The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESOA V EVENING, OCTOBER 17, 1866.

of the whole grown-up male population cf the
United Kingdom—ever come to the poll, and give

their votes for the election of a new Parliament.

(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to a general elec-
tion, some of you have read, and many of you know,
something of the cost and corruption of a general
election. I will give you one instance, and one
proof of it. It has been my opinion all along that
it was the duty of the Government of Lord Russell,
after the defeat of their Reform Bill, during the last
session, to have dissolved the Parliament. (Hear,
hear.) -I have no reason to disbelieve what is as-
serted, that Lord Russell himself was of that opinion,
but a general election had passed within the year,
and another general election was a burden which

members of Parliament did not wish to bear. I was

speaking to a member of the Government on this
question about the time when the resignation of the
late Government was just about to be submitted to
the Queen, and I was telling him that I thought
the true policy—the cor stitutional policy—of the

Government was to dissolve the Parliament. (Hear,
bear.) A portion of his answer was this—a mem-
ber who sits on our side of the house had spoken to

him about it. He said, "My election has already
cost me £6,ooo"—(cries of " Shame")—and he
added, " I have besides £3,000 more to pay."
(Laughter.) He said further, what was very reason-

able, that this was a heavy burden ; that it was too
grievous to be borne—(laughter) —that it put him

to exceeding inconvenience—(laughter)—and that

if the Parliament were dissolved he could not afford

to fight his county or his borough, as the case might
be, but would be obliged to retire from the field and
leave the contest, if there should be a contest, to

some one else. (Laughter.) You will believe, then,
that the Government were greatly pressed by this

consideration, and this consideration, added, it may
be, to others, induced them to resign office rather
than to dissolve Parliament. Thus you have a proof
that whereas general corruption and putridity

are the destruction of most bodies which they effect,
the corruption of the present Parliament was, and

is, the cause of its present existence. (Cheers.) Now
bear in mind that this state of things which I have
been describing exist at the present moment, 34

years after the passing of the great Reform Bill,

What the Government must have been before that

bill was passed it is scarcely possible to describe or
to imagine; but I have no doubt of this, that it was

one of the worst Governments in civilised countries

and in Europe, and I think this may be fairly argued

'rom the fact of the incessant wars in which the

country was. engaged for 150 years before that re-
form, from the enormous debt that was created,

'rom the crushing taxes that were fixed upon the

people, and worse almost than that, from that moss
infamous law which ever passed a Parliament of

civilised men—the law which limited the supply o:
bread to the people. (Cheers.) Now if the clerk o.

the House of Commons were placed at Temple-bar,
and if he had orders to lay his band on the shoulder

of every well-dressed and apparently clean-washed
man who passed through that ancient bar until he

had numbered 658, and if the Crown summoned
those 658 to be the Parliament for the United King-
dom, my honest conviction is that you would have a
better Parliament than now exists. (Loud cheers.)

Now, this assertion will stagger some timid and
some good men, but let me explain myself to you.
It would be a Parliament, every member of which
would have no direct constituency, but it would be
a Parliament that would meet and act as a jury that
would take some heed of the facts and arguments
laid before it. It would be free, at any rate, from
the class prejudices which weigh upon the present

House of Commons. It would be free from the over-
shadowing pressureof what are called noblefamilies.
It would owe no allegiance to great landowners, and
I hope it would not] have fewer men amongst
it, seeking merely their own gains by entering Par-
liament. Why, with the Parliament which we have
now, and have had, facts and arguments go for very
little. Take that question to which I have referred
of limiting the supply of bread to the people. The
corn law was on the statute book for 31 years—

sixteen years before the passing of the Reform Bill,
and fifteen years after the passing of that bill ; but
from the first hour of its enfranchisement until the
hour of its destruction the facts and arguments against

it were equally clear and equally conclusive. They
would not be convinced though one rose from the
dead, and that which convinced them at last was the
occurrence of a great famine in Ireland, which de-
stroyed or drove from the country hundreds of
thousands of the citizens of the empire. I maintain
with the most perfect conviction, that the House of
Commons, representing, as it now does, counties and
boroughs- such as I have described, does not repre-
sent the intelligence and the justice of the nation,
but the prejudices, the privileges, and the selfishness
of a class. (Cheers.) Now, what are the results of
this system of legislation ? Some of them have been
touched upon in that address which has been so
kindly presented to me. You refer to the laws
affecting land. Are you aware of a fact which I
saw stated the other day in an essay on this subject
—that half the land of England is in the possession
of fewer than 150 men ? Are you aware of the
fact that half the land in Scotland is in the
possession of not more than ten or twelve men?
(Cries of " Shame.") Are you aware of the fact
that the monopoly in land in the United Kingdom is
growing constantly more and more close, and the
result of it is this—the gradual extirpation of the
middle class as owners of the land and the constant
degradation of the tillers of the soil (Cheers, and
cry of "False," followed by counter cries of "True."
Take a matter about which many Scotch farmers
know something—take the perpetual grievance of the
game laws. In the House of Commons that ques-
tion can scarcely be discussed. The landed interest,
as it did in the late cattle plague debate, trample
down Government and borough members and
everything that thwarts their inclination. Take the
general—l am sorry to say too general—subserviency
of the tenant farmers in the matter of elections. In
your country—in Scotland—l entertain the hope
that you will lead the way to the deliverance of the
farmers from this slavery. In the last elections for
Kincardineshire and for Aberdeenshire the tenant
farmers have taken the politics of those counties into
their own hands. I hope, and I believe, that the
tenant farmers of Scotland, the most enlightened
agriculturists that live on the face of the earth—l
hope they, with perfect deference and perfect cour-
tesy to their landlords, will still exert their legiti-
mate and right influence in the election of members
for the counties in Scotland. But take—what some
of you cannot comprehend—take the helpless poverty
of the farm labourers in the southern counties of
England. I know not whether there has been much
improvement in their condition for two or three
centuries past. Their wages are very low—their help-
lessness is extreme—their power to deliver them-
selves—their power to combine, seems at the lowest
obe-Look at their ignorance. A friend of mine, a
member of the House of Commons, who lives within
six miles of the royal town and castle of Windsor,
told me only the other day that he knew the case of
a family near his house inwhich there had grown up
11 children, not one of whom could read or write in
the least degree—•(shame)—and he said that he had
lately had in his employ upon his property seven
men, of whom four could neither read nor write,
two of them could read most imperfectly, and one
of them could write about as well as the other two
could read. (Laughter.) Bear in mind that all this
exists within six miles of the royal castle of Windsor.
It exists in a neighbourhood where lords and squires
and established clergymen swarm. (Laughter.)
Such is the state of ignorance of that population at
this moment. Ix the county from which I come girls
of the age of from 15 to 21 are earning, many of
them, I believe double the weekly wages of the able-
bodied farm labourer, the head and father of a
family, in some of the south-western counties of
England. But what must be the ignorance of that
population, with such wages offering to them in Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire; they seem to have no aspira-
tion to better their condition, and there is no
sensible emigration from these wretched counties to the
more prosperous counties of the north ? Your address
refers to pauperism—the gulf of pauperism in the United
Kingdom. At this moment there are more than 1,200,000
paupers. The pauperism of the United Kingdom last year—
and it will not cost less this year— cost the ratepayers, those
who pay taxes for the relief of the poor, more than seven
and a half millions sterling ; and this does not include many
thousands of vagrantscwho also tome occasionally under
I the name of paupers. Now look, I beg of you, at this mass

of misery. It is so great a mass that benevolence cannot
reach it. If benevolence could do it there would be no pau-
perism in England, for in no country, I believe, is there
more benevolence than in the United Kingdom. (Cheers.)
The kindness of the women of England is beyond all mea-
sure, and beyond all praise. There does not exist among
created beings beneath the angelic ranks those who are
more kind and charitable than the women of the United
Kingdom ; but benevolence can touch scarcely the fringe of
this vast disorder. There is another virtue we could add,
and that virtue and that quality is justice. (Hear, hear.)
It is not benevolence, but justice, that can deal with giant
evils. It was not benevolence that gave the people bread 20
years ago, but it was justice embodied in the abolition of a
wicked and a guilty law. (Cheers.) But justice is impossible
from a class; it is most certain and easy from a nation ; and
I believe we can only reach the depths of ignorance and misery
and crime in this country by an appeal to the justice, the in-
telligence, and the virtue of the entirepeople. (Cheers.) That
address has mentioned another question—the question of
your national expenditure on your army and navy. I will
state only one fact with regard to the navy. I believe since
the great war, since 1815, that the navy of this country has
cost more than £400,000,000 sterling. I believe that during
the last six years it has cost as much as the United States
navy during the same time. We have been in a condition
of profound peace—the United States have had to build or
buy 600 ships, to man them, to furnish them with muni-
tions of war, and to fight them during the greatest strug-
gle that any nation ever waged—(cheers)—and yet at this
moment, after spending so much, we have Sir J. Paking-
ton, the great reconstructor—(laughter)—coming into
office, and promising not to extend the liberties of the
people, but to reconstruct a navy on which such enormous
and countless sums have already been sunk. (Cheers.)
Then take the taxes. Well, something has been done to
make the taxes more equal; but take the taxes which are
levied under the name of probate and legacy succession
duties, and I will give you a case which it is just possible
you have before heard from my lips. A member of a House
of Commons—at least he was when he gave me this fact,
though lam sorry to say he is not one now—a member of
the House of Commons told me he had had left to him, by
a person not related to him by blood, an estate in land
worth £21,000 ; the timber upon it was worth £ll,OO0—
altogether £32,000. The tax when the property is left to
a person who is not a relation of the man who leaves it is
10 per cent. The tax therefore on .£32,000 would be £3,200.
And if any one of you received a legacy like that in cash,
in shares, in ships, in stock in trade, in any of those things
which are not lands and houses, he would pay £3,200 ; but
my friend, receiving his legacy in land and timber upon it,
paid just £7OO. And why ? For this reason only, that the
law was made by a landlord and propertied Parliament,
and the owners and inheritors of lauds and houses were
considered specially worthy of their regard. (Hear, hear.)
But I may be asked—and no doubt some man who will
take up his pen to write a criticism upon my speech at this
meeting will ask—how comes it, if Parliament is so bad,
that so many good things have been done by Parliament
during the last 30 or 40 years ? I acknowledge that good
things have been done, and I ought to know, because I
have been concerned in the doing of some of them. (Loud
cheers.) But by whom were they done? Mainly by that
force in Parliament which is sent there by the great and
free borough constituencies- of the kingdom. (Hear, hear,
and cheers.) The members for the great towns, although
but a minority, and not a very large minority, are the
-moving force by which these good things have been done.
(Renewed cheers.) It has not been the policy of the
Tories to do good things, and 1 have seen the time when
the Whigs have been much less zealous about them than
I could have wished them. (Laughter.) They have sprung
from the people, and the people have carried them. What
there has been of real representation in Parliament has
urged these measures forward. What there has been of
sham representation has uniformly opposed these measures
(Cheers.) Now I am of opinion that the rich people
of
of a
country invested with power, and, speaking generally,
rich people alone, cannot sufficiently care for the multitude
and tho poor. They are personally kind enough ; but
they do not care for the people in the bulk. They have
read a passage in the Holy Writ, that " Thep oor ye have
always with you "—(laughter)—and, therefore, they ima-
gine that it is a providential arrangement that a small sec-
tion of the people should be rich and powerful, and that
the great mass-of the people should be hardworking and
poor. (Laughter.) It is a long distance from castles and
mansions, great houses which abound in luxuries, to the
condition of the great mass of the people who have no
property, and too many of whom are almost on he
verge
of poverty. We know very well, all of us, how much we
are influenced by the immediate circumstances by which
we are surrounded. The rich find everything just as
they like it. The country needs no Reform. There is no
country in the world so pleasant for rich people as this
country. (Laughter.) But I deny altogether that the rich
alone are qualified to legislate for the poor, any more than
that the poor alone would be qualified to legislate for the
rich. (Cheers.) My honest belief is, that if we could be
all called upon to legislate for all, that all would be more
justly treated, and we should be more happy than we are
now. (Cheers.) We should then have an average ; wo
should have the influence of wealth and high culture and
of those qualities that come from leisure, and the influence
of those robuster qualities that come from industry and
labour. (Hear, hear.) Suppose now, that without arguing
for this or that particular measure of Reform, we could add
another million to the existing constituencies, what would
be the result ? We should modify the constituencies. In-
stead of the people coining to the hustings at the nomina-
tion and holding up their hands for this candidate or that,
and having for the most part no power in the elections,
the inhabitants of the town would have a much greater
power than they have- now. The constituency would be
less open to management than it is at present. Majorities
on the one side or the other would be larger and less open
to corruption, and we should have members whcse opi-
nions and whose conduct would be modified by this infu-
sion of new end fresh blood into the constituencies which
send them to Parliament. (Cheers.) We should do this
further—we should bring the rich and the great more into
contact with the people, and into a better acquaintance
with human wants and with the necessities and feelings
of their countrymen. (Renewed cheers.) What other
thing would happen ? I dare venture to assert this, that
Parliament then would not revile and slander the people
as it does now—(hear, hear)—nor would it jeer with
franthi violence when their countrymen are described in,
hideous and hateful colours. Probably what I call the
Botany Bay view of their countrymen would be got rid
of, and we should have a sense of greater justice and
generosity in the feelings with which they regard the
bulk of the nation. (Loud cheers.) And if there
was more knowledge of the people there would as-
suredly be more sympathy with them ; and I believe the
legislation of the house being more in accordance with the
public sentiment would be wiser and better in every respect.
(Loud cheers.) The nation would be changed. There would
be amongst us a greater growth of everything that is good.
(Cheers.) I should like to ask if there are any ministers of
religion in this audience ? (Several voices " Yes yes.") I
have sometimes thought that I should like an audience of
4,000 or 5,000 of them, to whom I could preach a political
sermon, and to whom I could tell something which I fear
their theological schools have failed to teach these
a An
eminent man of your country, the late Dr. Chalmers, pk
th-
ing of the question of free trade, and particule-rly of
struggle for the abolition of the corn laws, uttered these
memorable words. Re said he thought there was nothing
that would so tend to sweeten the breath of British
society as the abolition of the corn laws. I believe now
that there is nothing which would so tend to sweeten the
breath of British society as the admission of a large adn
generous number of the working classes to citizenship and
the exercise of the franchise. (Loud and prolonged cheers.)
Now, if my words should reach the ears and reach the
heart of any man who is interested in the advancement of
religion in this country, I ask him to consider whether
there are not great political obstacles to the extension of
civilisation, and morality, and religion within the
er bos, you
and I—we believe in a Supreme Ruler of the Univerwe
se.
We believe in His omnipotence. We believe and
humbly trust in His mercy. We know that the strongest
argument which is used against that belief by those who
reject it is an argument drawn from their misery and their
helplessness, and that their darkness could not bo touched
or transformed. I myself should be driven to admit the
almost overwhelming force of that great argument ;but I
am convinced that just laws and enlightened administra-
tion of them would change the face of this country. (Loud
cheers.) I believe that ignorance and suffering might be
lessened to an incalculable extent, and that many an Eden,
beauteous in flowers and profuse in fruit, might be
raised up in the waste wilderness which spreads before
us. But no class can do that. The class which has
hithertO ruled in this country has failed miserably. It
revels in power and wealth, -whilst at its foot,. a terrible
peril for its future, lies a multitude which it has neglected.
(Cheers.) If a class has failed, let us try the nation. (Loud
cheers.) That is our faith, that is our cry—let us try the
nation. (Cheers.) This it is which has called together
these countless numbers of the people to demand a change;
and as I think of it and of these gatherings, sublime in
their vastness and their resolution, I think I discern, as it
were, above the bill tops of time, the glimmering of the
dawn of a better and a nobler day for the country and for
the people that I love so well. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. Bright then resumed his seat, having spoken for
nearly an hour.
Mr. GRAHAM, M.P., proposed a vote of thanks to Mr.
Bright for the great service he had rendered to
it the h these
cause.
He said—Fault has been found in many quarters w
great demonstrations, and they have been denounced aos
mischievous and uncalled for. Specially has the propriety f
joining in these meetings of those who, like myslelff, do not
profess the extreme opinionsof the Radical schoo otop
be the
been queetioned. It seems to rue, however,
inpsuluaffienrhagdteuhtetyyo braoefaya,llwhols
impracticabled desire si; oddl
eietrsi Fitehspissr -cou u. however
manhoodat
present—to or
un ounion
Liberal
a updar tjyo co-operationii join
n hexe pa rrteisl
syi
6i
gn
betweenttestifyinghei their
thesy mvpa
ar
ittirab
oryt
shws
ce
tenht
aoc sds s roct
fop
nt
hfio
e_f
dence in the working classes of this country, who have been so
unjustly maligned; and in sustaining and encouraging in their
arduous task tliosewhO,like r.Bright,are bearing the burden
and heat of the day in this struggle. witnessed with astonish-

to the

ment the division amongst the Liberal party in the House
of Commons last session, and the insincerity and unfaithful-
ness of those who, professing themselves reformers on the
hustings, fought against Reform, inch by inch, in the house.
I witnessed with pain and shame much that was spoken in
regard to the people of this country, and the tone and temper
of a large section of those towards them and their advocates.
Especially I listened with indignation to those memorable
words, in which one of the very ablest men in the House of
Commons seemed to me to proclaim what was only, I trust,
an aberration of judgment, the wreck of a great reputation,
and the ruin of what might have been a noble career. But if•
there was one thing more shameful and offensive than
another to my mind it was the persevering bitterness with
which Mr. Gladstone was attacked, and the rabid and inso-
lent enmity that yelledupon all occasions at the heels of Mr.
Bright. It is true it did not seem to ruftl3 him much. lam
not a professed disciple of Mr. Bright. I have not sat behind
him in the House of Commons, and I do not intend to so. I
think it much more likely he will one of these days, when
we get back to our old places, change his seat in front of me,
and I believe it will be an excellent thing for himself and for
the country when he assumes the responsibilities of a seat
on that front bench. It has bee a comon taunt on the lips of
those who are opposed to all n reformm, that the extension of
the suffrage is regarded with indifference by the very
classes in whose behalf we demand it ; and they have
pointed to the absence of agitation in the country, and to
the tone and temper of the press in proof of this apathy.
That taunt has been answered triumphantly to-day in
Glasgow, and we are here to repeat the reply to it to-night.
The countless thousands of the north of England, the most
stalwart, industrious, and intelligent of her people, have
answered it already in unmistakable tones ; and from these
rugged northern hills of ours, the cradle and the battle-
field of civil and religious liberty for centuries, we will
echo back the denial. The working people of this coun-
try are not indifferent to a claim with which they believe
the best interests of themselves and their children are bound
up. They are sensible of evils affecting them in regard to
questions of religion, of education, of social condition, of
national expenditure and the taxation to which it leads,
and to which they contribute so largely ; and they claim as
a right a larger share in the councils of the House of Com-
mons, by whom alone these things can be legislated for. I
believe that throughout this country there is one unani-
mous feeling of regret and disappointment at what took
place last session. 1 believe that the Tories themselves
are startled and alarmed at their own folly. I saw no later
than Saturday last a new work advertised by Messrs.
Longman, " Speeches in favour of Reform." By whom,
do you suppose ? The great wizard of Buckinghamshire,
the Right Hon. B. Disraeli himself—fit magician, doubt-
less, "to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm.". I
believe that the country is very much puzzled to know
how, after it sent a large Liberal majority to the House of
Commons, it finds itself saddled with a Tory Government.
We have little faith in a Reform Bill prepared by the Con-
servatives; still if they bring in a bill I am willing to give
it fair play and honest consideration. If it offers an ex-
tension of franchise equal to or in excess of our own of
last session ; if it delivers us from pocket boroughs and
corrupt constituencies; if it redistributes fairly to the great
centres of population, and does justice to Scotland; and if
it does not juggle away in the counties what it offers in the
boroughs, I shall certainly give it a helping hand.
Mr. BRIGHT in reply, said—Only for one moment, while
I rise to tell you how deeply I am sensible of your, what
shall I say, your unanimous kindness to me to-night. Still
I beg to join in the warning which you have heard from
my learned friend, Mr. Ernest Jones, that you should not
fall into the danger and the error of hero-worship, but that
you should rely mainly upon yourselves for fighting your
own battle ; and in order to fight it out, let me beg of you
to unite as much as you can all the people of Scotland with
you. Organise Reform Associations in every town. Be
prepared, if need be, with funds ; be prepared with allyour
influence, in case there should early be another dissolution
of Parliament. And if it should happen that during the
next session of Parliament there should stand up any man
—to be received with frantic enthusiasm by the Ministerial
party—to revile you as you were reviled last year, then it
may be necessary for the working men to assemble in their
thousands and scores of thousands to deliberate what fur-
ther measures are necessary for the maintenance of their
rights. (Loud cheers.)
The proceedings then terminated with a vote of thanks
chairman.