The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

nothing. If you want to know what is to be said against
triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot I refer you to the
speeches of the noble lords the members for Tiverton and
London. (Cheers and laughter.) Well then, I say, in an-
swer to the first question, what was the temper of public
opinion ? And when we undertook this bill what did it
require ? I say the temper of public opinion was listless.
I say that it either required a measure quite as moderate as
we propose, or, if you tell us that public opinion has been
lately represented in local public meetings, then I say it
requires something which is not to be found in the amend-
ment of the noble lord. (Cheers.) It requires something
which no Whig Government could propose, and no con-
ceivable Government at this time could hope to carry.
(Renewed cheers.) I turn to the second question, put by
the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud—what
was the amount of acknowledged evil? What was there
that asked a remedy ? Why, sir, it cannot be very large,
for the right hon. baronet the member for Radnorshire,
with all his scholastic acuteness, did not in addressing his
constituents appear to discover any evil at all. (Hear, hear.)
The evil could not be one very popularly felt, for the hon.
gentlemen the member for Birmingham, with all his mas-
culine eloquence, failed to get up an agitation commensurate
to his talents and proportionate to his zeal. (Cheers.) Still,
there were these acknowled defects. First, some large con-
stituencies were unrepresented. Seconclly,:some large classes
did not possess the franchise. We addressed ourselves at
once to these. As to the first, we found that the really large
towns unrepresented were extremely few. To all those
with populations approaching 20,0001 believe we have given
members; if we have omitted some that should be repre-
sented, prove the case, and it is a fair question of commit-
tee. But reject the bill on account of that amendment and
you leave the towns we disfranchise still unrepresented.
Secondly, there were large classes that did not possess the
franchise. Now, should we really best obtain the remedy
by the principle of the noble lord's amendment, the lower-
ing of the borough franchise ? No ; for we should then
equally exclude #pme of the most intelligent and indepen-
dent persons who live in lodgings—(hear, hear)—and have
no house at all. We believe we have adopted a fair
rental of Bs. a-week, but that also is a question of com-
mittee. Reject the bill on account of that amendment and
you leave those persous unrepresented. We desired to ex-
tend the principle of representation by admitting personal
property of all kinds. We wished to bring that qualification
down to a scale that may include the artisan if he has given
proofs of thrift and foresight by investment in a savings
bank. Have wo made the amount of that investment too
high ? That too is a question of committee—(cheers and
laughter)—butreject the bill on account of that amendment
and you reject the principle that was honestly meant to in-
clude the superior artisan. (Hear, hear.) It is also com-
plained, especially by hon. gentlemen opposite, that in
counties there were many respectable persons living in
towns and villages not represented, and excluded from a
vote as residents in the county, these we resolved to enfran-
chise. We took the £lO occupier and we gave him a vote
for the county. Do you object to the mode in which this is
done ? do prove your caseend the question becomes a fair
one for settlement in coiefflttee. (Cheers and laughter.)
But if you reject this bill I ask you whether this £lO occu-
pier is to be enfranchised by the resolution of the noble
lord, or whether he is to wait for that other bill which the
hon. member for Devonport seems to think may speedily be
passed, but which the right hon. gentleman the memberfor
Coventry has told you a Liberal Government has at present
no chance of passing without the consent of the Conserva-
tives, and which the right hon. gentleman the member for
Stroud informs you can never be carried at all. (Hear.)
I will now take the most startling inaccuracy stated by the
hon. member for Devonport. He is accustomed to deal
with figures and practised in numerical details, yet
he says one great defect of the bill is that it will create a
fluctuating constituency between town and country for the
next 60 years. But only allow the bill to go into com-
mittee, and I think we shall be able to show that there will
be no such floating constituency, as a voter must select
between the two. (Hear, hear.) I say these are geed-
lions which you cannot, and ought not, to go into now.
Sir, I am willing to leave that part of the noble lord's
amendment to the able defence of my noble friend who re-
plied to him; but I go further, and say that, gran;an g all
the force you like to the noble lord's objections, thew' objec-
tions apply to clauses you can consider in commit'..se, and
unless you say it is nothing to enfranchise the lay go towns
now unrepresented, nothing to improve the re gistration,
nothing to enfranchise new classes, nothing a o admit the
£lO occupier to a vote in counties, you ought, not to reject
the second reading of the bill on account of two clauses you
have a later and a fuller opportunity to disr,uss. I pass on
to the latter part of the noble lord's amendment, which in-
volves a more important question—l mean the lowering of
the borough franchise. The differeuee between us is, that
he would suddenly lower the borer gh franchise, and we
would extend the general franchise, of the nation, in admit-
ting the principle of lodger fraw,elise, of investments in a
savings-bank, of education as it advances becoming a quali-
fication in itself—(hear, hear ;—we do not only extend the
suffrage, but we open vistas for gradual reduction, accord-
ing to the very views to v;hich the most thoughtful Re-
formers have always ineYined more than they have done to
the coarse substitute of. a £6 or a£s or a £lO house qualifi-
cation. Surely, education_ and independence ought to be
characteristic of a liberal suffrage ; surely, you gain
much more through the educated persons who hire lodg-
ings than you de, through the persons who are struggling
with poverty in, a £5 house. (Hear.) Take no very uncom-
mon example—a retired servant, or a broken tradesman,
hires a house and lets lodgings ; in those lodgings may live
an artist, a banker's clerk, a man of letters,:a superior arti-
san. The one retired servant or the broken tradesman
alone has a vote ; the four educated men who live with him
have none. Will you -bell me that their four votes would
not be of more value to 'the constituency in the right choice
of a member than the votes of £4 and 1:5 householders if
you added them to tie constituency instead ? (Cheers.)
Now, sir, so far as regards the mere interest of the Conser-
vative party in this, house, I have always said, and I still
think, that the lowering of the borough franchise.would be
no disadvantage to us, and would indirectly be of advan-
tage. No disedvantage, because I take it for granted that
the dispositAra of all the larger towns will return candidates
of the oppeeite party. Whether those candidates are re-
turned by a £lO or a £5 constituency could therefore in no
way afket the balance of party in this house. Indirectly it
would 'oe an advantage to us that gentlemen opposite should
be chosen by a£s constituency rather than a £lO. And
whr ? Because a party does not depend! on its numbers
ahnie ; it depends on the dig-nity, the independence, the
education, and on the whole the moderate good sense of its
representatives. I believe you gain all those qualities better
under a £lO constituency than under a £5. I believe the
worst enemy anupright Reformer can have is not a Con-
servative gentleman ; it is a demagogic adventurer. Once
adopt a very low suffrage in your towns, and my belief is
that in the present state of popular education the upright
,Reformer would be too often displaced by the demagogic
adventurer. (Cheers.) That would be your loss; indirectly
it would be our gain. Our gain, because you would no
longer be the same formidable candidate for power. Vio-
lent politicians may make a troublesome and unscrupulous
Opposition, but they could never unite to form the Queen's
Government. (Cheers.) If we wanted to destroy the
moral power of your party, we would give you the lowest
suffrage you liked to ask ; because, lower the franchise be-
neath £lO in counties, lower it to £5, and you would in-
stantly place lumbers under the influence of property.
That would be our gain. Lower the franchise in towns,
and the lower you go the more you place numbers under
the control of ignorance and passion. That would be your
loss. Now, far from wishing to destroy your party, I con-
sider it essential to freedom that the Liberal party in this
house should be always strong, and if I ask you to pause
before you lower too much the borough franchise, it is be-
cause I am convinced you cannot be always strong if you
create a constituency that does not secure to liberal mem-
bers the same high standard of integrity and culture. But
do not let gentlemen who represent the smaller boroughs
credulously believe that you can by any political logic
lower the franchise in boroughs without also destroy-
ing the smaller boroughs—the two principles must go to-
gether. For why lower the franchise in boroughs except
to take population more into account, and except to enfran-
chise a larger number of the superior part of the working
class ? You cannot, therefore, by your principle preserve
the smaller towns to the exclusion of the larger ; you can-
not pass the artisans of larger towns, where intelligence is
most diffused, to enfranchise the artisans of smaller boroughs
with a less rate of wages, and probably a less degree of
education. Therefore you cannot separate the two, as the
noble lord's amendment does, in order to entice your votes.
To lower the borough franchise is to annihilate the smaller
boroughs. Are there any such members, any such boroughs
so, guileless and tomblike as to be caught by the noble lord's
ensnaring amendment and seductive tongue ? Yes, Sir,
there is one, the member for Sandwich—
" Pleased to the last he crops his flowery food,
And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood."
But when those smaller boroughs are destroyed, what then?
To what constituencies will they be transferred ? Do not
think we do not carefully examine that subject. We might
have given what is called a more comprehensive, and might
have been a more popular measure. We might have swept
away 80, 90, 100, or 120 boroughs. But, had we done so, it
appeared clear to us, as it does to my noble friend ho
spoke so well last light, that the majority of the seats
taken from the boroughs ought to be given to the counties.
The noble lord in his last Reform Bill arrived at the
same conclusion. If we had done this you would have said,
" We undertook a Reform Bill in order to serve our party."
(Cheers.) We did not do this. 'We would not, in the present
state of Europe, provoke that town and county quarrel
which renders always so difficult, and at this time so dan-
gerous, the question of any large redistribution of seats.
Having resolved that our measure should be moderate, we
resolved that, as been between party and party, it should be
lust. (Cheers.) But whenever you open that question of a
arge redistribution, then on every ground of justice the
counties will ask a larger proportion of seats than they now
possess. (Cheers.) But grant that you put aside our pre-
tensions ; grant you get the kind of Reform Bill you re-
quire, and that this house is swayed and this country go-
verned by a large preponderance of urban populations with
a very low franchise. Sir, let us face that question fairly.
It is one far more important than the party battle we are now
fighting, and it is one of the deepest interest to us all, as well
educated men equally anxious for the dignity of our councils
and the power of the House of Commons. Sir, first let us
see what the House of Commons really is. It is not merely
a popular assembly, it is a deliberative assembly. It arrogates
inquiry and decision upon all the most complicated ques-
tions of policy both at home and abroad. It is this in which
it strikingly differs from our free colonies, to which we may
accord the most popular suffrage. A colonial legislature is
little more than a vestry on a great scale. It does not
provide even for its own military defence. It does not
touch upon foreign affairs, all those matters belong to the
Imperial Government. It is this, too, in which the House of
Commons differs from the popular Assembly of America.
In that Assembly foreign affairs are seldom discussed, ex-
cept when they relate to tariffs or the disposition of public
money. Foreign affairs belong by right to the Senate,
which in discussing the ratification of treaties and public
appointments become an executive body, excludes reporters
and sits with closed doors. Even in domestic matters the
debates in the American popular Assembly never excite the
same interest nor carry with them the same weight as the
debates in the Senate do. The guiding intellect of America
is in her oligarchical Senate, not in her popular Chamber.
(Cheers.) And why ? Because the American Chamber is
what you would make this House of Commons—so popular
in its constitutents elements—so brought down to the level
of the masses, that even the masses have small respect for
its wisdom, and it is to the Senate that the Republic looks
for deliberate judgment upon the graver matters which in-
volve its honour and affect its national interests. It is not
so as yet in England. The brain and the heart of England
are still in the House of Commons. The wisest of our own
people have still an interest in our debates the greatest
potenates of Europe have still some respect for our deci-
sions. (Cheers.) Once Americanise the House of Com-
mons and you would lose more in the intellectual attributes
that create your real power than you could obtain by all
the popular vigour you could get through
suffrage and electoral districts. (Cheers.) I manhood
say that
one reason for the moderation and dignity which per-
vade our councils is to be found in the fact that we have
not as yet on the whole lowered our suffrage beyond the fair
standard of education which ought to be required from an
English voter. I grant that in all the very large towns,
even under the present franchise, the suffrage is practically,
so low that democracy may be said to prevail. But it is the