The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-06 00:00:00

Mr. Lowe and his Const.tueutii.

The following documents have been forwarded to
us for publication :

"To THE RIGHT IION. ROBERT LOWE, M.P. FOR

THE BOROUGH OF CALNE.

" We, the undersigned Liberal electors of Caine,
hereby protest against the course you have taken on
the introduction of the Government Franchise Bill
into the House of Commons.

"We consider your speech on that occasion to
have been given in utter recklessness of conse-
quences to the Liberal party and to the Govern-
ment of Earl Russell.
" You were sent to Parliament to represent this
borough as a Liberal member, and now you are
found running from your allegiance to the Liberal
cause on a vital point, and eliciting by your anim_
adversions on a great Liberal principle vehement
cheers from the Tory benches.
"We have observed with pain and regret the
ungenerous and unjust satire you have flung on
the masses of your fellow-working countrymen,
ignoring their prudence, self-reliance, and perse-
verance. Speaking of them, you say, 'lf you
want venality, ignorance, drunkenness, and the
means of intimidation ; if you want impulsive,
unreflecting, violent people, where would you
look ? '

" Against this we, 61 of your constituents, think
it our duty to protest, lest our silence should be
healonger to countenance your reaction.
" And we have the honour to remain,
" Jonx D. BISHOP, and sixty others.
" Caine, March 28."

"To MR. JOHN D. BISHOP AND SIXTY OTHER
ELECTORS OF THE BOROUGH OF CALNE.

" 34, Lowndes-square, April 4.

" Gentlemen,—l am very sorry to find that
you have felt it your duty to protest against the
course which I have taken with regard to the
Franchise Bill now before the House of Com-
mons, and that 1 have not enjoyed the oppor-
tunity of offering to you, before you condemn my
conduct, the explanation which I now respectfully
submit to your candid consideration.
" You consider my speech to have been given in
utter recklessness of consequences to the Liberal
party and to the Government of Lord Russell.' By
recklessness' I understand carelessness or indiffer-
ence, and, so understanding it, I cannot admit the
charge. l view with the greatest concern the divided
state of the Liberal party, and the loss by Lord
Russell of the majority of 70 or 80 which he inherited
from Lord Palmerston, and which might have been
made so efficient an instrument of good in improv-
ing what is defective in the institutions of the coun-
try. The question is, who is to blame for this ? I,
who have preferred my principles to my party, or

the Government who have committed themselves to
such a measure as renders it necessary for many
moderate and conscientious men to choose between
them and the permanent interests of their country ?
" You accuse me after having been sent to Par-
..

liament as a Liberal member, of running from my
allegiance to the Liberal cause on a vital point,' and
as I understand it, convey an imputation of bad
faith on my part towards my constituents. I sub-
mit to you that there is no ground for such an im-
putation. On the 3d of May last I made a speech
in the House of Commons, in which I strenuously
opposed any reduction in the pecuniary amount of
the borough franchise. On the 20th of June last,
in anticipation of the general election, I issued to you
an address, of which the following are extracts :
" Our tranquillity and content I attribute to a
well-founded conviction on the part of the people
that justice is fairly administered, and the business
of government and legislation conducted in the spirit
of equity and impartiality to all classes of the com-
munity. So long as this shall be the easel see no rea-
son for great organic changes in institutions which,
although partaking largely of the imperfection inci-
dental to all things human, and susceptible doubtless
of great improvements as our experience widens and
ripens, have combined order and liberty, stability
and progress in a greater degree than the institu-
tions of any other nation. Any one who points out
a practical evil in the working of our Constitution
is entitled to a respectful hearing, and any one who
suggests an efficient remedy for such evil shall have
my earnest support. But I attach too much impor-
tance to the blessings we already enjoy to risk them
in pursuit of ideal perfection, or even theoretical
improvement.'

" I expanded the same sentiments in a speech
which I made to you on the day of election, the
12th of July last. It is therefore, I think, quite
clear that I have dealt with you in the fullest good
faith, and that no elector has any reason to con-
sider himself overreached or aggrieved by the course
which I have taken with regard to a measure of the
very kind which I distinctly informed you I could
not support.

" Thirdly, you observe, with pain and regret,
the unjust and ungenerous satire which I have flung
on the masses of my fellow-countrymen,' and you
assert that, speaking of them, I say if you want
venality, ignorance, drunkenness, and the means of
intimidation ; if you want impulsive, unreflecting,
violent people, where would you look ?' These
words are in the middle of a sentence, the beginning
and end of which have been omitted ; had the pas-
sage been submitted to you in full, I think you
would have seen that it did not refer to the masses
of my working fellow-countrymen at all, but only
to practices which notoriously exist in some boroughs
among the poorer class of electors. I was arguing
that the proposed Franchise Bill would increase
corruption and other malpractices at elections, and
I put it thus in substance you find these prac-
tices prevail principally among the poorer class of
the present electors, will you not give a great im-
pulse to them by lowering the franchise from £lO to
? The whole passage as reported in the 7 inzes,
stands thus :—' I have had opportunities of knowing
some of the constituencies in this country, and I ask
if you want venality, ignorance, drunkenness, and
the means of intimidation ; if you want impul-
sive, unreflecting, violent people, where will you go
to look for them—to the top or to the bottom'--of
what? Of the constituencies, of course. You will
see by comparing this passage with the portion
quoted in the protest you have signed that its im-
' port is entirely changed by the 'omission of the be-
ginning and end, and, instead of being pointed, as
it was intended to be, at abuses notoriously exist-
ing in many constituencies, and daily exposed be-

fore the election committees now sitting, it is made
to appear as an indiscriminate censure of a whole
class, of which I was not speaking. I entirely agree
with you, gentlemen, as to the possession by large
numbers of the masses of my fellow-working coun-
trymen of great prudence, self-reliance, and perse-
verance, and, indeed, of many other qualities to
which we owe the present position of England
among the nations of the world. But you will now
see that as I was not, as you suppose, speaking of
those masses, I cannot be correctly said to ignore'
these good qualities because I did not mention them.
My view has always been, as I expressed it in my
speech on the 3d May last, that the franchise, as at
present established, is a ' vast instrument of good,
a lever by which we may hope to elevate the work-
ing classes, requiring a little and only a little effort
and self-denial on their part; a little security that
they are able to conduct their own affairs, before
we intrust them with ours.' Since I made that re-
mark it has been proved by the Government returns
that at least a fifth of the borough constituencies
is made up of working men. I rejoice at it, and, as
a friend of every class in the community, I think it
much better that this natural process should be left
to work itself out than to be artificially
_accelerated,
and should consider it very unfair to the working
men who have already achieved thiS honourable dis-
tinction to mix them up with others who may not
have exercised the same prudence and self-denial.
Such, gentlemen, are the explanations I have to

PRICE. 4d.
STAMPED 51

offer. 'lt would give me great pleasure should I find
that they have induced any one of you to reconsider
the censure which he has passed upon me.—l am,
gentlemen, your obedient, humble servant,

" ROBERT Lo E."

The Lord Advocate on Reform.

At a meeting in the Music Hall, Edinburgh, the LORD
ADVOCATE, after some preliminary remarks, said—l ran
say, with the greatest sincerity, that I accept at the hands
of this meeting the trust which they have reposed in me,
and that it is my intention to support the bill of her Ma-
jesty's Government with all my heart. (Loud cheering.)
But probably from an official of Government that may not,
after all, appear a very startling avowal. It may be very
naturally said--" You are a member of Government, and
no wonder you are going to support the bill." (Laughter.)
Yes, gentlemen, if Scotland is also included in this mea-
sure, it will be the fourth time I have had to support, in-
deed, to prepare and introduce a measure of Reform for
Scotland. This is no new question and no new position,
so far as lam concerned. The first speech almost that I
made in the House of Commons I made in introducing the
Reform Bill in 1852. I prepared the second bill in 1854,
aeenmdeltphreepfoaurretdh time,tliehßeform ird Bill in 1860. And now I
Reformaga int
Billscre
ha
rlgVeh et that
alt wtis
listenkejl. tpaoe hno
atmipeesl noieftl ;m1 nwyahyf ar
beit e wn
den.: yotndhuteltsiyee
other side in the 'louse of Commons, and they are many,
for whom ''have very great friendship and respect, I can
hardly believe that I have lived the life and can recall the
recollections of the last 15 years.
The
theße form
Govetilmwenhticohf
I prepared for Scotland in 1852,under
Lord John Russell, proposed a £5 suffrage for the burghs
a £5 rating franchise for England,
of Scotland ;but a good
honest £5 franchise for the burghs of Scotland. The Reform
Bill of 1854 proposed £6, so did that of 1860 ; and though.
there were great difficulties during all these times, it never
occurred to me that we were stirring up revolution. But
time went on; bill after bill was proposed and negatived, till
at last came the present crisis, whenthe question truly was,
not what it was safe to propose, but what it was possible to
carry. There were great difficulties—l do not say they all
came from one quarter. I believe there were many elements
at work, and possibly all parties were to blame. Perhaps
each wished to take on themselves the exclusive credit of
carrying a Reform Bill—perhaps some honestly holding
moderate opinions on ono side, and others holding opinions
more advanced on the other, and so they were unwilling to
come to one ; and thus, between the parties in the State and
the agitation, this question haS been tossed to and fro till it
seemed almost impossible to bring it to a solution, and
added to that was the undoubted fact that the country was
not disposed to rise as it did in 1832. The country was
prosperous and contented, and there was none of that ex-
ternal stimulus to force measures through an apathetic
House of Commons. Well, then, I say the question, the only
question which Government had to consider was, is it
possible to carry a Reform Bill or not ; and, if so, in what
way it will be easiest and best to carry such a bill? Because
I think you will agree that after the history of these mea-
sures it would not be consistent with the character of the
House of Commons, nor consistent with the character of
public men, that a bill should again be tabled without a
determined and resolute attempt to carry a measure that
was believed to be for the benefit of the country. Well,
Lord Russell's Government has proposed a measure for the
extension of the franchise only, and that measure places
the extension at £7, not a very alarming proposition, I
think, and I do not see what people are afraid of in it. The
quettion is, Can it be carried ? I believe it canbe carried,
and I believe it will. (Loud cheers.) But it is said the Go-
vernment do not propose a redistribution of seats. Well,
there is only one reason for their not proposing that—
namely, that it would be difficult to carry it; and there is
only one objection to not proposing it, and that is that it
would be more easy to carry the bill as it stands. I
greatly suspect that that is the true objection. Lord
Russell thought it wise to do one thing at a time; that
it might, perhaps, in the end bo the swiftest course to-
wards the object we had at heart, and accordingly we pro-
posed to deal with the franchise first and the redistribution
of seats afterwards. Now, as to the redistribution of seats,
I wonder what my friends would have said if wehadbegun
with the Scotch Reform Bill. What is to be our distribu-
tion of seats ? I don't think we have got any to distribute.
The only distribution of seats we look for is a little share
of those which are disfranchised in the other kingdom. But
,sswe have no corruption in.. Scotland ; we have no Calnes
or boroughs of that kind, and I don't think that any of our
seats are to be disfranchised, and none therefore are to be
distributed. Well, if we had brought forward a Scotch
Reform Bill lowering the franchise, where wouid havebeen
the objection to dealing with that by itself ? And does it
make the slightest difference that from the nature of the
constituencies in England there is a variety of boroughs
which it would be well to unite in groups or to suppress,
and that there are large constituencies that require addi-
tional members ? Surely that is a subject quite large
enough to occupy Parliament in a session of itself. It is
tsazind. it
Iwwouolnd kldreeepplythte. cmoyunfrtryienidns,a..,c, rooun iwc
os
ut al
dt e
ko
ef
eapg itt ah
e
country in a state of chronic agitation ; for if you pledg;tbhee
House of Commons never to pass a Reform Bill unless
a large and comprehensive scheme, what would bothe i re-
sult ? The probable result would be this : —This year will
be as other years have been. We shall go on spending our
spring days and summer nights in party conflicts, and the
session will end as it began, and no Reform Bill will be
passed at all. (Hear, hear.) But, gentlemen, there is no
chronic agitation to be feared. The pressure of public
opinion will settle this matter as it ought to be settled.
Some people talk of final measures. I know of no finality
in legislation of that kind. (Hear, hear.) We are deal-
ing with a matter that ought never to be final. The ad-
justment of the franchise in this country ought to vary
as the position of the people varies. The object is
to represent the people, and if the people alter, the
system of representation—not in its principle, but in its
mode and details—ought to alter; and therefore it is vain
to say we want a measure to settle the question. Never-
theless, I do believe by extending the franchise to £7 we -
shall have a solid resting place, which for the present
wants of the community may be sufficient, and we may
then turn 'our attention with peace and comfort to the
large social and other questions that demand the attention
of Parliament. But is any one so blind as to imagine that if
this Bill be thrown out we are going to rest in peace and
quiet ? lam glad to say there is no agitation of the kind
we had in 1862, and happy is the country where organic
change in the Constitution is treated with quietness, consi-
deration, calmness, and good sense. But I will just say this,
that the calm consideration which the people are willing
to give to a question of political expediency they would
not be prepared to give to a question that strikes at the
very root of the 'representative system itself. (Cheers.)
But it is said this will admit a very large number of the
working classes. Gentlemen, I wish the question had
not been so much argued on the ,footing of the working
classes. Parliament does not enfranchise classes; it en-
franchises men. (Loud cheers.) We have no classes in
our electoral body ; we have no body of men who act as a
class in the exercise of the franchise. Where are the
classes that band together as electors under the present
system ? They are unknown ; and when . you admit the
persons who come in between £7 and £lO, no doubt you
dig deeper into society, but you will find in the same body
of men you admit the same diversities, the same indepen-
dence of thought, and the same desire to work out their
individual opinions as you find in the existing consti-
tuency. Why, then, harp about the working classes? My
friend Mr. Lowe has avert' great fear of the working classes.
I listened to his speech last session, when he depicted a
kind of mob outside the palisade of the Constitution ready
to rush in and destroy us. I listened with wonder and
amazement to so very different an estimate from that which,
from the opportunities I had had, I had formed of what are
called the working classes. But this year Mr. Lowe has
had his blue-book, and the blue-book showed, as he most
triumphantly asserted, that the working classes had quite
sufficient representation already, and constituted from
one-fourth to one-fifth of the whole constituency. It never
seemed to occur to him that if that was the case these
working men had had their own share in that good Go-
vernment which he so much applauded—(loud cheering?
and that they had, election after election, been using that
right, not in the direction of revolutionary principles,kis .n but
to build up the very fabric which he now thliencds,s dan-
ger. (Renewed cheers.) And if any man
men
have used
the book, and sees in what way the woerkci
fectly safe. But Mr. Lowe asks,t
lie country is prosperous,
their votes, he will be satisfied tha,t, :by Onwngsht tnn twi oen
aisrepearl-1
quite pleased and happy, whensee.Show us some reason for
It is that the persons
idti.tturlbwuosuvrildthtelal
hßteeftoti
haßreileaal
exercising
grethise
• and
capableofexeurct
independence. say at
reason tdO my mind. •
behind, which Mr. Lowe perhaps does not
o
er
this principle
wene franchisertpe
t°.
es withe
ston intelligenceeienfranchise
c.
ce
Perceive, and that principle of our representative Govern-
ment is this—that the more men of intelligence and inde-
pendence you can have as the basis of your representative
system the better, and freer and wiser and more effi-
cient will be the representative himself. (Applause.)
Now there lies the whole principle of the struggle. I be-
lieve the more electors of independence and intelligence
you have, not merely do you not encourage revolution, but
you directly strengthen our institutions ; that the more
persons you have within the franchise the greater is the
influence of public opinion on the representative body in
the House of Commons, and, as the public opinion of this
country is ruled by the wise, learned, powerful, and able
in the country, ruled by the press, ruledby those who are
capable of ruling the minds of men, it follows as philoso-