The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following were read a second time :—Huddersfield
Water, Manchester Improvement, Frome Gas, Bryclough,
Shaw, and Rochdale Roads ; Stafford, Church-bridge, ezc.,
,R°ads ; Butterton Moor End Road; Wrexham, Mold, ant
""all's Quay Railway (additional capital), and Drayton
Junction Railway Bills.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Pagham Harbour, Metropolis Sewage and Essex Reclama-
tion, Kidwelly and Burry Port Railway and Burry Port
Amalgamation, Derwent and Shotley bridge Road, West
Middlesex Water, and Dublin Corporation Water (with
amendments).

THE IRISH CHURCH.
The Earl of BELMORE presented a petition from Tip-
perary against thodisendowment of the Established Church
in Ireland.

SHEFFIELD WATER BILL.
The standing order of the house, No. 179. sec. 1, having
been considered and dispensed with, this bill was put
through its several stages and passed.

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL.
.0n the motion of Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY this
14 passed through committee.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Ellesmere and Glyn Valley ; Hoylake Railway ; Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire Railway ; Uxbridge and Rickmans-
worth Railway ; Winchcomb and Midland Railway ; and
Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway (Ex-
tensions).

- ELECTORAL STATISTICS.
Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from Rochdale
unPligning the accuracy of tho electoral statistics, and
Stating that instead of 58, the working men affected by
these returns amount to 226. The petitioners prayed for
inquiry.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.
Mr. 11. LEWIS' asked the Secretary of State for the
11°Ine Department whether he had received information
that the provinces of Friesland and Groningen were en-
tirely free from the Rinderpest ; and, if so, whether it was
I'lB intention to take steps to modify the existing restric-
tions on the importation of cattle and sheep from those
Provinces.

Sir G. GREY said that representations had been made
to the Privy Council that the cattle plague had greatly
decreased in the places referred to, and asking that the
strict regulations with respect to importation might be
relaxed • but before any step was taken it would be right
t 0 utak° inquiry whether the places from which cattle
might be brought were also free from disease.

MIXED MARRIAGES.
lir. DA WSON asked the hon. and learned member for
Sligo whether in the Marriages (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill to be
read a second time upon Tuesday, Ist May, any provision
Was contained which would legalise the celebration of
marriage between two Protestants by a clergyman of the
Iteluan Catholic Church ?
Sergeant ARMSTRONG said the bill did not interfere
With the law as it existed with respect to marriages of two
THE
by a Roman Catholic.
"ell REFORM BILL—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.
, The adjourned debate on the second reading of the Re-
form Bill was resumed this evening by
Viscount CRANBOURNE who commenced his observa-
tions by condemning the speech delivered by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer at Liverpool, and denied that
It was fair to impute to members of his side
°Pillions in aversion to the working classes. He was quite
aware when the Ministry had nothing to say in favour of
the bill it was very easy to shower dirt over its supporters,
and this course had- been most unscrupulously adopted.
lie felt they had heard in that house two much about the
Working man, as if he was different from other persons,
and he could not understand how their nature, for better
6r worse, should be considered better than others.
Ile said their nature, not their temptations, and the
election committee that had been sitting proved that the
Possession of the franchise was looked upon by many as a
saleable commodity, and to give this power to persons
Who might be tempted was scarcely wise or prudent.
lie did not say that the rich were free from
Vices, because they were not, but the temptation to the
humbler possessor of the franchise was far more dangerous,
because the offer of a bribe of £2O or £3O was a circum-
stance which it would be scarcely possible for many of the
humble class to withstand. Various party tactics had taken
place during the progress of the discussion, but he believed
that the last move of the Government was to announce
fr°'n the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
they would proceed with the Distribution of Seats Bill
-Paripassu with the Reform Bill. Ho did not think that
such an announcement would answer much, because it
Was decidedly opposed to the announcement he had made
in introducing the bill. But, be the matter what it may,
he did not like to see unnecessary humiliation, and if the
beChancellor of the Exchequer did take this course it would
a piece of useless humiliation. It was painful
any time to see a man eat dirt, but when any one did so
Uselessly it was most pitiable ; and if the move he had al-
'Udell lto was to be played, he warned the right honour-
gentleman it would fail, because he would
secure one additional vote by such a party
rove. The Government said they would take the
bill for the redistribution of seats sari passu, which pari
'Paull the Refo Bill would meet one after the other, but
What they on his side of the house wanted was, that they
„64,111 d proceed with the two matters at the same time,
and in the same bill. (Hear.) Until you know out of which
Lsof the constituencies you were going to take the persons
Whom the franchise was granted hew was the house to
-now Whether they were fit for the privilege or not. He
Zenld not agree at all in the arguments of the hon. mem-
1, for Westminster, because he never attempted to
6"ow that the bill as it now stood would not give a pre-
renderance to the working classes. The very stone of all
forroae
neglected
preponderance to none, and yet this had been
tentirelyglected by the hon. member. It had been said
hat his party were not the proper persons to arrange
Lie re-distribution of seats, because they were not
her Position to grapple with the question—{Mr. BRIGHT
,Lere interrupted the noble lord with the observation,
th °ln might destroy it'l—that might be the opinion of
if uen. member for Birmingham, but this he knew, that
the Was left to the hon. member who had interrupted him,
„ e result would be that democratic power would be the
Vo.3' thing left in the country. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
j-s.l should like to know upon what ground the bill was
trged through the house ; he denied there was a necessity
I;
it ; but he was told that it was urged on solely on
Iv,tlgea—that the house was pledged to reform. (Hear.)
, here Was the pledge ? What was the pledge ? The
itedge,
as far as he could collect, was simply the subject
been mentioned in two or three Queen's speeches, but
e: Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thoughel was not
aetfY the person to be bound by what was set down in
the bill
speeches. The house was told that if they passed
(3, bill they would hear no more about Reform for the next
aft:r 30 Year; but the Reform Bill of 1832 was stated to be
a: al measure, and the present bill would be about as final
that was. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He knew the
tPinion of the hon. member for Westminster on property
halandlords, the latter of whom he had written
the they might be discarded at any time. In
Th hill wherever you go you find concealment.
thee Chancellor of the Exchequer would not tell
houseand where the first blood was to come from,
the hon. member for Westminster would not tell them
,Znat sort of measures the new Parliament would pass.
Jle for one desired to know what he was going to vote for
before he voted. (Hoar, hear.) He was not going to
IlPeenlate in reform, and the house, in his opinion, had
the courage to vote honestly. The Government was
,clrering an indignity to the house in the course they
ere Pursuing. They were attempting to break and bend
rWa the independence of Parliament, and, therefore, their
tlreSt duty to their country was to resist it to the utmost of
Power. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
exuapt. GROSVENOR supported the bill in a lively speech,
beressing his preference for a complete measure, if it had
th_n possible to carry it, and rallying the Opposition on
tt:r insensibility to the sound arguments which had been
l'atnced in favour of the extension of the suffrage.
r. B. JOHNSTONE maintained that no reform bill
could
vs_ carried except by a tacit understanding between
toue leaders of both parties. A Government which desired
ell accomplish this task must not only conciliate as much
ae:l'ert a 8 possible on its own side, but must be careful not
atol:ritate its opponents, and both conditions Mr. Glad-
he had failed to fulfil. No Reform Bill, he argued, could
dile7,n?factory to any side of the house which was not pro-
o jeu In its integrity, and he warned the Government that
Ititgrotoirptioghrtheticootnhueanyst they threw themselves into the arms of
ra,;(!uld sever themselves from the real feel-
The ,1)
ONOGHUE supported the bill in a speech cora-
of Posed u
the main of abstract disquisitions on thebestform
teilVavtieldilient, the true character of a representative sys-
the necessary attributes of a Reform Bill, conclud-
rt tlhant the extension of the franchise was the essence of
to itisu, that the form of this bill was the best calculated
tine success, and that the opposition of the Conserve-
ezfer.Y was prompted by a dislike to the principle of an
of t,esicea of the suffrage. He admitted that the great body
itlinu_taristocracy were not hostile to the bill, and, after re-
sisted ttet:rie house that the Irish Liberals had loyally as-
bY an English brethren in every struggle, concluded
earner profession of faith in the Government.
„gune4discussion was continued by Mr. A. GRANT, who
batio_ in favour of a bill which would include a redistri-
tiltal tite°T.f,slveahtos and a rectification of boundaries ; by Mr.
maintained that working men did not pos-
bir fair share of electoral power, and supported the
us best calculated in form and intent to do justice to
hiul64ocifo...afg:•fteananinneshtised class • by Sir M. BEACH whoguarding
for being su'piosed to be opposed to all re-
ed the bill as tending to swamp the agricul-

the progress of education among the working classes, to
the spread of cheap literature, the increase in their habits
of saving, and particularly to the support they had given
to the Volunteer movement, to show that the voters pro-
posed to be admitted were fit for the franchise ; and argued
that the bill would still leave the working classes in a
minority in the representation.
Mr. NEWDEGATE pointed out the difference between
this bill and the measure of 1832, which raised the fran-
chise, but was called a Reform Bill, because it so redistri-
buted the representatron that the will of the people could
be adequately expressed. lie dwelt on the deficiencies of
the present county representation, and, though favourable
to a reduction of the franchise, declined to support the
bill, because until the redistribution scheme was produced
it was impossible to see whether those anomalies would be
redressed.

Mr. P. TAYLOR supported the bill, not because it came
up to the wishes of the party below the gangway, but be-
cause the Government intended to stand or fall by it, and
it therefore offered an opportunity of settling this ques-
tion. He recommended a dissolution if the bill were re-
jected.
Mr. R. J. HARVEY, who, speaking from the Conserva-
tive side, was loudly cheered from the Ministerial benches,
also professed his intention to support the bill.

Mr. W. DUNCOMBE condemned the bill on account of
its parentage, which he maintained cast a suspicion on its
honesty.

Mr. L. KING expressed his regret that the opposition
to this bill shonld have been started on the Liberal side of
the house, and, after referring, amid increasing signs of
impatience, to the history of previous bills, accepted the
measure as an honest settlement.

Up to this period the debate had been conducted in a thin
and somewhat languid and inattentive house, but when
Mr. Disraeli rose, at 25 minutes past 10, the benches rapidly
filled, and the cheers and counter-cheers began to flow
from side to side with increasing warmth and rapidly as
each telling point was delivered.
Mr. DISRAELI (who was received with loud cheering)
said—Mr. Speaker, before I address myself to the amend-
ment of the noble lord the member for Chester, I will make
one remark upon the many reasons put forth for the intro-
duction of the Government measure. We have to deal with
the twofold question of Parliamentary pledges and of Mi-
nisterial promises. As to the first of these, they may be ful-
filled ; as to the second, they have been violated. Now, sir,
the house will be cautious in accepting some views on this
head of the subject which have been put forward in this
debate. In the course of it some members have touched a
very dangerous question. Hitherto the freedom of Parlia-
ment has been the boast of our predecessors ; but the free-
dom of Parliament does not mean merely freedom of discus-
sion, and freedom from arrest ; it means also, above all our
other privileges, liberty of legislation. (Cheers.) When we
hear of Parliament being pledged to a particular course,
are we to understand that the conduct of a preceding Par-
liament is to deprive us of the enjoyment of the highest
and most exalted of our functions ? In this country great
authorities on the subject have been most jealous of any
attempt made on the liberty of legislation enjoyed by Par-
liament, and they have maintained that in a constitutional
country like England a different principle must be recog-
nised from that which prevails in Imperial Cabinets.
(Hear,*hear.) I shall not argue a question of this sort
without great reserve, but we shall all agree that no Par-
liament can be bound by the acts of its predecessors, except
so far as they obtain the form and force of law, though
Parliament, doubtless, enjoys the power to review them.
That course is for example and instruction, and we should
be indeed indifferent to the highest sources of political
wisdom in such a country as England if we disregarded the
precedents of those who preceded us in this house. This is
a question which must depend merely upon any casual
vote of a single House of Parliament. I maintain that this
is a question which we are free to consider. (Heir, hear.)
Let us look at the question of pledges founded on the
conduct of public men. It may be possible that states-
men may have entered upon rash engagements upon a
subject of fatal import, but it does not follow
that, under a different set of circumstances, they are to
follow out a course of which they do not approve, and
which, upon consideration, they believe to be unwise and
inexpedient. I am told there is one ground on which to
appeal to Parliament for its interference, and that is when
you bring forward a measure which has been called for,
and which seems adapted to its end. But I will take the
question out of the regions of obstruction. Is this Parlia-
ment pledged to Parliamentary Reform ? If ever there was
a Parliament not pledged to reform it must be the present.
We know that a Cabinet Council was held before the disso-
lution of the late Parliament to consider the subject, and
they decided upon the course which the Ministry should
pursue. We know that the chief organ of the Government
in this house expressed what the decision was at which the
Cabinet had arrived on this subject ; that the Cabinet had
arrived at the decision that they would not go to the country,
upon the question of reform, nor in any way pledge them-
selves on that question. We know that,under these circum-
stances, the Chief Minister issued an address which in this
country we regard as the programme of a political party,
and in that address to his constituents, issued immediately,
the very word reform does not appear. We know also that
when the now Parliament assembled the Government, with
very great discretion, having probably themselves decided
upon what they could do in the matter—having decided
probably on submitting a measure of reform to the house—
did not commit themselves in the Address from the Crown
in any manner which could for a moment be supposed to
be an expression of opinion. They only promised us
papers. Therefore, so far as the present Parliament is con-
cerned, every gentleman, I think, will agree that we are
perfectly free to act in the manner which we think best for
the country. Now, let ire ask if existing statesmen have
broken their promise, for that is a very serious charge ;
and it was made on the high authority of the Secretary of
State for the Department of War, who represents, as he
informed us on a memorable occasion, the educated por-
tion of the public. (Laughter.) He ought not to have made
that statement, imputing broken promises to public men,
among whom chiefly figures his own leader, without due re-
flection. But it is my duty on this occasion to vindicate the
conduct of Lord Russell—(a laugh)—which I am prepared
to do. Lord Russell thought fit in 1852, for a reason to
which the hon. gentleman has just referred, to introduce a
new reform bill, in itself a very good one, and a long time
will probably elapse before we see so good a one. There
was only one great fault, and that was nobody wanted it.
(Loud cheering.) Years elapsed. Lord Russell had not
relinquished his policy, and in 1859 he had an opportunity
of asserting that policy and inducing his party to support
it, and by so doing he became Minister and was obliged to
bring forward a bill. Did he break that pledge ? He
in a reform bill ;oni bill. Some allusionarnddoesanybodydou habthid been
sseienn-
cerity respecting that ref
made to the emotion he expressed when he withdrew that
bill. I saw in it no subject for derision, and publicly ex-
pressed my sympathy with him. (A laugh.) I want to
know where is the violated promise. Lord Russell felt
some emotion when he withdrew his bill, but the circum-
stance led to something more important than the withdrawal
of the bill, for it led to the withdrawal of Lord Russell
from this house, and therefore he fulfilled his promise. So
far, then, as Lord Russell was concerned, I hold that the
charge made by the Secretary of State of broken TOWS on
the part of public men is not founded. I take it for granted
that Lord Russell may be taken as a fair representative of
the Whig party, and therefore no pledge has been broken
by them. Let me make one remark in reference to an ob-
servation made by the Secretary for the Home Department.
He reproached this side of the house for having defeated
the Reform Bill of 1860. (No.) Who says "no" ? That
gentleman could not have been a member of the house at the
time, and he could not have availed himself of the authen-
tic information which is at everybody's command. In the
year 1861 an earnest reformer, or, to avail myself of the
new epithet adopted by all their journals, a "robust" re-
former, absolutely moved an amendment on the Ad-
dress, reproaching Lord Russell with his treachery to the
Reform party. Lord Russell made a statement of his views
to this house as to his conduct respecting the Reform Bill ;
and to that statement I refer all gentlemen who wish for
accurate information on the subject. It is a most interesting
one. He said that he had given up the Reform Bill because
he found that it was opposed by the Liberal party—(hear)
and not only by the Liberals, but chiefly by those mem-
bers of the party who represented large constituencies;
and he said that he expected that the country would have
supported it by indignation meetings throughout England,
but none were called, and he found that apathy pervaded
both the country and the Liberal party, and therefore ho
gave up the question of Reform. He left this house, and
the only time since when we have heard of him on this
question was on that memorable time when he advised a
state of tranquillity. (A laugh.) Therefore I say that the
Whig party, as represented by Lord Russell, have broken
no vow. Lord Derby was sent for by the Queen in 1858.
There was in the House of Commons at that time a majo-
rity against him of 140, and under these circumstances he
thought it his duty to decline the great honour that her
Majesty was graciously pleased to offer him. But he gave
a reason, and that was that he was not only in a great
minority, but that there was such a feeling in Parliament
that the Reform question would be brought forward, and
he would be put in a minority on it. Although Lord
Derby declined office at that period, her Majesty, after de-
liberation, again applied to Lord Derby, and if the minority
against him had been 240 instead of 140 it would have
been impossible for him to have refused. (Cheers.) But
that happened which he had anticipated. We were not
six weeks in office before the question of reform was
brought forward by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr.
Locke King), and we were in a minority. It was quite
impossible for Lord Derby to retire from office, but it
was absolutely necessary that he should consider his
position. New I comp to the real reason that made
Lord Russell, in 1852, and Lord Derby, in 1859, bring for-
ward reform bills. Sir, I consider these facts most neces-
sary and pertinent to the discussion. (Hear, hear.) If
there was any one subject of which any man was master,
Lord 111150911104 maga Qf the gubject 9i ref9rin, A wag to

—.sure was greatly, if not entirely, indebted. T_
fore, neither of them could look with any of that besotted
prejudice which is imputed so frequently to both of those
statesmen by different sections of politicians. Lord Russell
was satisfied with the settlement of 1832 entirely, and he
resisted all those attempts which year after year were made
for a general and comprehensive change in our representa-
tive system, and resisted upon the principle of finality, and
always successfully. But having resisted them successfully
a now school of reformers arose, who were called piecemeal
or bit-by-bit reformers; it is not an elegant but it is still a
parliamentary expression. Persons who were called mode-
rate men, and who did not give themselves the trouble to
think, took it into their heads that bit-by-bit reform was a
very harmless thing, and thet in any event it was better to
do a little and stop agitation by bit-by-bit reforms, But
Lord Russell knew that the distribution of power was the
real point- (hear)—and that if you treated a single fran-
chise by itself, which moderate men miht think of no great
importance, and did not treat other parts of the question,
you might effect a complete change in the English consti-
tution. And, therefore, Lord Russell in 1852, when he was
pressed, said, "What am I to do? The only way I can pre-
vent it is by devising a large, general measure." You know
what happened with him—he went out of office. Lord Derby
was in the same position; he had to resign the government
of the country, which, not only as a man of honour, but as
a practical man, he found it impossible to continue to hold.
And this is exactly the case in which Lord Russell and Lord
Derby were animated with the same views and objects. But
the most singular thing is that Lord Russell is again minister,
and we now have him introducing a measure of piecemeal
Reform. (Cheers.) Well, sir, I kayo shown the house that
Parliament has not been pledged, and I think I have shown
the house that there have been no broken vows on the
part of the great parties of this country represented by their
chief men, Lord Russell and Lord Derby. (Cheers.) What,
then, is the origin of the present state of affairs ? The ori-
gin is this—that some 16 or 18 months ago, on a fine sum-
mer morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down
to the House of Commons appropriated to one of those
dreary debates about a £6 franchise, to which we all look
back with dread and-horror—(cheers and laughter)—and
he made a most remarkable speech, in which he established
the suffrage upon the rights of man. (Cheers.) And at the
same time he announced his conviction that the working
classes of the country, on whom he delivered a high pane-
gyric, possessed only an infinitesimal share of the suffrage.
The inevitable consequence at which it pointed was that a
large measure of Reform was to be brought forward, based
on the approximation to the rights of man, which would
include a great mass of the working classes. (Hear.) That
speech was received with much enthusiasm by a party in
this house—not a numerous party, but one represented by
great talent—in the case of one individual by commanding
talent, who possessed among his followers men of great in-
telligence, experience, and organisation. (Hear.) They had
also a party in the country, not a contemptible party, but I
do not think a predominant party. From that moment this
party has been at work—working upon the declaration of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And, though checked for
a moment by the prudence of Lord Palmerston, still it was
clear that if he unfortunately left us a now character would
be given to the administration, and the consequence of that
event has been tie measure now before us—(cheers)—a
measure of piecemeal reform. (Renewed cheers.) Now I
oppose it at once as a measure of piecemeal reform (cheers)
and Isupport the amendment of the noble lord, to which I
am now going almost strictly to confine myself. (Hear.)
My great objection to the measure of Government is this
—that I cannot, though others may, really understand it.
I cannot calculate its consequences—l cannot fathom what
may be the result of its provisions, unless 1 have this fur-
ther measure before me, which is essential to its complete-
ness. (Cheers.) But if Ido consider the measure without
reference to any further measure, I think I can show the
house that it must land us in a condition of such confusion
as is little contemplated by the great body of ministers
themselves and by those who may support it, that I verily
declare, and I will give my authority for the proposition,
that if this bill were passed, and on a subsequent occasion
it became the duty of ministers to advise her Majesty to
recur to the country—l do believe they would rather have
an autumn session in order to revise and modify this bill
before us, than they would really dissolve Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) I propose to show, in the first instance, in
the clearest manner, the inconvenience and immense in-
jury that may be produced by this bill if it pass alone—and
we must consider that it is given us as a complete measure
—and we are asked to-night to assent to its principles.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not think that I can put the case in
a more convenient manner than by taking the county
franchise as represented by the hon. member for York.
(Hear, hear.) Now I have never been a stickler for an ex-
clusive county franchise. My convictions upon the sub-
ject were taken from my earliest political friend, my pre-
decessor in the seat I hold, who was the author of the
Chandos clause. And he convinced me that the principle
on which that clause was based was the right principle. It
was supported at the time by Mr. Hume and the leaders of
the Liberal party. It was opposed by Lord Althorp, upon
what I cannot but conceive would be thought,in these days
in which 'we live, old-fashioned notions - (hear, hear)—
namely, that you should confine the suffrage of counties
entirely to proprietors, and that in boroughs exclusively
to occupiers. (Hear, hear.) But in 1832, when you were
ostentatiously, avowedly, and properly giving a large
share in the Government of the country to the middle
classes, it did seem most monstrous and inconsistent that
one of the most important sections of the middle class—l
say the most important, as the largest employers of labour,
namely, the farmers of England, should have no suffrage
(cheers). I think that the measure proposed by Lord
Chandos was a wise and a proper measure. The bill now
before us proposes a very large reduction in the occupa-
tion of franchise of counties. Now I want to show the house
how that will act if this bill, which is brought in as a com-
plete bill, is passed. And I propose to show that, first of
all, by considering the effect of the proposed franchise in
counties from the population in Parliamentary boroughs
(hear). The house, perhaps, has not realised as it ought
the increase in the population of Parliamentary boroughs
since the act of 1832. It is very large—it is larger than
the population of several European kingdoms. The in-
crease in the population of Parliamentary boroughs is con-
siderably above 4,000,000 (hear, hear). And the greater
proportion of this population is located without the boun-
daries of the Parliamentary boroughs (hear, hear). I
know it may be said that a considerable portion of this in-
crease is produced by the metropolitan districts. I think
it is very likely that the greater proportion of the increase
in the metropolitan districts may be within the Parlia-
mentary boroughs ; though I have no doubt the increase
of the population of the metropolitan boroughs may be
considerably affected by the contiguous counties of Essex,
Surrey, and Kent. But I think it is better to deduct that
population, and then there will be en increase in the Par-
liamentary boroughs of upwards of 3,000,000 of men, the
greater portion cf whom are located 'without the boun-
daries (hear, hear). Ido not know that 1 can give a hap-
pier instance of that fact than that borough from which I
presented a petition to-day—which borough the Chancellor
in his opening speech referred to as a conclusive proof of
the undesirable position of the suffrage as regarded the
working classes, and which was made the subject of an
eloquent comment in the admirable speech of my right
hon. friend the member for Herefordshire (Sir E. Lytton),
and which was urged by the right hon. member for Bir-
mingham (Mr. Bright) as the main ground for the neces-
sity of this bill. 'I mean the borough of Rochdale (hear).
I admit when you consider the general character of the
artisans of the borough of Rochdale, which is the most
flourishing part of the county, in which men have been long
in possession of high wages, and in which men have the
reputation of having shown some of the highest virtues of
civil prudence ; that when you refer to the books and find
that they have only a nominal share in the representation ;
that they have only 68 votes according to one authority,
and 200 by another—but whether the numbers be more or
less does not signify for my argument—l say lam ready to
admit that that is a case which strikes one very much.
(Hear, hear.) But when 1 have to examine the question
minutely, I find that the population of Rochdale without
the parliamentary boundaries is larger than that within the
boundaries. (Hear, hear.) The boundaries of Rochdale are
very peculiar. From the central place of the town there is
only a radius of three quarters of a mile, and beyond that
the population is spread over seven valleys in a very re-
markable manner. (Hear, hear.) The population without
the parliamentary boundaries considerably exceeds the
population within the parliamentary boundaries, and the
great body of the workmen live in a portion of the town
beyond the parliamentary boundaries. (Hear, hear.) I saw
with interest the statement that the mills belonging to the
family of the hon. member for Birmingham—mills of a
considerable extent—are all without the boundaries. The
proprietors employ at this moment about 1,000 hands, and
I believe, without exception, every one of those hands
lives without the boundaries. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT—No ; the great bulk of thorn live within
the borough.

Mr. DISRAELI—WeII, I have the names of
before me. (Cheers.) But I am not going to press that point
with reference to the borough franchise at this moment, be-
cause I think it is of little importance. In reference, how-
ever, to the county franchise it is a matter of some import-
ance. (Hear, hear.) Here is a population of 40,000, 50,000,
or 60,000 living without the boundaries of Rochdale,:and
this is the population that is to possess the county
votes under this bill. (Cheers.) Remember that they
aro only to live in a £6 house. Now, if a man
have a £l4 house—and that is not a rare thing in that
part of the world—or if ho has a £6 house and an occupa-
tion field, he will be entitled to a county vote. I do not
mean to say that they should not have a vote, but is it not
just and proper that they should vote where their capital
and interest are? (Cheers.) In a community the members
of which must be bound by every social and political tie,
ought they not to be electors for the borough of Rochdale,
and not the electors for Yorkshire and Lancashire ?
(Cheers.) That is the question, and I put it to every
count, member whether they think that i 5 a state pf things

them feel a little anxious about three o'clock, and what
would they say if a stalwart body of Yorkshire or Lanca-
shire farmers came riding into Rochdale town, and on the
faith of some old franchise in the county, prefer voting for
Rochdale town instead of voting for the county? (Cheers.)
We should soon hear from the hon. gentleman the member
for Birmingham a new argument for parliamentary reform
to put an end to such an injustice. (Loud cheers.) All the
boroughs in the north, as a general rule, are in this condi-
tion. All the boroughs of Lancashire, the West Riding,
the counties of Durham and Chester are in the same con-
dition. (Hear, hear.) It is net easy to put precise informa-
tion before the house, because we have not got authentic
returns, but that is the thing of which I complain. (Cheers.)
But we have it every now and then in our power to illus-
trate the case. I will take the case of the town of Halifax,
which has a population within its parliamentary borough
of 38,000. Now we have there, fortunately, a more recent
political creation than the parliamentary boundary, the
municipal franchise, and we have a return of the muni-
cipal population within the boundary, and we find that
whereas the population is 38,000 within the parliamentary
boundary there are 60,000 within the municipal
borough—(cheers)—and the consequence will be that
there will be 20,000 of that population who are to be
county voters. (Cheers.) I want to know if that is a state
of affairs which is .to be tolerated when you have before
you a scheme of parliamentary reform—(hear)--which cer-
tainly a fortnight ago was not a complete and conclusive
one ? (Cheers.) This state of things is not peculiar to the
north of England. I will now take the borough of Bir-
mingham, which the hon. gentleman certainly represents,
and what is the state of affairs there ? Why, it is much
more monstrous than that of the northern boroughs to
which I have alluded. (Hear.) The population beyond
the parliamentary borough of Birmingham—and when you
walk along the streets you cannot see a lino of demarca-
tion with regard to the boundary, but you see, like London
and Westminster, a homogeneous community, with the
same feelings and interests, but the population beyond the
parliamentary boundary is immense. In the neighbourhood
of Aston alone, taken from a person whose name cannot
be questioned, because he has the means officially of mak-
ing the return, there are 2,000 persons who could qualify
under the £lO clause, but who do not vote for the borough
of Birmingham, which they ought to do. (Cheers.) But he
says that 1,400 of them will immediately qualify under this
bill, if it passes, as county voters. (Cheers.) Is this, I again
ask, a state of affairs which ought to be permitted ? And
if you pass this bill with all these anomalies left unre-
moved, what, I ask, will be the condition of the county
constituency ? (Loud cheers.) I take it there may be indi-
viduals in this house—l will not dwell on their eccentric
opinion—(laughter)—but take it for granted that a great
many of the members of this house who wish to retain
the legitimate influence of land in the interests of Englard
as one of the best securities of public liberty, and the only
security for local government. (Cheers.) I take it, I say,
that that is the feeling of both sides of the house ; but can
you do this if you make this great change in this imper-
fect manner—(cheers)—and do not ask, as the amendment
does, to have before you a complete scheme ? (Hear.)
I know it will be said by the right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade that while he admits this
condition of affairs, and that it ought to be remedied
that Lord Derby did not bring forward a remedy for it. In
the first place, that is not as argument, but only a captious
remark. (Cheers and laughter.) If there be a great evil,
and if I have shown that there is one and it is permitted,
it is not the slightest argument to say that Lord Derby,
placed in a similar position, did not remedy it. If they
take him as their model, and avow that their Government
in
refo the
re,
is established on the principle of imitating Lord Derby,
thenut
it there
not would
the b e
a sesomethingd,
itemisanrko argument
bt
whatever. (Cheers.) But is it true that Lord Derby neg-
lected this question ? (Hear, hear.) Is it not true, on the
case, and,
other hand, that Lord Derby, in the bill which I had the
honour of introducing into this house on his behalf, pro-
posed to enact that the day that bill passed there should
be a compulsory revision of all the boundaries of the Par-
liamentary boroughs ? (Loud cheers.) And was not that
plan combined with an arrangement which would have
rendered it morally certain that it would have passed
with facility and promptitude— (cheers)--because the great
difficulty in passing a boundary bill hon. gentlemen
well know, or have heard, when the bill of 1832 passed
was settling the boundaries. It was a constant source of
misrepresentation and imputation, of injustice and corrup-
tion, because the boundary commissioners under the reform
bill of 1832 were appointed by the Government ; but Lord
Derby, profiting by his experience, took their appointment
from the Government and gave the duty to the enclosure
commissioners. (Cheers.) a.nd I might add that the late
Mr. Ellice, who was a great partisan and admirer of Lord
Derby's bill, though he voted against it—(laughter)—said
that that part of the bill was so perfect that we had solved
a great difficulty, and he defied any one to make a party
question out of the decisions as to the allotments by the
enclosure commissioners. And he and every person did
approve entirely of that plan ; but we have now nothing
personal in respect of it. (dear, hear.) I have asked the
house to consider the effects of this immense population
that has spread beyond the parliamentary boroughs upon
the county constituencies, if some measure is not brought
in by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) And I have
shown you that from these ;pillions an immense population
may be enfranchised, under this bill, which will be a county
constituency, yet have no sympathy whatever with the
counties. (Cheers.) Ido not for a moment pretend that
there is any more political rrinciple in the figure of £4O in
the counties any more than there is in the figures of £lO
in borOughs, but they have the advantage of having been
settled and that some degree of prescription has gathered
round them. But you disturb the settlement of 1832, and
I am, therefore, ready to consider the revision of the
county franchise. And I say there is a principle in the
county franchise when you deal with it, and the prin-
ciple is this—it must be a county franchise—(hoar,
hear)—it must be a suffrage exercised by those who
have a natural relation pith the chief property and in-
dustry of the county. (Cheers.) They must be and ought
to be members of the same community, and not strangers,
whose thoughts, feelings, interests, capital, and labour are
employed and occupied in another industry. (Cheers.) That
is the principle I contended for. (Hear, hear.) I have
shown what must be the effect on the county constituencies
if thousands, and for aught I know hundreds of thousands
whom this great population will produce under this bill in
the revision of the constituency. I now ask the house to
consider what will be the effect on the county constituencies
of the population of those boroughs which are not parlia-
mentary boroughs. (Hear.) That is the next step in consi-
dering the county constituencies. The house knows very
well that in almost every county in England there are towns
exceeding 5,000 population that are not represented—are
strictly agricultural towns, but have a keen sympathy with
the property and industry of the counties in which theyare
situated ; no apprehension need be felt as to the general
population possessing votes under this bill because there is
a community of interest and feeling between them, and they
would, no doubt, vote for those men who best represented
their interests. But where large towns spring up with an
interest adverse to the counties, if those persons are allowed
suddenly to exercise the franchise in a community with
which they have little sympathy and interest great injustice
will be done. (Hear, hear.) I ask you, therefore, to support
the legitimate influence of the land. (Cheers.) In the bill
of 1859, which was referred to by the hon. member for
Birmingham the other night, there was an allotment of
seats which he spoke of with some contempt, though he
was obliged to admit the allotment was most efficient.
(Hear, hear.) It was of this character, that there was not
a single unrepresented town of 20,000 inhabitants that was
not provided for by representation, and scarcely one of
15,000 that was unrepresented. That would greatly relieve
the effect the bill would have had upon the county consti-
tuencies. (Hear, hear.) What will be the effect on unre-
presented towns by the reduction of the franchise on the
county constituencies the Government tell us we must wait
till we see their bill for the re-distribution of seats. (Hear,
hear.) My first and principal answer to the Government
on that subject would naturally be, what security have we
if we consent to the second reading of this bill to-night
that the subsequent measures which the amend-
ment calls for, and which all now acknowledge
to be absolutely necessary, wall be passed also ? No speech
that we have heard has met that argument ; even the new
device—the pari passe device—of which we have heard so
much, does not in the slightest degree meet it, because you
cannot understand the action of this measure without hay-
ing the whole scheme before you, and, therefore, yen ought
not to be asked to approve of the principle. But you may
go on with the pant passe Principle—you may pass this bill
by one stop, and by another the other may be thrown out
You may pass the Franchise Bill on Monday, and on Thurs-
day the Seats Bill may be thrown out. (Cheers.) But I
will not insist on that primary objection, because it hasbeen
treated on so much ; but it was necessary to my argument
that I should briefly refer to it. There are on this subject
other objections which appear to me to be worthy of the
gravest consideration of this house. The Government say
"We are going to produce a Seats Bill which will meet all
tho objections with reference to the population of the unre-
presented towns." Well, my question is, What are you going
to do with the counties? You will find when you pursue
that subject, and you will find that if you proceed with
this bill without having the scheme of the Government
with regard to the distribution of seats before you, it will
be impossible, and I will prove it, for you to come to any
sensible and satisfactory decision of the amount of what the
county franchise should be. (Cheers.) But I want to know
first what security we have at this moment that any bill for
the distribution of seats will be brought forward at all, be-
cause the other night the President of the Board of Trade
whom I did not intend to interrupt the other night when
I spoke across the table—told the house that on this most
important subject we have the engagement of the Prime
Minister. We have no engagement of the Prime Minister
—that can only be given by the Prime Minister in his
place in Parliament or by some document placed on the
table of the house. )3Ut the pie giniaer lase
made n

.s any document
my information.
uded to a speech
of the followers
inted in certain
'otes. Therefore

try - _ what engagement he made,
and the right hon. gentleman replied that the engagement
was an engagement given by Lord Russell at a private
meeting, which has now been publicly recognised in this
house, and the right hon. gentleman said that engagement
was " to lay on the table of the house a bill that will show
the intention of the Government with regard to the dis-
tribution of seats, and to proceed with that bill with a
view to carry out as soon as circumstances shall permit."
This is a very dangerous phrase, and it will show you that
it was totally impossible for us to be asked to fix the
amount of the county franchise until we have in full detail
before us a bill for the distribution of seats. It is abso-
lutely necessary that the house should carry in their minds
—and know they have it - the comparative claims torepre_
sentation of land and of the boroughs. lam sure the house
will recollect it, but it is in round numbers 9,350,000
the population in the boroughs, against 11,400,000 in the
counties, 514,000 electors in the boroughs against 501,000
in the counties, £33,000,000 of rateable property in
boroughs, against .£60,000,000 in the counties; but you must
bear in mind—l will put it before you very shortly, the most
perfect and pregnant calculation on a subject of this kind
that was I believe ever made. I propose for a moment that
the house should consider this proposlion to transfer to
counties the representation of all boroughs under 500 elec-
tors. Let us see what that is —there are 87—and see what
the result would be of transferring to counties all boroughs
under 500 electors, being 87 seats. It would be necessary,
of course, to deduct this population from the boroughs and
add it to the counties. The result would be, the population
would then be a little under 9,000,000, and the population
of the counties a little under 12,000,000 ; the electors of the
boroughs 492,000 against 523,000 electors in the counties.
The rateable value of the boroughs would be about
£34,000,000, against £59,500,000 in the counties. None of
these groat quantities much change, but instead of the
boroughs having 334 members, and the counties 162, the
boroughs would have 247 members, and the counties 249 ;
therefore, by disenfranchising 87 boroughs and 500 elec-
tors, and giving them all to the counties, you still would
not entirely remedy the balance. (Cheers.) It is necessary
the house should boar in mind that striking instance of the
singular inequality there is in the relative representation of
the counties and boroughs. Well, sir, then under these
circumstances 1 address to the Government the question—
what are you going to do with the counties ? You are going
to :increase representation in the boroughs—you are going to
transfer the representation of small boroughs to larger
boroughs in counties that are not represented, and so far
you relieve the county constituencies from the possible
danger of being absorbed in a great degree by the popula-
tion of those towns; but at the same time I ask what are
you going to de in the counties ? (Hear, hear.) Now, look
here : are you, in the first place, going to add a great
many members to counties and a great many oz more mem-
bers to the counties and some to the large towns ? On what
principle are you going to act ? Do you mean to establish
plurality of representation when you shrink from plurality
of voting in your constituent body ? (Hear.) Do you mean
to say that members are to come here to represent numbers
instead of opinions ? I ask this becausie on your determina-
tion of these points and your conduct our decision as to the
amount of county franchise entirely depends. Or have you
found out—as they have found out before you—and no
doubt Lord Russell, in his long studies and numerous ex-
periments has found out—have you found out that that
plan would be extremely inconvenient and impossible ;
that it would not faithfully represent the country, and the
constituencies would find greater difficulty than they now
do in getting members ? Would you have recourse then
to a system of further division of the counties and the Go-
vernment boroughs and cities ? Well, we want a decision
on that point, because on that point depends the judgment
that we can arrive at as to the amount of the county con-
stituencies. I will give an instance. Take the county of
Middlesex—half is a rural community and the rest a very
flourishing suburban county, it is not large but rich ; if you
give it four members by adding two, you will have four
suburban members with your .£l4 franchise ; but if on the
other hand you divide the county, and give two members
to the rural population and two to the suburban, then it is
possible that the .£l4 franchise will give us two good bo-
rough members and two excellent county members. (Hear.)
Therefore I contend that unless we have the whole scheme
before us it is utterly impossible to arrive at any conclusion
as to the amount of the county franchise, therefore I ask
what can be more rational than the amendment of the
noble lord ? If it be true there are to be futher measures
let us have them all, for without them we cannot come to
a decision. I cannot conceive what argument can- be
urged against this claim. We have a right to ask the
Government, generally speaking, what is the plan on which
they mean to proceed with regard to the disposition of
seats ? At present, not a word has yet been said on the
subject by the Government; but those who have avowedly
a very great influence with the Government have made
speeches and written on the subject, and if we aro to take
those speeches as intimations of what the Government in-
tends to do, to my mind the course they are going to pur-.
sue is most unjust and injurious to the landed interest—
that is to say, to England, because I say the legitimate in-
terest of the land is the interest of England. Nothing is
more simple than the mode, •according -to the last state-
ment of the distribution of seats. I have always considered
the distribution of seats was one of the deepest, one of the
profoundest, and one of the most difficult subjects to which
a statesman could apply himself. Ile must have general
general principles to guide him, est modus in rebus. Ho
cannot apply them with extreme severity. He must apply
them with great forbearance, and consideration of various
interests of the country, and any one who has to deal with
the subject knows that it is one in which forbearance and
temper and considerable knowledge of the complicated in-
terests of the country is required. But this is not the opi-
nion of those who seem to have corresponding influence on
this question—because the last thing I have seen or heard
is that in the North of England there is a flourishingborough
with a population of 100,000, doing what is called a roar-
ing trade, which hes two members in this house. Then
there is a small borough in the south, with a population of
5,000 or 10,000. It is quite asleep, with merely a country
market. Now can there be anything more anomalous, that
this great borough of the north, with its great population,
its great industry, should be represented in the house by
two members in the same manner as this little borough in
the south ? The thing is utterly indefensible, and if 1 were
in the Music-hall of Birmingham, it might net be difficult
for me to :produce very great effect by disclaiming it.
There is nothing so easy as to disfranchise the borough in
tho south. Yes ; but the moment you do that there is a new
issue arising. That issue is no longer between the borough
in the north and the borough in the south, but the issue is
between the borough in the north and a district in the
south, equal in population and property, but which is im-
perfectly, inadequately represented. I will take the great
county of Kent, of West Kent. The population at this
moment is about half a million. There are several flourish-
ing boroughs and towns in this county—flourishing
boroughs, four towns I think—and their aggregate popula-
tion exceeds 100,000. They are represented by eight mem-
bers, while the county itself is represented by only two
members —very capital members I admit—but still only two.
Well, Kent says, there is a borough in the south of Eng-
land, close to us, in the next county, which is to be dis-
franchised, and its members given to a borough in the north
of England, because it has a great trade, and has 100,000
inhabitants. But surely the 400,000 men of Kent ought to
be considered. It
.is a very wealthy, a very progressive,
and a very proud county ; and they say, very naturally, if
the borough in the south is to be disfranchised why give the
members to the north ? Why not give more representa-
tives to the county of Kent ? (Hear, hear.) And, there-
fore, sir, it is not so simple an issue as those who are in
favour of these sweeping changes would tell us. I think
the argument is unanswerable. ,It is not to be answered
by a statement I read to-day, mad 4 by a member of the
house at a public meeting, that the superiority of population
and property in the north would no longer admit the pre-
sent state of representation of boroughs to remain. 1 think
it is most unwise to have these constant comparisons be-
tween the north and the south. (Hear, hear.) If so, we shall
have a state of things like that in America. We shall have
secession at last, or, as Mr. Canning said, " bring back the
Heptarchy." (Hear, hear.) I do not want to make compari-
sons between the north and south. Whatever you do with
your representation a wise statesman would take care that
the representation be spread over the country. (Hear, hear.)
But as these statements are made and this sort of rantipole
rhetoric prevails, I must deny that the north of England
has a superiority over the south in population and pro-
perty. (Hear, hear.) It is not true. Taking the tradi-
tional and acknowledged line of demarcation—namely,
the River Trent —the population and property of the
south are equal and superior to the population and property
of the north. I have heard an answer to this—that fortu-
nately for the south it includes the metropolis.
Mr. BRIGHT—Hear, hear.

Mr. DISRAELI—Hear, hear? Is that any reason why
the population, the intelligence, and the property of the
metropolis should not prefer their claim before those new
boroughs? (Hear, hear.) Suppose I were to say to the hon.
member for Birmingham, who cheered me, "Youare always
speaking of the great predominance of population and pro-
perty and industry of the north, but you know that if you
take off from the north the West Riding of Yorkshire and
South Lancashire, you in the north will not go for much."
This plan, therefore, of disfranchising the boraughs in the
south to enfranchise boroughs in the north will not stand a
moment's consideration. The problem is a very difficult one
and must be approached with more calmness and withmore
comprehensive views. (Hear, hear.) I would stop for a
moment to say that I am not one of those who think that
a great system of parliamentary reform would lead to OA
destruction of the country. I never believed that it would.
(Hear, hear.) I have too much confidence in the country.
(Hear, hear.) I think there is sense and spirit and creative
power in this kingdom to form a goyernment, but I think
it would end in the destruction of parliament. (Hear, hear.)
You might get rid of the House of Common
oflt
eoPieloyuosue
will not destroy England; but you will get h
of Commons. Suppose the Government make up theirminds
to-night, tvi for apythips I kuor they Inn' do, t 9 ;Wet the

case on a great scale, and astonish the house with a "Lily
scheme founded on their statistics. Suppose they say "
are prepared to disfranchise those 87 boroughs whiCh hair*
not 500 electors; we cannot promise to give all the members
to the land, notwithstanding it is entitled to them, but look-
ing at the matter as statesmen, we will endeavour to esta-
blish a fair balance of the constitution, and we will as far. as
possible represent population and property blended, and at
the same time we will now and then allot representatives to
some distinctive interest." Suppose they do that, what would '
happen? If the house will permit me I will tell them. This
would probably occur first. I do not suppose that you will
have a Parliament in the confidence of the country. You
will have a great Parliament. If you adopted electoral dis-
tricts to-morrow you would have a great Parliament owing
to the character of the individuals, the great progress and
great interests, and the great landlords, and the great
manufacturers and some merchants it would include. But,
after a short time, you will find you do not have the hold
over the executive power as you have over the old system.
The want of variety in the elements of the house will cause
that. Well, in proportion as your command over the ex-
ecutive recedes, your great proprietors and your great
manufacturers would cease to belong to a house of which
the influence and the importance proportionately diminish.
Then
the story will be that the House of Commons is not
what it was, and then you must extend the franchise to
manhood or to universal suffrage, and you will not advance
yLosuercase. You will have a Parliament which will entirely
p commandpeu
sh
tover e
moment the
youhave (Hear.)v
e runisalsuffrage
That
ha t
always h a;
further,
any othere.vWeeltel,
tirely without any 'w
commandatnhecnonsihdersthheimHseolufseasofbceionnagmasongsooisdenas-
en
over the epoxepcuultairve i t wi will b
in the condition of those Continental
assemblies be
that we have seen rise
rience. There will be
no
and disappear within our expo-
shurserior education, no perspec-
tivehave any of the great families tbereoruinendlinwehagiceh; toyaruallwyilwhenhorde
t
no genius. But you will have a
liberty is assailed. There will learn-
ing,enocfe,senlfioshandobscure mediocrities cspabls of nothing
that mischief devised and regulated by thet rreie'ehiefand
dema-
gogue of the time. (Loud cheers.) Now,
sir,
think
have shown, and with some reason, in viewing 'the county
franchise under two heads, the influence—if
youg agree
t o
a reduction of the franchise—the influence of the
popula-
tion in non-parliamentary boroughs. Unless we • non-par are in-
"formed precisely what the Government intend to do with
them, I think I have shown the house that it is impos-
sible for us to form any opinion as to -the expediency
of the change they propose, and of the appropriateness
of the sum which they fix for the amount of the
county franchise, unless we have before us further in-
formation. And what is the amendment of the noble lord?
It asks for that further information. And what surprises
me is that the amendment should have been resisted. I do
not see why it should not have been anticipated, and why
the Government should not have felt that they have taken
a false step. It is unfair to say that the opposition was the
cause of the Government taking this limited move. That
is not only unjust—that is not only ungenerous, but it is
not a well-founded charge. It is upon record that although
we disapproved of the measure of Lord Russell in 1860, it
was permitted to be read a second time, being a competitive
measure. Therefore our opposition is not open to that
charge, and I never can understand why the Chancellor of
the Exchequer should have taken the view which he has
taken in this case, and which he hasavowel with somuch
bitterness, relative to the amendment of the noble lord.
It is not only a rational amendment, but an amendment
expressed iu language so clear, so simple, and so significant
that it cannot be misunderstood. I know there is nothing
so difficult as to draw up an amendment. But Lord Rus-
sell in his time was considered as able to devise a cunning
amendment as any man. And if the amendment of the
noble lord (Grosvenor) were a device, as some have pre-
tended it to be, instead of a reflex of his own mind—if it
were a cunning amendment, I can imagine that Earl Rus-
sell must have felt the sympathy of a master mind. But
what is the motion that would have suited the Chancellor
of the Exchequer ? The Opposition has been most unjustly
attacked. The house is not satisfied with the course
which you have taken. It is impossible for us not to op-
pose it. (Cheers.) If the noble lord had not come forward,
somebody on this side of the house must have done so.
(Ministerial cheers.) The principle of a complete measure
has been approved of, and we must have opposed the
measure for the reasons I have stated in reference to the
county franchise. (Cheers.) I want to know, under these
circumstances, what motion the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would like. The other day I was looking over the
records of a celebrated assembly—l will not say so cele-
brated as the House of Commons, although no doubt men
as illustrious belonged to it—l allude to the records of a
period precisely similar to the present. It was at the time
the great Reform Bill was introduced in 1831. The country
was greatly agitated, and in that assembly the whole ques-
tion was brought forward and a motion was made on the
subject on May 16, 1831, at Wyatt's rooms. The Parlia-
mentary Reform Bill was brought before the Oxford Union,
and an ardent member (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) moved
the following resolution :—" That the present Ministry is
incompetent to carry on the Government of the country."
(Cheers and laughter.) That motion was supported—one
remembers it almost with a sigh—b_y Mr. Sidney Herbert.
But there was a member who was not satisfied with Mr.
Hugessen's amendment, and on the next day he moved
the following rider :—" That the Ministry has unwisely in-
troduced and most unscrupulously forwarded a measure
which threatens not only to change the form of our Go-
vernment, but untimely to break up the very foundations
of social order, as well as materially to forward the views
of those who are pursuing these projects throughout the
civilised world." (Cheers and cries of " Oh, oh.") Now I
shall be willing to take that amendment instead of that of
the noble lord now before the house. It was moved by
Mr. Gladstone, of Christ Church. (Cheers and laughter.)
It only proves how difficult it is to devise an amendment
that will please everybody. But that is an amendment to
which I should be prepared fully to assent, because I
think the Ministry have "unwisely introduced, and most
unscrupulously forwarded," a measure of similar descrip-
tion. (Cheers.) I wish to speak strictly with reference
to the amendment of the noble lord ; but there is one point
connected with a clause in the bill on which I must
just touch. I mean the clause referring to leasiholds.
(Hear.) That alone would prevent us entertaining the
present bill, because it is a suggestion that has not been
made with a sufficient knowledge of the subject. It has
always been considered a great anomaly that free-
holders in towns should vote in counties on behalf of
freeholds that were in towns. At the time of the Re-
form Bill Lord Althorp was favourable to a provision
that all freeholders should vote where freeholds
were situated. (Hear, hear.) The Cabinet did not take
that line, but there was a stout resistance on the part of
certain Whig gentlemen (hear, hear). A great deal is to
be said in favour of the old franchise. We attempted to
deal with it, not merely because it was an anomaly, because
it had been terribly abused, but a number of split votes
had been made. I do not think it can be defended, but
still prescription was in its favour. Government have,
however, gone out of their way to aggravate the ano-
maly (hear). I think they must have done so without un-
derstanding what the effect would be, because my hon.
friend the member for Stamford told us the other night
that in a town in his district 5,000 voters would be added
under this qualification (hear). I wish now to speak of
the borough franchise. The reduction of that franchise
is the real cause of the introductien of this bill, and the
wish to introduce the working classes to a fair share of the
franchise is the real motive for reducing the franchise. I
speak on the subject without reserve, because it would not
be becoming a public man to speak on such a subject with
reserve (hear). I shall divest the question of all sentiment.
After the speeches of the right hon. baronet the member
for Herts, and of the noble lord the member for Stamford,
I need not say a word on that point. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer has heard quite enough of sentimentality,
and I have no wish to taunt him on that subject. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer asks if we are afraid of the
working men. I don't think that is the question before
us. I take it for granted that gentlemen on this side are
not afraid of working men or anything else. (Hear,
hear). The question is not whether we are afraid of
working men, but whether we can improve the consti-
tution (hear, hear). I take the constitution of England to
be not a phase, but a fact. I hold it to be founded on strict
psinciples, and to have definite aims (hear, hear). I hold
the constitution to be a monarchy limited by co-ordinate
bodies of subjects vested with privileges and duties
for their own defence and for the common good (hear,
hear.) They are called Estates of the Realm, and of these
is the Estate of the Commons, of which we are the represen-
tatives. Of course, the elements of the Commons must
vary and be modified according • to the vicissitudes and
changes in a country like England. (Hear.) Nevertheless,
in the original scheme of the Plantagenets, which always
guided us, the Commons consisted of the proprietors of
land, citizens, burgesses, and skilled artisans. I wish to
preserve, to foster, and, if necessary, to increase that eles,
but I wish to retain the original character of the
from
the
constitu-
tion, to legislate in its spirit, and not to departments of
genius of the original scheme. (Hear.) The elements in
any estate of the Commons must be ample an
(Hear.) Our
any age like this, and they must be
choice.
gh to be inde-
constituent body should be
numeroeuspousible. (Hear.) We,
pendent, and select enough to be rosy
do not represent an
the representatives of the comantbody,
of men endowed with
indiscriminate multitude, but
and also entrusted with duties
privileges which they enjoY,(Ha
(Hear,
bear._
) When we had
which they must
perrrain 1858-59 we had to discuss what
to consider this
questionk'lled artisans was in the Plantagenet
the proportion of s.
it was represented to b
about
scheme, and after inquiry
one-eight '
h of the constituent body. That did not seem to
us We had tohow that
to be enough. (Hoar.) consider
number could be increased, and first whether that should
be done by a reduction of the borough franchise. We be-
lieved that to be a convenient arrangement, andwe decided
never to hesitate taking the question whether we should
reduce the borough franchise, or whether we should exclude
the working classes from a fair share of electoral power.
We never hesitated on that point. - (Hear.) We believed
that it was most dangerous to reduce the borough franchise,
for we did not see, if this reduction we
re commenced,where
it was to end, and we thought that the reduction would
n9t obtain the_ entrance into the constitutive 9t the Yer7

stad htnei peoplestaduveGuo npuc
rvwenb
oedrh carefulndbo
body. (Cheers.)
eenytheo
other
r considerationdesiredme as to see admitted. But we e-n..
4o obtain
wt tbis
calculatedresultthat for
by them
t
other means, some of which
sh. h)e hdT
doublehh ae vhe
house
bsetei
ineknowsaadoptedmou
nwt
hfor from
what was
nheu s
con_t bh by
fortune of those efforts of ours, and I do not for a moment
wish to dwell upon the subject. The Chance u
lloermoef
ntla:
Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the
partment taunted me because in 1859 I had expressed a
willingness, on the part of the Govornmentof Lord Derby,
to reduce, if necessary, the borough franchise ; but there
was no inconsistency in this expressionof mine. Sir, in out
appeal to the country we had todeal with a majority of
140 against us, and it was difficult to know what the effect
of the appeal was, to know where the
emnaprity were. We
nrt 'st iedde ref i te. aftere vet But,hi sir, appealil hasna
were bound not to decrseeerritBeatshd9ey?Stol4Ablepoee
y
to this question, b-aTerabee
tneoloattphhsieendcg,o u
which, happened
hw, ewewiinteh
regard
the most remarkable in the history of England, for thoughia
the working classes arc prosperous, and in a state of co-
tentment, they have not been studying tho principles on
which the representation ought to be founded ; on the con-
trary, during these seven years, while the country was thus
progressive in its prosperity, the intellect of England and
the thought of the most intelligent, and cultivated, and*
most enlightened of the country, have most intently been
studying the principles of representation, and considering
those questions which hitherto have baffled statesmen.
(Hear.) Sir, Ido not give it as my opinion, but I give it
as my observation of what I believe to be the opinion of
the country—the opinion which regulates the affairs of this
country—that the opinion of the cultivated, the thoughtful,
the impartial, and the responsible, who view with favour,
and are desirous that the choicest members of the working
classes should form a part, and notan unimportant part, of
the state of the Commons, recoils from obtaining this en.
by gross and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise.
(Cheers.) That I believe to be the real opinion of the country
and nobody has advanced that opinion more than the hop,
member for Westminster himself. I listened with surprise
to the speech made the other evening, because it was not at
all consistent with his writings, and with those opinions of
his which have so much influenced the convictions of
society. (Cheers.) I do not taunt him with anything he
wrote 25 years ago. I speak only of his present writings.
I will speak only of the last edition of his latest book--
written after the failure of 1859—written after that experi-
ment of Lord John Russell, and when his mind was full of
political events, and after he had abundant opportunities
to think over the subject. All that I read there is en-
tirelycoofn
tshi see
et e
franchise.nt
gwith the views of the hon4entleman,
reductionnow,
.ir. fdrigoie
sme
do
indiscriminate,
ihntehont purport
however, of his
g a st p eh er cthh. ea st
here ho is
from the mosts i n favour
rt
has, I know, been alwavutifenend.the hon.
ngoetnatnleimllimani.tabnleo
dmuoceddifiaandyybgysentlemitainonoan
favour of an extension of the
of a character which
franchise,might
have
induced
this There
side of the house
to accept his proposition. (Cheers.)
to have been a representation of minoritaiewasa(nAcedlirntuatinhhlayt
chapter he said I was aiblunderer for refusing it.
I do not care what is said so that nothing is done laugh.)
do not approve of. (A laugh.) Then, again, plurality of
voting is strongly enforced by the hon. gentleman ; hut
we did not hear of the rights of minorities or of plurality
of in his speech the other night. (Cheered
admitthat tingthe hon. member is not only for an extended
which I am not sure I myself would not advocate universal
suffrage to-morrow. (Cheers and laughter.) The first
principle is one upon which I need not dwell—it is that the
suffrage should not be confined to the dark sex. (A laugh.)
I have always agreed that with universal suffrage women
have as much right to vote as men ; and more than that,
women in possession of property in a country where they
can hold manorial rights, and sometimes elect a church-
warden. (Cheers.) But there is another condition,
and it is one to which I must call the attention of the
house, and particularly that of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. It is that no man shall exercise the
franchise who does not pay taxes. Gentlemen below
the gangway, I know, will say, " Ob, everybody
pays taxes—on tea, sugar, and tobacco." But that will not
do for the hon. gentleman. He says, "I do not mean indi-
rect taxation—indirect taxes are no security whatever for
the prudence of individuals or the fitness of them to have
the vote—l must have direct taxes." Well, that seemed to
me rather a difficulty—but I have immense confidence in
tenspceh,earn,e yßouut
hephieelolsvoepdh.ers—ste(a teemlauengha)n—d anp
edit
tlt
elraneswetrheeednifftercruelwty ldreweoeuef
pt
ehrai
dmoenn
not
tgheetymliuveehineutht eeflitmhietmed spifthheerey
loefavexe
a philosopher is an exuberant and an imaginative being,
and the hon. gentleman was ready with an admirable expe-
dient, although it was certainly more simple than original;
and that was a poll-tax. (Hear, and laughter.) He said,
"We must have universal suffrage in this country, but
every man must pay direct taxation, and what I propose is
that there should be a poll-tax." Well, it is a great thing
to have a future; and we now know what will be the future
of this country when the philosophical Cabinet, which I
understand is intended, shall take its place on those
benches. (Laughter.) We know that there are preparing
in the same armoury measures for imposing a poll-tax on
England, combined with compulsory education and com-
pulsory cleanliness. (Renewed laughter.) I say we shall
then be the admiration of cosmopolitan Europe, but this
I fear, that before nine months shall have passed away
the country will be in a state of insurrection. (Hear, and
continued laughter.) There is one point of primary import-
ance which ought not to beevaded in this debate. I have laid
down my views as to the position of the working classes
with reference to their share in the constituencies. I wish
tt
oh ehma
vteo
at
na kaed h:uiart pe osshi
at iroenoifntthhaet g
re s teaatte
aonf
dt hperiC.
vollme
gmeodnh
es and.
But But what is the number of the working classes at present
enfranchised ? That is a subject on which the greatest
mystery exists, and on which the information that had been
given to the house seems to have startled;everybody, and
the ministers more than and
,other persons; and 'yet it
appears to me that it is one on which we ought to
have accurate information before wo can give any
opinion upon this bill. There is one very startling fact.
We used to be told when we had to deal with questions of
this kind—we used always to be told that before the Re-
form Bill all the freemen and scot and lot voters were
working men. That was always taken for granted; but
now it turns out that at no period before the Reform Bill
the majority of the freemen and the scot and lot voters
were working men. On the contrary they were to be found
in different classes of society, and many of them were
among the gentry. We have a return of the number of
freemen at the present moment. The freemen and scot
and lot voters now amount to 60,478, of whom 28,000
belong to the working classes, so that the working classes
form 45 per cent. of the whole body. That may be taken
as a very good estimate of the relative proportions of the
different classes at the timo of the Reform Bill. There
were then 108,000 freemen and scot and lot voters, of whom
48,000 may be assumed to have belonged to the working
classes. At the time of the Reform Bill there were 174,000
£lO householders, and the working men appear to have
then amounted to 68,000, while they are now, accordingto
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 128,000, so that they
must have increased by 90 per cent. The result would be
that they would form one-third of the borough population.
One-third of the borough population is rather a fair pro-
portion, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says one-
fourth of the borough population, and if you take borough
and county population it is only one-seventh. I think thisis
a fallacy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you want
to estimate the amount of the working class interest in a
borough you should calculate it by the borough constituency;
if you do not you get a great preponderance; and if you want
to calculate the number of the working lass you must take
both counties and boroughs. On that subject we have no
information. Did I say nothing ? (Hear, hear.) For I have
something here which is rather startling. The other night
the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to doubt the state-
ment that the working classenhad any share in
constituencies, and he spoke of the "fly in the pot ofoEnar_.
ment." I have a doubt whether the Chancellor of
kn theow
the
chequer was right, and that he did not seem. the county
.t
ntoto most
effect of the Land Society. On this I could
ego
into
so. When
in-
teresting details, but at this late hourl
first I entered Parliament there wtheer
population.
orkshireman of the highest
man, and now they are a s.A
shire and Hertfordshire whixeretylt
sass
has almost as thorouagnhd
class, and the l
the xvidd e l 0
the middle
e las authorityssocially
ally gives
b:inovnag: le ssi:
is
upper class, ing to the middle class ; and th
hear.) But go to the north :s
ofreceiving
township,e'l
vi: aegneneso itnoHl3a eue
:rrigkehine an
analysesa glan ir:o
wortas of this township,
the3cooam. eWslietsoettsnliateldt-biDijegree are upwards of 15 nen ayknW
declaresoaN‘g. lee
knowledge
ligaetd aeortf
this women
Working men, at
weekly
wages, who possess the suffrage in the West Rid-
ing. (Cheers, and a single cry of
But gentleman
says
Nmoa"n fromwhots sae
ys sMiniste-
rias
l benches.) A
" No ;" but he may
him—anddige h
digest it at hei ss leisure.
aynshalllt
Conservative agent for South Derb
shir Ido not knowt
ianllSothuathtDenearbty..sfahrmireetrhsereanadreeisntoa
40s. freeholders than
estate
holders put together. I think I have shown that the
condition ofithe working classes in the West Riding is not
such as has been stated. (Hear, hear.) Tho question is,
have they or have they not their fair share of that estate
of Which they are and care to be members ? (Hear, bear.)
I say that you should inquire, that you should pause, that
you should obtain a great amount of information before you
make a change; but, above all, that you should act in the
spirit of the English constitution. I think that this house
should remain a House of Commons, and not merely a
house of the people, not the house of a Flom indiscriminate
multitude, devoid of any definite idea, and not responsible
to society, having no duties and no privileges. Are we
to consider this subject in the spirit of the constitution, or
are we to meet it in the spirit of the American constitu-
tion ? (Hear.) I prefer to consider the question in the spirit
of our own constitution. I approve of American institu-
tions as they are adapted to the country in which they
exist. The point that I alvtays consider is, whether the
institutions of a country are adapted to the country where
they flourish. But Ido not think that because certain
class of institutions may suit America, that therefore it
should suit England. If I could see a body of intelligent

•
-. • ' _ - - _
THE SUN, Lt)NDON, SATURDAY EV ENI.NCr, APRIL 28, 1866.
• •
rIPERIAL PARLIAMENT aural interest and to give the preponderance to the work- him what the currency was to Sir Ti. Peel. No man knew that ought to exist ? (Cheers.) The lion. member for
o(tsplfritethecheehia.surdi.n)oblhe,eeTisin.hnpmemlaaercndiegeti—hnattaPhnaaedrnpl.riwaigvmheanietenethlte,mmneaeontrinahgnau.:
ing classes, characterising it as the commencement of a its points more completely, or was more fully acquainted Rochdale— been laid on this table which gives us a]
contest between rich and poor, aristocracy and democracy. with all the bearings of the case. Lord Russell and Lord Mr. BRIGHT dissented.
whattheenirzayge
Mr. BAINES, on the other hand, as a sincere friend to Derby were the only two existing statesmen who had been
Mr. DISRAELI—WeII he may be or some of the hon.
HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING. our mixed form of government, defended the bill as calcu- concerned in passing the Reform Bill of 1832, and it was
member's friends may be;standing for' Rochdale, and per-
in.te newspapers—in ps anpeecress—s
necessary
order e
me
too a influence
sk was pt.).
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack lated to unite all classes by doing justice to large masses well known that to their youthful energies the success of
lips not very high on the poll, but sufficiently so to make at five o'clock, of our fellow-countrymen. He referred to the statistics of the measure was greatly, if not entirely, indebted. There- „„, . . .