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

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

Fachequer 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
with regard to a redistribution bill, that it clearly ought
ought not to be founded on the principle of abstract rights,
equality of representation, and electoral districts, because
such a principle would be to make them the slaves of
numbers—(hear, hear)—who were very good servants, but
very bad masters. But if that, or some approximation to
it, was not the object of the Government, it was very diffi-
cult to say what their object was. The house had heard
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, and the Chancellor of the Duchy, but had
either of those right hon. gentlemen pointed out any prac-
tical good which they expected from this bill ? He set
himself, therefore, according to his old method, to try to
puzzle out what should be the principle of a bill for the
.redistribution of seats, for he had not heard any explana-
tion of the kind from the Government. He should like, in
the first place, to be shown that some practical evil existed
which the bill was intended to remedy ; but he gave that
up in despair. It seemed to him, however, that a reason-
able view of a Redistribution Bill would be that it should
be a bill which would make that House more fully than it
was at present a reflection of the opinions of the country.
He thought that was a fair ground to start from. They
had suffered in many respects by the arbitrary division of
those two measures, and in nothing more than this, that the
arguments which should be addressed to the Redistribution
Bill were transferred to the bill for the extension of the
franchise ; for, while it was true that a redistribution bill
should aim at making Parliament a mirror of the opinion of
the country, nothing was more true than that the extension
of the franchise to the working classes would not produce
a reflection of the opinion of the country, but rather the
reverse of that opinion. (Opposition cheers.) Well, then,
let them examine what was the tendency of things in this
country, and see whether that house failed in any consi-
derable degree to reflect the opinion of the country. He
confessed that he found it extremely difficult to find how
it had so failed. He thought there was a tendency to ex-
tremes, and to too great monotony and uniformity of repre-
sentation, which a Redistribution Bill should aim at cor-
recting, and the danger that, without equality being at-
tained, they would become mere multiples of one by 658.
He thought another object of a Redistribution Bill should
be enfranchisement, and by that he meant the enfranchis-
ing of fresh constituencies, giving more variety and life to
the representation of the country, and making the house
more near the country, which was a collection of an infi-
nite variety of persons, pursuits, and habits. (Hear, hear.)
Another advantage of fresh enfranchisement would be that
it would do the most efficient thing towards moderating the
frightful, enormous, and increasing expense of elections,
one of the greatest evils of the country. He was not speak-
ing of illegitimate, but the legitimate expenses. He took
up a return which was laid on the table that morning re-
lating to election gspenses at last election. He would refer
to a few of its items. Ho found that the Stafford election
cost £5,400; Stoke-upon-Trent, £6,200; Sunderland, £5,000;
Westminster, £12,000. He took the places as they came
from the letter S downwards. He wished to call atten-
tion particularly to the Westminster election, not for
the purpose of saying anything disagreeable to his hon.
friend (Mr. Mill), who was elected by a well-directed burst
of public enthusiasm, which was honourable to him and to
the electors. The cost of the election of his hon. friend
was £2,302, of which sum he had not contributed one six-
pence, but to the honour of the electors they brought him
in gratuitously. But what must be the state of things
when such an outburst of enthusiasm could not be given
effect to without that enormous expense ? (Hear, hear.)
He would now take a few of the counties. The southern
division of Derbyshire election cost £11,000; the northern
division, £14,650 ; the southern division of Essex, £10,000;
and the northern ctivision £16,000 ; West Kent cost
£12,000 ; South Lancashire, £l7,ooo—(Opposition cheers
and laughter)—South Shropshire £12,000 ; North Stafford-
shire, • £14,000 ; North Warwickshire, £lO,OOO ; South
Warwickshire, £13,000 ; North Wiltshire, £15,000 ; South
Wiltshire, £13,000 ; and the North Riding of Yorkshire,
£27,000. (Laughter and cheers.) He asked the House
how the institutions of the country could continue to work
if such a system as that were allowed to go on ? Let it not
be supposed that it was favourable to anything aristocratic.
It was favourable to plutocracy, working on a basis of de-
mocracy. Let them think of the persons that were ex-
cluded by such a system. They wanted, of course,
wealth, rank, good connection, and gentlemanlike de-
meanour and bearing in that house ; but they also wanted
sterling talent and ability to carry on the business of the
country. The right hon. gentleman then read some pas-
sages from Lord Russell's work on the Constitution, an
edition of which was published last autumn, to show that
the principle of disfranchisement in the bill went too far,
and that the bill of 1860 went as far in that direction as
it was wise and prudent to go. He then proceeded to
criticise the system of grouping proposed by the Govern-
ment, and showed the disadvantage under which mem-
bers would suffer by having to consult the wants and
wishes of several constituencies. It was like asking a
man to marry four wives. Indeed it was something
worse than polygamy, for it was asking a man to marry
four widows. (Great laughter.) Tho best thing that could
be said for the Ministerial Bill was that it aimed at remov-
ing anomalies. But mankind would tolerate many moms,
lies when they were old and grew up with them—when
they would resist new anomalies. Upon what principle
would they justify the taking integers from certain boroughs
and giving them fractions? The Government professed to
correct monopolies, but they only created greater anomalies
than those existing. The Chancellor of the Duchy was very
much shocked that so much had been made of geographical
considerations; but had they not been told by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that the whole scheme was based upon
geographical considerations ? He supposed the only inter-
pretation that could be put upon that phrase was that per-
sons would be given the opportunity of learning as much
geography as possible in travelling from point to point.
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman examined the Go-
vernment scheme, and cited instances to show that towns
in the same counties with populations in excess of the
grouped boroughs were left unrepresented. In Wiltshire,
for example, there were Chippenham, Malmesbury, and
Caine, making up a population of 9,000; while close to
them was the town of Trowbridge, with 9,026 inhabitants.
Such things might be tolerable when they had grown up
with you, but they became utterly intolerable when Go-
vernment came forward with a scheme that was to remedy
all anomalies, setting numbers as their basis. But here
was a gross injustice, something worse than an anomaly.
The proposal was that all boroughs with less than 8,000
inhabitants were to be dealt with in some way or other.
Well, why were Bewdley and Droitwich to be excepted
from the rule ? It could only be from the extraordinary
haste with which the scheme had been prepared. In as-
sessing the different degrees of punishment to be dealt out
to boroughs some principle ought to have been observed.
Nevertheless, Newport, in the Isle of Wight, with ,8,000
inhabitants, lost only one member, while Bridport, with
7,819 inhabitants, had both its members taken from it.
I Now, was that on account of some geographical considera-
ion ? This was not an anomaly. It was a gross injustice.

He was far from attributing any improper design to the
Government—their mistakes arose from mere wantonness,
and from the carelessness of persons who brought in
a bill which they originally did not intend to bring in.
(Hear, hear.) He maintained that the grouping of the
boroughs could not be satisfactory to any class of per-
sons—and of course it was not satisfactory to the small
boroughs. Nor could it be satisfactory to those gentle-
men who were calling for measures to remove the inequa-
lities of our representative system. The principle of the
bill was so bad, so thoroughly unconsidered, that it was
utterly impossible to deal with it in committee. As for the
allocation of the 49 seats placed at the disposal of Govern-
ment, it was a mere delusion to say that a boon would be
conferred upon the counties by giving them the extra
members proposed by the bill. The two measures must be
taken together, and county members must remember that
a total change was being proposed in the character of their
constituencies. When the franchise was lowered the power
of the counties would in reality be thrown into the hands
I t was, e were,
but
therefore,
to
re
of the small towns. Therefore, when they spoke of giving
e7thue counties extra
N e members to counties, it was not to counties as they
u
veriest delusion daesltuhsei
oynwteo s
re going
ay t
hattoacreate.
deal was going to be done
for counties. And putting that
aside, lot him ask what principle were they to give
three members to curunnt-
les ? According to the old principle
of the constitution two
th members were allotted to counties.
Well, they were entitledknow upon what principle that
practice was to be departed from ? He could suggest no
other principle than that of numbers;: but that principle
seemed to be directly contrary
the principle on which
members were returned to that hoc'
u ad-
vance upon the road to equal electo;3•ael. dilsttr'7cas a rapid
not for a. moment bring himself to agree to the'He could
plan
giv-
ing three members to the larger county constituea of
thought it would be far better for them to do without He
h
twenty-nine new members that wore promised by the bill.te
It was the duty of any man who called himself a states-
man to study the signs of the times in which he lived,
and to make himself master of the tendencies and direc-
tions of modern society. What were these ? He sup-
posed none of them doubted that we were at present
tending more or less in the direction of uniformity and
of democracy. (Opposition cheers.) hat was the duty
of a wise statesman under such circumstances ? Was it
to stimulate tendencies which were already in full force
and activity, or was it not rather, if be lutist legislate and

could not let matters alone, to try and find some pallia-
tive for the evils that were threatened ? Surely it was
the latter. But the bill before the house did not pro-

ceed in the way of moderating, but of stimulating the

tendencies 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, navigationmight 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. He 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, he 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 upon 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. The 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, bnt
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 you, 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 household 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 for 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-
tion, 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. It was
quite evident this bill was prepared without information,
because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them he had
given them the only copy he had of the statistics. (The
Chancellor of the Exchequer here made a gesture of dis-
sent, and there were loud cheers from the Opposition and
counter cries of "No, no.") He would state it right. At
all events he could not be wrong until he had stated it
somehow. (Laughter and cheers.) He had said ho 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 tar
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.
He 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
gone
another year. One objection to that was that hon.
settlementgen-
gratuitously i n the
How Government
could
they
e settleuleber os an intlemen were anxious for a settlement. But were there the
materials for a
three
drut grohaul'-pe
adoption
therewofatshep noo wrong.
iptleinof the giving gof
hr
g?
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 have
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. Ho thought they had
heard too much of the honour of the Government. (Hear,
hear.) It had been sleeping since 1860. It had not even
winked. So long as Lord Palmerston lived honour slept
soundly. But when Lord Palmerston died, and Lord
Russell succeeded by seniority to his place--(laughter)—
the 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 doth redeem her thence, might wear,
1. ithout co-rival, all her dignities."
The right honourable gentleman himself had told them
ho 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 sue 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, bat 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 were 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. He 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 hen. 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 oue 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 compote with democracy,
the victory would be 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 ho 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 largo 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 hands.
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 exclAnge 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 went 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 H. CAIRNS, the debate was ad
journed.

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.

Conservative Dinner at Harwich.

HARWICH, Thursday.

The dinner last evening in honour of Major Jervis,
M.P., and Mr. John Kelk, M.P., was the occasion
of speeches of some little interest from both hon.
members. Mr. J. C. Cobbold, M.P. for Ipswich,
presided, and proposed the toast of the evening in
very complimentary tertns.
Major JERVIS, M.P., in responding, said Har-
wich had reached rather a critical period in its his-
tory. Bad as the Referm Bill of 1832 might have
been, it still considered that the position which Har-
wich occupied in this part of England entitled it to
a share in the representation of the country. Dur-
ing the years which had since elapsed, Harwich had
wonderfully improved in respect to population and
business, and yet it was removed from amongst the
constituencies of the country. Improved as Har-
wich had been by the industry of its inhabitants
and by its commerce, he (Major Jervis) thought it
was the very last town the Government of the
country ought to attempt to obliterate. As time
rolled on, and as population, trade, and commerce
varied, it might be necessary that there should be
an alteration in the representation, in order that
the constituencies of the kingdom should represent
the feelings of the people to the fullest extent ; but
in the face of the fact that the county of Essex had
increased by over 100,000 inhabitants since the
Reform Bill of 1832, while its wealth and trade
had nearly doubled, he would ask whether the
present was a proper time in which to deprive
Essex of one of the ten members who represent
the county ? It was idle to talk of any great
difference between county members and town
members ; the members for Essex constituen-
cies had always been the ten members for the
county of Essex. If it were really for the interests
of the county that Harwich should be disfranchised,
he did not believe there was any borough the inhabi-
tants of which would more readily come forward
and ask their representatives to vote for the Re-
form Bill, although it might disfranchise them. But
there was no such necessity. He remembered that
when Mr. Campbell first appeared as a candidate
for Harwich he was good enough to say that if a
Conservative were returned Harwich would lose one
member, while if he (Mr. Campbell) were returned
it would keep its two members. He (Major Jervis)
thought this was rather curious language coming
from a Radical, but the result proved that Mr.
Campbell was right, and that he (Major Jervis) was
wrong. Mr. Campbell was perfectly in the secrets
of his party ; Reform with them was merely a little
bye play to enable them to get into power. (Laugh-
ter.) It was his (Major Jervis's) firm belief that
the Reform Bill of 1866 was also only a little bye
play ; it kept the newspapers and the two political
parties going, but there was not the slightest inten-
tion that the bill should be carried. One of the
first to get up in 1859 to oppose Lord Derby's Re-
form Bill was Mr. Campbell, who strongly objected
to Harwich being disfranchised any more than Mr.
Campbell would. He did not know how long this
little game was going on, but he thought the time
was come when Parliament ought to look seriously
at the state of affairs. In the present financial con-
dition of England, and when there were rumours of
war throughout the length and breadth of Europe,
he thought Parliament might talk about something
better than whether some small place in Yorkshire,
the name of which he forgot, should have two
members instead of Harwich. For his own part
he considered that at a time like the present the
leading men on the Conservative side of the
house, and the leading men who sat on the other
side of the house under the name of Whigs, should
drop their little quarrels and pull together for the
common good. (Cheers.) There was such a thing
as falling to the ground between two stools, and if
the Conservatives and the Whigs got quarrelling
such men as Mr. Bright might get a great deal more
than they deserved to get. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KELK, M.P., also replied, and said the House
of Commons consisted of a small portion of mem-
bers who talked, a small portion of members who
worked, and a large portion of members who neither
talked nor worked. (Laughter.) He hoped he might
claim for himself a humble position in the second
category. (Cheers.) He stood there that evening
in a proud position. Many of his constituents had
no doubt watched with interest the election petitions,
and had noticed that great havoc had been made
among some of the purest members. (Laughter.)
The petition against his gallant colleague and him-
self was the first which the House of Commons had
stigmatised as frivolous and vexatious, and dismissed
with costs. He felt proud of this result, as it was
no less a vindication of himself than of his suppor-
ters. We were in the middle of a political crisis as
dangerous to the Crown and constitution as the
anarchy in the financial world had been to those en-
gaged in commerce. He and his colleague had voted
against the fragmentary measure offered in the shape
of a deform Bill ; they declined, as Mr. Lowe ably

put it, to allow the constitution to be knocked down
to the lowest bidder, although believing that some
fair moderate measure of reform might be advisable.
They declined to support sweeping measures, whether
brought forward by the Treasury, or Messrs. Bright
and Company. He for one could see no logic in the
Government Bill. They proposed to give excessive
power to the working classes, while at the same time
they disfraia chi sed the very elite of that body, those who
worked in the Government dockyards. It was al-
most unnecessary for him to say that the proposal
of Mr. Gladstone to marry the borough of Harwich
to that of Maldon, and to take three members from
the two boroughs, should have his most determined
opposition. When Lord Russell introduced his Re-
form Bill in 1832 he said every working man might
get the franchise if it were reduced to £lO. Since
then the wages of mechanics had been increased
over 30 per cent., while the price of tea, sugar,
coffee, &c., had all been reduced, so that if it was
•the opinion of Lord Russell iu 1832 that a man
might raise himself to a £lO franchise, it ought to
be the noble lord's opinion now. (Cheers.)
Other toasts followed.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—If, as Mr. Goschen declared last night,
the great principle of action adopted by the Govern-
ment in framing their scheme of Reform was to make
one which should pass, they have been very unfor-
tunate in realizing their intentions. The bills they
have introduced, and which are now, or ought to
be, on the eve of being rolled into one, may have
every other virtue, but they make no progress.
They stick at the threshold of the committee, and
the prospect'of getting them over the line is by no
means encouraging. Mr. Baxter recognizes the
fact, and consoles himself with the thought that
something better must be the result of this delay.
The country is apathetic now, the " spurt" of feel-
ing manifested in the Easter recess has died away,
reactionary influences gather strength, it becomes
plainly impossible to pass to any Reform Bill with-
out the assistance of the Conservative party, and
the Conservatives show their customary want of
foresight in refusing to help forward the moderate
measure brought in by the Government. They will,
however, be punished for their folly ; Ministers may
be reduced to consider the question whether they
would prefer being roast or boiled, but the final re-
sult can only be a more sweeping change the longer
the delay. We agree with Mr. Baxter in lamenting
the too probable fate of the Government bills, though
we do not share the sweet thought of revenge, which
is his consolation. It will, indeed, be a misfortune
if the chance of settling a great and complicated
question be thrown away, and it is certain that
those who are to blame for it will receive their
proper punishment. It is, however, by no means
clear that the Opposition should be the only section
of the House visited for the offence. They have,
perhaps, acted unwisely in preferring the chance of
an immediate triumph to the fairer prospect of
assured victory a little later ; but they could not
have had the opportunity of so acting if the mis-
management of the Government had not given the
victory into their hands. The misfortunes of Re-
form have sprung from that extreme desire to frame
schemes that should pass, which is the especial ob-
ject of Mr. Goschen's self-satisfaction. The Fran-
chise Bill was introduced by itself, because it was
thought it might divide the possible opponents of
Reform, and it only served to combine them. A
great battle was fought upon a wrong issue, and the
influence from without which is desirable, if not
necessary, to force any Reform Bill through the
House of Commons, was spent in obtaining a victory
which came to nothing. There is now no motive
power left. The spring is broken, and the Govern-
ment has to struggle alone against the natural disin-
clination of the members for the docmed boroughs
to commit an act of suicide. The Redistribution
Bill is sufficiently moderate in its scope, but it has
the faults necessarily found in so hastily conceived
a project. Haste, indeed, inadequately expresses
the way in which it was concocted, for it really
exhibits what Mr. Lowe last night called the mere
wantonness of precipitancy. It was framed to pass,
but it has created enemies, and failed to create
a single friend. The counties and towns already
represented do not seem to care about having
third members, the places to be enfranchised
for the first time are too few to be influential,
and the support to be got from Scotland,
though valuable, is limited. On the other
hand, the bill has given the enemies of Reform
a good case. Mr. Goschen said very fairly last night
that no possible scheme of redistribution could prove
acceptable to the members for small boroughs, and,
whatever might be done, anomalies must still con-
tinue to exist, but he failed altogether to show the
necessity of creating—not preserving—the particu-
lar anomalies attacked by Mr. Goldsmid. In the
course of his able speech he mentioned once or twice
the blot of the Redistribution Bill in omitting to
group towns now unrepresented with those which
are represented, but he did not say one word to
justify this singular omission, or even to explain
how it had come to pass. The only deduction from
his silence is that it was a pure oversight, due to
the haste with which the Redistribution Bill was
concocted. It is more remarkable because, as Sir
John Pakington reminded the house, the Reform
Bill introduced by the present Premier in 1852 was
constructed on a totally different principle. The
principle of grouping was found in that bill, but
Lord John Russell then proposed to associate popu-
lous towns now unrepresented with towns which are
represented, and in no case did he group together
existing Parliamentary boroughs. The plan was
obviously defective, because it failed to redress the
balance between different parts of the country. The
Government of Lord Russell now proposes an equally
defective plan of grouping none but represented
boroughs, so that it seems to be the unhappy fate of
the Premier to exemplify what Mr. Tennyson calls
" the falsehood of extremes." The faults of the Re-
distribution Bill are serious enough in themselves,
but, coming, as they do, after other errors of
i Go-
vernment management, the fate of Reform s no
longer strange, though it remains deplorable. The
attempt to seduce the Houseof Commons into accept-
ing an incomplete scheme failed, as ought to have been
expected,in its first object,but served to arouse resent-
ment ; the hasty compilation of the Redistribution
Bill excited distrust which maturer consideration
has confirmed ; and the threats and appeals which
have been alternately addressed to the fears and the
sentiment of members have produced a temper which
may fairly be described as sullen reaction. The Go-
vernment scheme, taken as a whole, embodies no
principle but the idolatry of numbers, and, what is of
greater consequence, the arguments of its chief sup-
porters, as Mr. Lowe showed with unequalled force,
tend in the same direction. If the failure which the
members of the Government themselves appear to
considerimminent befall their scheme, it can only be
regarded as an effect of retributive justice. The dis-
cussion of last night would furnish additional evi-
dence, were it necessary, that had the Government
brought in at the commencement of the session a
complete and well-considered scheme, it would
have had an excellent chance of being adopted.
No one will suspect the sincerity of the declara-
tion made by Sir John Pakington of his de-
sire to see the Reform question settled, and he went,
indeed, out of his way to support the suggestion of
Lord Elcho in favour of a Royal Commission, which
should consider not only the reduction of the fran-
chise and the redistribution of seats, but also the
means of checking bribery, and the various modes of
voting proposed for better securing a perfect repre-
sentation of all classes of electors. There can be no
doubt that such a Conamission couldinvestigate many
brches of Reform with greater candour and impar-
tiality than is possible in the House of Commons; its
recommendations would command respect; and what-
ever may be the probability of the suggestion being
adopted, the fact that it was thrown out is significant.
It may even be found that it supplies the only hope
of escape for the Ministry out of their difficulties.
We are now in the month of June, and the dozen
nights which the Chancellor of the Exchequer de-
clared were all that the Government had at their dis-
posal when he firstintroduced the Franchise Bill must
have been long since expended. Other business is
delayed which requiresattention ; and since all parties
are agreed on the propriety of settling Reform, and
no one party seems able to settle it by its unaided
strength, it may be as well to have recourse to an
expedient which would at least have the advantage
of deferring all attempts at legislation on the sub-
ject for another year.
PosT.—lt is surprising how many results the Re-
form bill is expected to realise. There is not a pro-
fessor or graduate in social science but expects to
make it subservient to the carriage of some dogma
or the development of some theory. It is to create
in the masses a healthy ambition ; it is to find for
them a staff to uphold them in their stumbling
through the valley of life ; it is to be a lantern to
their feet; it is to teach them reading, writing, and
arithmetic ; it is to make them pure-minded and
despisers of money ; it is, in short, to take part in
the fulfilment of every function save that which is
properly and ought to be peculiarly its own—the
creation of a good and useful house of Commons.
For our own part we would require no more of it ;
and theorists who expect the offer or possession of
the franchise to exercise the multifarious influences
which they talk of must know very little of the na-
ture, natural or artificial, of the people whom they
represent in Parliament. Bribery in its grossest
form, its base money form, is assumed to be the
great blot in our electoral system in actual practical
work ; and at that blot naturally most of our talk-

yr Ir.

ing legislators take aim, and each thinks he has dis!
covered an infallible devicefor knocking this crime,
as those who have to find the money for it naturally
call it, out of the ring. One thinks that electoral
corruption will vanish before the advancing foot of
education, as the savage falls back and dies out be-
fore the onward movement of the white man ; think-
ing, with the usual inaccuracy of English thinkers,
that education and instruction are convertible terms.
Another believes that we must look to highly penal
enactments for prevention. Sir George Grey sees
no remedy save in wholesale and indiscriminating
disfranchisement ; and Mr. Bright, having no faith
in the honesty and virtue of the people whom he
assumes especially to comprehend and represent, can
think of no other mode of protecting candidates
than that of making constituencies so large and the
needy element in them so extensive, that corruption
will become impossible in practice from the error'
mous number seeking to be bribed, and the conse-
quent infinitesimal amount of each bribe. All these
retailers of ideas are mistaken ; all misapprehend
the nature of the difficulty with which they atten3Pv
to deal, and each entertains one error common to
all. In common they imagine that all persons have
political convictions, and are anxious to give to then?
movement and weight, and think that, as a natural
consequence, their political action would be hole-
pendent if they were left to be determined by those
convictions. There is the fundamental error. Th°se
who have governing opinions or ideas to which they
desire, by voting, to give value and activity, con-
stitute a very small proportion of a constituency
They constitute, naturally, the element that offers
the bribes, which they offer because they are
anxious and earnest. The major proportion eon:
sists of men who vote from considerations alraosv
purely personal, and among these is to be found aS,
naturally the element which receives, and in grea'
degree seeks for, the bribes. The well-to-do in-
different, as regards abstract politics, vote
accordance with feeling ; the needy indifferent
vote simply for money. They vote for whoever
gives them most, or if nobody gives in
anything, they do not vote at all. Will in.‘
struction in reading and writing change this
class for the better, or will their indefinite
multi-
plication make them impossible of manipata-
tion ? We believe not. We have less faith than
Sir John Pakington in the influence of the national
schoolmaster, and a higher opinion than Mr. Bright
of the ingenuity of electioneering agents. Neither
do we believe in the efficacy of penal enactments'
They will never have efficacy so long as the rear,
tion of payment for a vote is not pronounced criminal
by public opinion as well as by Act of ParliamenTs,
It is not so at present. No member of the Howson.:
Commons is less received by society, or less shake ti
bands with by his acquaintances, because he has 1e
his seat for bribery. He is thought lucky if •1;„
escapes from the difficulty of fixing him with ageneJ '
unlucky if his friends have unwarily committed hi
fl,l'
and laughed at as clumsy if be has managed so baoti);
as to be convicted personally of buying a corm? as
offered to himnotoriously, and pressed upon hin'.o
perseveringly as cigar lights in the streets. S°
the bribed voter. The constituency regard an
tion committee not in the light of a court of jost„11
but as a tilting ground, and each witness looksur,ed
himself, and others look upon him too, as pride,
against the counsel and solicitors on the other sl
local and metropolitan, and if he gets the best._ua
them he has a triumph, or, if defeated, is conded,cor
with, or laughed at or blamed ; if the latter, not I,t.
having been bribed, but for having made a badflgft,
Bribery, in fact, is looked upon by the masses pre'
much as poaching is. The law declares it a erin!,,i
but public opinion does not real or in its he'ri
denounce it, and so long as it is considered a venl,
offence the statute-book will not do much to destrao
it. The best proof of this state of feeling_ is,
rarity with which the law is put in force. In its
as far as the greater offenders—members of l'ar`j,;
ment—are concerned it never has been. There is. „
been a show on two or three occasions of proceeding
to extremities with offenders, but those who reireT.,
ber the circumstances which attended the prosee_iii
tion of Mr. Charlesworth and Mr. Leatham wor
find some difficulty in persuading themselvesery
others than the vindicators of the law were vActs
much in earnest. The influence of the Election A'o
is, we take it, merely indirect, but they haveoug
doubt operation to this extent, that the enorreo
expense which their action creates always Ito
candidates shy of resorting to bribery, and °eecl,
may deter them altogether. Sometimes,
candidates have been known to agree not to v,1,0,
on either side, but more frequently perhaps ''.lo
evade the risks by a mutual understanding
neither party shall petition. Of the other reineu, is
suggested that of wholesale disfranehisemenbibio
absolutely impracticable. It would not be Porsske..
to disfranchise such constituencies as those of 11'3 or
field, Kingston-on-Hull, Great Yarmouth,' to
Nottingham ; and it would not be permissib'eah
employ a mode of treatment to small boroughs""es,
we are afraid to adopt in the instance of large °P,,s.
The only additional mode that occurs to us as P:
sibly efficacious is to deprive of the franchise {Ouse
term or for life, every voter reported to the
of Commons, or convicted in a court of law, of .gio
ing or accepting a money bribe. Such a provlsoll
might properly be introduced into the Reform.
in accordance with the vote of the House on Sir oil
Knightley's motion, but it could only be cl°lled
the ground that the franchise is a privilege alts
trust, and not, as Mr. Bright and others hold As..
natural and inherent right. What amount of :pie
torrent effect such a penalty would have on
ill Dot
who will not register their votes, and who IsLotlif
walk from their own doors to the polling-I:00
may be a matter of doubt ; but its enfore'i.soclft
would in some degree purge the constituent best
and it might be worth trying. After all, the,oto
touchstone of electoral purity and earnestness "or
be to return to ancient custom, and make the cost
stituency, instead of the representative, paY
of the return.