unfitness of a
particular class of working men, from their drunkenness
and impulsiveness, for their exercise of the franchise, he
only repeated what he said in that house last year. Ac-
cepting the right hon. gentleman's explanation of what took
place some days ago, would the house hear an extract from
a speech which the right. hon gentleman delivered last
year ? In this case there was no question of authenticity,
for the speech had been reprinted from the Times in the
form of a small pamphlet, and he understood that dur-
ing the elections the speech had been inserted in the
columns of the organ of the Opposition as a statement of
their views and opinions, so that it had been adopted by
them. In the course of that speech the right hon. gentle-
man read an extract from a report made by Mr. Baker, one
of the factory inspectors, who described how certainpersons
had obtained houses by their industry, and then said that
while they had done this,—
" In the same locality, employed at the same work and at
the same wages, and without any extraordinary drawbacks,
a vast number of those who possess no such properties live
on from day to day, regardless of every enjoyment which is
not sensual, exhibiting no desire for an elevation of cha-
racter among their fellow-men."
After quoting this, the right hon. gentleman said :
"I askthe house upon which of the classes here described
will the bill of the hon. member for Leeds operate? Not
upon the provident, but mainly upon the improvident class.
For the provident are not only in possession of
ot thinto the
e fran-
chise—they have soared far above it, and have g
region of freeholders. It will, therefore, apply to the men who
waste their time in these profitless and degrading pursuits,
in order that they may be elevated and fished out of the
mire in which they delight to grovel, introduced to power,
and entrusted with control over the constitution of the
country. This statement was received with cries of " Hear,
hear," these words beinginserted in the re-published report
by the right hon. gentleman himself. (Oh, oh.
not come
) It was
to be presumed that the cries of "Hear, hear," did
from the Ministerial side of the house, but from the Oppo-
sition side, and therefore the Opposition approved the so-
' timent that the men to be enfranchised were to be fished
out of the mire. Having remarked that if men reduced the
quantity of beer they drank they could get the franchise,
the right hon. gentleman said :
"The question for you now to determine is whether you
ought to bring down the franchise to the level of those per-
sons who have no such sense of decency or morality, and of
what is due to the health of themselves and their children ;
whether you will degrade the franchise into the dirt
this
, and
imperil your institutions ; or whether you will make
franchise a vast instrument of good, a lever by which you
may hope to elevate the working classes, not in the manner
which a mawkish sentimentality contemplates, but by fix-
ing the franchise at a reasonable level, requiring a little,
and only a little effort, and self-denial on their part, a
little security that they are able to conduct their own affairs
before we intrust them with ours."
(Cheers.) Hon. gentlemen opposite now cheered those ex-
tracts; but the right hon. gentleman said either too much
or too little. If he spoke of exceptions, they could not be
dealt with as a class ; if of a class, the accusations ap-
proved by the Opposition were brought against the work-
ing class. If the right hon. gentleman said, "No, they are
only brought against those who would receive the fran-
chise," he would ask the right hon. gentleman who were
his Hyperboreans ; were they beneath the £7 franchise ?
If so, he might call upon his right bon. friend to support
something like manhood suffrage. It had been said that
if the working classes had the control of Parliament, we
should be constantly driven into war. But looking back
to the last Parliament, bad war been favoured by the
working classes or by the hon. gentlemen opposite. (Oh,
oh, and no, no.) These denials came from hon. gentlemen
who were not members of the last Parliament. During
the time of the Danish difficulty did not the noble lord the
member for Stamford night after night attack the Govern-
ment for not going to war for Denmark ? (No, no.)
During the American War who was it wished to involve
us in a war with the United States ? (Cries of " Ques-
tion.") It was the question. [Colonel Kxox rose and
protested against the Opposition being charged with
having endeavoured to involve the country in war.] It
had been said what democracies would do, and he was
merely showing what aristocracies had done. [Lord CRAN-
BORIa denied the charge against himself.] Did not the hon.
andlearned member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) advo-
cate the release of the rams at Birkenhead ; and if
they had been released, should we not have bad a war
with America? (Question.) All the working classes of the
country with the exception of those of Liverpool supported
Government in their determination not to go to war with
the United States. (Cries of " Question," and " The Re-
form Bill.") The right hon. baronet the member for Hert-
fordshire (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) gave them an interesting
and amusing account of the adventures of a Mr. Smith with
a £5 note, and of Mr. Brown with the "Rights of Man ;"
but that was only another version of a novel which be
produced in that house some years ago in a remarkable
speech in which he gave a touching description of poor Mr.
Smith, a plasterer, whom ho represented as being assailed
by a rising statesman, who offered him £3 to put his house
in repair. Poor Smith yielded to the temptation, and his
fall was received with exultation by the Opposition. (Oh.)
They appeared to have forgotten that there was some ono
more to blame than Smith—those who gave the bribe.
(Cheers.) If hon. gentlnion were in the same position as
Smith, would not they be likely to yield too? The objec-
tion that the working men had no interest or stake in the
country had been completely answered by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. If hon. gentlemen would turn to the
recent return of Mr. Tidd Pratt they would be surprised
by the enormous increase in the actual state of the working
mon in the country. The United Foresters, for instance,
had nearly a million sterling of property and 200,000
members. The Manchester Unity had £200,000 of pro-
perty and 200,000 members. The London Unity had
£200,000 and 40,000 members. Then, on referring to the
returns of the Savings Banks and Post-office Savings
Banks, it would be found that very large sums had been
deposited in them by the working classes, and that con-
sequently they had, at least, some stake in the country.
(Hear, hear.) And the very fact of the appearance of the
returns in Mr. Tidd Pratt's annual report to Parliament
showed not only an enormous increase in the aggregate
wealth of the working classes, but that they were better
acquainted than formerly with the laws of political eco-
nomy. At first the working men resented the action of
the Government in regard to friendly societies as an un-
warrantable interference with their concerns, but they now
perceived that the principles which they used to act upon
were false, and they had gone to Mr. Tidd Pratt and regis-
tered themselves in accordance with the Act of Parliament.
The working classes had a much greater stake in the country
than those who occupied higher positions. In the event
of war and general commotion the latter would only have
to give up some luxury, but the poor would be deprived
of the necessaries of life. With the one class reduced rent
meant reduced cost in clothing and food ; with the other
reduced wages, or no wages at all, meant starvation.
(Hear.) It had been stated that if the present bill were to
become law the House of Commons would only be entered
by rich men or demagogues. With regard to the rich men,
he would only remark that the same objection was raised
against the bill of 1832, it being asserted that nobody less
wealthy than a nabob would be able to get into the house.
No doubt the expenses attendant upon an election were
very serious, and the house had never been sincere in its
desire to lower the expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Ho be-
lieved, however, that it might be lowered. Last autumn
he was in Italy and saw the elections there, and ho might
be allowed to remark that in his judgment Italy was the
most fitted of all the countries in Europe for constitu-
tional government. Ho was staying with a friend who
had represented one of the largest,most populous, and most
Radical cities in the North of Italy. The time was ono
of greet excitement, but in spite of this his friend's re-elec-
tion was carried on with perfect order and regularity, and
did not cost him a single sixpence. (Hear, hoar.) If such
a thing could be done in Italy, why should it not be done in
England ? For his part, he believed the time would
come when all legitimate election expenses would be de-
frayed by a rate (hear, hear," and cries of "no, no), and
when all expenses not legitimate would be prohibited, and
those who incurred them punished. Until the corrupting
of voters was considered disgraceful, that kind of corrup-
tion would not cease, and, continued the hon. member,

you have no right to throw it in the teeth of working
men that they are unfit to exercise the franchise because
they are corrupt, while you are their corruptors." (Hear,
hear, and loud cries of "No, no," and " Order," from the
Opposition).
Colonel EDWARDS rose to order, and attempted to ad-
dress the House, but his voice was drowned in the noise
and confusion which prevailed. When silence had been

restored,
The SPEAKER said—The hon. and gallant gentleman
is very much out of order indeed.
Mr. LAYARD, resuming his speech, said he did not
wish to cast an imputation on any individual members.
(" Oh !") He was simply speaking of a state of things
which was acknowledged to exist, and he maintained that
as long as that system continued hon. members had no
right to apply the language they sometimes did to the
working classes. Ile ventured to say that England was
much more conservative now than it was 20 or oven 50
years ago. While other countries were becoming more
democratic, this country was inclining towards Conserva-
tism. Hon. gentlemen would recollect what kind of pro-
positions used to be submitted to the House not many
years ago. The member for Surrey, for instance, used to
introduce, almost every year, a Bill to abolish the law Of
primogeniture. Then there were measures directed
against the Bench of Bishops, and resolutions in favour
of triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot. Above
all, where was the Charter now ? He represented
one of the most democratic constituencies in the kingdom,
and he ventured to say that it did not contain a
single Chartist. Where was the Northern Star now? Where
were the prosecutions for the seditious libels which were
once so common in this country ? They no longer existed.
Well, then, might not these changes be attributed, to some
extent at all events, to what had been done by way of re-
forming the Constitution? The result of admitting the work-
ing classes to the constituencies had been, that we were less
democratic and mere conservative than We used tobe. When
the Reform Bill of 1832 was introduced, many thought the
£lO franchise too high, but it: was not to be wondered at
that the Reformers of that time, with the events of the
French Revolution fresh in their memory, should have been
somewhat afraid of reducing the franchise too low. After all,
the reduction of the franchise was a mere question of expe-
rience and expediency. He was glad to hear it admitted
by the hon. gentlemen opposite that the possession of the
franchise by the working classes depended upon their fit-
ness to enjoy the franchise. That argument, however, was
entirely opposed to the opinions of most hon. gentlemen on
that side of the house, who maintained that this was a
question of class, and not of fitness. He could corroborate
what the hon. member for Bradford had stated in his re-
markable speech, which was characterised by groat ability,
viz., that the working classes in this country looked up to
the men of position, and that even in trade strikes they
would rather go to a gentleman than to one of themselves.
A remarkable instance of this occurred during the strike of
last year, when the men, instead of going to some dema-
gogue, applied to Lord Lichfield, a nobleman well known
for his sympathy with working men. They requested
Lord Lichfield to arbitrate between them and their em-
ployers, and though the arbitration was not entirely suc-
cessful, the men presented to his lordship an address in
which they thanked him for what he had done. (Hear,
hear.) This bugbear democracy was a very good thing
to be used as an exercise for young politicians on the other
side of the house. It reminded him very much of what
used to take place among a tribe with whom he had
lived in early youth. In order to accustom the lads to the
sight of a lion, a stuffed one was put in a yard, and the lads
fought with it as long as they liked. Much in the same
way hon. gentleman opposite had put up the member for
Birmingham. It reminded him of a game which was some-
what classical in fashionable circles some time ago. They
took his hon. friend, blackened his face according to the
Eastern fashion, put a bill—not the Government bill, but a
bill supposed to be the Government bill—into his mouth,
and they had then set to work to smash this bill, and also
the hon. member, in such a way that he was not to be re-
cognised by his most intimate acquaintances. That was
partly his hon. friend's own fault, for he would persist in
frightening hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house.
He deserved what he got. "To bring in a lion among
ladies is a most dreadful thing, for there is not a more fear-
ful wildfowl than your lion living." The hon. gentleman
might have said, " I would wish you, or I would request
you, or I would entreat you not to fear, not to tremble ;
my life for yours. If you think I come hither as a lion, it
were pity of my life. No, I am no such thing : lam a
man as other men are; and there, indeed, let him name
his name ; and tell them plainly, he is Snug, the joiner."
He would call upon the right hon. gentleman the member
for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) and the
right hon. gentleman the. member for Oxfordshire (Mr.
Henley) not to vote against this bill, as they had, if he re-
membered rightly, been in favour of an £8 borough fran-
chise. Let them look at the terrible issuo. It was often
said that there was but a plank between life and eternity
on board a ship, but in this case there was only £1 between
-the Constitution and disfranchisement. It was all very
well for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house to
talk about their sympathy with the working classes, but
were they ready to put trust in them ? No doubt they
would be glad to trust the working man of their own
making, who had lived in the same house for twenty
years, brought up a family of twelve children, and who
had never become acquainted with the relieving officer,
He was not going to detain tho house—(cries of "Hear"
from tLe Opposition) —but he thought that it would be only
fair that, at least, the opinions which the working men en-
tertained should be expressed in that house. Hon. gentle-
men ou the other side only injured their own cause by those
interruptions and by preventing him from expressing what
he believed to be true, though he might be mistaken. (Hear,
hear.) It would go forth to the public, not that ho was an
inefficient speaker, or an inefficient interpreter of the work-
ing men's views—(laughter)—but that Lon. gentlemen
would not hear those views. The words spoken the other
night by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer,which were not the cold words of a political economy,
but generous words, coming from the heart, had touched a
chord in the hearts of the working mon of this country,
and been taken up and spread throughout the length and
breadth of the land : not because the working men were not
accustomed to kindness and consideration, but because they
were unaccustomed to hear from the leader of the House
of Commons such words as those spoken by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer—words for which, if he knew anything
of the class, they would be for ever grateful to his right
hon. friend. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition, with
hear, hear, from the Ministerial side of the house). Lot
hon. members not think that those feelings were tempo-
rary. Every man at his loom or other instrument of in-
dustry thought over the wrongs and the grievances to
whichthe working men were subjected. (Oh, oh !) He did
not say those wrongs and those grievances were real
wrongs and grievances, but in the minds of those men they
were real, and if the house did not listen to them the work-
ing classes would become more impressed with the convic-
tion that they were real. The Government had come for-
ward with a moderate measure. It was ono which the
working classes were ready to accept. Let the house be wise
in time. (Ironical cries of "Hear, hear.") The hon. mem-
ber for Montrose had told them that at a meeting of the
working classes only 15 hands were held up in favour of
uuiversal suffrage. In the borough of Southwark at a
similar meeting only one man attempted to advocate man-
hood suffrage, and the meeting would not hear him. (Hear,
hear.) Professor Beasley had been spoken of as a groat
demagogue, but, instead of being a working man, he was
an Oxford man and a gentleman of learning. For what
Professor Beasley put forward, not the working men, but
Oxford, should be responsible ; and he would leave it to
hon. members opposite to settle the matter of that gentle-
man's opinions with Oxford. The working men were
willing to accept this bill. They were not satisfied with
it. (Hear, hear.) They hoped for more. (Renewed cries
of "Hear, hear.") They thought a£7 franchise too high,
and they knew that a largo number of the gentlemen in
that House were committed to a£6 franchise. They also
believed that the proposed lodger franchise was too high—
that a lower one would be useful and act as an encourage-
ment to the working man ; but they were willing to give
up their own opinions and sympathies, and to meet the
House of Commons half way. Hon. gentlemen who op-
posed the bill refused to meet them. The present time
was most opportune for a settlement of this:question
said , . The
he
atmosphere was clear and calm; but, as had been
time might come when the working men would not accept
what Parliament woul 1 offer them, and would ask for
more. If the House gave them what they now asked for
they would thereby settle the question for years. What
was asked was nothing very liberal. Lot the House be
just and equitable, and they might depend on it that if
they responded to the confidence which the working classes
reposed in them, and gave them what they now asked, they
would strengthen the love which those classes born to the
Crown and the institutions of the country. (Cheers.)
Sir H. CAIRNS said the course of this debate had
shown, and shown in a very marked manner, the ad-
vantage arising from the discussion of public questions in
the House of Commons. During the recess they had
heard of meetings held in various parts of the country,
addressed by speakers of great ability and great elo-
quence ; but he was afraid there was a tendency in the
human mind that made a speaker, when ho addressed an
auditory brought together in support of some particular
and preconceived view, where no controversy was
intended or allowed, to resort to vague and general decla-
mation, and to exclude from his remarks both accuracy
and argument. (Hear.) In that house, however, theyat all
events expected a fair and candid statement of the question
that was to be discussed, and arguments fairly addressed to
that question. (Hear.) When they found the absence of
these arguments, they had good reason to suspect the
position which the argument was intended to defend.
(Hear.) He feared this was the test which might fairly be
applied to the speech of the Under Secretary who had just
sat down. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Having replied
to several statements of the hon. member, and denied that
the. Conservatives had proposed to plunge the country into
a Danish war, as stated by him, the hon. and learned
gentleman said the question under discussion resolved
itself into two points which were in one sense distinct,
but in another very closely connected. The ono was the
manner in which Parliament dealt with the question of
the franchise, and the -ether the manner in which the