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

tit does not remove the real solid objection to the mea-
sure. (Hear.) Then the noble lord the member for
Lynn argued with great force that the question of redistri-
bution must comebefore 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 to attempt anything of this kind. (Ilea; 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 (Mr. Goschen) told
us that the Government have chosen the course of conduct
they have followed because by it they might be able to give
something which otherwise they would 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 theßeforrußill 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 £6 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 thati 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 had 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 member for 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. It was 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 statistics ;
here are principles enough for you, take that and go your
way." (Opposition cheers.) There, again, Ido not think
he 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 rechauffee 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 t
we stand—the whole of this
° the
present position in which
treatmento amounts to a syste-
matic attempt to degrade and lower er the House of Commons
(Opposition cheers.) No doubt
s gentlemen do not
think so (hear, hear); they
are accustomedcirneeh to measures
much more drastic and stringent. Nevertheless,
indignity does touch gentlemen and rnev:roteless, a little
of
h
tens of even small consequence. (Oh, oh, and irsn7at-
admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not
written
letters asking 'people to come down to the Reuse
ofcemons, and fill the streets and hoot members on their Wt
here (laughter)— I admit that he has not done a great man;
things, and therefore I would say, with the hon. member
for Westminster (Mr. Mill)—
" Habes pretium—
Non paces in truce corvos,"
which I much prefer to "cruse non figeris." Now, let 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
common
ground when I attempt to argue any case with a
man ; but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I can find
ndeomnea.detoh
knowargae the matter in this way. Some people
committed that theft
fault the House of Commons has
away and destroyed state of things should be swept
produce a bill of indictment he says that he is not bound to
make us better, and to ithat all that he wants is to
strengthend our institutions. But he
entirely omits to show, he
this bill would do this. (Rear,
iioet attempt to show, that
hear. I drew out for him
on a small scale a humble estimate
the House of Com-
mons, its good and bad qualities, °f
challenged him to
dimeinuiaspientghee, eviland
show how his proposed measure wnotli
not put it
and increase the good. No one acceptedd
the right hon. gentleman did not answerthei
npon that ground. I put it on this : that Ithe believe is
de-
liberately set upon averting his eyes from
determined to look at the question, as the hon. me and
Birmingham says, merely as one of justice, wietmhber for
expediency, the good of the State, the destiny of thisNvcchnlich
try for future ages, has nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman says, "I am not bound to produce an
indictment to people who say that a fault should be found
before a remedy is applied ; assume that the franchise is
an evil, whilst I assume that the franchise is a good in
itself." You will find the same argument running through
the speech. He says, "I wish to give the franchise to
204,000 persons, because they are our fellow Christians."
Is that an argument for admitting the 204,000 persons?
Who is there in tbis country who does not profess to be
a Christian ? It is an argument for admitting the
whole male and perhaps the female population—(great
laughter and cheers)—but it is no argument for admitting
the 204,000 more than anybody else. So, again, in the
same speech, be spoke of " fathers of families," but that
is not peculiar to the British race, and also " tax-
Payers," or, as I should prefer to call them, consumers of