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

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 1 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 lam 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 1 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 moderato
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 Dot 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 Oa fordshire told you what
must happen to those who draw a hard lino and put the
working man behind it, and say, " That separates us from
you." You have a millionrof 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 ; he does not ; he knows it
to be impossible. He has the experience of an illustrious
member of his own family, who thought it possible to
maintain tho principle of Protection ; and finally, after
doing everything thatho could, after violating his own eon-
victims, after fighting the battle of hon. gentlemen opposite
for years, he 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 queition is put to us in
discussing this bill—whether you are 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. The 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 gives here on the constitution, depend
unon 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 the 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 the 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 time
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 here. 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 wb 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,
1 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 aro conferred for over 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. lam quite sure in this country it
cannot be sustained. If you are resisting millions of peo-
ple behind these 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—" Can 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. lam 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 tho 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 wo had shortly to
expel him from his high position in official life. If the right
Ihon. gentleman goes to Downing-street again. is he prepared
to say that we shall have no Reform Bill, or is ho prepared
to say that we shall have one, and to propose such a measure
as ho propoied in 1850—one which his own colleagues,

two of the most experienced of his colleagues, declared to
be fatal to the Constitution ? Gentlemen opposite 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, largo constituencies will not

irobably look very favourably upon the men who had tried

,o 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-

vinced 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 repro-
sentatioh 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 thatl 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 amea-
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'isunneeessarily 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 fmd otirselves surrounded
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 this 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 %ion 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 bill, when I
plead on behalf of those who are 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 onbehalf 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 the matter it meant the
reconstitution of the House of Commons and the recasting
a political power in the country. Now, ho 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 Mends 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 shouldhave 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 were 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
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
spe whichedi
speedily
could be
destroyed
d ;
suddenlythatwas erected,
not
t hthought
hasty
product
dmui
egth t
of b
ae
day, but the 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. 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 wont 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 andthe 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 lino
they would always be in danger of being dragged down to
some lower lino ; and they believed that they had 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 his,
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 be 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. GOSOHEN, 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 arguments
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 statisties to
show that the expensiveness of the present franchise was
a delusion, and alluding to an expression of Lord Elcho lie
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
to express his conviction of the honesty and sincerity of
the Government. Ho 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. Knightley, 31 •
B. Johnstone, and Mr. Hibbert, with reference to the period
at which the debate was likely to terminate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-1 am
afraid that, as regards the adjournment of the debate, we
have no choice, in consequence of the decision of the hou•
member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), who is unwilling to
give way, although I believe every other member is Win-
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 groat advantage to continue
debates of this kind from evening to evening without all
intermission at all. (Hear, hear.) I do not think, hey.'"
ever, that there is any remedy for the difficulty which Nve
now experience. The course of the debate this evening
has undoubtedly been rather peculiar. (Hear, hear.) It ie
not for me to notice the particular moment of a gentleman
rising and sitting down—(laughter)—but undoubtedly I
do hope that on Thursday it will be found practicable for
gentlemen who are now waiting to address the house to
do their duty in that respect. So far as the Government
are concerned, I am sure we have shown no indication of
impatience in hearing hon. gentlemen—(hear, hear)—and
whatever takes place it is not for us to interpose, especially
as the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) some-
what hypothetically stated that six speeches which had
been delivered had interposed such difficulties in the we)of hon. members on the other side that they would require
several nights' debate to remove the obstacles. (Gleeand laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI (who on rising was received with
cheers and laughter) said—So far as I can form an opinion
there seems to be a fair prospect, with some forbearance
and management, of bringing the debate to a conclusion
this week. (Hear, hear.) I should be very glad if to;
morrow evening could be devoted to the discussion—(l,6sl.)
—but, so far as I am personally concerned, I am anxious
that the debate should be prolonged, in order to give 311
opportunity to members who have taken their places in
the house for the first time of addressing it. At the sumo
time we must feel that it is almost impossible that, by any
arrangement, we can satisfy even a majority of the just
claims brought to our notice. (Hear, hear.) Under these
circumstances, I should be very glad if we could come to
some distinct understanding to-night as to the termination
of the debate. (Hear.) I originally contemplated that it
might have ended on Thursday. No doubt if the hoe'
member for Dudley maintains the position which he riolir
occupier, that will prevent the conclusion of the debate on
that evening ; but I should think that under any &Nay
stances, the
,house being now full, we might come to a
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, the house
adjourned at 25 minutes to 1 o'clock.