The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-24 00:00:00

their course when the Redistribution of Seats Bill makes
its appearance upon the table. Now, I shall have to appeal
to a right hon. gentleman opposite on the point to which 1
am now going to address myself. I think th it a Franchise
13111 which does not determine this question for a period I
say at least as long as has passed sinc3 the bill of 1832, is
not a bill which it is desirable to have, and I think further
that a Redistribution of Seats Bill which will not settle
that question for an equal period is not a desirable bill to
be passed by the house. (Hear.) And it seems to me that
after you have settled the franchise question, and when
you come to dicuss the question of seats, Parliament and
the people directing their eyes solely to it, that single
question will in all probability receive a satisfactory set-
tlement, so that for 30, or it may be for 50 years, no fur-
ther change will be required. (Hear.) It is because I be-

lieve that if Parliament were honestly disposed to amend
the representation they could do it infinitely better, more
solidly, and more satisfactorily to the people, and with
greater duration to our legislation by passing the present
bill than if they took the course it is proposed by the
amendment of the noble lord the member for Chester, or
that proposed by the hon. gentleman opposite, which Isup-
pose is to get rid of this bill and of the Government by the
same vote, that I approve the course taken by the Govern-
ment. Now, I believe that the argument I have laid be-
fore the house, perhaps not so clearly as I could have

wished, has had the effect of inducing great numbers of
representatives in the country to approve the course which
the Government have taken, and I believe that, if hon.
gentlemen opposite were friends of Reform, the argument
would be conclusive to them also; but, of course, if they
are not the friends of Reform, I must content myself with
saying what I have to say, and with leaving my words to
make what very
small impression they may upon under-
standings not open to conviction, and which fear to receive
the truth in this matter. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now,
I said I must quote the right hon. gentleman opposite. My
own honest opinion is, that the course which has been pur-
sued by the Government is truly Conservative—(hear,
hear, and laughter)—because I think nothing can be more
non-Conservative, if I may use such a term, than that Par-
liament should have this question of the representation
affecting the basis of power discussed in this house during
every session—(cheers and counter cheers)—and discussed
throughout the country during every parliamentary recess.
(Cheers and counter cheers.) Some striking things were
said on this side of the house on the Ist March, 1859, when
two right hon. gentlemen who sat in a very serene calm on
the Thursday when they withdrew from the Government
of Lord Derby, explained to the house the grounds of their
withdrawal from their former colleagues. On that occasion
the right hon. member for Oxfordshire made use of these
words :
"If one thing can be more destructive to our constitu-
tion than another it will be to have a Reform Bill every few
years, and that will be the case if you cannot settle a sys-
tem upon such grounds that you can reasonably hope that
you will succeed. Ido not say for any long time—finality
Is out of the question, but for a decent number of years. If
you can't do that you are laying the foundation for revo-
lution?'

(Hear.) Now the foundation for revolution in almost every
country—unless history lies dreadfully—has been laid by
those who pretended to be specially Conservative. (Hear,
and laughter.) I agree with the right hon. gentleman. I
say that never was a passage or a sentence uttered in this
house of truer wisdom than that which the right hon. gen-
tleman spoke on that occasion. Now, I should like to ask
the house why it is that we are now involved in this ques-
tion of reform. (Cheers from the Opposition, and " Tell
us.") Yes, I will answer hon. gentleman opposite immedi-
ately. (A laugh.) The reason is this, because there is a sense
universal throughout the country that the whole number of
electors is much too small to afford a satisfactory represen-
tation of the people—(" No, no," and cheers), and that the
largest class in the country, and that class which forms the
strength of the nation, is specially excluded. ("N0,n0," and
"Hear, hear.") It was on the 28th of February, 1859, that
the right bah. member for Buckinghamshire stood up at this
table to propose a Reform Bill on behalf of the Conservative
party, of which be was the leader. He quoted on that occa-
sion no less than three Queen's Speeches, and he told us that
three Prime Ministers had distinctly stated that it was ne-
cessary to do something upon this question ; and that there
may be no mistake as to the peculiar manner in which ho put
this to the house I will read the question which ho asked
at the time. After recounting previous attempts upon this
subject, a course which every Minister appears to think
necessary to adopt, and after quoting from the three
Queen's Speeches to which he had alluded, he said :
" Were you to allow this question which the Sovereign
had three times announced as one that ought to be dealt
,with, which three Prime Ministers among the most skilful
and authoritative of our statesmen had declared it was their
intention to deal with, to remain in abeyance ?" The
answer which he would have given was, of course, we
ought not to allow it to remain in. abeyance. But, since
then three other Royal Speeches have said the same thing
with even increased emphasis, and three other Prime Minis-
ters have declared their intention of dealing with the subject.
(Hear.) What, then, was the subject about which the right
hon. gentleman asked this question ? I maintain that it
was nothing short of the extension of the franchise. Now,
how did the right hon. gentleman deal with the subject ? He
gave, to quote his own words, "a Franchise Bill of the
largest proportions," of proportions so large, indeed, that
it dwarfs the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But what 'did he do with regard to the seats ? Why, he
altered 15. That was, in my opinion, no redistribution of
seats at all, and can be regarded as nothing but a ludi-
crous attempt to deal with that branch of the subject.
(Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen opposite have possibly for-
gotten some of these matters, and I would remind hon.
gentlemen opposite that they would be a great deal wiser if
they would only remember some of the things which the
right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks tells them.
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman proposed that the
county franchise should be reduced to £lO, and he said
that by that reduction the franchise in counties would be
extended to no fewer than 200,C00 electors. Well, 200,060
is the exact number which the Chancellor of the E scho-
quer proposes to add to the county electors by the bill now
before the house. What did the right hon. gentleman do
with regard to the borough franchise ? Ile proposed tkat
everybody deriving an income of £lO a year from the
funds, Bank stock, or East India stock, or bonds should be
enfranchised. It would be easy to show what a very fal-
lacious idea of the franchise that was, because it was capa-
ble of the most distinct proof that every man who chose to
invest £5,000 or £6,000, from which he would receive a
steady income, might enfranchise his whole family, from
his grandfather to his youngest son, and even include all
his uncles, nephew; and first cousins—(laughter)—and
these would be enfranchised by a fraud which I believe it

would be impossible to detect. He then proposed that

every one who possessed £6O in the savings bank for one
year only should have a vote, and that pensioners receiv-
ing a pension of £2O a year should be enfranchised. His

fourth proposition was that persons occupying portions of
houses, lodgers, in fact, paying £2O a year, should receive
a vote; and his fifth that graduates of Universities, minis-
ters of religion, members of the various branches of the

legal profession, medical men, and schoolmasters having
Council certificates, should receive a similar privilege. I
won't discuss whether this last proposition was a proper
extension of the franchise, though I am willing to admit
that the persons who were thus to be enfranchised were
suitable, or rather, as the hon. and learned member for Be!-

fast objects to the use of that word, were proper persons for
the reception of the franchise. Now, at what did he esti-
mate the addition that would result to the number of elec-
tors ? At no less than 300,000—in other words, 50 per I
cent. more than are now proposed to be enfranchised by
the bill before the house. Perhaps it may be said that they
were not of the same class. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
But when you give the franchise to A or B, I take it to be
equally an extension of the franchise. When, therefore, at
the close of the discussion on the first night the right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks was asked what would be
the total addition to the number of electors in England and
Wales, the right hon. gentleman said, " The increasa, no
doubt, will be very considerable, exceeding half-a-million
I have no hesitation in saying." Well, then, in deference
to three Royal Speeches, and to what preceding Prime Mi-
nisters had said, and in answer to the question as to how
long the question should be left in abeyance, what did
Lord Derby's Government do? They proposed a Franchise
Bill which, upon their statement, and I am not concerned
in allowing or refuting it, said that the electoral body in
England and 'W ales would be increased by half a million
voters, 100,000 more than will be admitted by the bill now
upon the table. Looking, then, at the mode in which the
question of the redistribution of seats was treated, am I not
justified in regarding that measure as a Franchiseßill ? For
what was done with regard to those seats ? The right hon.
gentleman pretended he did not wish to shock hon. mem-
bers who were to be extinguished, but he felt indeed that h
the proposition he had
at. had to make was one so trivial that it
laughed would be
He did not even disfranchise the
borough of Caine. (Laughter.) He did not even disfran-
chise the boreugh:ofPortarlingt
myon,whhoinch.
a,nadftieeraarnneedxfhriaeunsd-
five pollof 46 votes,had returned
Arundel,
ou s e.
the Attorney-General for lrelandasamoef mber to tshnd, in
(A laugh.) He defended the borough
fact, more, I believe, was said about that borough than
about the whole question of the
on theredistributionofseatgrs.oTunlide
right hon. gentleman defended that borough
that it returned a noble lord who might be regarded as re-
presenting 900,000 Catholics in England and Wales. The
borough of Arundel is, however, as much a nomination
borough as any borough placed on ScheduleA in the Reform
Bill. Although the right hon. gentleman touchedthe ques-
tion of seats with so gentle a hand, I am willing to admit
that the redistribution he proposed was a fair and satis-
factory one as far as it went, for it proposed to give
four seats to the West Riding of Yorkshire, two to South
Lancashire, two to Middlesex, and seven to boroughs and
towns whose population entitled them to representation.
My argument, however, is that the Government of Lord
Derby felt that the real question involved was the exten-
sion of the franchise. (Cheers.) Now, if I were to ask the
right hon. gentleman why he touched the seats with so de-
licate a hand, and if he were to give me a candid and honest
answer, he would say that the difficulties attending the
question of redistribution are very much greater than the
difficulties attending the extension of the franchise, and he
would say that the Government, in dealing with a question
than which none can be more important, and, perhaps,
more difficult, would be justified in adopting that course