The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-27 00:00:00

tit does not remove the real solid objection to the mea-
sure. (Hear.) T hen the noble lord the member for King's
Lynn argued with great force that the question of redistri-
bution must come before the present constituency. or before
the constituency that it was proposed to create. In the
first instance the house would be really legislating with a
"halter round its neck," while in the other case the ques-
tion would be decided by an entire constituency. But
the Government profess no confidence in the body so pro-
posed to be created, because if this bill passes, they pro-
pose to make an alteration. The hon. member for West-
minster (Mr. Mill) tries to meet this by saying, "we should
be satisfied with the bill as it stands." But how does that
matter stand ? The question is whether the Government
is content. According to the mode in which it is proposed

to deal with this question it is evident that the matter
would fall into the hands of an eminently transitional con-
stituency. This is an argument ad homines, and the argu-
ment of the hon. member for Westminster is worth
nothing at all. This, then, is the great obstacle in the
way of any one who wants to get to the bottom of the
subject. It seems to me that, on the clearest grounds
of self-respect and dignity, and with proper regard to the
honour of this house, we ought not to allow any Govern-
ment inent to attempt anything of this kind. (Hear, hear.)
But
there is another motive in this matter besides the hope of
the pleasure of a victory over the House of Commons. The
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster(s r. Goschen) told
us that the Government have
ichosente
the
course of conduct
they have followed becauseb y t b
something which otherwise they wouldymight able to
give
not be able to
con-
cede. That is a statement that lays open large grounds for
conjecture, but the convictions of a Government must be
very strong when they are prepared to risk their existence
upon them. A member who sits for any borough likely
to be disfranchised has a right to put the worst construc-
tion upon such a statement. I have dealt with several
arguments adduced in this debate, but I must say a few
more words upon the subject of the franchise, lest it should
be said that I have not addressed myself sufficiently to the
state of things now proposed to be established. The arith-
metical effect of the admission of 144,000 new householders
in the boroughs would be to make this change you would
have 95, in which the working classes would have the ma-
jority, you would have 93 in which they would have almost
a majority, and you would have 85 in which they would
show a considerable proportion. (Cheers.) Then the
rating is lower than the rental, and in 30 boroughs the
Assessment Act never came into operation at all, these
comprising a population amounting to one-half of the
boroughs. There is also a constant tendency for the rental
to rise above the rating, and in any calculations on this
subject considerable allowance must be made for this fact.
The number of electors that would be added would also be
considerable, if you bear in mind that many houses now
of lower rental would be raised to £7, and the result of all
would be that about 334 borough seats would be brought
under the influence of the working classes. The argument
upon this point has been put very ably by Mr. Baxter—l do
not allude to the hon. member for Montrose—(laughter)
who has discussed the subject in a very able pamphlet. Ac-
cording to the statements there contained it appears that, in
the three decades since the Reform Bill the increase of voters
has been 43 per cent. in the first decade, 23 per cent. in the
second, and 20 per cent. in the third. If such has been
the increase of the £lO ;householders during this period,
how much greater will be the increase if you come to in-
clude houses of £9, of £B, and of £7 rental ? That lode
has been pretty well worked out; go to a new one and
the same process will go on. The £7 franchise will eat
up the and the £5. The £7 franchise is about 2s. 9d.
a week, and £6 lOs is about 2s. 6d. a week. See how easy
it is to advance by a few pence a week that can be very
often made up in some way. (Hear, hear.) however,
that is my honest conviction in the matter, but I cannot
pretend to give it to the house with any confidence, for I
have not the materials for demonstrating what I say any-
thing more than the result of the Government figures as
to its immediate effects. But the Government having
supplied the matter, it should be taken in the strongest
way against them. Now, I come to the treatment of this
house by the Government. Before the house came into
existence in its corporate capacity the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment set to work to devise a plan of reform, and when
we came together we were treated much more like con-
demned criminals than "friends in council." (Cheers).
The right hon. gentleman forebore, in his opening speech,
to give anyreasons for bringing in the bill at all ; he in fact
did not think it necessary to give any ground for the sen-
tence they bad passed. He was challenged pretty warmly
by some of us, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did
not reply ; and in his discretion—which it was quite open
for him to do—he reserved his statement for the second
reading. Now what was the next course. The noble lord
the memberfor Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), to whom the
Government owe the suggestion of the statistics, took the
opportunity of asking, and not unreasonably, for a little
more information of some kind. Itwas thought, not unnatu-
rally, that as we knew all about the franchise above £lO,
we should also know a little of it below that sum, and
that after knowing all about the boroughs we should have
some information about the counties. (Opposition cheers.)
This was pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in
an interlocutory debate, but what did he do upon that? He
said, "You shall have no more statistics; throw figures to the
dogs; I'll none of them." (Laughter and cheers.) He said,
" In speaking of the measure, you are measuring and calcu-
lating as if the working classes were an invading army; are
they not fellow Christians, fellow taxpayers, our own flesh
and blood, and why do you capitulate and palter with them
in this manner? We will give you no more, atatiatic,
here are principles enough for you, take that and go your
way." (Opposition cheers.) There, again, Ido not think
be was very polite to my noble friend, and I do not think
he was very respectful to the house. If the Government
undertook to give us statistical information they should be
ready to listen to us when we ask for more—(hear, hear)—
as long as it is in their power to give it. There is no
possible reason why the same machinery that gave us the
statistics above £lO should not give us the statistics below
£lO and £7. I come now to the principle of the bill. It
seems to me to show a foregone conclusion, that the thing
was to be done at Any rate, and that the result was of no
consequence whatever. (Cheers.) I will even go a little
further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give
us the benefit of his first impressions on this question ;
but he went down to Liverpool, and to an audience of his
own friends he gave the reasons for bringing in this bill
which ought to have been laid before us upon the first
reading in his reply ; but he reserved them for the second
reading. I think it was due from the leader of the house
that he should have given us that information when he
first brought forward the bill, and not have kept it for a
select circle of his friends, and in the most inappropriately
named place for the purpose, the Philharmonic Hall.
(Laughter and cheers.) Then, after that the right hon. gen-
tleman and other members of the Government commenced
a sort of scientific agitation throughout the country about
this matter. They got up meetings between the first and
second reading of the bill, before they could possibly know
what the house would do with it, and they put in force
their influence throughout the country wherever it could
be exercised—the influence of agitation—(cheers); and it
was not their fault if it had not in some instances amounted
to the influence of terrorism. (Opposition cheers.) After
these things were over the Chancellor of the Exchequer
came back to the house, and then I admit that he gave us
a languid rechaufee of the arguments that he had used at
Liverpool—the Liverpool baked-meats did coldly furnish
forth the table of the House of Commons. (Opposition
cheers.)
I maintain that from first to last—from the in-
troduction of the measure to the present position in which
we stand—the whole of this treatment amounts to a syste-
matic attempt to degrade and lower
othe House of Commons
(Opposition cheers.) No doubt gentlemen do not
think so (hear, hear); they are accustomedmNeee to measures
Nevertheless, a little
much more drastic and stringent.
tannodnoobur in ma t-
indignity does touch gentlemen and menv
(Oh, oh, ters of even small consequence.
admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has writtennoeters.)i
letters asking people to come down to the Rouse of
Com-
mons, and fill the streets and hoot members on their ahem (laughter)—l admit that he has not done a great many
things, things, and therefore I would say, with the hon. member
for Westminster (Mr. Mill)—
" fla,bes protium—
Non paces in cruce corvos,"
which I much prefer to cruce non figeris." Now, lot us
turn to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I
am so unfortunate that I am quite unable to argue the case
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I seek for
enr"a°ll ground when I attempt to argue any case with a
man ; but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I can find
ndoetinZnitdetobualoawrgued the matter in this way. Some people
committed t
hat thwh at fault the House of Commons.e
has
away and d a present state of things should be pt
estroyed not bound to
produce a bill of i and he says that he is
make us better, and
ddtictment—sthat all that he wants is to
entirely omits t
0 sh:,:treugthen our institutions. But he
this bill would do this: he did not attempt to show, that
on a small scale a humbelear, hear.) I drew out for him
estimate of the House of Com-
mons, its good and bad cluasho how his proposed
ea, and I challenged him to
and increase the good. moue
No „mere would diminish the evil
the right hon. gentleman did noateeaspted the challenge, and
upon that ground. I put it on thisn•etwer. I will not put it
liberately sot upon averting his eyes.hfat I believe he is de-
determined to look at the question, as the the results, and
Birmingham says, merely as one of justice
member for
expediency, the good of the State, the destine With
Which
try for future ages, has nothing to do. (Hear, hear.)
fethiscoun-
right hon. gentleman says, "I am not bound to paere.)d The
indictment to people who say that a fault should beufc: and
before a remedy is applied ; assume that the franchisuen'
an evil, whilst I assume that the franchise is a good in
itself." You will find the same argument running through
the speech. ID says, " I wish to give the franchise to
201,000 persons, because they are our fellow Christians."
Is that as argument for admitting the 204,000 persons?
Who is there in this country who rioPs not profess to be
it Christi ,n ? It i; n r .r..rion-nt for admittirnz th
whole mad: ,bit I, t I, pH' ,tion— (gre,
laughter awl "ut it i no ar;.;unient to' a•la!,ti ,
the 204,1100 rin.re than aurbody else. th
but th
same 5p,....11, h f of
• • 1. • —fro.an ,sl'" tux

I t br.M, (.612Stinie.r8