The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-29 00:00:00

made suddenly. He .was as much desirous as the hon.
member for Birmingham that the working classes should
have a:large share in the representation ; but he was not
prepared at the present moment, looking at the state of edu-
cation in this country, to give the whole power of the repre-
sentation to the working classes or the holders of small
tenements. He should therefore vote for the resolution of
the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) But he wished to go a step
further, and look at the position of the house and the coun-
try on this subject. He confessed for his own part, he should
very much like that, the house having carried the resolution
the Government should still go on with their bill, and,
having ex urged all the objectionable clauses in committee,
they should make the bill satisfactory to the house and
the country. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Government
ought to be fairly left to the alternative of resigning their
offices or dissolving Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He at least
should throw no obstacle in the way of their doing se, but
he should not think of advising them to dissolve, for he be-
lieved they would cut a very awkward figure on the hust-
ings--(hear)—and therefore he thought that would not be a
safe expedient for them to take. (Hear, hear.) He should,
moreover, like to know what chance there was, when they
had disposed of this Government, of their being able to form
another Administration which would propose and carry a
very different measure from the present ? He was not san-
guine on that subject. His noble friend (Lord J. Russell)
had proposed to the house two great measures on this subject
—one in 1852, and the other in 1854 ; he could not propose a
less measure now, and if he did propose a measure, where
was he to find the means of carry-nu, it ? As far as the se-
cond reading all the gentlemen °atilt (the Opposition) side
of the house would go with the noble lord, but in committee
they could not get on one step without the bill being vio-
lently opposed. The country was not now in the condition
in which it was in 1832, when the cry was " The bill, the
whole bill, and nothing but the bill ;" when the public
were so deeply interested in seeing a Reform Bill carried
which would free them from the influenceof the oligarchical
interest, and when, if a member voted against the bill, the
constituency soon corrected his error. (Hear, hear.) At pre-
sent he saw nothing but popular agitation aslikely to follow
from this question not bemg settled now. (Hear, hear.) It
was not the fault of the right hon. gentleman the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer that he introduced this bill ; but it was
impossible for them (the Opposition) to support it consis-
tently with their principles. He should, therefore, vote for
the resolution, because the right hon. gentleman told them
he should persist in the confiscation of the county voters.
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Ellice) should, therefore, throw from
his side of the house to the other the consequences of an
agitation which would be most detrimental to the interests
of the country, and particularly of the working classes
themselves. (Hear, hear.)
Col. SMYTH said he should support the second reading
of the bill, reserving to himself the right to propose such
amendments and improvements in committee as he thought
would make it a satisfactory measure to the house and the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. JOHN LOCKE regretted that the Government, not
knowing their followers, had rejected .'the advice of the
right hon, gentlemen who had retired from among them to
lower the borough franchise to £6. He gathered from all
the swehes he had heard delivered by hon. members on
the Ministerial side of the house that they were in favour
of the two principles contained in the resolution of the noble
lord the member for the City of London, and he would
therefore advise the Government to at once adopt them and
make them the basis of the bill, notwithstanding that the
Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) had raised
the Irish cry of "No surrender." If they had taken that
course at first they would have obtained from the house that
indulgence which they had hitherto enjoyed ; lie was willing
to admit that they deserved it for the great ability with
which they had managed the affairs of the country. He
called upon the Government to consider well whether they
could not consistently adopt the resolution. If they did
not intend to adopt the principle of the resolution, it was
absurd to proceed with the bill ; and he thought it was a
misfortune that the Government had not met the resolution
in this spirit.
Lord A. TEMPEST said a groat deal had been said about
sympathy with the working classes. The hon. member for
Dorsetshire made, on the first dvening, what was acknow-
ledg. ed to be a very talented speech. That hon. gentleman
said that a party in that house were afraid of the working
classes. (An ironical cheer.) He (Lord A. Tempest) would
answer that cheer presently—(hear)—but if the house went
into an analysis of fears, would it not be found that the hon.
member for Dorsetshire was actuated by fear of his next
reception on the hustings ? There was an assumed theory
on the part of the honourable member for Birmingham and
the honourable member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) that they
possessed an exclusive sympathy for the working classes.
But he would challenge those honourable gentlemen to a
comparison with the landed gentry, whether in agriculture
or in trade—for there were members of the aristocracy en-
gaged in trade—in order to see by which of the two classes
the comforts and status of the working classes were most
cared for. All' he said to hon. gentlemen opposite was—
Don't put yourselves forward as if you and you only had
sympathy with the working classes. Who was it that re-
sisted the passing of the Factories Act ? Why, hon. gen-
tlemen opposite—(hear, hear)—and who supported it ?
The • aristocracy of the upper house and those connected
with them in that ; therefore let not hon. gentlemen oppo-
site pretend to monopolise all sympathy with the working
classes. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the present
Ministry presented a very favourable contrast to the last,
by their industry, their devotion to business, and their
general courtesy—(hear, hear)—irrespective of all political
views. (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to Lord Malmes-
bury, as it had been said by the right hon. gentleman the
Attorney-General for Ireland, in his eloquent speech on
Friday, it was not the Minister but the policy of the Go-
verment, which had succeeded. There had been no sub-
mission- to the dictation of foreign Powers • but English
prisoners had not been left to rot in Neapolitan gaols, and
told afterwards that the eye of the Minister was upon them.
(Hear, hear.) Nor did ha wish the Government to accept
the proposition of the noble lord the member for Tiverton.
(Hear, hear.) There Nras yet a course open to the Govern-
ment, namely, to withdraw the bill—(cries of " Oh, oh,"
and cheers)—for the present, and appeal to the house, not
by a crafty resolution, but by the exhibition of a safe, just,
moderate, and wise measure—(oh, oh, and interruption)—
to appeal to them as to the wisdom and justice of the pro-
positions contained in the bill—as to the prudence of their
conduct since they entered upon the administration of
affairs, and, whenever they did so, he (Lord A. Tempest)
believed they world find the verdict of the house favourable
to them. (H hear.)
Several hon. members rose together, but the Speaker's
choice fell upon Mr. M. Milnes.
Mr. M. MILNES said that he thought that considerable
advantage had been gained by the debate that hid taken
place upon the subject, and that a good basis had been
arrived at for reform. He thought that the discussion had
been ,one that would be satisfactory to the country, and that
it had been discussed in a just and honourable spirit. He
thought the debate had been divided into several heads, in
the same manner as a sermon, and he proposed to divide the
observations that he had to make upon the subject in the same
way. He could not say that he thought the resolution of
the noble lord either factious or unjust. He thought that
in considering it one ought to compare the position of
parties ; for in raising a great moral question such as this,
it was impossible not to look at the antecedents of indivi-
duals and of parties. It was impossible to consider it
without considering the disadvantages it was under in
coming from the Government instead of being the produc-
tion of a party which had always been connected with re-
form. If the Government, instead of bringing in a bill upon
the subject, had waited till a bill had been introduced from
that side of the house—(laughter)—and till all parties on
that side had agreed to a measure—(laughter)—they might
have enjoyed the position of neutrality which they would
then have had, or if they had not done this they might have
introduced a simple measure upon the subject; either of
those two courses they might have adopted, but they had
chosen to deal with the whole question of reform in pre-
ference. He would not have found so much difficulty in
dealing with the bill if it had not contained one important
principle—that was, the extension of the franchise in
boroughs. His ideas with regard to that were so distinct that
so far from thinking the resolution of the noble lord the mem-
ber for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) a trick or a dodge,
he considered it, or at any rate the latter part of it, a mere
truism. He wished to vote for that principle either now or
in committee ; but he felt himself precluded from the latter
course from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
(Mr. Disraeli), who did not appear to leave such a course
open to the committee. He thought that all such questions
as uniformity of suffrage ought to have been left open, and
then they would have come upon them accidentally as it
were, in committee, and not as a novel plan insisted upon
as a standing place upon which the constitution was to
stand for ever so many years. As to the question of the
disposal of seats, he did not think the country took much
interest in the subject. In the West Riding of Yorkshire,
for instance, instead of being gratified at the prospect of an
increased number of members, the constituency had often
publicly expressed their satisfaction at the not
system,
by which they were represented by two, and not four mem-
bers. .For the reasons he had stated, he could not vote for
the second reading of the bill ; but if the Government would
withdraw it, and bring it in again in a less objectionable
form, he would give it all the support in his power. (Hear.).
Sir J. GRAHAM said,—Mr. Speaker, Ido not rise to
reply to the speech of my hon. friend the member for Pon-
tefraq. I have long been anxious to make up my mind on
this question. It is often no less difficult to know what it
is one'.s duty to do than to perform that duty when we have
made up our minds. I certainly did wish not to have seen
the day arrive when it would be necessary for this house to
reconsider the fundamental principles on which our consti-
tution is based. I took a part—a humble part, but a sin-
cere one—both in the preparation and the passing of the
Reform Bill of 1832. The right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in introducing this bill to the house,
used an expresssion which grated on my ears. He said the
statesmen who took part in the Reform of 1832 appeared to
him,to have had to treat the subject in many respects
a empirically." I can hardly think the right hon, gentle-
man used that word in its more invidious sense. If it were
necessary to defend the authors of that measure, I should
refer him to the noble lord at the head of the Government

of which he is a member, without whose aid we should have
experienced great difficulty in carrying that measure of
1832, zind I should have to mention such names as those of
Lord 'grey, Lord Althorp, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Dm._
ham., I confidently believe that the memory of these great
men will be justified from any such reproach by the verdict
of histdry. (Hear, hear.) But there is another meaning to
the word empirical which I amrather disposed to think the

right hon. gentleman intended to attack to it—that is to say,

that the measure of 1832 was an experimental measure.
Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The right
hon.ientleman treated it as an experimental measure. I

should certainly wish to call the attention of the house,

after an, experience of 27 years, that the change then effected
vas iMmense. The noblelord the member for the City of
London described it to us as "a bloodless revolution "
happily, bloodless, but still a revolution. (llear,,hear.) It
undoubtedly transferred the centre of power in this country
from the aristocracy to the middle classes; and, if itibe re-
garded as an experimental measure, I am satisfied that the
country, together with myself, entertains the opinion that
that experiment has been largely successful. (Cheers.) It
was the object of the framers of that measure so to blend the
influence of property and of numbers that all collision with
the Throne and with the aristocracy, who by its provisions
were deprived of a large share of power, might be avoided ;
and the proportions then adjusted have been so successful
that since that time the country has enjoyed better legisla-
tion, greater prosperity, more interrial peace, and has been
exposed. to less civil discord than at any other period of
equal duration since our Parliamentary history commenced.
(Cheers.) Viewing it, then, as an experiment, I think I
stay safely assume that on the whole it has proved success-
ful. For one, I would gladly have adhered, at least during
my life, to that settlement as a final one. Its authors, at the

time of passing it, certainly did hold out to the country, and "
to the Sovereign, whose assent it received, an assurance
that, because it was large, and because it was comprehen-
sive, hopes might justly be entertained that it would be a
final settlement. I clung to that sentiment for a very long
period myself ; but I subsequently found, from cir-
cumstances upon which it is needless now to dwell,
that finality, as a position, was no longer tenable, and
from that period it became my duty from time to time
to consider what alterations or amendments of that mea-
sure might safely be proposed and supported. Now,
the first care of Reformers, as it appears to me, ought to
be to prevent the necessity of further reformation. I was
struck by an observation which fell from the noble lord the
Secretary of State for India, in the able speech which he
made in defence of the measure of the Government, clearly
showing that at the very time he advocated this bill he
violated the great canon of reform to which I have alluded
—viz., that your first care when you reform ought to be to
avoid the necessity of further reformation. The house will
remember that the noble lord, in using the term " identity
of suffrage," said that that principle would afford an easy
mode of hereafter altering, or rather of disfranchising, the
smaller boroughs, which disfranchisement, he said, was in
his judgment inevitable. By the favour of the gentlemen
who sit around me I occupy this place [the second bench
below the gangway on the Ministerial side], though in
many respects differing in opinion from them. But they
will permit me to recall to their recollection how great,
practically, has been the change which has taken place in
reference to reform within the last month. Lord Derby,
the head of the present Government, received the confi-
dence of the Conservative party, when in 1852 he became
Prime Minister, upon the assurance that his special mission
was to stem the tide of democracy and to raise a barrier
against its dangerous encroachments. (Hear.) Well,
what has occurred within the last month ? I, in the year
1857, voted with my hon. friend the member for East Sur-
rey for the reduction of the occupation franchise in counties
from £5O to £lO. I then took the liberty of assigning the
reasons which appeared to me sufficient to justify that pro-
posal, and I stated why I thought it might safely be con-
ceded. Gentlemen on this side of the house offered a stren-
uous opposition to that reduction. I do not think there was
a gentleman sitting on this side who supported it, and they
urged the gravest objections against it. Now, Lord Derby's
Government has proposed that change--the reduction from
£5O to MO—deliberately and advisedly ; and, as a coun-
terpoise to what might be apprehended as the democratic
tendency of that change, the bill brought in by the Chan.
cello r of the Exchequer proposed a countervailing disfran-
chisement of the borough freeholders, with the view of
diminishing what, in the opinion of gentlemen who sit around
me, was its danger. Well, without a division, without any
more than an expression of opinion from different parts of
the house, one-half at least of that counterpoise has been
withdrawn; and the measure, I must say, appears to me to
be framed upon anentire misconception of that which, when
properly understood, is truly conservative in its character.
(Cheers.) Now, what are the real dangers of a republican
or an extreme democratic change in this country? What
are the great landmarks of republican institutions ? I say
distinctly that they are manhood or universal suffrage,
equal electoral districts, and vote by ballot. A President of
the United States, in his inaugural address, distinctly stated
that "the Republic rested upon the ballot-box." I don't in-
tend now to argue that question ; but I believe I have not
misstated what are the true dangers to- be apprehended by
those who fear republican change. Now, observe what are
the principles of this measure. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said emphatically, and it is not to be denied, that
identity of suffrage is the key-stone, the leading principle of
this measure ; and it has been argued so by the noble lord
the Minister for India. You have, then, identity of suffrage;
you have electoral districts, not now equal, but unequal ;
and it is proposed to have voting papers. I contend that
these three propositions, which are the principal outlines of
this measure, all have a direct tendency to that which is
most to be apprehended by the opponents of republicanism.
This identityof suffrage once established atLlO, as my right
hon. friend the member for Wiltshire said, one single turn
of the hand in a rash moment and that suffrage will be re-
duced from £lO either to household or manhood suffrage.
Again, your electoral districts are now unequal. By all
sound logic and consequential reasoning, from the moment
your suffrage is identical your electoral districts ought to be
equal—(cheers)—and there is a process shadowed out under
the Boundary Commission contemplated by this bill, and
which is to be issued simultaneously with the reduction of
the suffrage, that will constitute your unequal districts into
equal ones. (Hear, hear.) There remains, ther, only the
ballot ; and, if the house will permit me, before I sit down I
will glance at the question as to voting papers. I think, if
the conversion of unequal electoral districts into equal ones
will be found an easy operation, that the conversion of
voting papers enclosed in envelopes into the ballot will be
easier still. (Cheers.) I turn now to another branch of the
subject, and I should beg to give an opinion that the dan-
ger of reform is infinitely increased if you proceed upon ab-
stract principles ; and, according to logical inferences from
general principles of change, I should say that this bill was
conceived with, I will not say too much sagacity, but with
the avowed intention of obtaining from every quarter of the
house that support which might effect the object which has
been declared to be the primary—viz., the object of passing
it. (A laugh.) It appears to me too clever by half—
(laughter and cheers)—and a much simpler measure would
have been much safer and much more effectual. There is
a work which appears to me, now we are discussing questions
of this kind, worthy of the greatest attention. It is a work
of sound warning. I refer to the work of M. de Tocque-
ville upon the ancient regime, and on the causes which
immediately led to the French Revolution. The passage
of which I have attempted a translation, and which, with
the permission of the house, I will read, refers to this
point of framing reforms with great astuteness upon gene-
ral principles, and according to the symmetry which logic
dictates. He says—
" When the history of our Revolution is studied it is
apparent that it was conducted precisely on the same prin-
ciples which have dictated so many abstract dissertations on
the science of government. The same fondness for general
theories, for complete systems of legislation, for exact
syminetry of law; the same contempt for existing institu-
tions, the same reliance on theory, the same taste for what
may be deemed original, ingenious, and new in establish-
ments ; the same desire at once to remodel the whole Con-
stitution according to the rules of logic and on an uniform
plan, instead of endeavouring piecemeal to amend it.
Frightful spectacle 1 That which is an excellence in a
writer is often a great defect in a statesman, and the same
things which have frequently led to the production of beau-
tiful romances may lead to the issue of great revolutions."
I have said that a simpler measure, and one less complicated
would have had a much greater chance of success. I have
quoted M. do Tocqueville, and there is a saying of Oliver
Cromwell addressed to Bernard, a lawyer, which has also
some bearing upon this subject. He said, "I understand
that you have lately been vastly wary in your conduct ; do
not be too confident of this. Subtlety may deceive you, in-
tegrity never will." (Cheers.) A noble sentiment, and one
which ought to be written over the door of every Cabinet.
(Cheers.) I shall follow the advice not to use subtlety by at
once avowing the share which I had in this resolution. My
noble friend the member for London did me the honour of
conferring with me after this bill had been laid upon the
table. An hon. gentleman upon the Treasury Bench cheers.
Is it unnatural, is it dishonourable, that I and the noble
lord, who are the only surviving members of that committee
which framed the Reform Bill of 184, should confer when
a measure was produced purporting to amend and alter it ?
(Cheers.) When the noble lord asked me what my impres-
sion of this measure was, I told him at once that I was quite
prepared to vote against the second reading of the bill.
(Hear.) That is my view nor, and I stated it more unequi-
vocally to the noble lord ; but I said there were two or three
capital objections to it which I thought might be included
in a resolution. The Solicitor-General has said that it is un-
precedented in the history of Parliament to adopt a resolu-
tion accompanied by reasons. When I first came into Par-
liament, the opportunity constantly occurred when the
order of the day was read before the second reading, of
moving any resolution upon any subject even not germane
to the bill about to be discussed. That power was abused,
and to expedite business in this house, the power of mov-
ing a resolution upon the order of the day was renounced,
but to say that upon the motion of the second reading of a
bill, it is unparliamentary or unprecedented to move
a resolution germane to the matter of the second read-
ing is a doctrine entirely new. Even when the resolution
May not be altogether germane to the second reading, there
are precedents for the use of that particular mode of attack-
ing a measure. (Hear, hear.) If, however, there were no
precedent, I think the time has arrived when in a delibera-
tive assembly you are not to be driven into a corner and
bound to say "ay" or "no." I think it must be open to you
to point out to the house and the country the particular
leading reasons which induce you to object to the measure
even before the second reading. The French term "negatif
motive" does not exist here, and I think the time has ar-
rived when it is absoluetly necessary that such a power
should exist and should be used. The resolution of the noble
lord appears to me not essentially and in effect to vary from
the course that was pursued with respect to the India Bill
last year. It varies in this particular, that the Government
then, as now, produced a bill which did not meet with gene-
ral approbation; the India Bill they voluntarily withdrew,
and upon its withdrawal resolutions were passed which
were the foundation of their second measure ; on this occa-
sion, though, I do not think the draught of their first Re-
form Bill is much more fortunate in conciliating the accep-
tance and goodwill of the house than was the first draught
of the India Bill; they refuse to withdraw their measure,
and under these circumstances the resolution is moved, cer-
tainly for the purpose of defeating the bill in its present
shape—(hear)---but it affords to the Government an oppor-
tunity of withdrawing it and introducing another measure
more conformable to the opinion of the house. (Hear, hear.)
I fully concede what was stated by the noble lord the Secre-
tary of State for India, that in matters of this kind it is for
the Government to consider and determine what is consis-
tent with their own honour and with their position; and the
decision as to whether they
i shall withdraw this bill and sub-
stitute for it another more n conformity with the wish and
opinion of the house and the country must rest with them.
But it rests with the house steadily to perform its duty and
to point out to the Government, at this preliminary stage of
the second reading, what are their opinions, and what is their
wish in respect to the measure as it now stands. (Cheers.)
ermeaomeeednhty, wt-hihattevreelrenmgaedy
discussion,
utshsei
reaentedatantdhling
tt
ehni think 7t. toet,h. ever saw
tihnatnh
,s 8
exhibitedolsPaegaateinr4tUnthanelpairinityciepxl;
of thisehill—(cheers)—nor, well considering all the elements
of which this house is composed, more disposition now in
this Parliament immediately, in this session, to pass a bill
which would command the sympathy and 'supp support of the
country. (Cheers.) My belief is, that at this - moment
bill taking the common point of odeparture, the £lO fran-
chise, lowering to a considerable extent the borough frau-
hear)—prohibiting the payment of travelling
expenses—(hear)—m ultiplying polling-places, disfranchis-
ing within moderate limits the smaller boroughs—(he ;r)—
and enfranchising with strict impartiality the larger coun-
ties and larger cities, would command the support of a de-
cided majority of this house. (Cheers.) But I pass on to
consider this bill as it now stands. It proposes to deal with
the imperfections of the Reform Bill of 1832. As it appears
to me, those imperfections, so far from being remedied, are
aggravated by this measure. (Mar, hear.) I acknowledge
that one of the great imperfections in the Reform Bill was
the £lO franchise in cities and borou;hs. That was a band-
age not sufficiently elastic; and it did not expand with the
increasing intelligence of the people and their growing fit-
ness for an extension of the suffrage. (Hear, hear.) How
is that met by the present bill ? I will not, at the present
moment, deal with what arttermed the " fancy franchises"
—I use that term for brevity, and not for the purpose of
discountenancing or disparaging them, because I think that
some of them are capable of defence, and would be very
salutary improvements—(hear, hear)—but I say that with
that single exception, which, after all that has been

said, cannot in my opinion be largely operative, there •
is no alteration made in the city and borough fran-
chise except by the objectionable addition of the
borough freeholders consequent upon their disfran-
chisement in their respective counties. The other
great imperfection in the Reform Bill, and the one which
exposed it to more obloquy than any other provision, was
the fixing of the boundaries of boroughs by a Royal commis-
sion. That very imperfection is about to be repeated, ex •
posed to all the obloquy which fell upon the former opera-
tion, attended by the gravest suspicion, and, as I think, not
unattended by well-founded objections. However, with re-
spect to the transfer of the borough freeholders from counties
to boroughs, it is true that Lord Althorp at first entertained
the very proposal to which this bill seeks to give effect. I
am a witness, and could be confirmed, were it necessary, by
the noble lord the member for London, that a similar pro-
posal was made by Lord Harrowby and Lord Althorp to
Earl Grey ; and it was made with the viewof increasing, or
rather of upholding the territorial influence in the counties.
It was discussed fully with Earl Grey, and referred to the
Cabinet; but it was decided that, rather than entertain it, the
passing of the bill itself by the House of Lords must be
risked—(hear, hear)—and that on no account must the con-
cession be made. Why ? Because we thought we made a
very doubtful concession when we admitted the £5O occu-
pancy clause. And the Solicitor-General dwells on that
concession now. He says we departed from our principle
when we conceded the Chandos clause that brought in the
cos occupiers. ,He presses us with it now. He says we
may just as well go further—the principle has been violated,
and we may as well concede more, in disregard of the ancient
franchise in the counties. But I draw exactly the opposite
inference. I say, if we once made that departure from the
principle, and found the inconvenience of a departure from
prescription, let us, at all events with respect to the boroughs,
stand on the sound and ancient principle, on the prescriptive
right which the right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr..
Henley) proved to demonstration has existed for 400 years;
let us maintain the prescriptive distinction between
counties and boroughs, the franchise in one resting on pro-
perty and possession, in the other on residence and occu-
pancy. (Hear.) Now, I believe Lord Althorp's view was
sound when he changed his opinion with respect to this
transfer in consequence of the adoption of the Chandos
clause. This old borough constituency is the salt that
gives a popular savour to the county constituency. (Hear,
hear.) Where the borough franchise exists in a large
proportion, it has a marked influence on the county choice
of members. What is now proposed to do appears to me
unjust in the extreme. Every one knows what is the case
now. A shopkeeper or merchant in the town, having con-
siderable interest in his locality, with a laudable ambition
to extend his influence, buys a freehold in the county ;
perhaps he may have recently purchased it, with all its
rights, at its full value • and, without notice, you seek to
depreciate the value of his purchase ; you tell him he must
exercise an option, and vote either for the borough or the
county ; but his double vote will be taken from him, and he
or his heirs will virtually be disfranchised. I wish we could
be told what will be the effect of this measure in the coun-
ties in which four boroughs were disfranchised for proved
corruption, and which by act of Parliament were thrown
into those adjacent counties. The freeholders in those
boroughs did not forfeit their rights in the counties. What
will be the effect of this bill, for instance, in the hundred of
Bassetlaw ? These votes will be transferred to the borough
of East Retford, a transfer which the Secretary for India
states will increase the value of each vote. But what. will
happen in the division of the county you, sir, so worthily re-
present? (North Nottinghamshire.) 'There are 1,400 or 1,500
borough freeholds included in the hundred of Bassetlaw ;
if they are drawn into the borough of East Retford it will
lapse into corruption ; if they are exercised the other way,
the power and influence of the great landed proprietors will
be increased. I will now advert to some admissions of great
importance made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his
opening speech. He admits that in cities and boroughs
there has been a great increase of population; he admits
an increase of wealth; he admits an increase of intelli-
gence. The natural consequence, it might be supposed,
is that, this increase having taken place since 1832, there
must have been also an increase in the number of the
voters in cities and boroughs; but the fact is otherwise; the
number is gradually diminishing. The right hon. gentle-
man said he wished "to reform according to the genius of
the existing constituencies." Now, this difference between
the county and city franchise has never been
described more forcibly, clearly, and explicitly than by the
noble lord the head of the present Government in his speech
in 1854. The passage was quoted by the right bon. member
for the University of Cambridge, and it has appeared in
juxtaposition with a passage from the recent speech of the
Secretary for India. It may be an old prejudice or predilec-
tion, but it appears to me that the argument of the father
outweighs that of the son. (Hear, hear.) I have already
said that the prescription of the borough freeholders is of
the most ancient date ; in the very great change of 1832
that prescription was carefully preserved. The immediate
object and the operation of that bill was the transfer of
power to the middle classes ; but I consider it a most dan-
gerous doctrine to hold that the classes below them do not
take a deep and real interest in the question of reform.
(Hear, hear.) The working classes may appear indifferent
to it ; but there can be no more dangerous error than to
suppose they have not this question at heart. Speaking,
then, in the strongest Conservative sense, I hold it infi-
nitely more safe to make timely concessions to reasonable
demands than to stand on extreme rights and make no con-
cession at all. (Hear, hear.) I have already quoted De
Tocqueville as to what preceded the French Revolution ; I
will read another passage from him, because it is directly to
the point. He says :--
" Whpn the poor and the rich have hardly any interests
in comnion, no common grievances, no common occupa-
tions, that darkness, which hides the feelings of one from
the other, becomes inscrutable, and the two may live for
ever side by side without fathoming each other. It is cu-
rious to see in what strange security those who occupied
the upper and the middle stories of the social edifice lived
together up to the last moment when the Revolution broke
out, and to hear their ingenious disquisitions on the virtues
of the common people, their gentleness, their attachment,
their innocent amusements, up to the moment when 1793
was at their door—a sad spectacle, ridiculous and terrible !"
Far be it from me to use a passage like that in the spirit of
' intimidation. I use it with a very different feeling. I wish
the house not to disregard that historical experience, not
to forget that solemn warning. Ido not believe that the
admission of a portion of the working classes to the electoral
franchise can any longer be refused with safety. (Hear,
hear.) The concession of a lower county franchise makes
a resistance to a lower franchise in the towns 10 times more
difficult. It has been said that this is a kind of Dutch auc-
tion, that lowering the franchise for the counties will ren-
der it necessary, ere long, to lower it for the cities also ; I
come to precisely the opposite conclusion. Stand upon the
ancient difference between the two ; if you establish one
common level, there will be a rush to lower both, and that
rush will be 10 times more dangerous, inasmuch as the
higher level is an innovation, and inequality the ancient
prescription and usage. I say, therefore, that justice and
safety both point to a Io wenn..' of the city and borough
franchise. (Hear, hear.) The Solicitor-General has told
us that the resolution has two objects. He says, in the
first place, that it indicates a fear to give a direct negative
to the second reading of the bill. I have already stated
that, as far as I am concerned, I could not hesitate to vote
against the motion for the second reading, because I think
the principles and details of the bill both objectionable.
(Hear, hear.) But then he says, addressing those who
support the resolution, "You talk in general terms of lower-
ing the franchise ; what would you do ?" Upon that point
I speak only for myself. I agree very much with the right
hon. gentleman the member for Coventry in thinking that
if you do lower the franchise in cities and boroughs you
should do so effectually, upon some principle known to the
constitution of the country, on which a stand may be made
against ulterior changes. (Hear.) I say distinctly, in
conformity with what has been urged by the right hon.
member for Oxford, that the ancient borough franchise
does rest upon rating and residence—(hear, hear)—and I
am decidedly of opinion that the municipal franchise, as
originally framed by my noble friend the member for the
city, with three years' residence and two and a-half years'
uninterrupted payment of rates, would be a good franchise
for Parliamentary elections. (Cheers.) It would afford
you the best security that could be found for the character
of the voter, his permanent residence, his stake in the place
in which he lives, and his fitness to exercise political privi-
leges. (Hear, hear.) I may allude incidentally to the
statement we have heard in the course of the debate, that
the bulk of the taxes are paid by the upper classes. I re-
pudiate that doctrine altogether. (Cheers.) It is only
necessary to mention six articles ; they shall be sugar,
tea, coffee, malt, tobacco, and spirits. These six articles
pretty nearly cover the interest of the national debt, and the
duties on them are paid chiefly by the working classes.
(Hear, hear.) On the ground of taxation, therefore, they
are entitled to the suffrage ; on the ground of ancient usage
they are entitled to it ; and on the ground of their admitted
character and conduct, such as the Chancellor of the Ex.
chequer allows to exist on their part—on the ground of their
growing wealth, their growing intelligence, and their in-
creasing numbers—they have a fair claim to a larger share
of the national representation. In short, let me regard this
question in what light I may, I come back to the conclusion
that a considerable increase of the working classes in the
election of members of Parliament for cities and boroughs is
most expedient, most just, and most necessary. (Cheers.)
The Secretary for the Colonies put this question in a very
pointed manner. He said "This bill practically is for the
middle classes ; I own it, the cause is theirs." I believe
that in this passage the right bon. gentleman told us the
object for which the bill was framed. It is hoped that the
middle classes will be selfish—(cheers)—will pertinaciously
refuse any extension of the franchise to classes below them
which should, pro Canto, be a diminution of their own power,
and will consequently give their cordial support to the pre-
sent bill. The right hon. gentleman went on to say, "Has
the time come when it is safe to accept the counter principle
that political power should begin to descend to the working
classes?" So challenged, Ido not hesitate for a moment
to say that the time has come when political power should
begin to descend to the working classes. (Cheers.) I
would be sorry to weary the house with a discussion of
details, but I have the strongest objection to the proposi-
tion of voting papers. (Hear, hear.) I have already glanced
at that point, and I daresay in a sense which will not be
acceptable to hon. gentlemen below the gangway on the
other side, because I have always been opposed to the
ballot. I retain my objections to it, but I should not deal
candidly with the house if I did not state that in the con-
stituency which I represent no object of reform in my
memory has made such rapid progress as the demand for
secret voting. (Cries of ' No,' and cheers.) I go fur-
ther, and say that throughout the country—l lament it,
I think it will end in disappointment. lam not a con-
vert to it—the desire for the ballot has made greater
progress than any demand for change. (Renewed cries of
" No," and cheers.) I would wish it otherwise, because, as
I have said, I am not a convert to the ballot, and have
always voted decidedly against it ; but, regarded in that
light, I must say that the proposed system of voting papers
appears to me the closest approximation to it. (Hear.) The
hon. and learned member for Marylebone has described, and
I think I can describe, what will be the effect. Who will
be the witnesses ? There will be two. One must be a
householder, but the other will, I think, invariably either
be the landlord's agent, or the candidate's agent, or the at-
torney's clerk, or the banker's clerk. These are the persons
who possess local influence. If the landlord is weary of
bringing his tenants together on the morning of an elec-
tion or attending them to the polling booths, his instruc-
tion will obviously be to his agent, " Mind that all my
tenants get voting papers ; take care that all is right in
point of form; above all, go round and see that the papers
are signed." If his influence be not sufficient he will call
in the aid of the banker's clerk, probably a householder,
who knows well what the cash credits of the tenants are,
and who will soon explain to them how desirable it is that
they should sign the voting papers. Or if ttfit pressure be
not enough the influence of the attorney Alia be brought in
to_ play—the strongest screw, perhaps, of all. (A laugh.)
kil'ta t will then be the position of the unhappy voter ? He
bribery
hanr t
this own table in his own house, no person to assist
him, no refuge, nothing but consent is possible. (Hear.)
If
tta man's
m of
esdy: where can it be practised in greater
secrecy; if intimidation, where can it be used with greater
effectf briy is
that
intended,
system
t eown h
vo
au
tsien?g
papers (Hear, w
will
hear.?so
persuaded
increase
both intimidation and bribery that, after the first general
election, the demand for absolute secrecy, which now is
spreading, will beeoriao uhiversol. (Cheers.) The lon,

and learned member for Marylebone referred to a scene
which took place in this house a few days ago. I was pre-
sent on that occasionochen we had a discussion on this very
question of voting papers in connection with municipal elec-
tions, and I think I have the words which were used by the
hon. member who introduced the Municipal Elections Bill
with regard to his experience as to voting papers. The hon.
member for Preston said—" It was found that, under the
system of voting papers, electors who were unable to write
were often fraudulently induced to vote for the wrong can-
didate. This practice had been going on for a long time,
and, in consequence of the representations made to him on
the subject, he proposed by this clause that voting papers
should no longer be used." (Hear, hear.) Thus ten days
have not elapsed since this house, by common consent, with-
out discussion, struck voting papers as utterly indefensible
out of a bill relating to municipal elections. (Hear, hear.)
My right hon. friend the member for Leeds has great ex
perience in this matter with regard to the election of Poor-
law guardians. The hon. and learned member for Maryle-
bone pointed out the great difference between the two cases.
There is no great excitement with respect to the election of
guardians in ordinary circumstances, but I am greatly de-
ceived if my right hon. friend would not tell the house
that, in his large experience at the head of the Por Law
Board, even with regard to the election of guardians, when
there was much local excitement, these voting papers were
found to lead to great abuses, and that at least they ought
not on any account to be extended. (Hear, hear.) T have
gone, perhaps, too far into questions of detail, but they are
important, and I wish to show how wide are my objections
to this bill—so wide that I could not hesitate to give a direct
negative to the second reading. (Hear, hear.) I object alto-
gether to the lodger votes which are now proposed. I say
that lodgers are a class of persons belonging to a floating
population ; they have no. settled habits—(a laugh)—no
fixed residence, no payment of taxes, and no settled interest
in the place they inhabit. On all these grounds the provi-
sion in the bill is an innovation, and is not coupled with
residence or payment of rates and taxes, which I consider
essential. (Hear, hear.) If the amount of rent should drop
from the Bs. a week mentioned in the bill to 45., I think
you might as well come to universal suffrage. (Hear, hear.)
I also have very great doubt about others of these fran •
chises. It may be unnecessary jealousy, but why have a
certificated schoolmaster ? On the question of education
being discussed I ventured to predict that the Government
of the day would have very extensive influence arising
from the arrangements in respect to that matter, but I
never expected to see a proposition so soon made, that
no schoolmaster other than certificated should have the
vote. (Hear, hear.) Then with respect to the pen-
sioners the words are significant. They are—" who
shall no longer be permanently employed." You might
imagine that occasional employment might be dealt out to
them on the eve of an election, and that the pensioners,
together with the schoolmasters, would be under the con-
trol of the Government. (Cheers.) I shall not now argue
the question of the savings banks and the amount of £6O.
I think that in the bill which the noble lord the member
for London and I introduced the amount was placed at £5O.
But the more I reflect on this suffrage the less expedient
and just I think it. Suppose it were necessary for the qua-
lification of a peer or commoner to vote in either house that
be should have a balance of £5,000 at-his banker's, how
many peers and commoners would have a vote ? (Hear,
and a laugh.) I shall now conclude, for I have said enough,
and more than enough. I think Gibbon tells us that when
a man proposed a change in the fundamental laws of Rome
he stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord
round his neck. If his proposition were rejected he was
stantly strangled. I hope that my right hon. friends on
the Treasury bench will not imagine that such sharp justice
will be done to them. (A laugh.) I understand that they
rather contemplate strangling us than we strangling them.
I agree very much with my right hon. friend the member for
Coventry. If the Government do not think it consistent
with their honour to take this resolution and proceed with
the bill, and if they desire to appeal to the country, advis -
ing the Sovereign to exercise her prerogative for that pur-
pose, I shall be found most unwilling to take any factious
course which might impede them in that proceeding. (Hear,
hear.) But I say this, that a day of heavy reckoning will
come in the next Parliament, and-that within my memory
no such responsibility was ever incurred by any executive
Government. (Cries of" Hear.") These considerations are
theirs; our consideration is fearlessly and untimidly to do
our duty in this house. :(Cheers.) I should have thought
that the carrying of the resolution would have been regarded
as a milder course than the rejection of the bill on the
second reading; but if a 'sense of honour and duty should
lead the Government to consider the resolution as equal to
the rejection of their measure, and they should act accord-
ingly, they must meet their fate. (Cheers.) I have not, and
I am sure they will admit it, taken any factious course in
opposition to them. (Hear, hear.) I have not desired their
overthrow, and I do not now desire it; but if they think fit
to meet their fate they must encounter all the danger as
well as all the difficulties. (Hear, heir.) Our course, how-
ever, is plain. We 'must do our duty, while we remain
here the representatives of the people of this country, to
that noble people whom we represent. (Cheers.) We shall
be ready at all times to give an account of the manner in
which we have acted, and, for my part, I cannot hesitate
both to support the resolution, and, if necessary, to vote
against the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAK INGTON—I am bound to admit that my
right hon. friend the member for Carlisle has on this occa-
sion addressed the house in a most calm and temperate
manner. Nothing could be more fair than the mode in
which he has argued the matter before the house; but I
think I am not misrepresenting his argument when I say
that his objection to the bill throughout was grounded on
the identity of franchise. Before I sit down I will advert
to this part of the argument of the right hon. gentleman,
but at the outset I -must express my regret that the right
hon. gentleman should have expressed an opinion that be-
cause the resolution is germane to the subject-matter of the
bill, therefore it is regular and proper for the noble lord to
move the resolution inthe way he has done. The right hon.
gentleman said nothing in the course of his speech which
tended to show in the slightest degree why it is not compe-
tent for the noble lord the member for London, or any other
member, to take objections to those parts of the measure of
which they disapproved when the bill goes into committee.
(Hear, hear.) On the part of the Government I complain
of the course which the noble lord has taken. (Hear, hear.)
I admit the great weight due to the opinion of fhe right hon.
member for Carlisle on any question connected with the
practice of this house, but I have taken some pains to aster
tain from the highest authority how far the noble lord's
proceeding is consistent with the usual practice of this
house, and I have no hesitation in saying, on far higher
authority than my own, that the course taken by the noble
lord is unparliamentary and irregular, and one of which
we have justly the greatest reason to complain. (Hear,
hear.) At the commencement of this'session we voted
an Address to her Majesty, in which we pledged our-
selves calmly and impartially to consider this great
question of Parliamentary Reform. Yet the noble lord
has invited us to violate our pledge and to disregard
our promise. (Hear, hear, and! cries of "No !") We
have invited the noble lord to meet us fairly on the question
of Parliamentary Reform, and to discuss and consider our
bill; and what has practically been the answer we have
received ? It has been " No, we will not even entertain
your bill." (" Hear, hear," and "No, no I") "We will
not allow it to be discussed on the second reading," and
the Government are met with a preliminary resolution by
the noble lord, who, by the course he has taken, declared,
"It is not my object to discuss your bill, my object is to
embarrass, and, if I can, to overthrow the Administra-
tion." (Cheers.) He was sorry to hear the argument of
Mr. S. Herbert and others. They said that there were
parts of the bill which they disliked, and parts which
they approved, and that they ought to condemn by a pre
liminary resolution the parts of which they disapproved.
If this course were applicable to the bill now before the
house, there was hardly any measure brought forward to
which it might not be applied. It seldom happened that
any bill of great importi.nce was so drawn but that some
part would be acceptable and some objectionable. (Hear.)
The noblelord said the bill was dangerous and injurious, and
an hon. member said it was condemned on every hustings in
the country. That was rather an unfortunate statement,
because the five elections which had taken place since the
introduction of the bill—two of them being contested—were
all in favour of the Government. (Hear.) But he had no
doubt the meaning of the hon. member was that it was con-
demned by the country. If that argument was true, and if
the measure was dangerous and noxious, as stated by the
noble lord, then the proper and consistent course to adopt
was to meet the bill with a direct negative, and to call on
the house-to reject it altogether. (Hear.) Why did not the
noble lord adopt that course ? In the first place, he disputed
the accuracy of the statement that the bill had been con-
demned by the country. The hon. member for Birmingham
and the right hon. member for Ashton said that every town
and city met spontaneously to reject the bill. He had no
doubt the hon. member for Birmingham collected great
crowds to hear him, which was not to be wondered at con-
sidering his powerful eloquence and his strong political
opinions ; but what did the meetings generally held prove ?
and, above all, what were the demands put forward at
them ? (Hear, hear.) He did not think that even the
meeting in the City could be regarded as a very powerful
demonstration against the bill. In the city of Worcester,
with which he was better acquainted, and which contained
a population of 30,000 persons, there were only 700 persons
at the public meeting called on this question, and, accord-
ing to the Liberal paper, "there was an entire lack of
enthusiasm throughout." (B ear, hear.) The resolutions
passed at that meeting were in favour of a more equitable
distribution of seats, equal electoral districts, household
suffrage, and vote by ballot. These were the demands put
forward by 700 unenthusiastic persons in a city of 30,000
inhabitants. But where was the statesman who would ven-
ture to make such a proposal to the house ? The noble lord
knew that if he met the Government by a direct negative to
the second reading he would not have succeeded, and that
was the reason he adopted the course of proceeding by reso-
lution. (Hear, hear.) The measure of Government was
safe and moderate, and if it were not so the. Government
would not propose it, but at the same time it would give a
considerable extension of the franchise, (Hear, hear.) It
was admitted that it would add 15,000 to the list of electors
in Marylebone. The hon. membei for Marylebone had told
them that it would add 15,000 to that constituency. (Cheers.)
Mr. EDWIN JAMES said that he referred to an obser
ration of the Attorney-General for Ireland.

Mr. WHITESIDE had never said anything of the sort.
:Laughter.)

Sir J. PAKINGTOy continued—No one would deny
that it would give a very large extension of the franchise.
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord, aware that the house would
not reject the bill on the second reading, thought the only
way of getting a party triumph was to move this resolu-
tion, and therefore he adopted that course. (Hear, hear.)
But the course adopted was as ungenerous as it was irre-
gular. The house could not forget that the Government
accepted office in an avowed minority. The noble viscount
boasted of the forbearance the present Government re-
ceived. (Hear.) That was not the first time he had held
such language, but there was nothing for which they
had to thank the noble viscount. (Cheers.) The house
could not have forgotten the scene which took place
last year in that affair which went by the name of the

" Cardwell (Cheers.) He was sorry to connect
the name of his right hon. friend (Mr. Cardwell) with a
scene of such discomfiture and ridicule—(hear, hear)—but
remembering what was done then, and coupling it with
what was passing now, how the noble viscount could claim
credit to himself for forbearance surpassed in coolness of as-
suranee anything that came even from the lips of the noble
viscount. (Cheers.) But he was willing to admit that there
was a section of the liberal party opposite from whom they
received a fair trial, and even generous treatment—treat-
ment different from that which they experienced from the
noble viscount, or the noble lord the member for the City
of London. It was under these circumstances that they
felt it to be their duty to introduce the question of reform.
It was said that they made a mistake in introducing it, but
the mistake they made was in their estimate of the manner
in which it had been met on the opposite side of the house.
(Hear.) The Government fulfilled their duty in bringing
in the bill. They could not withhold their consideration
of it after what had taken place, after three preceding Go-
vernments had attempted to deal with it, and after having
committed the sovereign to it in successive speeches from
the throne. (Hear.) He would not dwell on the causes
which led to the failure of the bills of 1852 and 1854, but
he would ask the house to compare the conduct of the Go-
vernment in reference to this, question with the conduct of
the noble viscount. The noble viscount volunteered pro-
mises and engagements to a greater extent than thepresent
Government, but after a long delay, and after he left office,
in answer to an hon. gentleman who was prompted by a
natural curiosity to learn how far the noble viscount had
gone with a Reform Bill, he told them that no Reform-Bill
had been prepared. (Hear.) It might be that the atten-
tion of the late. Government had been diverted from the
question of reform by the events which took place in India;
but, at all events, the fact is that the' noble viscount did
not redeem his pledge, whilst the present Government re-
deemed their pledge, and was the only Government that
proposed the second reading of a Reform Bill from the
time that the subject was revived. (Hear.) How were
they met by the noble viscount—how were they met by the
noble lord ? Not by a consideration of the bill, not by a
fulfilment of the pledge which they advised the Crown to
recommend, but by a resolution which, if it meant
anything, meant that the bill was to be set aside,
unless they accepted it coupled with conditions which
it was impossible for them to consent to. (Hear, hear.)
They were told they ought to accept the resolution, and
go on with the bill. The last time they heard that was
from the noble viscount on Friday night, and that opinion
was expressed by him, he was sorry to say, in a tone of ar-
rogance—(cheers)—in a tone of arrogance which was un-
usual between gentlemen who sat opposite to each other in
that house. (Cheers.) And in that tone the noble viscount
presumed to tell them that they were to take a line which
he must know perfectly well no gentleman would con-
descend to take. (Cheers.) Which he must know equally
well—if such advice had been offered to him—above all, if
it had been offered in such a tone—he would have rejected
with scorn and indignation. (Cheers.) The noble viscount
went on, and there was a passage in his speech which he
heard with astonishment and disapprobation—he meant
that passage of his speech in which he referred to the possi-
bility of a dissolution. (Cheers.) He could construe that
,-passage in no other way than as an attack on the preroga-
tive of the Crown—(cheers)—for the language of the noble
viscount was—You shall not dissolve Parliament : we the
House of Commons, will prevent you ; you cannot dissolve
without the concurrence of the House of Commons, and
that concurrence shall be refused. (Cheers.) That was the
language of the noble viscount, but it was language which
he should not have expected to hear from one of his long
experience and standing—(cheers)—for it was language
which he considered to be wanting in due respect to the
Crown and a violation of its prerogative. (Oh, oh, and loud
cheers.) It exhibited an utter disregard of one of the most
acknowledged prerogatives of the Crown. (Hear, hear.)
And for what reason, under what pretence did the noble
viscount hold such language ? He begged to say that the
Government never threatened the house with a dissolution.
(Oh, and hear, hear.) He challenged any one to contradict
what he ssid. (Hear.) The Government could not be re
sponsible for what was said out of doors. The Government
did not presume to threaten Parliament in any way. All
the Government said was this—and he was prepared to re-
peat it—that in the event of a defeat in that house, which
would make it impossible for them, in their opinion, that
they could, consistently with their honour and the usages
of the constitution, proceed with the pubiic business, it
would be their duty, as it was the duty of every Govern-
ment
under such circumstances, to tender to the Crown
such advice as they considered to be most consistent with
their duty and the public interest. (Cheers.) He held
that language such as that was only constitutional and
becoming language ; but they never threatened Parliament
with a dissolution, or said they would give that advice to
the Crown, or said a word that would justify the noble vis-
count, apart from the unconstitutional nature of his lan-
guage, in addressing the Government in the terms he had
done. (Cheers.) Irrespective, then, of that language and
that tone, the-noble viscount must have known—the noble
lord (Russell) must have known—that it was absolutely out
of the question for the Government to accept the advice
which the noble viscount was pleased to tender to them.
(Cheers.) An hon. member, the member for Northumber-
land, told them that night—he did not know if he was in
the secret of what was going on, but he told them, andwith
perfect truth, that it was not intended, that it never had
been intended, that the resolution should be accepted—that
it was not drawn for acceptance--(cheers)—but that, on the
contrary, it was drawn for the rejection of the Government.
(Cheers.) He accepted the description of his right hon.
friend (Mr. Whiteside), that it was an " offensive resolu-
tion." (Hear, hear.) It was drawn with the view of stop-
ping discussion. (Hear.) You had your fair option of two
courses. You might have met the Government in a fair,
candid, and patriotic spirit. You might have said, and you
ought to have said, " You (the Government) have under-
taken a difficult fitsl—you have approached a most difficult
question--you have undertaken to legislate on a subject
which every man who loves his country must feel ought
promptly to be settled. We do not like your bill; there
are some parts of it good, but there are otherparts which we
consider objectionable. We will go into committee, we will
accept what is good and reject what'is bad, and throw upon
you the responsibility of the future course to be taken."
(Hear.) That was one course which might have been
adopted. There was another course to be taken—to adopt
a course of party—(hear, hear)—he should not exaggerate
if he said a course of faction—a course which out of the diffi-
culties of the Government would endeavour to make a party
triumph. (Cheers.) That was the other course open to the
noble lord opposite, and that, he was sorry to say, was the
course which he determined to adopt. Let him advert to the
position in which the Government now stood on this ques-
tion. They could not misunderstand the attempt of the noble
viscount to place them in a difficulty on this question. (Hear.)
There had been a systematic attempt on the part of hon
gentlemen opposite—which had been carried still farther by
the noble viscount—to place the Government on the horns
of a dilemma—(laughter, and cries of "hear, hear")—to
make them avow that they 'would stand permanently by
some part of the bill, or that they would concede everything.
(Hear, hear.) The Government did not intend to allow
the noble viscount to place them in that dilemma. I beg to
tell the noble viscount and the house (continued the right
hon. baronet), in the name of the Government--(loud cries
of " order")—that they have two courses open to them.
They may pass the second reading of this bill, or they may
pass the resolution ' • but if they pass the resolution they will
not have the bill. (Loud cheers and counter-cheers.) I am
sure the house will think it far better that we should come to
some understanding: We don't want to have any more of
this trying to entrap us. (Cheers.) There has been a great
deal too much of it—a great deal more than is consistent
with our position, or with fairness on the part of hon.
gentlemen opposite. ,(Cheers.) As my noble friend Lord
Stanley has well said, we have to think what is consistent
with our self-respect and with our honour. (Loud cheers.)
This the language which on the part of the Government I
wish to hold. We look upon the resolution as a hostile one,
aid the only thing we can do is to resist it. (Hear, hear,
and cheers.) When we come into committee we shall be
quite ready to reconsider the question of identity or of the
borough freeholder; but we will not allow ourselves to be
fettered by a preliminary promise, which would be incon-
sistent with the, practice .of the house. (Hear, hear.) If
you had met .us in a fair spirit we would have met you in
the same ; but so long as this resolution is before us, we can
say nothing. It is inconsistent with our duty to entertain it,
and till it is disposed of we can say no more. (Cheers.) If
the bill goes into 'committee, my right hon. friend (Mr.
Disraeli) has fairly and frankly told you what will be the
course of the Government; but I must say that it was
needless for him to do so. I was certainly surprised to hear
my right hon. friend (Mr. Walpole) taking a course which
I cannot help feeling that he will be sorry for—(laughter)--
trying to entangle us in a promise.with regard to those parts
of the bill which he objects to. -My right hon. friend said
that if we would only give Up our plan and take his he
would support us; but no one is more conversant with the
forms of the house than my right hon. friend, and he knows
perfectly that when we get into committee--(a laugh)—it
will be competent to him and my right hon. friend (Mr.
Henley) to move that the county franchise be raised to£2o,
and the town franchise reduced to household suffrage.
(Cheers.) Nobody knows better that it is quite competent to
the, house to decide those or any other questions in commit-
tee, and when it has decided them it will then be for us to
determine what course we may consider it our duty to take.
I confess that after the mode in which the Government has
been met upon this occasion, and the nature of the opposi-
tion we have experienced, I heard with surprise- the tone of
the noble viscount's language with regard to the speech of
my hon. friend the Solicitor-General. For the noble vis-
count's private virtues nobody can have more respect than
I have, but with his public conduct I have frequently been
obliged to find fault, and never more than on this occasion.
(Laughter.) It may be amusing to hon. gentlemen to hear
that, but it is aNeclaratien of opinion which I have a right
to express. I condemn and censure the course of the noble
lord, and I will not shrink from saying so. We want a
little more of such plain speaking in this house. (Cheers.)
The conduct of our public men would be improved, and the
conduct of our public affairs would likewise would be im-
proved, if there were a little more of this candour and truth-
telling. (Loud cheers.) Instead of joining in the noble
lord's censure of my hon. friend (Sir H. Cairns), I thank
him for the language he has used ; and no less do I thank
the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud (Mr. Hors-
man.) That right hon. gentleman made a' speech, the abi-
lity :and eloquence of which were its smallest merit.
We hear able and eloquent speeches in almost every one of
our debates, but it is very seldom that we listen to addresses
marked with the tone, the high honour—(loud cheers, and
cries sf ccOh!")—and rectitude which distinguished' that
speech. I tell him that that speech has struck the country
—(laughter and cheers)— and I thank him for it. When
he spoke of the priceless honour of our public men I agreed
with his sentiments, but I could scarcely go with him in
all his observations. My believe is that the character of
our public men is not se high as it was. (Loud cheers
and laughter.) Ido not believe that the public enter-
tain that confidence in our statesmen—which it, once
did. It sees in them too much intrigue--(cheers)
too much scrambling for place—(cheers)—too much think-
ing of themselves, and too little of the country. (Renewed
cheers.) Not the least instructive portion of this debate has
been the number of remarkable confessions which have been
made in the course of it. There has been, for example, the
letter of Earl Grey, in which that noble earl said there had
been one act in his public life which should never cease
to regret—namely, the part which he was induced against
his own judgment to take with regard to the appropriation
clause proposed by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) in 1811
That clause was a party movement, the effect at which was
to displace the existing Govprath,iii to enable the noble
lord (Lord J, RIPP4011) to occupy their post. (Hear.) Then
.what did the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) say?
He told us that there was one act in his life on Which he
should never look back but with shanlo Klf-reproach.
That was also a party mov 4 e aft 1846 the effect of which
was likewise to cilepleee the existing Government and ad-
vance the noble lord to power. And what was the present
resolution ? Is it not likewise an endeavour to siipplends
Ministry; and, therefore, the noble l
en. friend
end
and histant a
M
have no right to complain of the apee4 my h
the Soliciter-Ge4eN, (Oh@ors.) ha% gentleman (Mr.

Bright), continued Sir John, complained that he (the right
hon. baronet) did not represent the town of Droitwich,
because there were a number of country voters amongst the
constituency.
Mr. BRIGHT had not denied that the right hon. gen-
tleman represented the town of Droitwich ; but he had cer-
tainly pointed out that a great portion of the constituency
was of a rural character.
Sir J, PAKINGTON—On another occasion the hon.
gentleman said that he-(the right hon. baronet) did not re-
present anybody, but that he returned himself. (Laughter.)
Now, the fact was that out of 400 voters there were not 20
over whom he could, even if he wished to do so, exercise
any direct influence. Many of the inhabitants were opposed
to him in politics, but there had been no contest for 22
years; solely in consequence of the kind feeling and the good
opinion which his neighbours entertained for him ; and he
was as proud of his constituents as the hon. member for
Birmingham, or any other member of that house, could be
of his. (Hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Bright) complained
that by the transfer of the borough freeholders to the
boroughs the Government sought to get rid of the town ele-
ment in counties. The hon. gentleman was very seldom un-
fair, but he certainly was so on this occasion. The promo-
ters of the bill had had, in a sinister sense of the phrase, no
" object" whatever, their only object having been to obtain
a fair adjustment and a fair compromise of this long vexed
question. (Cheers.) If the transfer of the borough free-
holders removed a town element from the counties, it was
surely obvious that the £lO franchise would replace it by a
far larger town element. (Hear, hear.) In 1832, the noble
lord (Lord J. Russell) said that "though the towns would
have a proper representation, he did not intend that they
should interfere with the counties." (Hear, hear.) That
was the very principle of the present bill. (Cheers.) Again,
the noble lord complained that the present bill would flood
the boroughs with outvoters. That was a most proper sub-
ject for discussion in committee, but it was absurd to say
that it constituted any argument against the second read-
ing. It was obvious that an amendment requiring resi-
dence would cure the evil complained of ; and this was his
(Sir J. Pakington's) answer to the right hon. baronet (Sir
J. Graham). He must, however, strongly protest against
the use of the phrase "disfranchise," as applied to the pro-
posed change with regard to the borough freeholders. With
the exception of a very few who had already votes in the
borough in which they had freeholds, it was absurd to say
that any would be disfranchised. (Hear, hear.) Then,
again, both the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) and the right
hon. baronet complained of the identity of suffrage; but
what were their own proposals in 1854 ? In the list of
franchises he found the possession of £lOO a-year from
salary, £lO a-year from the funds, payment of 40s. assessed
taxes or income tax, graduates of all universities, and £5O
in the savings bank. There were five new franchises in
that bill. Last year, when the hon. member for East
Surrey proposed to do away with the distinction as to the
occupation franchise in counties and boroughs, the right
hon. baronet voted for the motion. (Hear.) Of the seven
franchises proposed in the bill, five were propoSed by the
noble lord. The house had assented to the principle of
identity, and therefore there only remained the proposed
transfer of the freeholders. A good deal had been said
of the distinctive character of the franchise in counties
and boroughs ; but since the passing of the Act of 1832
the • distinction had been lost. In 1851 the noble lord
admitted that the Chandos clause had totally altered the
character of the county franchise. The act of 1822 did with
regard to borough freeholders above £lO what this bill pro-
posed to do with the others. If this was disfranchisement,
that also was disfranchisement. The present measure only
extended to other classes of freeholders a principle already
adopted by the house. The extension might be imprudent,
but it was absolutely consistent with former legislation.
With regard to the voting papers he admitted there might
be great difficulty in practice--(hear)—but if it could be
carried out, it would be a most valuable proposal, and en-
able thousands of voters to vote who have never exercised
their franchise. A remarkable feature of the recent election
was the small number of electors who polled at Marylebone
the other day. Out of 21,000 electors, only 10,000 voted.
He believed this state of things arose from the disinclina-
tion on the part of many persons to encounter the turmoil
and disturbance, and occasional danger of a contested elec-
tion, and if they could, without any danger of corrupt prac-
tices enable all these to vote, they would confer a great boon.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. hart. said it would lead to
the ballot, but he could not see the danger of that. There
was ,no secresy about the voting papers. There might be
difficulty in protecting the system from abuse, but that was
a question for the committee. He had been solry to hear the
right hon. baronet express an opinion opposed to the lodger
franchise. He was the first statesman who had done so. He
said that if they reduced the lodger franchise from Bs. to 4s.
a week, they might as well go to universal suffrage at once.
but why should they do so ? It would be as reasonable to
say that if they reduced the occupation franchise from £lO
to £1 they would come to it also. He believed the lodger
franchise, though the lowest and most liberal,was also one of
the safest; it would extend the franchise to a very large
class, and give the nearest approach to an education fran-
chise which it was possible to attain. Some time ago he had
a conversation on the subject of reform with a gentleman for
whom he entertained the highest respect, although differing
widely in opinion, Mr. Joseph Sturge, of Birmingham. Mr.
Sturge said he would be very glad to compromise the question
of the franchise for an education franchise; he replied he
thought there would be great difficulty in applying a test.
Mr. Sturge then said he would admit any man who could
write his name. Ha feared the result would be that many
would be able to write their names and nothing else, but
he believed the lodging franchise would admit a large
number of educated and most competent men, and he was
sorry to fiad the right hon. baronet opposed to it ; he hoped
that whenever a reform bill passed it would be included.
(Hear, hear.) He would not longer detain the house.
(Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to answer the argu-
ments which had been brought against him. He hoped,
nay more, he felt sanguine, that the resolution of the
noble lord, which was a most unfair mode of treating the
bill, would be well beaten. (Hear, hear.) They were
ready to abide the issue of the division,:fand would wait
until the division of the house was taken on their proposal
before they stated, what their course would be. (Cheers.)
He must say it was most desirable, now the question had
been broached, that it should be settled. He hoped the
house would go into committee, and meet them m a fair
spirit. The noble lord, by proposing his resolution, had
made the concession that he dare not meet them fairly in
the face. (Cheers.) The issue, howeVer, had been raised
by the house; it must be decided. Let not the house, let
not the country, mistake what that was. The issue was
not whether they should have this bill, or entertain this
bill, or whether they would pass this factious resolution.
The issue for the House of Commons to dedide was whe-
ther it would now
.grapple with this difficult question, and
go into committee in a fair spirit, ready to accept what was
good, and amend what was objectionable. If the house
would do that, they would be able to settle this question on
prindiples of safe and temperate reform ; but if they did
not they would fling this great subject abroad, unsettled
and uncertain, to await adjustment hereafter, not In a
spirit of safe conservative reform, but of wild dervicratic
innovation.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved the adjournment of the de
bate.

The SPEAKER having put the question of the adjourn-
ment,
Sir G. GREY said—l will avail myself, sir, of the
opportunity afforded by the motion to call attention to
the statement of the right tiOn. baronet who has just
sat down, which it is due to you, sir, should receive
the earliest possible notice of the house. The right hon.
baronet states he has consulted the highest authority as
to the rules and practice of the house, and he was
authorised to state that the resolution proposed by my
noble friend was unparliamentary and irregular. I have
the best reason for believing tdat when the right hon. baro-
net made that statement he was under a total misappre-
hension of the opinion of what ought to be the highest
authority. (Cheers.) I apprehend, sir, that you, sitting
in that chair, are the highest authority, and if a resolution
improperly framed had been placed in your wands you
would have refused to put it. (Hear.) I make this state-
ment as I knew the right hon. baronet was under a total
misapprehension as to what your opinion was. If the
right hon, baron treferred to any other person, I must de-
precate any reference to a person whom this house does not
recognise. I now, sir, lbeg respectfully to call on you to
state whether this resolution is in your opinion unparlia-
mentary or irregular.
Sir J. PAK INGTON—I am much indebted to the right
hon. baronet for giving me an opportunity of explaining an
expression on which he has placed a meaning very diffe-
rent from what he intended. I did not mean to convey
that you had exaressed any opinion on the subject; and if
the word "highest" escaped me it was inadvertently,
What I intended to say was, that as very great doubts
were entertained how far the resolution was justified by
precedent, I consulted the very highest authority out of
doors, and I received a strong opinion that the proceeding
on the part of the noble lord was, to say the least, irregular
and inconsistent with the usual practice. (Cheers.) I
said that it had been discussed:how far you would be justi •
fled by precedent in putting such a resolution from the
chair. The result was that whether in accordance with the
general practice or not, it would not have been competent
in you to have refused to pass the resolution. I hope that
this explanation is sufficient.
The SPEAKER—After the appeal that has been made
to me I trust the house will permit me to say a few words
on the subject of the resolution. Now, the fact is, that the
power of moving resolutions in the way of amendment, in-
stead of having been enlarged by modern practice, has been
greatly limited and restricted. It was very correctly stated
by the right hon. member for Carlisle in the course of his
speech, that in the early days of his Parliamentary career
it was competent to a member, on the motion that the
order of the day should be read, to move an amendment
on any subject not relevant to the order of the
day set down for discussion. That practice was
most properly restricted in order to promote the conduct of
the business, but if any gentleman will search the journals
he will find that during the time that my immediate pre-
decessor occupied this chair, and he was very careful to
keep the proceedings of this house within correct limits, it
happened that not less than 40 or 50 resolutions in the way
of amendment were put by him. It certainly would have
been my duty, if the form of the resolution had been irre-
gular, before I put it from the chair, to have called the at-
tention of the house to it, and as the question has now
been asked, I have no hesitation in saying that, in point of
regularity, it is not possible to take exception to the form
of the resolution. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BASS asked when the debate was likely to close ?
THE ITALIAN QUESTION IN 1849.
Lord PALMERSTON said he wished to take this op-
portunity of
as making a very short explanation on a point
on which, he understood, in the early part of the even-
ing Mr. Whiteside had made some remarks in reference to
him. He happened not to be in the house at the time
when that honourable and learned ger,Heman made a state-
ment as to what passed as to the affairs of Italy in 1849.
He (Lord Palmerston) spoke from memory of what passed
between Baron Ilummelaur and himself. The proposal
which Baron Hummelaur made was that Lombardy should
be created into a separate duchy in connexion with the
Austrian empire. At that time the Austrian forces were
out of Lombardy, and Lombardy was in possession of the
Sardinian army. He said to him that the English Govern-
ment had no power to determine in those matters, and that
all they could do was, if they were asked, to give advice to
the King of Sardinia ; but he added that that was an ar-
rangement it would be idle to suppose that the King of
Sardinia would agree to ; that it was not to be imagined
that the Sardinians would vacate Lombardy, which would
be in point of fact restoring the Austrian.s. Baron Hum-
melaur admitted the force of the argument, but he said that
he was ordered to make the proposition he had; but he
would go back to Vienna. and offer another arrangement,
that Lombardy should be erected into an independent state,
separated entirely from the Austrian empire. He said to
him that that would be a great step in advance, but he should
recollect that Venice and part of the Venetian territory were
at that moment in a state of independence, that armies were
marching to assist tho King of Sardinia, for the purpose of
entirely freeing Northern Italy from Austrian domination,