The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 1, 1866.

Exchequer on the Franchise Bill, and he made it now.
The right hon. gentleman, in introducing the bill, said that
the Government was not desirous of innovation. That was
to say, that they went on no principle, their principle was
the same as the principle of other distribution bills. Now
Redistribution bills might be divided into two classes—
one the great Reform Bill, the only successful Redistribu-
tion Bill ; the other the four bills which had failed. The
principle of the Reform Bill of 1832 was that of disfran-

chisement. The feeling of the country at that time was
that the immense number of small boroughs overruled the

representatives of the people, and that the nominees of
noblemen and great men had become a public nuisance. As
a consequence 141 members were taken from small boroughs.
The principle of all subsequent bills had been just the con-
trary, being that of enfranchisement, with only just so
much of disfranchisement as was necessary to fill up the
proposed new seats. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had not told them which of these principles was the prin-
ciple of the bill, and therefore he (Mr. Lowe) must puzzle
it out for himself. It seemed to him that they might say

could not let matters alone, to try and find some pallia-
tive for the evils that were threatened ? Surely it was

he latter. But the bill before the house did Lot pro-

ceed in the way of moderating, but of stimulating the

.endencies he referred to.

"Now, a new Jehu spurs the fiery horse,
Instructs him well to feel his native force ;
To take his bit between his teeth and fly
To the next headlong gulf of anarchy."
'Cheers and laughter.) The Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer had frightened them all the other day by telling
them to pay their debts because they would have no coals

in a hundred years. Addressing gentlemen opposite he said
that commerce might die, navigation might die, but the land
would remain, and they, the landowners, would remain.
Therefore, said he, let us pay our debts, or you, the land-
owners, will in future be saddled with them. And yet
what was the right hon. gentleman seeking to do ? Why,
with his bill he sought to take away as much as possible
the power from the land—(Opposition cheers)—from that
which was to remain when all those fine things were passed
away. Ho begged to ask his right hon. friend whether
that was sound prospective legislation ? (Renewed cheers
from the Opposition.) He had a word now to say upon
the franchise. The £7 franchise was defended by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the ground that we
were all flesh and blood. (Laughter.) It was defended
by the hon. member for Birmingham on another ground,
and they all knew what his ground was—it was, standing
upon the ancient lines of the British constitution. (Re-
newed laughter.) When the hon. member for Birming-
ham came to speak again, be would suggest to him one
line of the British constitution, and would like to know
whether he meant to stand upon it. The hon. member,
in a speech delivered during the campaign of 1858, said
that the spiritual peers of this country formed a crea-
ture of monstrous—nay, of adulterous—birth. (Laugh
ter.) He should like to know whether his honour-
able friend ineended to take his stand upon that line
of the British constitution. (Renewed laughter.) The
right hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney-
General, on the other hand, defended the £7 franchise
because he was in favour of household suffrage. These
were the three reasons given to the house for asking them
to adopt the £7 franchise, and he would ask was there any
encouragement in these? The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said flesh and blood. Well, the £7 franchise was a very
small instalment of flesh and blood. (Laughter.) Nobody
could doubt that he who argued it upCm this point only
took it as a means of getting more flesh and blood. The
hon. member for Birmingham took his stand upon the
constitution. Tho hon. member put him in mind of some
lines from an American squib :

" We stand upon the constitution by thunder ;
As to proof of it—we have bushels of proof ;
For how could we trample upon it, I wonder,
If it was not continually under our hoof ?"
The Attorney-General stood out for household suffrage.
He said to the Government, of which he was a member,
"You have taken your stand upon this £7 franchise, but
the ground you take is so slippery, so unsafe, and so un-
sound, that I would rather go down at once to household
suffrage than take my stand with yoa, because I know it
is so utterly untenable. That ground is infallible, and we
may possibly do worse than that." Now, he asked again
what encouragement did these three gentlemen give them
to pass the bill ? Let the house look at their admissions.
The arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer went
for universal suffrage, and those of the other two hon.
members for household suffrage. Now he wished to ask
whether they believed they could stop at household suf-
frage if they got there? They touched ground there cer-
tainly; but of what kind was it, solid ground or quicksand ?
That was a matter requiring their gravest consideration.
Once admit the principle of householl suffrage, and they
would soon find the working classes saying they were as
good as other men, and demanding further concessions
until universal suffrage was arrived at. And yet this
was the principle of the bill. That being the state of the
case, what were they to do ? Was it wise under the cir-
cumstances he had attempted to depict fur the house to go
into committee on this bill ? What should they gain ?
The principles he had alluded to could not be settled in
committee. They were the largest principles that could
possibly be imagined, and should not be settled in com-
mittee, but on the responsibility of the Government. He
would not dwell on the defective nature of their informa-

Lion, or on the statements made by the hon. member for
North Staffordshire and the member for Buckinghamshire
with respect to leaseholders, and with regard to their
ignorance of the £l4 householders in counties. E was
quite evident this bill was prepared without information,
because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them he hau
given them the only copy ho had of the statistics. (The
Chancellor of the Exchequer here made a gesture of dis-
sent, and there were loud cheers from the Opposition anu
counter cries of "No, no.") He would state it right. At
all events he could not be wrong until ho had stated it
somehow. (Laughter and cheers.) He had said he had
laid on the table of the house the only copy he had. Let
the hon. gentleman contradict him.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WiII the
right hon. gentleman allow me to add to my repeated state-
ments that I spoke of the last absolutely finished copy.
(Ironical cheers.) The substance of these statistics, so far
as regarded the bases of the measure, had been in our
hands for weeks before—(hear, hear) —but were not in a
state to be placed in the hands of members.
Mr. LOWE—That was what I meant. (Laughter and
cheers.) The substance of the consideration was whether
they should have 6t0120r 7 to 14. That was a matter of

no consequence. They merely wished they might not be
overbalanced. Then, as to the element of time, he sup-
posed he must not say anything about that either, because
the right hon. gentleman would be angry. The twelve
nights the right hon. gentleman gave them for the Fran-
chise Bill were pretty well gone, and they had got
the Redistribution of Seats Bill. He would ask
how they would get through under these circumstances.
lie would not dwell upon the educated opinion of the
country, or the fact that the host of the newspapers
which lay claim to intelligence, and wrote for edu-
cated persons, having begun with rather vague notions of
liberality in this matter, had written themselves fairly out
of them. (Hear, hear.) What they had before them was
an ill-considered and defective measure, which could not
be taken as it was, and which, even if they and the Go-
vernment wished to, they could not accept, such, for in-
stance, as the grouping he had alluded to. Then let them
see what objection there could be to put off the matter for
another year. One objection to that was that hon. gen-
tlemen were anxious for a settlement. But were there the
materials for a settlement in the bill ? The Government
seemed to have gone gratuitously wrong. How could
they settle grouping ? and was there not in the giving of
three members an adoption of the principle of electoral dis-
tricts ? Then, as regarded the franchise, no doubt they
could get through it, because it was simply a figure. But
could they make a compromise on that question ? for if
they took the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
or that of the hon. member for Birmingham,
they might as well take eight as seven, because what-
ever figure they took, they must and would hav6
to go down to household suffrage. Therefore, he said,
they had no material for a compromise. His hon.
friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had told
them the honour of the Government would not permit
them to take any other course. He thought they had
heard too much of the honour of the Government. (Hear,
hear.) It had boon sleeping since 1860. It had not even
winked. So long as Lord Palmerston lived honour slept
soundly. But when Lord Palmerston diod, and Lord
Russell succeeded by seniority to his place—(laughter)
tho sleeping beauty woke up. So long as the Government
kept together by having no reform bill the Government
asked for no reform bill. As soon as they became bound
to the peculiar views of Lord Russell honour required a
reform bill. It put me in mind of Hotspur's notion of
honour:—
"By heaven! methinks it would be an easy task
To pluck down honour from the pale-faced moon,
Or dive into the deep ;
So that he that cloth redeem her thence, might wear,
ithout co-rival, all her dignities."
The right honourable gentleman himself had told them
he had called upon Lord Russell to redeem a pledge.
(Laughter.) He called upon the Government to redeem
their pledge. How often it arose that when people were
in insolvent circumstances, and wanted an excuse
for becoming bankrupt, they got a friendly credi-
tor to sae them. (Laughter.) There had been another
little matter of honour. The Government raised a
point of honour wi h the House, and said they would
carry the second reading of the Reform Bill before
they produced the Seats Bill. They carried it, bxt they
carried it by that sort of majority which gave them a vic-
tory Without any honour at all. Then it could hardly be
said they had gained honour last Monday, when the
matter was taken out of the hands of the committee, by his
able and excellent collaborateur, the hon. member for
Northamptonshire. That did not matter so much to ordi-
nary mortals, but to persons who wore of a Castilian turn
of mind—(laughter)—it ought to have been a matter of
some consideration. To quote the words of Hudibras :
" If he, that's in battle slain
Be on the bed of honour lain,
Then he that's beaten may be said
To lie on honour's truckle bed."

He would ask for an instant the serious attention of the
house. lie was seriously convinced it was not the wish of
this country to do that which this bill attempted to do.
If they could annihilate the party of hon. gentlemen oppo-
site, the only reward of their success would be the anni-
hilation of themselves. (Hear, hear.) The history of
this country—the glorious history of this country—has
been a. conflict between two aristocratical parties, but
when one of these parties is destroyed, the one left oppo-
site will not be aristocratic, but purely democratic ; and
they had the opinion of the hon. member for Birmingham
that when aristocracy came to compete with democracy,
the victory would bo on the side of democracy. Such an
effort would be like that of a bird which, feeling the little
resistance offered by the air to its flight, imagined how well
it would fly if there were no air at all. Parties supported
and invigorated each other, and he would never be a party
to any measure which sought to destroy the balance of par-
ties which had existed for so many years in this country,
and which had the effect of creating to each when in office
a vigorous and vigilant opposition, conducted by men of
the same stamp, education, and position in the country.

He did not think that was one of the views of the bill which
the people of this country would adopt. He did not think
the people wished to diminish the influence of land in that
house, and therefore he believed they would have looked
with more satisfaction to a system of grouping which did
not confine itself to the representation of represented
boroughs, but which relieved the county constituencies
from the portions of large towns which were continually
encroaching upon them. A really efficient boundary bill,
he believed, would have been looked upon with favour ; •
but the provisions with regard to that subject were the
most illusory parts of the bill. He did not think that the
country wished to see the door of the house shut to talent
more closely than it was, or to see the house become an
assembly of millionaires. The country, he believed, would
look without satisfaction on the inevitable changes in the
constitution which must occur if these measures were car-
ried, in breaking the close connection between the execu-
tive Government and the House of Commons. He believed
they were anxious to put down corruption ; but it was not
the way to do so to put the franchise into poorer bands.
There was but one way to stop corruption, and that
was to take care that the franchise was only trusted
to persons whose position in life gave some sort of secu-
rity that they were above corruption. If they preferred
to lower the constituency they must look the matter
fairly in the face, and understand that they were willing
voluntarily to pepetuate corruption in order to enlarge the
basis of the representation. Those were not opinions
which he believed the people of the country wished to
have, and therefore the house would be acting in accord-
ance with sound wisdom by deferring the measure for
another year. He pressed that consideration most earn-
estly on the House, for the matter was of inexpressible
importance. Any error was absoluely irretrievable. It
was the last thing to be dealt with rashly or in haste,
They were dealing not merely with a Ministry, not merely
with a party, not even with a constitution. In their
hands was entrusted the noble, the sacred future of free
self-government all over the world. They were about
to exchange certain good for more than doubtful change.
They were about to barter maxims which had never
failed for theories and doctrines which had never
been proved. Democracy they might have at any
time. Night or day the gate was open which led to
that bare and level plain where every ant's nest was a
mountain, and every thistle a forest tree. A Government
such as that of England, which had been the growth of
centuries, was a thing which we enjoyed, but which we
could not impart to others, and which, if lost, we could not
recover for ourselves. Because they had advanced de-
liberately heretofore, it was no reason for pressing forward
rashly and improvidently now. Thoy were not agreed
on details ; they had not even come to any common prin-
ciple. To precipitate a decision under such circumstances,
even in the case of a single human life, would be cruel. It
was more than cruel, it was parricidal, in the case of a con-
stitution which was the life and soul of this great nation.
If it was to perish, as all human things must, give it at
any rate time to gather its robes about it, and fall with
decency.

" To-morrow.
" Oh, 'tis sudden.
" Spare it ; spare it !
"It ought not so to die !"

(The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and
long-continued cheering, accompanied by the unusual
manifestation of clapping of hands in various parts of the
house.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in replying to Mr.
Lowe's speech, said that if they deferred this bill for one
year they would next be asked to defer it to the millennium.
The fact was that those who opposed the measures now
introduced wanted no reform at all, and if the Government
took his (Mr. Lowe's) advice they would stand still and
do nothing. The right hon. gentleman wont through all
the features of the new bill, and defended every one of
them on the principle of honesty and good faith to the

public.
On the motion of Sir 11. CAIRNS, the debate was ad

jonrned.

It was arranged, with the consent of both sides of the
house, that the debate should close on Monday night.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock.