The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

him what the currency was to Sir R. Peel. No man knew
its points more completely, or was more fully acquainted
with all the bearings of the case. Lord Rimsell and Lord
Derby were the only two existing statesmen who had been
concerned in passing the Reform Bill of 1832, and it was
well known that to their youthful energies the success of
the measure was greatly, if not entirely, indebted. There-
fore, neither of them could look with any of that besotted
prejudice which is imputed so frequently to both of those
statesmen by different sections of politicians. Lord Russell
was satisfied with the settlement of 1832 entirely, and he
resisted all those attempts which year after year were made
for a general and comprehensive change in our representa-
tive system, and resisted upon the principle of finality, and
always successfully. But having resisted them successfully
a new school of reformers arose, who were called piecemeal
or bit-by-bit reformers; it is not au elegant but it is still a
parliamentary expression. Persons who were called mode-
rate men, and who did not give themselves the trouble to
think, took it into their heads that bit-by-bit reform was a
very harmless thing, and that in any event it was better to
do a little and stop agitation by bit-by-bit reforms, But
Lord Russell knew that the distribution of power was the
real point— (hear)—and that if you treated a single fran-
chise by itself, which moderate men miht think of no great
importance, and did not treat other parts of the question,
you might effect a complete change in the English consti-
tution. And, therefore, Lord Russell in 1852, when he was
pressed, said, "What am I to do? The only way I can pre-
vent it is by devising a large, general measure." You know
what happened with him—he went out of office. Lord Derby
was in the same position; he had to resign the government
of the country, which, not only as a man of honour, but as
a practical man, he found it impossible to continue to hold.
And this is exactly the case in which Lord Russell and Lord
Derby were animated with the same views and objects. But
the most singular thing is that Lord Russell is again minister,
and we now have him introducing a measure of piecemeal
Reform. (Cheers.) Well, sir, I leave shown the house that
Parliament has not been pledged, and I think I have shown
the house that there have been no broken vows on the
part of the great parties of this country represented by their
chief men, Lord Russell and Lord Derby. (Cheers.) What,
then, is the origin of the present state of affairs ? The ori-
gin is this—that some 16 or 18 months ago, on a fine sum-
mer morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down
to the House of Commons appropriated to one of those
dreary debates about a £6 franchise, to which we all look
back with dread and horror—(cheers and laughter)—and
he made a most remarkable speech, in which, he established
the suffrage upon the rights of man. (Cheers.) And at the
same time he announced his conviction that the working
classes of the country, on whom he delivered a high pane-
gyric, possessed only an infinitesimal share of the suffrage.
The inevitable consequence at which it pointed was that a
large measure of Reform was to be brought forward, based
on the approximation to the rights of man, which would
include a great mass of the working classes. (Hear.) That
speech was received with much enthusiasm by a party in
this house—not a numerous party, but one represented by
great talent—in the case of one individual by commanding
talent, who possessed among his followers men of great in-
telligence, experience, and organisation. (Hear.) They had
also a party in the country, not a contemptible party, but I
do not think a predominant party. From that moment this
party has been at work—working upon the declaration of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And, though checked for
a moment by the prudence of Lord Palmerston, still it was
clear that if he unfortunately left us a new character would
be given to the administration, and the consequence of that
event has been the measure now before us—(cheers) —a
measure of piecemeal reform. (Renewed cheers.) Now I
oppose it at once as a measure of piecemeal reform (cheers)
and I support the amendment of the noble lord, to which I
am now going almost strictly to confine myself. (Hear.)
My great objection to the measure of Government is this
—that I cannot, though others may, really understand it.
I cannot calculate its consequences—l cannot fathom what
may be the result of its provisions, unless I have this fur-
ther measure before me, which is essential to its complete-
ness. (Cheers.) But if Ido consider the measure without
reference to any further measure, I think I can show the
house that it must land us in a condition of such confusion
as is little contemplated by the great body of ministers
themselves and by those who may support it, that I verily
declare, and I will give my authority for the proposition,
that if this bill were passed, and on a subsequent occasion
it became the duty of ministers to advise her Majesty to
recur to the country—l do believe they would rather have
an autumn session in order to revise and modify this bill
before us, than they would really dissolve Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) I propose to show, in the first instance, in
the clearest manner, the inconvenience and immense in-
jury that may be produced by this bill if it pass alone—and
we must consider that it is given us as a complete measure
—and we are asked to-night to assent to its principles.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not think that I can put the case in
a more convenient manner than by taking the county
franchise as represented by the hon. member for York.
(sear, hear.) Now I have never been a stickler for an ex-
clusive county franchise. My convictions upon the sub-
ject were taken from my earliest political friend, my pre-
decessor in the seat I hold, who was the author of the
Chandos clause. And he convinced me that the principle
on which that clause was based was the right principle. It
was supported at the time by Mr. Hume and the leaders of
the Liberal party. It was opposed by Lord Althorp, upon
what I cannot but conceive would be thought,in these days
in which we live, old-fashioned notions (hear, hear)--
namely, that you should confine the suffrage of counties
entirely to proprietors, and that in boroughs exclusively
to occupiers. (Hear, hear.) But in 1832, when you were
ostentatiously, avowedly, and -properly giving a large
share in the Government of the country to the middle
classes, it did seem most monstrous and inconsistent that
one of the most important sections of the middle class—l
say the most important, as the largest employers of labour,
namely, the farmers of England, should have no suffrage
(cheers). I think that the measure proposed by Lord
Chandos was a wise and a proper measure. The bill now
before us proposes a very large reduction in the occupa-
tion of franchise of counties. Now I want to show the house
how that will act if this bill, which is brought in as a com-
plete bill, is passed. And I propose to show that, first of
all, by considering the effect of the proposed franchise in
counties from the population in Parliamentary boroughs
(hear). The house, perhaps, has not realised as it ought
the increase in the population of Parliamentary boroughs
since the act of 1832. It is very large—it is larger than
the population of several European kingdoms. The in-
crease in the population of Parliamentary boroughs is con-
siderably above 4,000,000 (hear, hear). And the greater
proportion of this population is located without the boun-
daries of the Parliamentary boroughs (hear, hear). I
know it may be said that a considerable portion of this in-
crease is produced by the metropolitan districts. I think
it is very likely that the greater proportion of the increase
in the metropolitan districts may be within the Parlia-
mentary boroughs ; though I have no doubt the increase
of the population of the metropolitan boroughs may be
considerably affected by the contiguous counties of Essex,
Surrey, and Kent. But I think it is better to deduct that
population, and then there will be an increase in the Par-
liamentary boroughs of upwards of 3,000,000 of men, the
greater portion cf whom are located without the boun-
daries (hear, hear). Ido not know that I can give a hap-
pier instance of that fact than that borough from which I
presented a petition to-day—which borough the Chancellor
in his opening speech referred to as a conclusive proof of
the undesirable position of the suffrage as regarded the
working classes, and which was made the subject of an
eloquent comment in the admirable speech of my right
hon. friend the member for Herefordshire (Sir E. Lytton),
and which was urged by the right hon. member for Bir-
mingham (Mr. Bright) as the main ground for the neces-
sity of this bill. I mean the borough of Rochdale (hear).
I admit when you consider the general character of the
artisans of the borough of Rochdale, which is the most
flourishing part of the county, in which men have been long
in possession of high wages, and in which men have the
reputation of having shown some of the highest virtues of
civil prudence; that when you refer to the books and find
that they have only a nominal share in the representation ;
that they have only 68 votes according to one authority,
and 200 by another—but whether the numbers be more or
less does not signify for my argument—l say lam ready to
admit that that is a case which strikes one very much.
(Hear, hear.) But when I have to examine the question
minutely, I find that the population of Rochdale without
the parliamentary beundaries is larger than that within the
boundaries. (Hear, hear.) The boundaries of Rochdale are
very peculiar. From the central place of the town there is
only a radius of three quarters of a mile, and beyond that
the population is spread over seven valleys in a very re-
markable manner. (Hear, hear.) The population without
the parliamentary boundaries considerably exceeds the
population within the parliamentary boundaries, and the
great body of the workmen live in a portion of the town
beyond the parliamentary boundaries. (Hear, hear.) I saw
with interest the statement that the mills belonging to the
family of the hon. member for Birmingham—mills of a
considerable extent—aro all without the boundaries. The
proprietors employ at this moment about 1,000 bands, and
I believe, without exception, every one of those hands
lives without the boundaries. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT—No ; the great bulk of them live within
the borough.
Mr. DISRAELI—WeII, I have the names ofir--
before me. (Cheers.) But I am not going to press that point
with reference to the borough franchise at this moment, be-
cause I think it is of little importance. In reference, how-
ever, to the county franchise it is a matter of some import-
ance. (Hear, hear.) Here is a population of 40,000, 50,000,
or 60,000 living without the boundaries of Rochdale,':and
this is the population that is to possess the county
votes under this bill. (Cheers.) Remember that they
are only to live in a £6 house. - Now, if a man
have a £l4 house—aud that is not a rare thing in that
part of the world—or if ho has a£6 house and an occupa-
tion field, he will be entitled to a county vote. I do not
mean to say that they should not have a vote, but is it not
just and proper that they should vote where their capital
and interest are? (Cheers.) In a community the members
of which must be bound by every social and political tie,
ought they not to be electors for the borough of Rochdale,
and not the electors for Yorkshire and Lancashire ?
(Cheers.) That is the question, and I put it to every
county member whether they think that is a state of things