The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-15 00:00:00

Reigate, which you propose to disfranchise.
(Cheers.) But
our attention has been directed to a question which at this
moment is even more interesting than even Parliamentary
eins ourtary
reform or the question of peace or
war,
and
monetary state. It is a subject which will
probably be
h of men
under our discussion very shortly, and thwe
opinions
with very
of great experience will be received bythe house
great interest upon the matter. I sae before me a gentleman
who, if he is not at this moment,
was
the Bank of England. He was, I believe I formerlym Governor of
may say, one of
the best Governors that the Bank ever had, and to what
place do we owe his presence in this house ? The small
borough of Bridport, which you certainly propose to dis-
franchise.
Bnt I will not take my instances entirely from
ite side. I have below the gangway a friend whom
theev opposite e r
yoonse acknowledges should have a seat in this house,
and he is looked upon as one admirably fitted for a place in
this assembly—not on account of his great wealth, although
we recognise him as the prince of British merchants, but
on account of his character, integrity, and intelligence. He
owes his presence in this house to the small borough of
Huntingdon, which you propose to disfranchise. lam of
opinion that men in the position of the Governor of the
Bank of England should always be members of the House
of Commons. I have had some experience of the advantage
of communication with Governors and Deputy-Governors
of the Bank, to whom I owe much. Then we have another
considerable colony at this moment, whose fortunes may be
brought under the consideration of the House of Commons
at any time ; and how important it is that we should have
a representative here who, commandingrespectful attention
from his local experience, would rise in his place and advise
the house on any matters of importance. Such represen-
tatives are invariably returned by small boroughs. Iwould
now call your attention to one of the most important points
in the subject, viz., the representation of India. One cause
of the present deficiency in this respect is the loss of a Mi-
nister whose absence I think we must all deplore. He had
not, perhaps, all those qualities which enable a man to
control a popular assembly ; but every man must acknow-
ledge that for administrative capacity and experience few
men are equal to Lord Halifax. He was perfect master of
the business of the great departments of the State, and I
have rarely met any man who was his equal in quickness of
perception. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately, we have lost him ;
but when he was here the advice he gave us showed that he
was completely master of his subject. And how desirable
it is that we should have men in this house as to whom,
whether we look to theirinformation or judgment, we know

the moment they rise to enter into an Indian debate that
their infoimation is accurate and their judgment sound. I
remember some who have been very much looked up to in
this respect—Sir James Hogg, Sir John Willoughby, and
Mr. Prinsep. Sir James Hogg was member for Honiton,
which you propose to disfranchise ; Sir James Willoughby

was member for -Leominster, which you propose to dis-
franchise ; and Mr. Prinsep was member for Harwich,
which you propose to disfranchise. (Hear.) These are
very important facts, and the house should consider them
seriously. I have, perhaps, less interest in the matter than
any other member of this house. Ido not owe my outset
in public life to small boroughs, nor is there any probable
prospect of my seeking refuge in them in the future.
(Laughter.) Nor do I think the county with which I have
the honour to be connected has any special interest in this
particular system of small boroughs. But I wish to offer
one point to the house for its consideration. When we find
that the complete representation of this country in its va-
rious attributes appears to have greatly depended upon
this system of small boroughs, should we not very care-
fully consider the steps which are taken in regard to it ?
Thus, if you either destroy or greatly qualify their privilege
we should at least supply some adequate substitute. That
is the only point which I wish to impress upon you.
(Hear.) Well, by this bill it is proposed to deal very ex-
tensively with this small borough system. The measure
proposes to disfranchise 71 seats. The assertion that the
disfranchisement is not complete is simply a quibble ;
it is a disfranchisement in disguise. (Haar, hear.)
Virtually you are reducing small boroughs by one moiety,
for I take it that small boroughs may be set down as be-
tween 150 and 160. The reasons given for taking these
seats are two. The first is that representation should be
given to communities that have developed their strength
since the Reform Bill was passed. I entirely concur with
her Majesty's Government in that. I acknowledge that since
1832 we have had come into existence communities which
in population, character, and property are worthy of direct
_ _

representation in this house ; and it is wise to give it to
them. We have a list of such boroughs in the bill before
us ; it is not very considerable in extent, and does not vary
much from ono which I recommended to your consideration
seven years' ago. I only regret that they have been denied
that seven years' representation in Parliament. But how is
that representation to be effected ? Should it be effected,
in the first instance, by adding to the number of members
of this house ? I decline, Sir, upon this occasion, to
give any definite opinion upon that point, because it is a
complicated question. It has never been properly dis-
cussed in this house, and it would lead us into discussions
foreign to the general subject of this debate. It is a moot
point, and it is desirable that we should leave it et present.
But there is a way by which representation can be given to
those boroughs without increasing the number of the mem-
bers of this house, and that is by decreasing the represen-
tative powers of existing boroughs. Ido not mean to say
that that can be done upon any principle. It can only be
done up)n grounds which the Venetians described as "rea-
sons of State;" and actions from reasons of State should be
had recourse to with reserve, and only in order to effect an
end universally acknowledged to be beneficial. I think we
are perfectly justified under the circumstances in following
the course which, by-the-by, we ourselves were prepared to
pursue in 183'J, and curtail what we may call the redundant
representation of some boroughs in order to complete and
perfect the representation of others. The first object for
which this great revolution is proposed is to secure represen-
tation for those communities the propriety of whose appear-
ance in this house no one questions. I entirely concur in
that proceeding, and in saying that I believe I express the
feeling of the house. But the Government propose this
great change for another object. It is not merely to give
representatives to those places which are not represented,
but to add representatives to places which are already re-
presented. Many of the great towns and cities are to re-
ceive another member. For example, three members are to
be given to Leeds, three to Manchester, and three each to
a considerable number of other towns and counties. Well,
this involves a new principle in the management of our re-
presentation, and that principle is plurality of representa-
tion. I think, however, it is to be looked upon with some
doubt and suspicion. I do not see how it is consistent with
our electoral system, for it recoils from plurality of voting.
That a man should have only one vote is, I think, a right
principle. If our constituencies, for example, were founded
upon the rights of man, or upon the rights of numbers, I
could easily understand that you must immediately defend
the minority; And .1. do not know that there is any more
obvious or easy method of doing so than to establish plu-
rality of voting. In fact, I have always held that if you
went as far as universal suffrage, or if you submitted to
any very considerable extension of the franchise, plurality
of voting would be a necessary consequence. But, if you
establish your constituencies on the principles that hitherto
have been accepted and connected with the Constitution of
this country, if you look upon your constituency as a poli-

tical body or order, numerous and various, very numerous
and very various, I hope, but select, then Ido not think
you can have plurality of voting. Thenmenshhaovuledhbeis
equal. The elector with £30,000 a year should
vote, just as the elector of the West Riding who lives upon
his 30s. a week. The law of England recognises, and I hold
nobly recognise; equality not of the man but of the political
citizen, who is invested with duties and responsibilities for
the public good. I know it will be said that an elector with
£50,000 a year has a great deal more influence than the
elector who lives upon 30s. it week; he has the influence
which results from his good fortune and from his social
positions. Ido not deny that he possesses that influence,
and I say that he ought to have it. But does not the city of
Manchester, when compared with one of the small boroughs
represented in this house, also possess the extraordinary
influence which the man of .£50,000 a year has ? The city of
Manchester has only two members, and the borough of Har-
wich has only two members. If, however, the interest of
the city of Manchester is assailed, or is in danger, it is not
the two members who rise to support it, it is a score, it is a
hundred members, who are directly or indirectly interested
in or connected with Manchester. (Hear, hear.) If the in-
terest of the borough of Harwich is assailed, what hap-
pens ? We all know that a little before public business
commence; one of the members for Harwich rises, with
representations from that borough; and though his argu-
ments be perfectly irrefutable and his statements as per-
spicuous as a mountain lake, yet you know how they are met
by loud cries of " Divide," and an immense shout of "Ques-
tion." (Cheers and laughter.) This is the way these un-
fortunate men, while vindicating the rights and interests of
their constituents, are assailed ; and then we are told that
in the House of Commons Manchester and Harwich have
only the same degree of influence. (Cheers.) Why, mem-
bersnenott
nlimbearre sents.(Er etaor,thhisearh.)ours
ittoarteparl
le sneenctesosap irnyi otnos
reapnrde s
fen adresecantteatiyveo
sur? inTt ehreerset tahat
consti-
tuency o
syhoouufldophi:vioenas tarnodopeve is
advocate
division, and with a pop
its boroughs have been de-
ducted—the quite as great as at
lation of South Lancashire when
nosfcathreceWlyelsetssiltihdianngthseilipocepiuts-
yt sincerely,
there any constituency in this house
than the Tower Hamlet
Tower Hamlets ;
platerand one of the most
valuable and indefatigable attendants in our
and I
hon. gentleman is always in his
masokremaobsl
incommittees
;by one man ? (Cheers.) That
d and
numerous, he is always present discharging his duty, w
and when any questions connected with the interests of his
constituents are raised, which are most complicate
hi
while
in general debates on subjects both interesting and important
he gives his opinions and enunciates his arguments in a
manner which commands respect. (Hear, hear.) It is
quite ridiculous to ask for numbers to guard the interests
'a s
of any ccirninnuitY, for as lour, the pesent arrangement
continues they
are perfectly safe.
Y(oHuea must
hstea necessarily
isi you once adopt
saril
the consequence if you were to He) What would be
(Hear.)
pursue the principles which
you are laying down?
monotony in this house.
the principle that the population and
P y have great
roeP(!retyrsof places are
only to be considered in apportioning
ulmb
stop at three, and the small constituencies ma'yybeou cbaynntloti!