The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-21 00:00:00

FINSBURY PARR.

thfeor Bath
Mr. WC. TORRE=NTS asked the hon. member
when purchase was likely to be completed, 137
politan Board of Works, of the 250 acres of landth:yletr°-
Were
empowAred to buy and appropriate for Finsbury_park by
the Act of 1857 ; and whether they had agreed to sell, for
building purposes, 20 acres out of the 120 acres now pos_
sessed by them, contrary to the intention of the Act re..
ferred to.
Mr. TITS said the land had been purchased, but the
Board of Works had not parted with any portion of it.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS.
Lord
R. MONTAGU asked the Vice-President of the
Committee of Cintention to i ouncil whether the Government had any
introduce a bill to amend the Public Health
Acts ; and whether
pollution it would contain any clauses which
tion of rivers, in accordance with the
recent report of the Commissioners.
Mr. BRUCE said
he hopedwitie subject.
to be able very shortly to in-
troduce a bill to deal
THE DANttiAli
PROVINCES.
In answer to Mr. SA)mPou-o,
Mr. LAYARD said the Conference at Paris had not
broken up, and therefore it would
itilbliz, of the house.
obviously impolitic
to place the correspondence on the
AGRICULTURAL
Mr. HUNT wished to know when the returns relative to
had been af-
forded might be the county franchise similar to that which
forded with respect to the borough franchis
ex-
pected ? If his speech had been correctly reported it
appeared to him that he had hinted to the parochial
au-
thorities not to make the returns without remuneration.
Mr. VILLIERS said such was not his intention. He r;v r
intended that his observations should be taken in the lighte
the hon. gentleman had mentioned. The Government
had given remuneration for the statistics with respect to
the borough franchise, and the same course would be pur-
sued with respect to the returns for the counties.
Mr. DISRAELI said the returns relative to the altera-
tion of the county franchise were of the greatest import-
ance if the bill of the Government for the amendment of
the representation of the people ever went into com-
mittee.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHPQUER assured
the right hon. gentleman that no unnecessary delay would
take place.

THE REFORM BILL.
The adjourned debate was resumed by
Ur. LEVESON-GOWER, who said ho could not com-

1 pliment the great party opposite upon the mode they
I
had decided to adopt with respect to the bill ; instead
of meeting it in a fair and open manner by moving
its total rejection. He said the Government lad been told
that the course they were pursuing with rear ect to the bill
was like that of an architect who proceeded to build a
palace room by room without any perfect or defined plan.
He could not see that ; he thought it was like a person
who bad built a farm. A careful person would first con-
struct his farm-house, and then he would set about putting
up his farm buildings. He argued that the question of the
extension of the franchise was sufficiently disconnected
from that of the redistribution of seats to admit of legisla-
ting upon them separately. Adverting to the use which
had been made by the opponents of. the bill, of what he
termed the class argument, the hon. member deprecated
the comparison instituted between classes in the course of
the debate as fraught with danger, and he urged the house
to accept the proposal on the ground of its moderation,
warning them, at the same time, that if they did not they
might Snd themselves, at no distant date, in the position of
being obliged to concede a much larger measure.
Mr. GREGORY said that the verdict of the country
would be that the battle on the bill was going sorely against
the Government. Up to that time no answer had been
given, because none could be offered, to the speeches of
Lord Stanley and Sir H. Cairns; but instead they had had
erratic discharges against anything and everything but the
amendment. One speaker had suggested that if the Go-
vernment were defeated their proper course would be a
dissolution of Parliament ; but such an infatuated course
would be met by an Address to her Majesty stating that
the Parliament was perfectly prepared to deal with the
question of reform when it was fairly and frankly submitted
to them. It was a painful reflection that Ministers began
the session with a working majority of 65 ; and now if they
were water-logged with the present bill it was not the
fault of Parliament. He characterised the proposal as a
spectre, a phantom, a mere outline', and on the manner in
which it was filled up depended whether it should develop
itself an angel or a monster. He had no objection to the
admission of the working classes, but only to the proposed
manner of their entry. The franchise proposed was a mere
brick-and-mortar one —blind and indiscriminate in its ex-
tent. It was not even what the working classes desired,
for in all their periodicals and speeches they con-
demned the "occupation" qualification. In this view he
concurred, and therefore he would have preferred the bill
of Mr. Clay, the member for Hull, embracing an educa-
tional franchise. The measure of the Government, more-
over, was intended solely for the admission of a class, and
he contended that safeguards, which the measure did not
provide, were requisite to prevent their preponderance.
Mr. YOUNG (Solicitor-General for Scotland) defended
the measure, which, he said, contrasted favourably with
Lord Derby's bill of 1859, and with the opinions then ex-
pressed by some of the most eminent leaders of the Con-
servative party. He granted readily that the bill was not
proposed as a remedy for bad government—the country
did not suffer from that. But such was really not the
point. The question was that of good self-government ;
and without the popular element there was no guarantee
for the prosperity of the country. So long, then, as men
who through their intelligence and industry were fit to
exercise the franchise remained excluded, however good
the Government might be, it was not self-government
with respect to them. True, there might be ground for a
difference of opinion as to the limit to be fixed, and he
might be asked, Why prescribe a 7 occupation ? But the
house was not invited to affirm the £7, or any other par-
ticular sum. That was a matter to be settled in committee;
and the house was only requested now to affirm the prin-
ciple that a reduction of the franchise was necessary. He
justified the method of proceeding adopted by the Govern-
ment as the only one which was open to them, seeing that
they must know what the body created was before they
could see about the distribution of power.
Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE criticised the views of
Mr. Layard relative to the position of the working classes.
He denied that their influence had diminished since 1832.
If anything, from the spread of education, the higher rate
of wages, and the increase of culture and intelligence
among them, it had increased, until now they exercised no
inconsiderable part in the formation of public opinion. He
maintained that the Government could not possibly have
had a more favourable concurrence of circumstances than
the present for dealing with the question. If they were
asked whether by this amendment they meant to express
confidence, or not confidence, in the Government, the in-
terrogation was unnecessary. But as regarded the ability
of the Government to effect a settlement, they had a fair
right to say that the course of the Ministry was not such
as to entitle them to confidence. They had not dealt with
so great a question in such a way as to command faith.
Neither did their arguments inspire confidence. No men-
tion was made by them of means being adopted to put
down the corruption which was known to exist, or of any
endeavour to mitigate the evil of making members the
mere delegates of their constituents. On the contrary, the
measure would rather aggravate those evils. He entreated
the Government fairly to consider the position in which
they were placed, and to remember that, by voting for the
amendment, hon. members did not express any opinion on
the matter of the extension of the franchise.

Mr. COLERIDGE was very unwilling to intrude himself
on the attention of the house, but he was very desirous to
say a few words to explain how it was that some of the
Liberal members sitting on that bench, although they felt
strongly against the course the Government pursued, and
censured the conduct of individual members of that Go-
vernment, yet were determined to support the bill and the
course of that Government against the amendment of the
noble lord the member for Chester. It was the more
important he should do so, since the speech made last night
by the noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire. That
noble lord, so far as he confined himself to a defence of the
accusations made against him, was perfectly entitled to de-
fend himself against them. It was no business of his (Mr.
Coleridge's) to complain as long as he confined himself to a
survey of his own character and conduct. But when he
improved on the old story of Diogenes, and holding up a
lantern to those benches near him, where it would appear
he found nothing that was praiseworthy until he turned the
glass fully on himself and there saw an honest man—
(laughter)—it was time to enter on some explanation. As
he said before, so long as the noble lord defended himself
hmeenwatshraitghtht,ebyuwt
ewrheeinalhsee
ts:idthteoirb p° on lei st
ti
c aanl dcoinnvdiecpteionndsenint
voting against what they knew to be right he was entirely
in error. He for one protested as strongly as words could
do against so unjust an imputation. (Cheers.) He was in-
clined to believe that many of the wrongs which the
noble lord conceived he had to endure were the result of
an over-heated imagination. (A laugh.) He (Mr. Cole-
ridge) should vote against the amendment, because he
believed it was ill-timed, badly constructed, and if car-
ried would not tend to settle the great question now under
discussion—(hear, hear) —but rather create vexatious de-
lays and a long postponement of a final settlement.
(Cheers.) He did not say that was the object the noble
lord had in view, but it would be the result. (Cheers.) He
disclaimed anything in the shape of a personal imputation
against the noble lord, but he would take the liberty of
saying that he never stated in that house that he was in
favour of an extension of the 'franchise. (sear, hear.) On
the contrary, somewhere or another it was pointed out in
that house by an hon. member—and the noble lord did not
deny it—that he did not desire reform: (Hear.) The
noble earl must be aware that if his amendment were
carried the whole question would be once more at sea.
(Hear.) He must be aware that if the Government stood
by this measure, as no doubt they would as men of
honour, and were defeated, they must go out—(loud
cheers from the Opposition)—and the whole Liberal party
be broken up. (Continued cheers from the same quarter.)
All those assertions were not far-fetched, but direct cer-
tainties, and the inevitable result of his amendment.
(Hear, hear.) He would not say if the noble earl
in proposing it contemplated those results, nor did he mean
to assert that he had not a right to do so. All he should
assure him on his own behalf was, that he was not pre-
pared to be a party in bringing about such a state of things,
(Hear.) The noble earl in bringing forward that amend-
ment, looked around for a supporter, and certainly he could
not have got a more powerful supporter than the noble lord
opposite, the member for King's Lynn. (Hear.) He was
the best judge that counsel ever had the good fortune to
practise under. The speech delivered on that occasion
was the best he ever made ; but in doing so he pledged
himself to some measure at some indefinite time. (Cries
of " Hear, hear," and "No, no.") He (Mr. Coleridge)fully
rneembleeme
lordrincrgedthitefoerldwhadaatghe—e saiwhde;n bhuet
sehewcowuhlde
not help thehelp h
were his companions, and Saw him.
surrounded by certain
right hon. gentlemen—men of thewhiegrehewstehnonouer no dwn oubt,
but but whose opinions oHare,fourtnear.”)
There was the right
hon.co country
tr;:ent (Criesleman t of “ ear,
the member for Buckinghamshire, the
right hon. and gallant general the member for Hunting..
don, the rigbh.tisho(nm.rg.ecnotlieemridagne,ter
hmonem.
anberd
lfeoarnr Ileedrtfrifoornda-
tshheirme'emanbedr for Belfast. When the noble lord talked of
reform,a nodf course
ithwe
emneladntbethoensae me
of
rreedionromedasus tehreaygoa,dbvuo..t
eate,
rather. tighter,siadnedelfimithte it
house.beyond
(Haneayrt, hhine,gtr.that t
hadeoul
been
be
ne
done on their
mo re
nt
dwmo
ent
di d gentlemennotpointed
e
itself to an extension of the suffrage, or d
osauitdtdhua t,rins tgritchtleydaepbeaatkie,nagn,
tion of reform in the manner it had been e
dthoenae
edalativtiwthitthhefeqrutehse-
last 30 years. Suppose it were so, were hon.
opposite prepared to embark on such a course
agaenthtlaetm, eel;
were they prepared to vote for the amendment in that
sense ? (Hear, hear.) Did they intend to deal with itin
that sense ? If they brought in a Reform Bill, was it to be
such a measure as had been brought in, and founded on the
same principles as those on which reform was introduced
during the last 30 years ? (Hear, hear.) If not, then he
understood why it was they voted for the amendment, and
if they intended doing so, then they ought to tell the house,
if they were in earnest, why it was they took upon them-
selves to reject the measure of the Government. (Cheers.)
He could not help thinking they were taking an unwise and
dangerous course. (Cheers.) It was an unwise course,
because the question of reform was not a question they
would like to deal with. They could not deal with it with
any success in the face of a powerful Liberal opposition.
Now, having said so much, he did not mean to disguise
, from the house that he entertained certain positive objec-

tions to the course taken by the Government. (Cheers from
1 the Opposition.) He would argue the matter fairly, and
; was very much surprised at those ironical cheers. (Cries
[ of No, no.) He repeated that he had positive objections
to the course pursued by the Government, and they could
be better summed up than they had been by the noble lord
the member for King's Lynn. Those objections must have
arisen in the mind of anybody the moment he was told the
measure was to be dealt with, not as one single bill, but
piecemeal. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the objections
to that mode of proceeding were unanswerable, but under
the circumstances of the case, and having a choice of dif-
ficulties, the Government very wisely took that course
which presented the least. (Cheers, and cries of No, no,
from the Opposition.) That was his deliberate opinion,
and under any circumstances a difficulty must have arisen
with regard to the question of a redistribution of seats.
Those at this side of the house were of opinion that a fran-
chise of £7 in boroughs, and £l4 in counties was a right
and proper limit to which the franchise should be reduced.
They thought that, as a matter of fact, that would give
them the men who ought to have a vote, and it must not
be forgotten that if the redistribution of seats would have
an effect on the franchise, the franchise would also have
an effect on the redistribution of seats. (Hear.) Then it
was said the chief ground on which this question of the
fitness of the working classes for the franchise was sup-
posed to stand was a speech which had been misunderstood
and misrepresented ; and the charges brought by one
hon. member had been answered by the hon. member for
Westminster with an ability to which he (Mr. Coleridge)
made no pretence. Then it was said if the franchise were
given to the working'classes, the use they might make of
it must, of course, be more or less a matter of conjecture;
but conjecture might vary according to the character and
nature of the man who made it. For his part, judging of
what the enfranchised classes since 1832 had done, he
couldsee no ground for gloomy anticipations. He asserted,
to the great credit and honour of the English aristocracy,
that in the early part of this century they had, to adopt the
words of Mr. Pitt, "saved England by their courage and
Europe by their example." (Hear,and cheers.) But he said,
nevertheless, taking the last 34 years, during which the
popular element of the Constitution had greatly increased
—the constituency at the same time increasing in force and
numbers, and in weight and influence—nothing to surpass
or equal it could be named in any assignable period. He
hoped hon. gentlemen would bear with him in saying that
the leaders of their party had been pretty consistent and
constant in their vaticinations, but it did not please Provi-
dence in its wisdom to bless them with a true race of pro-
phets. (Cheers and laughter.) He did not believe for a
moment in anything like a semblance of danger to the
great party opposite or to the great interest which they re-
presented. He had said elsewhere—and as it did him no
particular good, he might repeat it there—that he believed
a wiser, a nobler aristocracy than that of England never
existed upon earth. (Cheers.) Their wealth, their educa-
tion, their high honour, their great sense of justice, made
them, whenever they pleased, the true leaders of the people.
But now and then, chiefly, he believed from ignorance—
(cheers and laughter)—ho was sure hon. gentleman would
not think he meant anything offensive—he meant igne-
i:ance on the particular subject matter they had to deal
with—he meant the feelings and interests of the classes
not belonging to them—made them now and then
legislate unkindly, just as the working classes, if they
were legislating exclusively for them would now and then
do them injustice. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time,
that there was anything like a desire of the governing
classes, or any desire for their overthrow on the part of
the working men, he believed to be "like the baseless fa-
bric of a vision," and an idle tale. (Hear, hear.) It was said,
and with some severity, that it was not so much the
people they were afraid of as those who would lead the
people. (Opposition cheers.) He did not pretend to speak
of persons with whom he had no acquaintance ; but, cer-
tainly, as far as he could judge, it appeared to him that the
one class of apprehension was as groundless as the other.
Did hon. gentlemen opposite suppose that those who sat
on those (the Liberal) benches could not see the beauty
and the dignity of the many forms of social life to which
they were supposed to be hostile? Did hon. gentlemen op-
posite suppose they had no imagination? Did hon. gentle-
men think they had never read history? Did they think
they had no sentiment, which, on. the only occasion on
which he had addressed that house, he had said was a very
different thing from sentimentalism—(hear, hear)—and
whatever :cynical gentlemen in their sublime wisdom
might say or think, had always counted, and would always
count, as there were hearts and feelings among men, as a
great power in the affairs of men. Did hon. gentlemen op-
posite think they were blind to the charms of association,
or deaf to the voice of tradition ? He told hon. gentlemen
opposite they were not deaf to the voice of tradition. They
cared for those things as much as hon. gentlemen opposite
cared for them. They wished to preserve what hon. gen-
tlemen opposite wished to preserve; but they thought that
could best be done by satisfying the just demands of the
people, by showing confidence in them, by inviting them
in large numbers within the gates of the Constitution, at
which they were now knocking to be admitted. (Loud
cheers, and cries of "Hear, hear") Guard, if they pleased,
the grace of freedom by the majesty of the law; but he said
it was hon. gentlemen opposite who were the true revolu-
tionaries, and not those who sat on his (the Liberal) side
of the house. (Hear, hear, and cheers from the Minis-
terial side of the house.) Honourable gentlemen opposite
rejected the moderate demands for popular advance, and
instead of deepening the channel and widening the banks
of the stream, they would drive it up and hem it in until
the accumulated weight of its waters would break down
the puny barriers, and bear with them destruction instead
of fertility. (Enthusiastic cheers.)
Mr. HORSMAN—I have listened, in common with all
the house, to the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman
with interest and admiration. (Hear, hear.) There has
been throughout that speech an earnestness of tone and a
clearness of reasoning, combined with frankness and gene-
rosity of spirit, which must constrain even those who do
not agree with his opinions to acknowledge the ability and
force with which he has expressed himself; at the same time
I must regret to have perceived that the speech of the hon.
s pd eenescahtei os n
of
the of all the e:nar-
gumentsandlearnwedhgicehnthleamveanmwaraksed the
Govern-
ment members from the first day of the discussion until
now. If, it is said, you are not a supporter of the Govern-
ment Bill you are not a true Reformer. Now, I protest
against any Government Bill being put forward as a test
of any man's opinion on Reform. (Laughter and cheers.)
We are living in an age opposed to all tyrannical and arbi-
trary proceedings, and I object to any Minister taking a
bill out of his box, and saying, " Here is my standard of
liberty, every man who conforms to it 'regard as a brother,
and every man who rejects it shall be excommunicated as
an impostor." We know the days when there was a domi-
nant Church, which condemned all who did not belong to
it, and denied them the character of Christians. We know
that historians tells us that, in tho days of the Common-
wealth, the Fifth Monarchy-men passed two resolutions.
The first was that Saints should govern the world; and
the second was—" We are the Saints." (Laughter.) Now
the arguments and language we have heard in this debate
is another example of the tendency of history to repeat it-
self. The hon. and learned gentleman's speech has not
been marked by the illiberal tone and the intolerance,
which, if the occasion occurred,'would amount to persecu-
tion, that has characterised much which has fallen from;the
opponents of the amendment. The Government are arro-
gating to themselves a monopoly of political zeal and
virtue, and are heaping the most odious imputations on
those who have been associated with them, who have made
the advancement of Liberal ideas the labour and love of
their lives, who have gone through the ordeal of sacrifice
for their principles, which many of those now professing
Liberal opinions have not been called on to face, and who
only ask for themselves that liberty of judgment which I
always understood to be the first and most sacred principle
of the Liberal party. (Hear, hear.) I was pleased when I
saw the hon. and learned gentleman rise to address the
house, for 1 was sure he would address himself to the mea-
sure of the Government and grapple with the amendment.
Fairly and courageously he has adverted toboth these sub-
jects, and if he has not succeeded it was from no lack of
ability, but from the difficulty of the task. (Oh, oh.)
My hon. and learned friend in dealing with this question
had a twofold task to discharge. He had first to show that
the suffrage of the bill of the Government was in itself de-
serving of our support, and then he had to show that the
bill, as part of the policy of the Government, was also de-
fensible, and was not open to the objections made to it by
the amendment. How has he addressed himself to those
two points ? He began with the suffrage bill, and he tells
us that the noble lord urged three objections to the mea-
sure. Now it was strange that, when there is one obvious
and frequently-urged objection, and one never answered
yet, that the hon. and learned gentleman should evade
that, and shculd raise up, encounter, ani demolish three
other objections which were really never urged. What
has been objected to is the principle on which the reduc-
tion in the suffrage has been made. We say the reduction
ttt;holeecN
franchisev
nai.mt e(drtoewanr:
is in a downward direction on the principle of numbers.
e
(Hear, hear.) This is an argument which has never been
met, but which has always been evaded. We sayalso that
necessityrhome
froma rx.ni
.o7owlvt
to
oaer ltetgl4wle, dyoa
would,
ouru
nos
that
from
theithetfbyexrs:e
mi loweringstill
tenilolfurther
uer
ts
pressure,ihneo
place in the £7 franchise, and that, therefore, on that
principle the bill is really a measure which offers no
sound
of settlement until you arrive at 'ground
universal uffrage.
(Cheers.) The same objection was made to the bill of the
hon. member for Leeds, and it has never been answered.
When we urged it against the bill of the hon. member for
Leeds, we were ridiculed and denounced, but since then
we have had electoral statistics which show the truth of
our statements that by that bill the existing constituencies
would have been swamped. The Government admit that,
and, drawing back, will not give the same suffrage as that
contained in the bill of the hon. member for Leeds. My
hon. and learned friend says one of our objections to this
bill is, that the working classes are unfit for the franchise.
Now, that is an objection which certainly I have never
urged. I have always said precisely the contrary. I have
had meetings with the working classes for many years—
meetings of electors, meetings of non-electors, and mixed
meetings of electors and non-electors. I have often ad-
dressed them, but in no speech I ever made did I ever utter
a word that by any amount of ingenuity can he construed

into any disparagement of them. My objection to the prin-
ciple of this bill is consistent with the opinions which I
have ever entertained since I entered public life. I have
been told that I am inconsistent in my opinions on this sub-
ject. Now, it so happens that 30 years ago, at the very
time I stood on the hustings, I encountered obloquy because
on this subject I would not prOfess the opinions of the pro-
gramme of the Liberals. On various occasions I encoun-
tered opposition, and on the day of the declaration of the
poll a riot took place where many of my voters were in-
jured. It is a curious thing I happen to know that within
these five years on two occasions on the part of those who
were anxious to convict me of insincerity, parties have
gone down to Cumberland and groped through all the
speeches which I have made for 30 years back in order to
fix the charge of inconsistency upon me ; but the answer
they have given to those who employed them was, that
having made the most diligent search they could not find
one single opinion I ever uttered about the House of Lords
or Commons in the slightest degree at variance with the
course lam now pursuing. One discovery they did make.
They discovered that after I had been 17 years member for
Cockermouth and had lost my seat, the constituency pre-
sented me with apiece of plate ; and they said as I was then a
Liberal and had now ceased to be a Liberal I should return
that piece of plate. (A laugh.) I answered that if they
found out one single sentence in any speech I ever made
which would convict me of inconsistency I would return it
the next day to those who had presented it to me. (Hear,
hear.) There is one comfort, sir, which my friends and
myself have under all the charges which are brought against
us. They have various circumstances to comfort them. But
I have one substantial consolation. Ours has been the
fate not only of great men before us, but of those whose re-
putation is at this moment of particular value ; and I am
going to give the house an instance which, 1 think, will be
peculiarly significant. It so happens that the constituency
I have the honour to represent has been represented before
I was connected with it by very eminent men ; and one of
these eminent men, of whom the constituency has reason to
be proud, was Lord John Russell, who represented Stroud
for some years. Now it does so happen that Lord John
Russell is another evidence of the fickleness and injustice
with which Reformers may be treated by those who call
themselves their best friends ; and he can bear testimony to
the fact that with a section of the reformers of his own con-
stituency he was very frequently in the hottestwater. I was
a member of this house when he made that memorable
speech called the "Finality" speech, and which was treated
with an injustice and political indignity we must look back
to now both with regret and shaine. But on that occasion
it did so happen that the constituencies which were
then most prominently before the public connected with
the Reform question are those also which have an un-
happy prominence at this time. When he made that decla-
ration I remember Mr. Charles Buller got up and in almost
unparliamentary language accused him of bad faith ; Sir
William Molesworth made it the subject of an address
to his constituents at Leeds, and through them to
the Reformers of all England ; then, as now, Leeds
and Birmingham were the two centres of Reform agita-
tion, and took a prominent part in endeavouring to ex-
cite popular opinion against the member for Stroud. (A
laugh and cheers.) I want just to show the house what oc-
curred on that occasion. The Spectator was at that time
the organ of the advanced Liberal party, and in giving an
account—l must say a very unfair account of the speech of
Lord John Russell—it commented upon it in these words :
"And they will not stand alone. There are indications in
various parts of the country that the Russell declaration
will bring forth good fruit. The council of the Political
Union of Birmingham, weunderstand, have addressed their
brother reformers of Stroud to require from him who mis-
represents them in the_ People's House the resignation of
his hitherto convenient seat Last Tuesday Lord J.
Russell declared that the intent of the Reform Bill was to
give the landed interest' the ascendancy in the Legislature
of the country, and added, still think that a preponder-
ance in favour of that interest tends to the stability of the
general institutions of theme country.' The phrase general
institutions' is not remarkable for elegant precision, but
taking along with it the eulogistic word stability,' we
learn that it was intended to express a preference for the
political ascendancy of the squire and farmer class. . • . If
the South Devonshire squirearchy do not return Lord John
at the next election they will be ungrateful ; but what will
the Reformers of Stroud say to their member ? . . • • The
Political Union of Stroud, having taken into consideration
the address of the Birmingham Political Union relative to
Lord John Russell's qualification as a representative of his
present constituents, passed a resolution declaring his lord-
ship an unfit person to represent the borough of Stroud in
Parliament."