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

VIE Stth.

SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, ISO.

not as an invading army, but as something more—as an
invading ambush, which was to bring ruin and conflag-
ration into the devoted city—when I SAW he had not re-
ceded from or recanted any of those unfortunate opinions
of his, but rather cast upon them the light of fresh illus-
tration— then, I say, when these extraordinary opinions
enter into minds of such power, it is time to fall back
upon elementary truths. The noble lord the member for
Stamford also cast censure upon my expressions, and he is
at liberty to do so, if he can show that I used them either
there or elsewhere. What I have said in the nature of pla-
titudes, of truisms, or revolutionary maxims—for they pass
under the whole of these designations as may suit the taste
of different persons—(laughter)—what has been E 0 said
has been said in reference to declarations made by persons
of the greatest weight in this house and to the tumult and
tempestuous cheers which those declarations have been re-
ceived. (Cheers.) But lam thankful to admit that those
cheers, tumultuous and overpowering as they were, did
not represent the universal sentiment on the other side of
the house. My hon. and learned friend the member for
Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) who has taken no part in this de-
bate, spoke the other night—on the occasion of his motion
with respect to the malt duties—spoke of the-merits and
the virtues of the working classes in a manner that con-
vinced me he entertained none of those ungenerous senti-
ments. 'I think I may appeal to my noble friend Lord
Stanley, that it was not I who introduced into these de-
bates expressions of that colour and character. It was
not from my opening speech that they arose, and as-
suredly as long as your debates are conducted after the
form and manner of the noble lord, I may venture to
promise he will hear frem me none of those expressions
(Hear, hear.) Coming now to the retrospect of this debate:
Notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. member for
Bucks, it is inevitable that nay attention should chiefly
rest upon the remarkable speech we heard yesterday from
the right hon. member for Caine. I will not attempt to
deal with that speech in detail, and that for many reasons,
one of them perhaps is a disinclination to measure swords
with such a champion. (Opposition cheers.) Well, that
oomplimentary cheer at any rate follows my own admis-
sion. One other reason I have in my recollection, and a
third in his votes. I cannot forget, however he may for-
get his connection with men who sit here—l cannot forget
the services which my right hon. friend has rendered as a
public man. (Hear, hear.) But with regard to his votes,
while I know of no language strong enough to express
the grief and astonishment with which I heard his present
opinions on the question of reform, it is evident from the
frame and working of his mind I think he is entitled to
the admission that he is pursuing the dictates of his con-
science, and that upon general subjects his judgments are
sound and liberal. With regard to his speech, when I
think of the power it displayed, I own I am lost in admi-
ration, although I myself was the subject of a fair share of
its thrusts and cuts. But when I come to think what was
the end and upshot of that speech—when I saw the right
hon. gentleman exaggerating more and more his fears and
apprehensions for the future, and colouring more and more
highly the phantom visions which he raised—then, 1 say
my admiration was lost in grief and astonishment. lam
reminded of the story which was written for the Princess
Palatine. The story was of a young prince to whose
christening all the fairies came. Each bestowed some
Went upon the child, but the fairy which had not been in-
vited came soon afterwards, and said, " Yes I find the baby
has been presented with all the talents but one, and that is
the talent of knowing how to use them." (Great laughter.)
The argument of my right hon. friend, powerful as it was,
rested upon what I must call a series of unfounded and
erroneous assumptions. We are told that Government has
insulted the House of Comops—we hear of degradation
tyranny, despotism—these are some of the powers of speech
applied in the course of this debate by moderate Liberals
forsooth to the Government. (Laughter and cheers.) Is
that a true charge? The right hon. gentleman is not accus-
tomed to deal with generalities, but, taking hold of an ex-
pressionform c—" o hk In
euws ewd
twh whenh
ms p ehaokhi na hg
to of
dt he
aer cLu ehset i
saide oi
tf
was intended for the House of Commons, and consequently
that the House of Commons was insulted. Now, I did not
apply the expression to the House of Commons, but I will
tell you to whom I did apply it. I certainly did not apply
it to either the right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) or to the right hon.
gentleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), for
they are gentlemen friendly to a reduction of the borough
franchise ; and if I had done so I should have been guilty
of the grossest injustice. But does my right hon. friend re-
collect the works of Aristophanes ? In one of his plays,
comedian
og rebuke to one
round
andadodf
turnsa ohsisse
sc hh ai
sr aacut
de ri
es
o,
et he e
thusga•ea
t
" But, now any good Athenians, pray recollect lam not
speaking of a set, nor of the public, I am only speaking of
a certain depraved and crooked little man." (Laughter.)
Well, I was not speaking of the House of Commons, I was
speak of certain depraved and crooked little men. (Great
laughter and cheers.) And I frankly own I was speaking
first and foremost of nay right hon. friend. We knew we
had to deal with my right hon. friend, especially upon
this question. We knew he was opposed to the exten-
sion of . the borough franchise— that he was opposed to
reform in every shape. (Cheers.) Nevertheless, though
so opposed we cannot get my right hon. friend to say so
by his vote. (Cheers.) He will not consent to vote di-
rectly against the second readin of this bill ; but con-
tending that the bill is a bad bill he desires to vote for the
amendment on the ground that though he thinks it is
a bad bill, we ought, in his opinion, to 'have added to
it another bad bill. (Loud cheers and laughter.) There-
fore, I think I was justified in saying that we know with
whom we have to deal. The second head of the indict-
ment was that, after producing a certain amount of sta-
tistics, we said that no more information should be pro-
duced. But what took place was this : That when the de•
mand for more statistics was directed to the anatomy of
classes, and particularly of the working classes, in a man-
ner which seemed to reach the point of conviction, I said,
on the part of the Gnvernment, that we would be no party
to the further production of such statistics. The third
proof that we are consulting the House of Commons is,
that the measure for the redistribution of seats is kept back
from mere wantonness. But that is not the case. The
great apprehension that we had was, that not only the
representatives of small boroughs, but the enemies of the
reduction of the franchise, would make use of the wilder-
ness of details which belong to the redistribution of seats
to perplex and endanger the question, so as to make legis-
lation hopeless. Therefore we have adhered to the prin-
ciple that it is the best and safest course to separate the
two questions of reduction of the franchise and redistribu-
tion of seats. But, on the other hand, we do not agree
with the member for Birmingham in thinking that after
dealing with the franchise the question of the redis-
tribution of seats might be reserved until the public
mind had ripened on the -subject. To do so would bo
,a base device on our part, and utterly inconsistent with
the honour and character of the Government, (Cheers.)
And now as to the charge of tyrannising over this
house. If I had been a man who from the very outset
of my career, half a century ago, had with prophetic
foresight fastened on two great groups of questions, those
relating to the removal of civil disabilities, and to pat-
liamentary reform ; had I been a man who in early
youth, iu the first stage of my parliamentary career, had
made these questions my own, had prosecuted them with
sure and unflagging instinct until the triumph had been
achieved ; if my name was associated for 50 years with
every measure of beneficent legislation—bad I been Earl
Russell— there might have been some apology and tempta-
tion for going to some excess in the exercise of authority,
and for applying a pressure to the house which would
otherwise be unjustifiable. But that is not my case. The
right hon. gentleman, secure in the recollection of his own
consistency—(loud cheers)—has taunted me with the errors
of my boyhood. The right hon. gentleman, when he ad-
dressed the member for Westminster, showed his magna-
nimity by declaring that he would not attack the philoso-
pher for what he wrote 40 years ago. But when he caught
one who, 36 years ago, when just emerged from boyhood,
and still an undergraduate at Oxford, expressed opinions
adverse to the Reform Bill of which he had long and bitterly
repented, then he could not resist the temptation—he, a
Parliamentary leader of 20 years' standing, is so ignorant
of the House of Commons, that he thought he had a Par-
liamentary advantage in representing me as an opponent of
the Reform Bill of 1832. As he has so exhibited me, let
me exhibit myself. I deeply regret it. I was bred under
the shadow of the name of Canning. Every influence
connected with that great name governed the politics of my
youth. With Canning I rejoiced in the removal of disabili-
ties, and in the character ho gave to our policy abroad.
With Canning 'rejoiced in the opening he made to freedom
of commercial intercourse with foreign nations. With
Canning, and under the shadow of that name, and under
that of the still greater name of Mr. Burke, I grant that
my youthful mind and imagination were impressed just as
the mature mind of the right hon. gentleman is now im-
pressed. There is this difference, however, between us—
that having these opinions, it seems I moved the debating
society at Oxford to express them clearly, plainly, in
downright forcible English, while the right hon. gentle-
man is obliged to skulk under cover of this amendment.
(Loud cheers.) I envy him not one particle of the ad-
vantage which he has gained by his discreet reference to
the Oxford Union Debating Society. My position in the
Liberal party is the reverse of that of Earl Russell. Earl
Russell might have been misled by his position into at-
tempting to exercise a pressure on this house. I have none.
of the claims he possesses. I came amongst the Liberal
party as an outcast from those with whom I had been pre-
viously connected. I come before you, to use lawyer's
language, in forma pauperis. I have nothing to offer you
but faithful and honourable service. (Loud cheers.) You
received me with kindness, with indulgence, and with
generosity, and I may say even in some measure with con-
fidence. The relation between us is this, that you never
haann roogwtargument, condition
oomlnateloyyninrwi:g.if.lstt
suht
ahbeisejnev individuals(
foundation
ceots
intvi
can be my debtors, but I must be for ever in your debt.
(Cheers.) Now, sir, let me endeavour to state the actual
this is not only a protracted, not only an important debate,
oe's , n
sc
ohu that
persuasivet
mhi sauetcohpartiesHousethe decided
t Commonseortake
eunet iigtit is,
vs,
lihhfaaaoi
an
historical freely lavished on both sides the treasures of its wit, its
f
is
historical debate. We are now making') histoa'ry. We are
is a starting point from which I presume the car.eer we

ratter. Nov, the charge brought against us is this, that
we have introduced a Franchise Bill alone. Is that a
• very great offence? There were two reasons that might
have moved us to it - one was the reason of policy, the do-
• sire to avoid uniting unnecessarily independent combina-
tions of persons, causing them to join together, upon dif-
ferent grounds for the common purpose of rejecting our
bill. I don't think we were influenced by such a motive.
But the conclusive motive was that which I mentioned
in introducing the bill, viz., that the passing of a cone-
• biped bill was impossible, and that if we introduced a
-measure which we knew could not pass the house in the
• time available for its discussion there would not only be
a failure, but that failure would be attended on our part
with the greatest dishonour. We should have met all and
more of the opposition (though of o, different kind) which
has encountered us as leaders at present, and in addition
we should have had the reproach from within that we had
adopted an indirect method of procedure—claiming to be
the friends of Reform while laying upon the table a double
measure which we know the house could not discuss.
Therefore the question of time— the 12 or 24 days' argu-
ment--is disposed of. My noble friend the member for
King's Lynn told us that our alternative was the post-
ponement of our measure till next year. After what has
passed, let the noble lord put himself in our position. Most
of us have made two or three former failures in this matter
of Reform. When we rejected the Government of Lord
Derby because we were not pleased with his bill, and in
1860 again took up the subject, but only dealt with one
part of the question, was it visited upon us with extreme
severity that we thought more of our own honour and of
the honour of our party, than to attempt dealing with more
than we could accomplish ? Was it, then, 80 strange a
thing that, after four Reform Bills had failed, we should
think of varying their form— of putting some of the cargo
out of the ship when we found it impossible to carry the
whole ? The house has never laid down the principle
that it will refuse to entertain the franchise reduction ex-
cept in connection with the distribution of seats. Both
in the cases of the bills of the member for West Sussex,
and the member for Leeds, the principle of reducing the
franchise was recognised without insisting upon the
distribution of seats. In the case cf Ireland, also, we
dealt with its small boroughs and constituencies without
touching the question of redistribution. Moreover, what
did gentlemen say when they went to their constituents ?
I have examined the addresses of a number of the borough
members, and I find that, out of 117 members who en-
tered into particulars on the subject of Reform, not more
than 16 referred to the subject of the redistribution of
seats. (Loud cheers.) It is thus made apparent that
the vast majority of the borough members who alluded
to reform did so simply in connection with its first and
by far its greatest head, namely, the question of the exten-
sion of the franchise. I therefore do not see how the
Government can be blamed as they have been for the
course they have taken in this matter. Then, again,
with regard to the inconvenience of the separation of
the two matters to which I am referring. What was
the case in 1859 ? How did the noble lord then in power
deal with regard to the question of boundaries and the
redistribution of seats ? With respect to the former, he
did nothing but recommend an inquiry which must
have resulted in subsequent legislation, and with refer-
ence to the latter, he • put fifteen seats into his bill,
leaving power to disfranchise afterwards as many as
Parliament chose. And having done this, he complained
of the intolerable inconveniences of making a separation
between the two. (Cheers.) May I say one word upon
an illustration used by the noble lord ? He has told us
that we have got this house, and we should take care
how we touch it. But our object is simply to improve
and make it better. Furthermore, I may call to his re-
collection, as bearing upon the matter of a complete bill,
that five years ago those who sat behind the noble lord
urged the great advantage of having all the chief finan-
cial measures introduced in independent bills. (Cheers.)
The objection has occurred to a great extent, certainly such
as to invite criticism. The right hon. member for Cam-
bridge made a helpful suggestion, and I thank him for it,
when heproposed we should proceed by resolution. We can
easily conceive what the first resolution would be. It
would be very short. Suppose we put a resolution to the
house on such a subject as the reduction of the franchise ;
that might be done. But I want to know how my right
hon. friend would put the redistribution of seats in a reso-
lution. Would he have a resolution saying it is expedient
to take away so many members from 30 or 40 boroughs ?
Would he name those box oughs in the resolution? If he
named them in the resolution, what is the difference be-
tween that and the till ? Nothing would have been gained
by such a course. What is the real merit of our case with
regard to redistribution, which is at the root of the present
difference ? My hon. friend the member for Birmingham,
has said and said truly, and it is demonstrable, that you
might have a scheme cf redistribution such as altogether
to frustrate and to intercept the effect of your reduction
of the franchise- If we were to introduce a scheme of
that kind I admit that anything which might be said
against us •would be warranted, But we are not the
persons to do that. Have we given no indications in
former times as to our intentions with regard to redis-
tribution ? I believe that redistribution, though an im-
portant part of the Franchise Bill, is altogether subject
to the Franchise Bill; because that is limited to a prin-
ciple, and leaves little room for difference of opinion
among fair-minded and moderate men. Our Redistribu-
tion Bills of 1854, 1859, and 1850 have shown some mode
of dividing the seats obtained from small populations be-
tween counties, the enfranchisement of towns, and the
giving of some increase to boroughs. That being so, there
is nothing at all that can fatally affect in any manner a bill
which extends the franchise. The bill of Lord Derby en-
franchised six towns. Birkenhead has been enfranchised
since. These towns have an average population of 20,000;
that is, 120,000 altogether. Well, what is the number of
£7 voters you will create in those towns? It is not worth
considering for a moment. The right•hon. gentleman said
millions might be taken out of the counties and put into
the towns. Just so, if they liked to cook them, as it was
called. No doubt they might make redistribution with a
dangerous intention; but we disclaim such intention. If
that was imputed it should be imputed by an enemy. Dan-
gerous intentions should hardly be imputed by political
friends or confidants. (Hear, hear.) We had decided to do
some things and we have done them. It has been said, and
said assiduously, that we have said redistribution might be
postponed until another year, and that it had nothing to
do with the Franchise Bill becoming law. We have said
neither the one nor the other. We have said the Redistri-
butionßill could not be proceeded with until the Franchise
Bill was secured. That might be upon any stage of the
bill, according to the circumstances of the moment ; but as
to postponing the bill another year, I never said anything
of the sort. I myself said that if it were the pleasure of
the house. to prolong the session during the autumn,
the Government would not be the parties to ob-
ject. I am bound to say that, although that offer
has been made, not ono of the members so keen for
the redistribution of seats has by a single statement shown
they would accept it. (Cheers.) We have said the redis-
tribution of seats is an essential part of any plan of Reform.
We have stated the political necessity which we feel for
staking our existence as a Government on the Franchise
Bill, as well as on that for the redistribution of seats. We
have said also that if the house has a mind to proceed with
despatch, they shall not be retarded by any laziness of
ours. We have been taunted, not altogether unjustly,
with having made further concessions in order to meet the
views of gentlemen who would Wish the bill for the re-
distribution of seats before going into committee on this
bill. What more is required ? (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
If the Franchise Bill falls the Government will fall with
it, and those who wish to redistribute the seats can come
in and redistribute them. (Laughter.) Can anything be
more obvious than that the Government has every con-
ceivable motive to avoid a dissolution ? We have no reason
to think, as my right hon. friend near me pointed out, that
the new constituencies that are in future to be enfran-
chised will bo in our favour. It is in your power to get
quite as great an interest in them if you will depart from
the course you are pursuing, show some trust in them, and
refrain from telling us that in giving them them the franchise
we are Americanising our institutions. As to rumours in
this house, I wish it clearly to be understood our object is
to draw a separation clearly between those who really de-
sire a reduction of the franchise in counties, and above all,
in boroughs, and those who do not. (Loud cheers.) We
shall be loth to quarrel upon a mere question of procedure
with any gentleman in whom we recognise a community
of purpose and object with ourselves. We hold procedure
as secondary to the purpose for which it is introduced.
But we cannot undertake to do this. We cannot under-
take to lose the ground we have gained, for in my opinion
we have gained ground. We will not have prevarication,
and no concealment shall exist if we have power to unveil
it to the public eye. (Loud cheers.) That, sir, is the state
of the case with regard to our intentions on the second
reading of the bill. It is well to understand what is meant
by the second reading of the bill. [Here there was some
interruption to the right hon. gentleman's remarks, occa-
sioned by an observation of an bon. member.] lamgreatly
pained to be compelled to protract this address at so late an
hour in the morning. Let it be clearly understood we are
not debating the question of savings banks, we are not de-
bating the question of the dockyard franchise, nor a ques-
tion of householders in counties—which, after what has
been stated by the hon. member for Staffordshire, may be
a matter for consideration—we do not ask any gentleman
to pledge himself as to the particular figure at which he
would fix the reduction of the franchise. (Opposition
cheers.) We do not conceal our intention. We do not
intend to Dart with that. We cannot part with it. The
question is, Will the house consent to give a vote for the
second reading of a bill for the reducticn of the franchise in
counties and in towns? (No, no, by the Opposition.
Ministerial cheers.) That may not be the question ;n the es-
timation of the hon. gentlemen opposite ; but it seems to me
not unfit that those who move the second reading of a
biil should at any rate put the house in possession of
t hat which they believe to be the intention of the bill.
Have we a reason for asking fOr the second reading of the
bill ? I think we have a strong reason for asking it.
There are two. We gave notice of this bill, and in intro-
ducing it we were saluted from a friend of the Government
with a hostile motion concerted with the opposite party.
(Hear.) My noble friend the member for Chester is a gen-
tleman to whose character I have endeavoured to do jus-

tico. I have now the additional pleasure of doing justice
to*the mildness andtemper of his language ; but he cannot
blind the Government to the severity of his acts. That
motion 'came from a friend—an old and attached friend
and follower, as ho says of Earl Russell ; but was the
motion concerted with the party opposite ? (An Hon.
Member, believed to be Mr. John Hardy, said—" I don't
believe it at all.") Ido not recognise the hon. member as
leader of the party opposite. I recognise only the right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks. (Cheers.) lam
not aware of any case in which any Goverment has con-
sented to accept such a motion so prepared and so pro-
duced. I frankly own, if wo are to be dragged at the
chariot wheels of any man, I should be as willing to be
dragged at my noble friend's chariot wheels as any one I
know. My noble friend said he looked back at his conduct
in 1859. Ho was then so zealous for a reduction of the
borough franchise that he would not hear of allowing the
bill to be read a second time, because it did not do that.
But ho has repented of the vote ho then gave. He sees that
it was an unwise thing to do. He had got a Govern-
ment which had introduced a Reform Bill, and
who were pledged to stand or fall, and the noble
lord said to stop that Government was not the
way to promote Reform, so he repented. But,
strange inconsistency of human nature, at the very moment
he repented of the siu the temptation again presents itself,
and again he falls. (Laughter.) In the very act of making
confession he repeats and renews the offence. The noble
lord is now going to do that very thing. Is our request an
unfair one ? Ido not found it alone on what is necessary
for the Government. An hon. gentleman the other night
quoted Hallam to the effect that " advisers of the Crown
owe a double allegiance—an allegiance to the Crown and
an allegiance to this house. It is their business to consider
as far as in their *power, what their honour requires, and
to consider what is expedient for the public interest, and
what is required for the character and efficiency of this
house." We did think, after all that has happened, after
all the miscarriages which have happened to previous re-
form bills, after all the equivocal and questionable proceed-
ings that have produced those miscarriages, after all the
misfortunes, jealousies, and reproaches which the people
do not understand but of which they see the effect, after the
total stoppage for the time of the movement of reform, we
did ieel it was essential in our judgment for the position
and honour of this house, in the eyes of the country, forits
retaining the full confidence of the country, that when it
had been asked of Ministers of the Crown its opinion on the
plain and simple question of the reduction of the franchise
in counties and boroughs—a question which in these gene-
ral terms cannot possibly be affected by any shadow or
substance of the redistribution of seats—we did feel that in
our judgment it was necessary to ask the house for an answer
to that question before proceeding to any other. (Cheers.)
That is what we thought, but I think we may ask some-
thing of my noble friend. He aims a blow at the Govern-
ment. He is perfectly entitled to do it; but there was a
wish of one of the old heroes of that country to which my
right hon. friend and myself so often refer, a very simple
wish, which, when translated into English, says, "Let us
die in the daylight." (Cheers.) I ask my noble friend that
we may die in the daylight. (Loud cheers, and some laugh-
ter, caused probably by the near approach of dawn.) My
noble friend's real hostility to this bill is not founded on
the circumstance that it contains no clause for the redis-
tribution of seats—(hear, hear)—but on the fact of its being
a bill for the reduction of the franchise in towns. (Cheers.)
That is beyond all question. He differs vitally from the
Government on that subject. Ido not complain, but it is
not too much to ask that he should state it in plain words.
But when he asks for a seats bill to be given along with
the franchise bill, I ask him, supposing the seats bill is fair
and unobjectionable, will he then support the franchise
bill? (Cheers.) I think that if a fair challenge, and in
the answer to that challenge, or upon the no answer to
that challenge the judgment of the country may very well
depend. (Cheers.) Then I come to my right hon. friend
(Mr. Lowe). He states, as the last head of his indict-
ment,.that we have no good reasons for our bill. Com-
menting on the statement of the hon. member for Caine
with reference to his fierce denunciations of any admis-
sions below the £lO franchise, and his description of the
classes below that limit being more and more drunken
—that is as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put li—
the more and more unfit, he went on to say that
the honourable member for Caine asked if the franchise
was good in itself, and returned a House of Commons which
worked well, what need was there for alteration ? I ad-
mit, said the right hon. gentleman, that the pOrformance of
the House of Commons place it far ahead of all other legis-
lative assemblies in the world, but it does not follow that
it cannot be improved. I will toll you the points in which
I think it can be improved. An eminent man still alive
said, after the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, "The
unreformed Parliament used to job for individuals, the
reformed Parliament jobs for classes." (Hear, hear.) Now
I think the influence of class is too strong in this house,
and that public influence is too weak. I speak thus from
my own experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Secondly, I believe that a freer representation of the work-
ing classes would supply us with that description of mem-
bers whom we want, viz., those who would look not to the
interests of class, but to the public interest. I mean this
as no reproach to parties or classes, but merely as an an-
swer to the challenge of the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lowe) to show what reason there was for the introduction
of this bill. Meeting next the charge of a want of public
interest in the success of the measure, the right hon. gentle-
man, in confirmation of what Mr. Bright bad said, stated
that an examination of the public returns showed that
between the 11th and 17th of April 187 petitions, signed
by the chairmen of public meetings bad been presented,
to which were appended 50,000 signatures. Grappling
next with the argument of the bill destroying the Eng-
lish constitution and Americanising our institutions, he
said, lowering the franchise, so far from doing either one
or the other, was only a return to old English principles,
which had succeeded before and would succeed now. He
showed that since the passing of the Reform Act of 1852
the power of the working people had become less and less
in the constituencies, and that diminution had not been
in any way counteracted, and went on to say : I will now
prove this diminution of electors in boroughs, not since
1832, but since 1851-52. Now, I pray the house to ob-
serve these few particulars. In 1851-52 the total electors
were 410,000 ; in 1865 they were 509,000. The increase
is 99,000—that is 24 per cent., 1-7 per annum. That is the
increase of electors in boroughs. Now we will look at the
population of the boroughs. In the year 1851 there were
7,186,00; in 1866, as computed in the regular manner,
there were 9,266,000, an increase of 2,079,000, 28.9 per
cent. in population, or 1.9 per cent. increase in the popu-
lation of boroughs against 1-7 in the electors. I ask
those hon. gentlemen who have supposed that the fran-
chise is within the reach of all intelligent working men to
consider this ; and you have that in conjunction with the-
enormous increase of wealth which has taken place
While the population has increased in the ratio I have
described, wealth has moved thus; but in giving this I
wish it to be understood that it is only the best estimate.
The income tax for 1851, making due allowance for
charges, was £850,000 per penny. The income tax to be
proposed this year is £1,400,000 per penny. This is al-
most entirely in the middle and upper classes. •But even
with the vast increase of wealth the number of
electors did not keep pace with the population. I
hope we shall hear no more about what was said I
won't say dishonestly, but erroneously, to serve the pur-
poses of debate that the franchise was absorbing the popu-
lation. (Hear, hear.) The working men are not represented
according to their number. They aro not represented ac-
cording to their income ; they are not represented, I think,
in proportion to their intelligence and their virtue. If the
reasons which have been advanced from this extension of
the suffrage are not sufficient reasons, where are reasons ?
(Cheers.) Well, sir, the right hon. gentleman delivered a
most beautiful prophecy, as far as language was concerned,
but we have heard many such before. Out of Mr. Burke
might be found noble passages that now form admirable
declamations for school-boys—(a laugh)—pieces to be
translated into Greek. And some thirty years hence, when
the prophecies of the right hon. gentleman have vanished
into thin air and left not a trace behind, his prophecies for
beauty and force of language will be selected by teachers
of schools to give to boys to translate and to declaim, and
the right hon. gentleman will receive his reward:

"Etonare aliquis nostris etossibus ultor."

(Loud laughter.) Ile says we know nothing of tho work-
ing classes. Do we know nothing of them ? Is there not
one single word that is a sufficient reply to him, and that
is " Lancashire ?" (Cheers.) Lancashire associated with
the history of the last four years—that history so painful,
so bitter, so noble, so glorious. They showed forth the
noble qualities of the mass. Amongst them, as amongst
others, not but scattered individuals are unworthy. I la-
ment that strong denunciations of the labouring classes
have been made, because it leads to strong panegyrics.
The people of Lancashire were only a sample, I believe,
of what the rest of the people of England—(loud cheers)
—would have been under similar circumstances. I cannot
conceive what ground of argument there can be against
the fitness, as to the discharge of civil duties, of those
whom it is proposed to admit, or that such a wise, limited,
and temperate extension of civil privileges amongst a por-
tion of such mea should not be made. (Cheers.) Let us
consider the enormous though silent changes that are
going forward amongst the labouring population. Let us
try to raise our views above the fears, the suspicions, the
jealousies, the attacks, and the recriminations of the hour.
(Hear, hear.) Let us look onwards to the time of our chil-
dren and our children's children. Let us ask whether there
shall or shall not be a steady movement on the part of the
labouring classes—a movement onwards and upwards. The
progress of the working classes is like all great moral pro-
cesses. It is unobservable in its details, but it is solid and
unassailable. It is like those movements in the earth which
BCiEUC3 tells us are even now going forward in certain por-
tions of the globe. The sailor sails over them, or the tra-
veller treads the ground if they be on land. He does not
see them. He is not conscious of them, but science tells us
that these changes are taking place with silent and resist-
less force. Science tells us in these spots things are not as
they were, and this is precisely what is going on with re-
spect to the labouring classes. We know the self-denial
exhibited by those men in respect of the American war.
Could any one believe that a reflection so still, so firm,
and so energetic could have planted itself in

the mind of the population without its becoming
a known, a patent, and notorious fact to the whole
country ? (Hear, hear.) And yet when the day Of
trial came, we had manifested that sympathy with the
people of the North—that subtle sympathy on their part
with the people of the North-that determination that,
be their sufferings what they might, no word should pro-
ceed from them to damage the cause which they believed
to be just. (Cheers.) Here was, on one side, a magnificent
moral spectacle ; on the other side it was a remarkable les-
son. It was a lesson to us-it was a lesson to us all—to
teach us this : that in those minds, by a process of quiet
instillation opinions and sentiments, gradually form
themselves, of which we remain for a long time unaware,
which at last, when they make their appearance, we find
to be matured, solid, and irresistible. (Loud cheers.) Sir'
wo should prepare for these things while there is yet time.
(Cheers.) But I must yet ask my noble friend what he
means to do with the incongruous associates whom he h2e
gathered around him. Hero is his amendment. There
ought to be some unity of purpose among those who asso-
ciate together to destroy a Reform Bill and overthrow an
Administration. (Cheers.) What is the unity of purpose.
between my noble friend, and shall I say his friends and
associates—those who are leagued with_him in the combi"
nation which he hap been pleased to form ? I will quote
portion of the contradictions that are to be gathered from
this debate—not from the the two sides, but the one side.
My noble friend suggested that we should refer the question
to the Privy Council. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Cambridge answers two things—first, that it would be
useless, and secondly, that it would be entirely unconsti-
tutional. My right hon. friend the member for Cambridge
says we ought to have introduced a measure including
a redistribution of seats. The right hon. gentleman the
member for Stroud and the noble lord the member for
Galway say that they would have been quite contented
with us if it was not that we also propose a measure for - .
redistribution of seats. (Cheers and laughter.) The hen:
member for Wick says we ought to proceed with the bill
paripussu. The hon. member for Cambridge says it wottld,.
increase delay. The member for Caine says it would net
remove any of his objections. The hon. member for Dublin
and the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire demon"
strated there was no pledge whatever. Then I defy ant
man to extract from those speeches a single eaten& or con-
tinuous agreement. The noble lord the member for frad-
dington says he is an ardent Reformer, but he has cell:
tradicted himself, because he says he glories in Lord Pt"'
merston, whose life, if it had been prolonged, would hay?
effectually kept off the bill. Such are the contrarieties of a
party gathered together under such circumstances, end
with no bonds of cohesion, no deliberate principles, and
with no avowed intention, meaning one thing and saying
another. (Cheers.) And not saying that which the most
important persons in it deeply feel but do not wish to sal'
That is the state of things under which they continue to-
gether. This debate will soon come to an end. (fleerm
hear.) Ido not resent the warmth with which that re-
mark is answered. I am deeply indebted to
gentlemen
opposite as well as to gentlemen on this side for their
patience and kindness, but may I say to hon. gentle'
men opposite, as some gentlemen have addressed advice
to us, "'W ill you not consider before you embark
upon this new crusade what were the results
of the old." Three great battles have been fought'
and you have fought them manfully. The battle of mein"
taining civil disabilities, the battle of refusing the Reform
Bill, and the battle of protection. All these great WOO
have been fought by the party opposite, and I admit niy
own share of responsibility as to the opposition to the Re-
form Bill. Have they been so satisfactory that you ore
disposed to renew the experiment? Certainly those who
sit on this side of the house have no reason to find few
with the results, for the result has been that for five Yell
out of six and six years out of seven since the Reform Ae
we have been in power. The effect has been to lower, re,i
duce, and contract your just influence in the country,
your share in the public administration. But if you are
strong you can only be strcng by showing not only Par°
sonal kindness and generosity towards the people, but pub
lie and political confidence in them. (Cheers.) You mat
listen with kindness to what I now say. We are assailed
This bill is in a state of crisis and peril, and the Govern'
ment along 'with it. We stand or fall by it, as 'Ras‘l;
dared by my noble friend. We stand with it now---"n-
may fall with it a short time hence ; but if we fall We shall
rise with it hereafter. (Loud cheers.) We cannot plea-
sure with precision the forces that are to be raised in the
coming coming struggle. Perhaps the great division of to-night
not the last act of the struggle. You may succeed on sera"
point. You may drive us from our seats ; you may bull
the bill we introduced ; but for its epitaph we will write
on the gravestone this line with perfect confidence—

U Et onare aliquis nostris et ossibus ultor." .0
(Cheers.) You cannot fight against the future; time
on our side. (Cheers.) The great social forces are against
you. They are arrayed—they are marshalled on oursle:,
The banner which we carry, although perhaps it 070
at this moment droop Over our sinking heads, yet it Wl,.
soar again and float in the eye of heaven, and will be bore'
in the firm hands of the united people of these three.
kingdoms—not perhaps to an easy but a certain and net
distant future. (Immense cheering.)
The right right hon. gentleman resumed his seat at ten
minutes past three o'clock.
The SPEAKER then put the question in the ueu4
form, but the responses in the affirmative and negatiO
were given with extraordinary vehemence.
The house then divided, and after the lapse of a Val t
of an hour the result was declared. At exactly half-10s
three, Mr. Brand and Mr. Adams acted as tellers en the
Government side, Lord Grosvenor and Lord Stanley on
behalf of the supporters of the amendment. The resu
lti
thus appeared:
For the Motion
For the Amendment 313
Majority for Government —s
The announcement of the numbers was greetedi
with deafening cheers from the Ministerial °f
the house, and counter-cheers from the Opposition.
The bill was then read a second time.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he would fix the committee
for Monday, and would then state the order of business
The other business was disposed of, and
The house adjourned at 20 minutes before 4 o'clock.