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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 24, 1866.

which avoided difficulties as much as possible, and enabledt
Parliament to deal fairly and promptly with one important
branch of it. (Hear, hear.) Now, I will ask hon. gentlemen
and the house, and I will ask those gentlemen on this side
of the house who are supposed, I hope untruly, to be about
to vote with the noble lord the member for Chester, whether
they believe that if the right hon. gentleman had passed
his bill admitting 500,000 new voters and distributing 15
seats; the question of the distribution of seats would have

been settled by that arrangement for 20, 10, or even for 5
years. (Cheers.) Is not every man in this house convinced,
and is not the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-
fordshire convinced, that in the very next Parliament
elected after the passing of that bill propositions would
have been submitted to tho house declaring that the small
boroughs which the right hon. gentleman had left un-

;ouched ought not to be allowed to retain their power of

returning members, but that a certain number of them

ought to be extinguished and their powers of returning

members transferred to the populous counties and to popu-
lous and great cities. We should have had exactly what
the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire

wishes to avoid—we should have had every year a debate

on a new Reform Bill and a debate on the basis of power,

If the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-

quer were to add to the bill before the house the pro-
vision for the redistribution of 15 seats, according to the

proposal made by Lord Derby's Government, do you think
the house would agree to pass it? (Cheers from the Minis-
terial side of the house.) Will the noble lord the member
for Chester, and his colleague the noble lord the member for
King's Lynn, who seconded the amendhient, frankly tell
the house that they will give this bill their support if this
provision be added ? (Cheers.) If they will do so, I will
undertake, although it might ruin the Government if I said
it —(a laugh)—to give the Government a little advice—
(renewed laughter)—andwill counsel them to take it. Why
you know perfectly well that all this clamour which you
have been making for the redistribution of seats—(cheers)
—I am afraid that there are no Parliamentary terms in
which I can express my meaning with sufficient delicacy
—(laughter)—but at least you know that you cannot im-
pose upon us with that cry. (Laughter and cheers.) Ido
not think that I felt the slightest satisfaction when the Go-
vernment proposed to lay on the table of the house their
bill for a redistribution of seats. If I had been a Minister,
I think I should have recommended that the member fa.
Caine, for example, and the member for Stamford—beth of
whom must know a good deal about small boroughs—
should have been requested to propose clauses of disfran-
chisement for the fair consideration of the Government.
(Laughter.) Now, it is obvious —for the arguments on which
you have opposed this bill are your worst arguments—that
you would not support the bill even though the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer were to propose to add to it the dis-
tribution clauses of the bill of Lord Derby. And I think
you would be wise in refusing to do so, because, although
that distribution is perfectly satisfactory as far as it goes,
it would not in any degree settle the question ; and I am
satisfied that the greatest error the house can commit is to
agree to something on the franchise, and something on the
question of seats, by which neither the one question nor
the other shall be permanently settled. (Cheers.) But, at
this moment the Government is assailed by a united party
on the other side of the house, with a few recruits from
this side, and I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that they
are not in very good hands. The member for Buckingham-
shire and the member for King's Lynn, in my opinion, are
not counsel to be followed implicitly on this question of
Reform; and if, anybody doubts it, I shall call as witnesses
the two right hon. gentlemen to whom I have already re-
ferred. (Cheers.) You have before you the bill of Lord
Russell's Government, and you know exactly what it is.

(No, no.) You may think quite honestly that the reduc-
tion of the franchise is something more than is necessary,
and you may even think it is something more than is safe,
and you know exactly to what extent it goes. (No, no, and
Hear, hear.) Well, you have listened with very small at-
tention to the speakers on your side of the house if you do
not at least know the worst of it. (Cheers.) What was
the bill that was brought in by the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)? It bad
in every clause of it the impress of his subtle understand-
ing. I will tell you what was said of it by the member for
the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). When he ex-
plained to the house why he had withdrawn from the Go-
vernment he said, speaking of the Government scheme for
the extension of the franchise :--

" It is a most dangerous innovation, giving to temporary
and fluctuating occupations a preponderating influence over
property and intelligence, while it throws large masses into
the constituencies who are almost exempt from direct
taxation."

That is exactly what your friends have been saying of the
Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) It
might have been taken from a speech of the right hon.
gentleman the member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton),
although it isnot quite so poetical as some of his utterances.
Again, the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, in a letter written to Lord Derby,
and read to the house, said :
" The measure which the Cabinet are prepared to recom-
mend is one which we should all of us have strongly opposed
if either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ven-
tured to bring it forward."
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman knew the character of
his colleagues. (Hear, hear.) His statement was prophetic
of the course which they would take, which they have taken
now in opposition to a bill which only proposes to admit
400,000 electors, while their bill proposed to admit 500,000.
(Cheers.) The member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on the
samo evening with regard to the same question used these
remarkable words :

" I believe that identity of suffrage, which is the prin-
ciple of the Government bill, is fatal to the constitution o:
this country."
I do not think anybody in the house during this discussion
has gone so far as to say that the reduction of £3 in the
borough franchise would be absolutely fat al to the constitu-
tion of this country, seeing that 500 years ago and less every
freeman being a householder in every borough had a vote
for members to sit in this house. Well, the two right hon.
gentlemen to whom I. have referred expressed these opinions
of the bill introduced by the member for Buckinghamshire,
and I say, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman and his
colleagues, and especially the noble lord the member for
King's Lynn, are condemned out of the mouths of their own
colleagues, and ought to be put out of court as advisers of
this question. (Hear.) I shall now ask the attention of the
house for a little time to the bill itself. Hitherto I have
been speaking as to the mode in which the government
have proposed to deal with it. Of the bill itself almost
everything that has been said has been said in connection
with the borough franchise. In thus speaking I omit alto-
gether reference to the frenzy into which the right hon.
gentleman the member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley)
worked himself the other night when discussing the county
franchise ; for anything I know the reduction of the fran-
chise to £l4 in counties may have a fatal effect in North
Staffordshire. (Laughter.) I like to take the views and
opinions of men of great experience and great moderation,
and R is for this reason I ask the right hon. gentleman the
member for Oxfordshire to step for one moment into the
witness-box on the matter. He said in the speech to which
I have before referred :
" Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 the working people
have been having a less and less share in the representation.
They had considekakte representation before 1832 through
the scot and lot voters and the freemen. They are gradually
dying out, and I ask my hon. friends near me if they draw a
hard line, and leave the working people behind it, how long
they think it will stand ?"
(Hear.) That was a wise saying, and a pertinent question in
the year 1859, and it is not wise and less worthy of consi-
deration in the year 1866. The first part of this statement is
exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. The
right hon. gentleman has told the house that the proporti9nate
power of the working classes in the constituencies has been
diminishing since 1832. I believe there can be no manner of
doubt of it; and here I must tell the right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer that my opinion is—and
what I think every member in the house who represents a
borough, excepting the borough of Coventry, and perhaps one
or two others must know—that the figures which have been
laid before the house, which fix the numbers of workingmen
electors at 25 or 26 per cent., aro not in any degree to be
relied upon, nor are they in any degree accurate. (Hear,
hear.) Hon. gentlemen have a•perfect right, of course, in
assailing the Government to fight upon the figures which
the Government has laid before them ; and Government
would find it very difficult, of course, to retreat from the
position they have taken on those figures. But lam not one
of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am not one of the
Government responsible for these figures ; I am here as an
advocate, an honest advocate, of a moderato and just mea-
sure of reform— (cheers)—and, therefore, I must deal with
this question from my own point of view, and speak of it in
language based on the convictions I hold. I will give the
house only two cases. I have not sought for them in the
blue-book, nor have I written about the country for them.
The first is to he found in a petition presented to this house
by the hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent. That is a bo-
rough which consists of three or four neighbouring towns
—one of them the town of Burslem. The blue-book says
that Burstein has a constituency of 680 electors ; of these
197 are represented to be working men, so that they form
29 per cent. of the whole number. But what does the peti-
tion say ? It has been accurately prepared, and it gives an
analysis for Burslem. It says that of the 197 which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures represent as working
men, one is a publican, and that there aro 40 beersellers ;
that is 41 to begin with. I would rather have 40 real hard-
working, industrious, artisans in any borough than 40
beersellers. (Hear.) But there are grocers and other shop-
keepers to the number of 48 ; and there are persons who
are put down as cart owners, cowkeepers, and tradesmen
with assistants, earning profits from the capital in their
trade, to the number of 33. Adding these together and
deducting thein from the 197 there remain in the town of
Burslem but 75 working men on the register. (Hear, bear.)
You may bring, if you like, the whole staff of the Poor
Law Board, but they cannot alter the se figures. It shall
not, however, be my fault if the house discusses this ques-
tion
delusive.and d(eHc isduevs. it )
I wu p
nnt
afir re fiogures
ywohni.
ec h
otherae
town, deceptivethe abnd
rough of Wakefield. The blue-book: saysrath rather
tvtehrelle are
r
122 working men in the borough, p
cent. on the register ; but taking the terms which shall
decide who is a working man, the number really is not more
than 77. If you will deduct the various classes to which
I have referred with regard 'o Burslem, you will bring

he number 122 in Wakefield down to 35 ; so that,
instead of 11 per cent. of the constituency being working
men, there are not more than three per cent. (Hear, hear.)
I was talking the other day to a member on this side of the
house, the hon. member for Newark, who mentioned some
figures to me in reference to that borough. I have not them
in my recollection, but I hope he will take some opportunity
of stating them to the house. The return for Newark was
sent back twice, if not three times, for correction. I think
at least one country magistrate was put down among the
working men. (Laughter.) Now, I shall trouble the house
with a few figures. We have had the figures of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and quite as many more from
gentlemen opposite ; I shall therefore make mine as brief
as possible. The blue-book says that there are 126,000
working men on the register. I have given you cases which
are but samples of the rest, and my exceptions bring the
number down to one-third of it; but, for the sake of being
within the mark, I will call it one-half—that brings the
126,000 down to 63,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
calculated that by the repeal of the ratepaying clauses and
of the system of compounding 60,000 persons would be ad-
mitted; but he put the whole of the 60,000 down as work-
ing men. Why, there is not a man in England who will
say he believes that an accurate calculation. I have put
them down at 20,000. Then the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer says that the number of persons who would be ad-
mitted by a reduction of the franchise from £lO to £7 is
144,000, and he estimated all these as working men. But
we all know perfectly well that all these persons paying
between £7 ancl£lo are not, and cannot be, and never have
been, working men. I take it that two-thirds of them
are estimated as working men as it will be as fair a calcu-
lation as can be made. Now, look at the result. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer says that when the bill is
passed there will be 330,000 working men upon the re-
gister. I say there will be 179,000, or, say 180,000, of
whom 116,000 will be admitted by this bill. What, then,
will be the gross? The whole number of borough elec-
tors in England and Wales, if this bill should pass, upon
the calculation of the blue-book, will be 691,000, of whom
180,000, or jUst one-quarter, will be working men. There-
fore, that portion of the people which forms at least three-
fourths of the whole population would only have one-
fourth of the electoral power in the boroughs, and have, of
course, a power so small as to be not worth reckoning in
the whole constituency of the counties. I shall say no
more about the statistics ; but, having made my calcula-
tions, I thought they were as proper to place before the
house as those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any
gentleman opposite. (Hear.) But, after all, there will be
more than four millions of men left out; and yet I think
so much political cowardice, if I may use the word, has
never been exhibited as was shown by the mover and
seconder of the amendment before the house. Sir, lam
astonished at these alarmist speeches. The right hon.
gentleman the member for Hertfordshire, too, deals in
alarmist speeches. He comes down once or twice in a ses-
sion and makes a speech which gives great satisfaction to
the house, if not the least attention is paid to what there is
in it. (Laughter.) I mean that the tone and the manner,
the language and imagery all please us ; but I grieve be-
yond measure when I think of the side to which he gives
his great influence. Now, in 1860, he said the bill which
was introduced by Lord J. Russell as a member of Lord
Palmerston's Government was a bill to admit poverty and
passion to the franchise. This is one of the passages which
fell from his lips :—" Though we are willing to admit
poverty and passion into the franchise, we are not willing
to give poverty and passion the lion's share of political
power over capital and knowledge." This is very similar
to what the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity said of the bill of the right hon. gentleman the
member for Buckinghamshire. (A laugh.) He did not use
the words "poverty and passion," but said that elements
fatal to the constitution were likely to be introduced into
that bill. Now, the right hon. gentleman once held very
different opinions. (Hear.) Many years ago he published a
book called "England and the English"—a book which was
not profound, but very amusing ; and I should like to read
to the house a sentence which the right hon. gentleman
put as a motto at the beginning of his book, and putting it
so I presume he adopted it. Ho took it, I believe, from
Ben Jonson, and it ran

"I am he
Have measured all the shires of England over,
For to these savages I was addicted
To search their nature and make odd discoveries."

And the discovery which he made in 1860 was this, that
if you introduce artisans and working men of between £lO
and X 6 rental, you will give the lion's share of the repre-
sentation to the poverty and passion of the country. But
the right hon. gentleman now assumes a different tone, for
in his speech last week he did not treat the working people
as though they were made up mostly of poverty and passion;
but he said many generous things of them—(hear, hear)
and•he told us how there was a tie, not of interest only,
but of the strongest respect and affection between the rich
and the employing class, and the poor, and the labourers.
But what of these compliments? They may be perfectly
sincere. Probably the right hon. gentleman never believed
that the working men between £lO and £6 were represented
by poverty and passion; and the language he used the other
night far more accurately stated his real opinion of the
great body of his countrymen. Still he would give them
compliments and not votes—(laughter)- and it seemed to
me that if the me..l had all these good qualities which he
described flattery of that kind would go down very ill with
the great body of the people who are asking that at least
seine of them should be given representation in this house.
It reminded me very much of that couplet from Shenstono
describing how—
" He kicked them downstairs with such a sweet grace,
r a speech
full of such noble and generous sympathy towards the
gg
h them
tiintuapf.:
(LauTghheteyr.n)tal,Totohneinkwhooulwd'h'savheanthdohni
working classes the right hon. gentleman would have con-
cluded by throwing all the weight of his character and all
the influence of his oratory into the side of the party which
not only says little that is kind and generous—(loud cries
of "Oh, oh !")—but which—(renewed cries of "Oh, oh !")
Well, then, of a party which doeisometimes say something
generous of the working class, but never shows the slightest
disposition to confer upon them a particle of political
rights. (Cheers.) But I only ask the right hon. gentle-
man's attention to one point upon which he touched. With
great force and great beauty of language ho spoke of some
friends and neighbours of mine—the members of co-opera-
tive societies of Rochdale. I thought when I heard them

that he was going back unconsciously to the year 1832,
when he was a most enthusiastic supporter of the Reform
Bill of that day—(hear, hear)—when he was a member of
the Parliainentary Candidate Society, with the learned
member for Sheffield and Jeremy Bentham, with Joseph
Hume and. Daniel O'Connell, with Francis Place, with
Charles Buller, and many others. I thought ho was going
back to that time ; but if not as far back as that, then to
1837 and 1848, in both of which years, if 1 am not mis-
taken, the right hon. gentleman was in favour of an exten-
sion of the franchise. He said, and most of you must have
heard him :

" The operatives of Rochdale having been loft thus free
to mature uncorrupted their self-guiding power would now,
I grant, be strong enough to resist such temptation. To
artisans of that kind, whatever their political creed, I am
willing to grant the franchise." (Hear.) " Willing, do I
say ? That word is much too cold. i wish that, like some
old commonwealth of Greece, we might admit them to the
franchise by acclamation, too proud of such fellow-citizens
to ask what rent they pay for their houses."
(Cheers.) Well, sir, 1 happen to live among those
persons of whom the right hon. gentleman has spoken
in such enthusiastic language, and if the house will
permit me I will state a little of their case, and I have no
objection to rest my case upon theirs. In 1860, upon the
discussion of the bill of the Government, I read some facts
connected with these co-operative societies. Those which
I purpose.now to bring before the house will be very brief,
but they are very suggestive, and, I think, very gratifying.
There are three bodies or companies, managed by three
committees; one is called the Equitable Pioneer Society,
and chiefly concerns itself with the various shops and re-
tail businesses Lately,whenl was at home, about a fort-
night ago, some facts were sent to me by the secretary of
the society. He says
The society now comprises 5,500
members, chiefly of families. It has a capital ,of
£85,000, and is selling goods and receiving money at the
rate of £230,000.y;er annum." Now, let the house bear in
mind that there is not one Of these 5,500 ever gots one
farthing of credit in dealing with these shops. (Hear.) The
business is managed by a committee of 11, of whom two
only have a borough vote ; one of them is a bookkeeper
and treasurer ofthe society, and, therefore, in a certain
sense, is not what we understand as a working man. He
and another have borongh votes ; but the president and
secretary of this great establishment have no votes.
(Cheers.) I come • to the Rochdale District Corn Mill So-
ciety, which owns a very fine establishment. It has a capi-
tal of £6o,ooo,and its turn-over every year—the amount of
goods sold and money received—is £164,000. This is also
managed by a committee of 11. And let the house hear

this. Neither the treasurer, president, nor secretary, nor
any member of this committee, has a borough vote. One of
the committee has a county vote, being, I dare say, the
owner of a cottage in the neighbourhood. Then there is
the Rochdale Co-operative Manufacturing Society. This
has more than 1,500 members, a capital of £109,000, and has
built two of the'largest and handsomest mills in the neigh-
bourhood. Amongst these 11 there aro three borough voters
and two county voters; but of these five voters only one is a
working man in the usual sense. The votes are thus dis-
tribUted,—one manager, one manufacturer, one draper, one
out of business, and only one a workman or mechanic.
This is his summary :—" Total capital of these societies,
£227,246." The whole of that has been contributed, or
nearly so, by the working men of Rochdale, of whom the
right hon. gentleman spoke the other night in such glow-
ing language. The secretary goes on to say :—" The writer
has seen members of the Pioneer Society who bad scarcely
any work or income for their family during the cotton
famine come for 58. or 10s. from their investments of pre
vious savings just to help them on with their small earn-
ings. They did not ask or receive relief. This does not
show improvidence or want of forethought. (Hear, hear,
hear.) Now that the cotton famine is nearly over they are
again saving money. In June, 1865, their investments
were, in the Pioneer Society, £59,000 ;in September, 1865,
£63,000 ; in December, 1865, £69,000 ; and in March,
1866, they reached £76,600." (Hear, hear.) I hope the
right hon. gentleman the member for Caine wil' forgive

me for reading the next line. He says,—" This does not
agree with the Lowe theory." (" Oh," and a laugh.)
" What is taking place in the Rochdale societies is occur-

ring in a greater or less degree in all the societies, of which
there are 500 or 600 throughout the country." Now, what

is the answer that anybody is to give to these men ? Will

you give them the same answer as the right hon. gentle-
man the member for llertfoidshire ? Will you receive
them with open arms, and not inquire whether they pay

£6 or £7 for their rental ? (Cheers.) To every gentle-
man in favour of the reduction of the borough franchise—
excluding the member for Belfast altogether—l put this

question :—lf you accept all these as worthy the descrip-
tion given by one of your own eminent leaders, will you
allow these 5,500 to have the franchise in the borough of
Rochdale. And I tell the right hon. gentleman that it is a
great mistake to suppose the men of Rochdale are better
than the men of the various manufacturing towns of Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire. (Bear, hear.) They would alto_
gather scout the idea ; and I, who know them as well as
most men know them, and who also know a good deal
both of the working men of Lancashire and Yorkshire, I
would say, these men of Rochdale are a fair sample of the
general run of the 'industrious, intelligent, and indepen-
dent population among whom we Eve. (Cheers.) The
hon. member fcr Wick is terrified at the idea of the votes
of these men. Northern breezes and long experience havo
done nothing for them. He described all the good things
that have taken place in Parliament during the last 20
years, but he did not seem to be aware that there was not
one of those good things that I know of that the working
men of Lancashire and Yorkshire did not heartily support.

(Cheers.) But he might have known that not half-a-dozen
gentlemen on the opposite side of the house gave any con-
tinuous support to those good things. (Hear and a laugh.)
The hon. gentleman puts it to the credit of Parliament that
it repealed the Corn Laws. Why, if he had asked my
right hon. friend the President of the Poor Law Board he
would have told him that until Sir R Peel abandoned
protection there never were 100 members who gave a vote
in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws. (Cheers.) The
result was brought about, as everybody knows now, by
agitation at an enormous cost of money and labour, and
by the concurrence of a famine which was disgraceful to
our Government—(hear, hear,)—not because potatoes de-
cayed, but that when they did decay a whole population
ran the risk of being destroyed. (Hear, hear.) The same
men who out of doors and in Parliament asked for those
good measures are the very men who now ask for this
bill ; and I venture to tell the house that if they do not
get this bill they will get one very much like it. I shall
not ask the attention of the house to mere
figures, nor shall I endeavour to show up the inconsistency
of any members on either side of the house ; but I will ask
them as calmly as I can to consider the present position of
this question. Look all over the country, and you will see
that in one fortnight there were—l believe I am below the
mark in saying there were 100—meetings. Ah! there were
many more than 100 public meetings held which were
unanimously in favour of this bill. (Laughter and cheers.)
Well, hon. gentlemen opposite somehow do not pursue the
policy which enables them to hold public meetings.
(Cheers.) You have had many hundred petitions, with
something over half a million of signatures, laid on the
table of this house. If this bill were so destructive, if it
struck the same terror into the heart of the people that it
has struck into the heart of the member for King's Lynn,
surely you would have had some visible result. I believe
there was a petition from King's Lynn ; I think I saw a
paragraph in paper saying that 100 of the noble lord's con-
stituents were sending up a petition in support of his
amendment. But if the people believed the bill to be in-
jurious, if they thought the Government had pursued a
wrong course, if they imagined the middle classes were
going to be swamped, and that all kinds of evil— some of
which one hardly dare look at—were to follow from the
passing of this bill, is it conceivable that public meetings
would not have been held to protest and to petition the
house ? (Hear.) Look at the moderate and reasonable
character of the meetings that have been held. And I ap-
peal particularly to the two right hon. gentlemen oppo-
site, for I think they are not steeped in that unteach-
able opinion which seems general among their party—the
course which they took in 1859 shows that they have a
real conviction, and are conscientiously desirous of acting
on that conviction—and I ask them to look at the moderate
and reasonable character of all the resolutions that have
been passed, at the whole conduct and attitude of the people
at these public meetings. When Lord John Russell, pre-
vious to 1830, year after year, was bringing forward his
measures for the Reform of Parliament, suppose some
of these propositions had been adopted, that some of
the old boroughs had been abolished, and Parliament to a
certain extent reformed, do you- think the result would
have been at least as favourable for those who were then so
timid that they could not venture to take a step till• they
came to that terrible abyss which they dared not to look
over in the years 1831-2 ? (Hear, hear.) You may always
pass a measure with more honour to Parliament, with more
good to the country in a time of tranquillity than you can
in a time of force and compulsion. (Cheers.) And yet a
time of tranquillity is invariably, though net immediately,
followed in matters of this kind by a time of force and
compulsion. What is it that you propose to do ? The right
hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire told you what
must happen t 9 those who draw a hard line and put the
working man behind it, and say, " That separates us from
you." You have a million of electors now, and you have
close on eight millions of grown men in the United King-
dom. Can the one million say to the six or seven millions,
"Hither you shall come and no further." Is the thing
possible ? The gallant and right hon. gentleman the
member for Huntingdon is looking this way—does he
think that it is possible ? No ; ho does not ; he knows it
to be impossible. He has the experience of au illustrious
member of his own family, who thought it possible to
maintain the principle of Protection ; and finally, after
doing everything that he could, after violating his own con-
victions, after fighting the battle of hon. gentlemen opposite
for years, ho was compelled at last to surrender, and ad-
mit to the humblest man in the country -to the poorest
weaver—that he, the great Minister of State, had not com-
prehended this great question as the working men had
comprehended it. (Hear, hear.) I want to ask you
whether you are resolved—for this question is put to us in
discussing this bill—whether you aro resolved that a bolt
should be put on the door of the House of Commons, and
that the people shall be kept for ever on the other side
of it. Tho hon. and learned member for Belfast told us
the House of Commons was not to be a representation
of persons, but a representation of classes. Why, if the
hon. and learned gentleman gave in a court of law such
opinions on law as he giveshere on the constitution, depend
upon it he never would have occupied the eminent position
which he does occupy in his profession. (Oh, oh.) Ho
knows perfectly well that there never was in tho constitu-
tion of this country such a thing as representation of classes
in the Commons House of Parliament. We should have
been called the House of Classes, or something equally ab-
surd, if anything so absurd as such a representation had
taken place. He knows that in times previous to the usur-
pation of tho Tudors and the Stuarts every free man who
had a house in a borough was represented hole in this
house; and he knows that the Parliament of Charles I. de-
clared the franchise to be the right of every householder in
every borough. (Hear, hear.) And though the hen. and
learned gentleman attempted to show that the quotation I
made from Lord Somers did not bear the interpretation I
had put on it, if we come down to a much later period and
to the men who lived 60, 70, and 80 years ago, you will find
that every leading man of the Liberal party at that timo
was in favour of extending the franchise far beyond that
which is proposed by this bill. (Hear, hear.) If hon. gen-
tlemen opposite ever read anything of what is passing in
the United States they will see that there is a question there
which is causing great difficulty, just as this question of
reform is hero. It is proposed that to 4,000,000 of negroes
shall be given these rights; that they shall no longer be
bought and sold; that they may change their employment
and their masters; that they may work for wages and save
money; that they may be sued or sue in a court of law; and
that they may give evidence in a court of law. Beyond that
at present their rights are not to go.. They who were their
masters not two years ago, and who bought and sold them,
are not willing, for reasons which they think sufficient, to
grant those negroes the suffrage wt ich hitherto was almost
universal in that country. The franchise never was universal
in this country, and it is not necessary that it ever should
be. (Cheers.) But we have a representation here ; and if
the Crown be secured in its dignity and the House.of Lords
in the enjoyment of its privileges, the House of Commons
sits here, or ought as a matter of right to sit here, by the
free election of the commonalty of the kingdom. (Cheers.)
I ask gentlemen opposite whether they mean to stop the
working men of this country exactly where the 4,000,000 of
negroes in the United States are stopped. (Oh, oh.) Well,
that is a fair question. In England all those rights which
the bill just passed by the American Congress gives the
negro are rights which are conferred for ever to the great
body of our people ; but the negroes ask for further rights—
for what has been called the creation of a Constitution ;
and though it has been resolved not to give them the right
of voting, I don't think in the United States that position
can be long sustained. I am quite sure in this country it
cannot be sustained. If you are resisting millions of peo-
ple behind those embankments which you have built up,
how long will it be before the surging sea from the other
side will wash over and destroy the embankments which
you have raised? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire asked the question with
which I commenced my speech—" Cau this question be
kept in abeyance ?" That was the question he asked in
1859. I ask, can it be kept in abeyance in 1866 ? You
may defeat the bill. I am not learned in Parliamentary
computations. There are gentlemen on the other side
who, I dare say, profess to tell what majority there may
be for the bill, or what majority against it; but of these
things I know nothing. I will admit, if you like, that you
can reject this,. bill—you can defeat the Government, you
can drive Lord Russell from office. The right hon. gentle-
man the member for Buckinghamshire no doubt has a Par-
liamentary Bradshaw, and all his lines converge to Down-
ing-street. (A laugh.) I myself unwittingly contributed
to bring him back there before now, but we had shortly to
expel him fiom his high position in official life. If the right
hon. gentleman goes to Downing-street again. is he prepared
to say that we shall have no Reform Bill, or is he prepared
to say that we shall have one, and to propose such a measure
as be proposed iii 1809—one which his own colleagues,

two of the most experienced of his colleagues, declared to
be fatal to the Constitution ? Gentlemen opposito may find

that the question will break up their party. (A laugh.) If
they come to deal with the question of Reform they will
find a difficulty ; and if they do not deal with it, their dif-.
ficulty will not be less. There still remains the nation
outside this house ; and there will still remain the great
question of Parliamentary Reform. (Cheers.) I believe
there never was a bill submitted to this house by a Govern-
ment connected with the Liberal party which it was more
clearly the duty and interest of what is called the Conser-
vative party to support. (A laugh, and Hear, hear.) In
1832, the Tory party, who had opposed the bill, went to
their constituencies, and were mostly destroyed for the
time. If this bill should pass, large constituencies will not
probably look very favourably upon the men who had tried
to prevent it from passing. When you see a man like Lord
Russell, who was the chief spirit of the bill of 1832 (No,
no, and hear), who promoted it years before it made its
appearance, and who proposed it on the part of the Govern-
ment—when you see him, knowing as he does as much of
this question as, probably, any man in this house, so con-
' winced of the necessity of doing something, and offering a
bill so reasonable as this—l cannot help saying that either
hon.:gentlemen opposite are misled by their leaders, or have
driven their leaders into a course which I think is per-
nicious to the true interests of their party. Perhaps there
never was a bill which more gradually and moderately
commended itself to the advancing intelligence of the
people. There is not a whisper of dissatisfaction with
it. (Cries of "Oh, oh !") I speak of those persons
who are in favour of' any improvement in the repre-.
sentation of the people ; and so far as I am able to
gather information on the subject, even those who are
called Conservatives throughout the country, are weary
of the perpetual discussion of this question—(hear) —and
would be glad if it could be settled on the terms which the
Government propose. (No, no.) Well, sir, I did not rise
with the expectation that I would convince hon. gentlemen
that they were wrong and that I was right. The most I
can hope for is that some fact or argument may find a lodg-
ment in some mind, and may mitigate its hostility to ame-a-
sure which I think the country requires and which the
country is anxious to receive. (Cheers.) I have not
spoken in favour of the Government. I have said that I
think their figures are wrong, and that the case which they
laid before the house is unnecessarily and untruly injuri
ous to their own bill and their own cause. Will the house
believe for once that I am speaking to them from no party
spirit—from no wish to do anything -with the country but
what they must wish themselves ? (Hear.) In my view
lam at least as honest as they can be in theirs. I have
been misrepresented, condemned, and denounced by hon.
gentlemen opposite, and by not a few writers in their press;
but my conscience tells me I have laboured honestly only
to destroy what is evil and build up what is good. (Cheers.)
The political gains of the last 25 years, which were summed
up the other night by the member for Wick, are my poli-
tical gains, if they can be called the gains in any degree of
any living Englishman. (Hear.) If now, in all the great
centres of our population—in Birmingham with its busy
district, in Manchester with its belt of towns, in the popu-
lous West Riding of Yorkshire, in Glasgow, amid the indus-
tries of the west of Scotland, and in this great Babylon
where we are assembled and which our people have built—
if, I say, at this moment we do not find ourselvessurrounded
by hungry and exasperated multitudes—if now, more than
at any time during the last hundred years, it may be said,
to quote the beautiful words of Mr. Sheridan, that " con-
tent sits basking on the cheek of toil"—if tttis house and if

its statesmen glory in the change, have not I, as much as
any living man, some claim to partake of that glory ?
(Loud cheers.) I hope every thoughtful man among you
knows, and the gentlemen who sit upon that bench, and
who are leading you to this enterprise, know that the policy
which I have urged upon the house and upon the country,
as far as it has hitherto been accepted by Parliament, is a
policy conservative of the public welfare, strengthening the
just authority of Parliament, and adding from day to day
fresh lustre and dignity to the Crown. (Cheers.) And now
when I speak to you and ask you to pass this bin, when I
plead on behalf of those who aro not allowed to speak for
themselves in this house, if you could raise yourselves for
this night—for this hour—above the region of party strife,
if you could free yourselves from the pestilent atmosphere
of passion and prejudice which so often surrounds us here,
I feel confident that at this moment I should not plead in
vain with the Imperial Parliament on behalf of the English
Constitution and the English people. (Loud and prolonged
cheering.)
Mr. WHITESIDE, after condemning the vituperative
language of Mr. Bright, remarked that throughout the speech
the house had just listened to, he had failed to discover
what was the advantage of the Franchise Bill, or why they
should not agree to the amendment. Indeed, the argument
against the bill stood as untouched, and the amendment as
strongly supported as before the hon. member rose. It was
well that the house should bear in mind what parliamen-
tary reform meant. As he viewed tho matter it meant the
reconstitution of the House of Commons and the recasting
a political power in the country. Now, he was quite ready
to assist in the correction of any abuse, but when he came
to the question of enfranchising the great mass of the
people, that he regarded not simply as a change, but a great
organic change in the constitution. His theory of the matter
was that the author of the present bill was the member for
Birmingham ; that the measure had been adopted by the
government upon his advice ; that it had been framed in
accordance with his speeches and professed opinions, and
that it was so shaped for the express purpose of accom-
plishing the ulterior measures which he had in view,
and which he (Mr. "Whiteside) and kis friends would
endeavour to prevent or avert. Tracing the history
and progress of the reform'movement subsequent to 1852,
the right hon. gentleman_argued, in opposition to the sup-
porters of the bill, that neither Parliament nor the Go-
vernment was pledged to the question. Noticing, then,
the argument that the time had arrived when it was neces-
sory that the house should have the advantage of the in-
formation which working men could give them upon many
mysterious questions of a social and economical character,
what he should like to know wore those wonderful, my-
sterious questions ? Were the working classes to come
into the house bodily? If they did there would be a strike
for wages at once. But could not Mr. Fawcett, who was
a professor of political economy—could not the philoso-
phical member for Westminster supply all the information
that was requisite on the nature of strikes and the consti.
tution of trades unions ? Nothing could be more absurd
than to represent that Parliament must be changed in
order not to do the thing that was right, reasonable, and
moderate towards the working classes ; but that they
should be brought into the house to discuss questions of
finance, national policy,
crime, ignorance, the causes of
poverty, and the causes of sin. In conclusion, the right
hon. gentleman said there was no doubt whatever in his
mind that the bill was directed against the just influence
and power of the aristocracy, as defined by law and as part
of the Constitution. It would be an unfortunate thing for
the country should that policy ever prevail—and so think-
ing and believing that the Constitution was not a thing
which could be suddenly erected, thought it might be
speedily destroyed ; that was not the hasty product of a
day, but tho well-ripened fruit of wise delay, he asked,the
house not to read the bill a second time, but to vote for
the logically drawn out amendment, logically supported
by his noble friend Lord Stanley.
Mr. MC. TORRENS followed in support of the bill, the
effect of which he denied would be to swamp the existing
constituencies.
Mr. WALPOLE, while combating the argument that
the bill was so good that it ought to be pressed for-
ward, reminded the house that of late years they had
had several reform bills before them, and said that if
ever they got into committee upon the present measure
they would find that it was the least defensible and most
objectionable of all. The previous bills had avowedly
dealt with the whole subject of parliamentary representa-
tion ; this treated only a part of it. The former professed
to be governed by the principles of the Constitution. He
looked into this bill, and he saw no principle in it, except
the principle that it unsettled everything and settled no-
thing. The other bills maintained the principle of a con-
nection between representation and taxation. This entirely
destroyed that connection. And if they went on extending
the franchise as now proposed they would in the end arrive
at the point where the famous antithesis would be realised,
that those who governed would not be those who paid,
and those who paid would not be allowed to govern. All
the other bills proceeded on the notion that there ought to
be a variety of franchise ; but with the exception of the
lodger franchise and the savings' banks franchise this had
literally no species of franchise besides that which pro-
ceeded in a downward direction. Replying to the assertion
of Mr. Bright in one of his Easter speeches, that Mr. Henley
and himself (Mr. Walpole) had left the Government of
Lord Derby in 1859, because they were in favour of an £8
franchise, the right hon. gentleman declared that they had
resigned their seats on the ground of the views they enter-
tained with regard to a reduction of the franchise. What
they did was this : thinking they saw in the Constitution
that the county and borough franchises were placed dis-
tinctly on different footings—the former resting upon pro-
perty and tenure, and the latter upon occupation and resi-
dence, and both being connected with taxation, they feared
that any proposition which reduced the county franchise
to a common level with the borough franchise would do
away with that distinction. They considered that there
was a danger in any reduction of the franchise either in
boroughs or counties ; that if they took an arbitrary line
they would always be it, danger of being dragged down to
some lower lino ; and they believed that they bad found a
resting-place by fixing the county occupation franchise at
£2O and the borough occupation at £B. They conceived that
by going to something above a £6 rating, which was equi-
valent to an £8 rental, they would keep up the connection
between representation and taxation, inasmuch as at that
figure the landlord could not ordinarily compound for the
tenants' rates at a lower amount than the other inhabitants
of the town had to pay. Under this bill, however, the
landlord who compounded for his tenants would have them
under a continuous and corrupting influence. He agreed
that the question of the franchise ought to be settled, and
that nothing could be so mischievous as to leave it un-
settled ; but he was of opinion that it was to be settled
much more easily by the amendment than by the bill. The
right hon. gentleman then pointed out the inconvenience
and delay which must ensue from legislating in the frag-

mentary manner proposed by the Government. But 2110
chief objection to the proceeding was the possibility, if
they agreed to the Franchise Bill, of having to delegate to
another Parliament, elected by the newly created consti-
tuencies, a matter of such importance to their rights and
privileges as the redistribution of seats. To an extension
of the suffrage within the limits he had referred to he was
quite favourable ; and if the Government would redeem
their reform pledges by submitting a. full, complete, and
wise measure, they might bo assured that the House of
Commons would not be slow to redeem as' fully its part of
the pledge, and in doing so redeem it in such a manner as
would be most conducive to the permanent interests of the
whole community.
Mr. GOSCHEN, after remarking on the contradictory
nature of the arguments urged for the amendment, ad-
dressed himself first to Lord Stanley's speech, and asserted
that the reason why the bill had been divided was that the
Government meant to carry it, and that they believed they
could carry it better in parts than altogether. Their
motto was—the whole this year if possible ;if not, half
this year and half next. As to the leverage argument, be
maintained that the same constituencies would have the
settlement of both branches of the question. The bill for
redistribution would be on the table when the house went
into committee—every borough which was to be disfran-
chised would know its fate, and he denied that the Govern-
ment was capable of tampering with their own scheme for
the sake of getting a vote. In dealing with the arguinento
against the bill he contended that the warning from the
working of democracy in Australia was of no force unless
the condition of things could be shown to be the same in
both countries, and as to the so much dreaded preponder-
ance of the working classes, it was not the number of
electors but the number of members they could elect which
must be considered. At present they were said to be 26
per cent. of the constituencies, but they had only the com-
mand of eight elections. He went into minute statistics to
show that the expensiveness of the present franchise was
a delusion, and alluding to an expression of Lord Elcho
be
characterised the opposition to the bill as founded on "fear
of the people and defamation of its friends."
Mr. LOWE moved the adjournment of the debate, which
was seconded by
Mr. ONSLOW, who availed himself of the opportunity
r
to express his conviction of the honesty and sincerity °'
the Government. He believed, however, if an angel from
heaven were to produce a reform bill, that in spite of its
celestial origin it would not be approved of by gentlemen
opposite or by certain gentlemen on the Liberal benches"
Mr. YORKE drew attention to the circumstance that
the whole sitting had been monopolised by four speakers,
and that a very considerable number of members still de-
sired to address the house.
Observations were also made by Sir R. Knightleh
B. Johnstone, and Mr. Hibbert, with reference to the perl°'
at which the debate was likely to terminate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am
afraid that, as regards the adjournment of the debate, we
have no choice, in consequence of the decision of the hen'
member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), who is unwilling t°
give way, although I believe every other member is will-
ing to do so, but to adjourn it until Thursday next.,
I confess I think that is very inconvenient—(hear, bear)
—and that it would be a great advantage to continue
debates of this kind from evening to evening without an/
intermission at aIL (Hear, hear.) I do not think, 11°W-
ever, that there is any remedy for the difficulty which we
now experience. The course of the debate this evenMs
has undoubtedly been rather peculiar. (Hear, hear.) It 4
not for me to notice the particular moment of a gentleman
rising and sitting down—(laughter)—but undoubtedly r
do hope that on Thursday it will be found practicable f°'
gentlemen who are now waiting to address the house ttit
do their duty in that respect. So far as the Governilten,
are concerned, I am sure we have shown no indication ed'•
impatience in hearing hon. gentlemen—(hear, hear)--an
whatever takes place it is not for us to interpose, especial',
as the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) soreeci
what hypothetically stated that six speeches which ha
been delivered had interposed such difficulties in the wa
of hon. members (At the other side that they would reclua-
several nights' debate to remove the obstacles. (Chee—
rg
and laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI (who on rising was received With
cheers and laughter) said— So far as I can form an opinion
be there seems to a fair prospect, with some forbearat!c,, „-
and management, of bringing the debate to a concltist°'
this week. (Hear, hear.) I should be very glad 0
morrow evening could be devoted to the discussion--Olegt%
—but, so far as I am personally concerned, I am anxious
that the debate should be prolonged, in order to give 21¢
opportunity to members who have taken their places In
the house for the first time of addressing it. At the sat°
time we must feel that it is almost impossible that, by any
arrangement, we can satisfy even a majority of the iliat
claims brought to our notice. (Hear, hear.) Under these
circumstances, I should be very glad if we could come t°
some distinct understanding to-night as to the termination
of the debate. (Hear.) I originally contemplated that '"
might have ended on Thursday. No doubt if the b°l3.;
member for Dudley maintains the position which he n°,
occupieli, that will prevent the conclusion of the debate °'"
that evening ; but I should think that under any oirenelf:
stances, the house being now full, we might come t° -
definite understanding that it should certainly end On
Friday. (Cheers.)
The debate was then adjourned to Thursday.
The orders of the day having been disposed of, thehouge
adjourned at 25 minutes to 1 o'clock.