The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-14 00:00:00

THE 801 i, LOINDoN, WEDNESDA Y MARCH. 14, 1886,

treat) We can understand hots those sehtim' Oats originated
amongst a portion of the public. Because they look upon
Government as a sort of machinery forrewarding and punish-
ing, giving this to virtue and that to vice, and they think the
Government ought to distribute justice as between two
equal co-partners. That is a misunderstanding of the na-
ture of the business of government. It deals with expedi-
ency.. I will state shortly my opinions on the bill. It is a
bill to alter the constitution of this house, to redistribute
the power in this house. I maintain that it was the bounden
duty of the Government to make inquiries and a careful
examinaticn of the present state of this house, by seeing
wherein it succeeds and wherein it fails, and applying its '
measure so as to leave untouched that which is good and
to remedy that which is evil. I think it was the duty of
the Government, like any other physician, to study the
body on which they were going to operate, and not likea
person who only mixes drugs or sharpens the lancets.
(Hear, hear.) The Government has not done it. If
the
time
house will favour me with their attention a short
longer, I will add a little. 1 propose it with the greatest
diffidence, because I have the greatest respect for
house ; but I show my honesty by not desiring to see its
constitution altered except upon go
(Hear, hear.) Let us examine it, andd
ansufficient cause.
desire to " see our-
selves as others see us." It is a mirror of the opinions of
the nation, and I want the house to look into the mirror
and try to see itself. I think we may say, without the
slightest fear of contradiction, that this house holds a posi-
tion not merely in England, but in the whole civilised
world, such as has fallen to the lot of no other deliberative
assembly. It is respected all over the world. Its debates
carry far more weight and are read with far more attention,
and do more towards enlightening mankind, than those of
any other popular assembly. I think we have every reason
to be proud of the position which this house occupies in
the eyes of the world. (Hear.) If we go far, then,
then I think we shall find a function which this house
pre-eminently discharges—that of finance—which has
been discharged, on the whole, with greater success than
can be attributed to any other legislative assembly in the
world. It is not by any means perfect, and perhaps some
gentlemen think that the army and navy is nothing but
a vast system of out-door relief, and nothing but a job of
state. But I think the majority of the people are satis-
fied that the finances are administered in a way honour-
able to the nation and creditable to this house. (Hear,
hear.) If we go further, I think it must be said it is never
deaf to any one who chooses to approach it with anything
like a grievance. (Hear.) Can any one say a poor man
cannot get a hearing ? Look at our debate on the unfor-
tunate cases of poor Irishwomen removed between Eng-
land and Ireland. Look how immediate attention is given
to any argument that touches upon the poor. We may
not always be successful in finding remedies—l will not
say anything upon what we have done in legislation, be-
cause I said that last year. I think we may say it is an
orderly assembly when we read of the manner of demo-
cratical assemblies, and if we go to a popular country not
a hundred miles from us. The House of Commons keeps
its order as well as any assembly in the world. It is an in-
dependent assembly, and now the opinion that there is in-
dividual corruption among members is absurd. We are
really an industrious assembly ; these are great merits. I
want to know if the bill proposed by the Government will
leave all these things just as they find them. Will it have
no influence on all these merits ? If you lower your con-
stituencies, you lower your class of members. I do not
wish to say anything disagreeable, but I would direct at-
tention to the legislative assemblies in North America, the
United States, and in Australia. This house, like all other
human institutions, has its imperfections, and with all re-
verence and respect I will point out one or two. There
has been a great change since 1832, and which ought to
be brought into consideration ; and that is that the House
of Commons is now much nearer its constituencies, and
much more influenced by them than before. In the old
days there was a great gulf, and information was slow.
But now the constituencies have a second function in ad-
dition to electing their members. They communicate to
them by railways and telegraphs, and it has happened
that the votes of members have been changed in
the course of a debate through the receipt of a tele-
gram. (Laughter and cheers.) Measures are sometimes
not fully gone into by the local press ; perhaps through
being ill informed they take up a question and an argu-
ment; and the constituencies, by information fresh, make
up their minds upon these subjects before they have
heard the real case, and exercise an influence on those who
are in a superior position and better informed. These are
small blots, but they are worth mentioning. If you lower
your constituencies—if you lower the more democratical
constituencies—will they be inclined to leave their mem-
bers more freedom than at present, more toleration in their
opinions—honest and able men when they do not agree
with the popular whim for the moment—will they be more
inclined to respect real dignity and consistency of charac-
ter? Then, again, there is another and serious point, and
that is the relation of this house to the Executive Govern-
ment. The house and the Executive Government, when
working together, are, I think, a most invaluable institu-
tion. The house derives support from the Government;
and Ministers, on the other hand, derive equal advantage
and information from being placed in immediate contact
with the Legislature, not like the Secretary of State of
America, by getting a private member to propose his
financial measure ; they have support from their friends
when their policy is attacked, and they gain infinitely by
the contact with each other. Anything which would tend
to sever them would be most dangerous and most mis-
chievous. It is painful to observe the symptoms of grow-
ing weakness on the part of the Executive of this house,
even since the time that he had had the honour of a seat
in it; it is painful to see the weakness exhibited in this
house when hon. gentlemen move for papers which
ought not to be produced, or which is putting the na-
tion to a needless expense. How do the Ministers resist
it? Formerly if a committee was asked for on a subject
which had already been thoroughly examined, or which it
was not convenient to go into, the Minister could stand
up and say, " I advise the house not to grant this com-
mittee," and it was not granted. 'What Minister says so
now ? Our ancestors, when they saw a thing was right,
enacted it ; but now if it is important it is delegated to a
committee ; or if it be difficult to delegate it is an open
question. The whole machinery has fallen a great deal
too much into the bands of this house, and the effect has
been to injure the Government, and the ultimate effect
must be to lower the character of the house itself. The
wise men who founded the constitution of America knew
that it would be absolutely impossible to have the English
system, and therefore they arranged that their two legisla-
tive bodies should be elected at different periods, and by
constituencies, and that there should be no points of con-
tact. You see the feebleness which this gives to the legis-
lature and the executive in America. You see it in those
discords which are apt to break out between the head of the
executive and the legislature, which could not exist for a
moment in this country. It seems to me that if this house
means to exercise this great power over
.the executive it
must not make itself too democratic. Is it wise in us to
rush rashly forward in this direction, and while increasing
the popular foundation of this house, deprive it perhaps of
its noblest attributes, that of working in accordance with
the executive. There is another point ; that is, the elec-
tions become day by day more expensive—l mean the le-
gitimate expenses. This is easily accounted for. There is
a torrent of wealth flowing into the country, and many
gentlemen wish to get a seat in this house, some for politi-
cal and some for non-political purposes—some to represent
great companies, some because they wish to get into so-
ciety, and some because they are stimulated by their wives
or daughters. (A laugh.) This is a most serious matter ;
because, as I observed before, it is only through this houso
that the most important members of the Government can
enter the Government ; and if you require from them, in
addition to the immense labours and vicissitudes of public
life, that they shall spend more probably than they receive
from the public in conciliating their electors, you make
public life impossible to a class of men whom you wish to
have. (Cheers.) I should like to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, when he has brought his democratical
constitution into effect, how he thinks those small
boroughs—about which he spoke so eloquently in 1859 as
the places which introduced to the house such men asPitt,
Canning, and Peel, how he thinks he will be able to supply
the want of those small places ? The matter is one of
common sense. There is another topic, and that is the
het tart private interests are beginning to take in
liollso of Commons. I view with a great deal
of jealousy
and
alarm the degree in which the house has
become
prtil:ate'bauch.inery for the transaction of what is
vestigating Bch:an:188- (Hear, hear.) We fancy we are in-
seeing whetherinz people who have raised capital, and
interests require them. We are
doing nothing of the kind We are investigating schemes
which have been got hat
tTople with no capital at all—
(hear, hear)—in order
ca..vffearitnrilm: ;ant asll y un pl e a sa n t,
all—
the committees of the houa?Zy sell the approval of
Stock Exchange.
(Hear.) Then there are other
u
where we are mixed up with
rrienaguteheethf franchise
ferent kinds, which I should like to haveuls)ts?ipdpieesd(!f Butdif-
again, I say, do yodoeuptrheisnoknttlaot
yboyul.Noywilei
materially belo
I think I have shown that such a bill as the G"arnmeni
intend to bring in, while it will not in any degree alleviate
any of the faults which I have taken the liberty of Pointing
ont in the constitution of this house, will aggravate every
one of them. (Cheers.) I want to hear from the right hon.
gentleman if ho hes considered how the measuro would work
on the house. My sketch is imperfect; let him or the Go-
vernment make their own sketch or theory on the subject.
Let them tell us the faults of the House of Commons, and
tell us how the measure will remedy them ; and let them not
fling their measure on the table, and say that we are to adopt
it, without hearing any single reason in favour or against
the state of things which has existed so long and happily.
(Hear, hear.) It may be said that these arguments might
just as well have been used in 1832. But to make a good
argument two things are necessary: the first is that the
principle shall be sound, and the second that the facts shall
correspond. The arguments were excellent in 1832, only
they did not correspond with the facts of the case. Are
the facts of the case now the same as in 1832 ? That
is a
question I am not going into; but I will point out
that in 1832 the controversy was perfectly defined. One
side said that the system worked well, and the other side
that it did not ; and the country decided, rightly or

7-7—M117------71Frisiibt the, ton.
tangly, that it _____ not worn well.. ha
work well, but still we ought to alter
t( aught
er.)f
troversy now. It is now admitted that the e syttem does
Take the clever letter which ap.peared in h
yesterday, signed "H:' The writer asked, " Whate fault
the
haveanswer w we
fteor findtne wis
atkhe t hoof presentargument,
e Hn
to, u
none;s eof Commons?
bat still
becauseiis
te
say,gentlemen
fer th
e s
ate
what is
ho use 43, u ght
called toe
'te
committed"'--that
reformed,mitted' "s—imthpalyt
of preserving consistency, they will deliberately do what
I they know to be injurious. (Hear.) Again, there is this
distinction : in 1832 the grievance we complained of was a
practical grievance. Don't believe that the House of Com-
mons was reformed merely on account of the inequalities
of the then system : the House of Commons was reformed
because the public mind was offended by the things it
thought bad in the Government and Legislature of the
country, and it seized upon those anomalies as weapons to
abate the nuisance. That, being a practical grievance, has
been redressed, and.has led for a certain time to the settle-
ment of the questing. But no one has ever settled a ques-
tion by remedying a Merely theoretical grievance. (Hear,
hear.) And that is just the grievance we have now to deal
with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that one
great inducement to pass this bill was, that we shculd find
in it a complete settlement of the question ; and he ex-
pressed a hope—l do not know whether he was alluding to
me—that impracticable people of some kind or another
would be induced to give their consent to the bill on that
account. A settlement, sir ! Why, the right hon. gentleman
said that that we were to go on with this bill for. twelve
nights in this year, an if you cannot pass it in twelve
nights, I presume you must leave it to the charity of
private members. That charity I need not say is very
cold. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Well, then, probably
the measure might go over until next year, and then you
must begin all over again ; and when you have done
it, you are to be refreshed with a franchise bill for cot-
land and for Ireland. Then there would bo three redis-
tribution bills ; and even then you would not be out of
the wood, because you are to have a Boundary Bill, which
is about the most difficult and irritating matter to get into.
Next we are to have a Registration Bill, and that also is a
matter of great difficulty. But one more remains, and that
is enough to make one shudder—there is the Anti-corrup-
tion Bill. (Laughter.) In fact, the prospect of a settlement
which the right hon. gentleman holds out is, that we are to
begin de novo the whole of our electoral system, and go
through the whole of it by some nine measures, and that is
held out to us as a settlement. (Laughter.) If we pass this
bill, the right hon. gentleman tells us that he may perhaps
employ us in doing all the work. Well, that is not my idea
of a settlement. I am quite sure also that, in addition, there
are unsettling causes of which the right hon. gentleman
did not tell us. I feel convinced that if this bill be passed,
it will be passed in mere deference to numbers, irrespec-
tive of property and intelligence—(cheers)—that it will be
passed in deference to a love of mere symmetryand equality,
for that is the name under which democratic envy gene-
rally disguises itself—and that it will settle nothing. When
the right hon. gentleman has given us all, we shall still
have plenty of inequalities to stir up passion. The griev-
ance being theoretical, and not practical, will survive as
long as theory does not conform with practice—that is to
say, until we shall have universal suffrage and equal elec-
toral districts. (Cheers.) Therefore, I see no element of
finality in this bill, and although I am perfectly willing to
consider anything that canbe brought forward, I crave leave
to say that my vote and conduct will be determined by my
impressions of the good or bad working of the measure
upon the House of Commons, and not by theories of good
government, which, according to one great thinker, would
consist in any one having a share in it, just as, according to
his idea, a good joint-stock company would be one in which
every lady was a director. (Laughter.) Well, the right
hon. gentleman had not time to give us a reason ; but he
had time to give us a quotation, and it was a quotation of
a very curious kind. For, not finding in his largo classical
repertoire one that would describe a state of perfect bliss
which his bill is to produce, he put forth one to show us
what his bill would not do—
" Scandit fatalis machina muros

Foeta armis." •
That, said the right hon. gentleman, is not my bill. Now,
that is not a very apt quotation, but there is a curious fell=
city about it which he little dreams of. The house will re-
member among the proofs of the degree in which public
opinion is enlisted in the cause of reform, that this is the
fifth bill which has been brought forward since 1851. Well,
just attend to the sequel of the quotation. lam not a be-
liever in the "Sortes Virgiliante," but I wish the house to
hear what follows :

"0 patria, 0 Divum domus, et inclyta bello
Moenia Dardanidum! Quitter ipso in limine portico
Substitit, atque utero sonitum quitter arma dedere."
(Laughter.) But that is not
Instamus tamen immemores ccecique furore,
Et monstrum infelix sacrata sistimus arce."
(Cheers and laughter.) I abominate the presage conveyed
in these last two lines; but I mix my confidence with fears.
I know 'I am addressing a new Parliament, whose inten-
tions, whose actions, are as yet hidden by the veil of futu-
rity. It may be that they will take the advice tendered to
them with so much eloquence and authority by my right
hon. friend. It may be that wo are destined to avoid this
enormous danger by which we are confronted, and not, to
use the language of my right hon. friend, be forced to com-
pound with danger and misfortune. But it may be other-
wise. All I can say is, if my right hon. friend succeeds in
carrying this bill through Parliament—the passions and
interests of the day are stilled—l shall not envy him his
retrospect: I covet not a single leaf of the laurel that en-
circles his brow. His be the glory—if such it be--to carry
this measure; mine, to the utmost of my humble strength
and ability, to resist it. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. C. VILLIERS, in reply to Mr. Lowe's speech, said—
The question of reform was ore, he declared, on which the
House of Commons was not trusted by the country; for
wherever one went, and whoever he talked with, the same
sentiment was expressed, that they presumed the bill would
be thrown out because it was proposed for the reform of
the house itself. He contended that repeated pledges made
it obligatorfopon the house to agree to an extension of the
franchise, and reminded Mr. Lowe he had formerly enun-
ciated the doctrine that no reform could be satisfactory to
the people that did not reduce the qualification of voters.
He denied that the working people were so bad as Mr.
Lowe had represented them to be. If they were so, and if
they had the evil designs that were imputed to them, might
they not endeavour to carry them out now It was the
duty of the man, then, who dared thus to malign thepeople,
and attribute to them dishonest objects, to have given some
evidence in support of his reckless assertions. The truth
was, that the working classes had improved in condition,
in education, and in intelligence. And why not bring some
evidence of their designs upon the institutions of the coun-
try and of their combinations to put their designs into exe-
cution ? In former days evidence of that sort might have
been produced, but just as they became more free and en-
lightened there was an absence of everything of the kind.
Equally frightful predictions to those of Mr. Lowe had
been uttered with regard to what were to have been the
consequences of the Reform Act; and he thought the pre-
sent was an unlucky moment, just as the people in the ma-
nufacturing districts had passed through a time of great
suffering with unexampled patience and endurance, to cast
such a slur upon them. He did not know whether the bill
would be carried or not, but of this he was convinced, that
if it were rejected the time was not far distant when they
would find themselves in the position of having to pass a
measure of a much more sweeping character.
Mr. R. N. PHILIPS tendered his grateful thanks to the
Government for their bill. He had resided all his life
among the working classes, and was sure they were worthy
to possess the privileges proposed to be conferred on them.

Mr. LEATHAM gave the bill his hearty support, be-
lieving that it would give satisfaction to an industrious,
loyal, and contented people.
Mr. A. PEEL would have preferred a £lO franchise in
counties, and a .E 5 franchise in boroughs, but was willing
to accept the £7 rental as a settlement of the question of
the town franchise for many years to come. He looked to
the Government, however, to supplement the present mea-
sure with another for the redistribution of seats.
Mr. ALLEN also supported the bill.

Mr. SCHREIBER was of opinion that the house was
invited to legislate on tho question upon inadequate and
imperfect information.

Mr. LONG said the bill was either a sham or a reality.
If it were a sham, then the members below the gangway,
followers of Mr. Bright, were bound to vote against it;
whilst, if it were a reality, it could only be as part of a great
scheme, and the house was entitled to demand an explana-
tion of the remainder of that schema before it accepted this
insfalment.

Mr. MELLER stated several objections to the measure,
and amongst them that the creation of a savings' banks
franchise would be an injustice to fundholders, and that
the proposed lodger franchise would have a most demo-
cratic and revolutionary effect.
Mr. ACLAND, having taken a fling at the professed
Liberals, who, he said, had been stabbing the Government
measure from the rear, remarked that if the Government
or the house did anything that could be regarded as trifling
with this question their honour would bo deeply at stake.
Ho sincerely believed that they might trust the people, and
that the house would not be doing its duty unless it allied
itself With popular sympathies. As to the fear of demo-
cracy, that ho left with the other side of the house. He
considered the bill Wis marked by an honest and earnest
deaii•etobgriavnechtho f
iWorkingquestion.
stciloansses a fair share in the repre-
sentation, and. thate it was a.reasonable solution of one im-
portantM
r. W ITES DEg saidreat th".t although the question had
ability, and although the prin-
ciplebeen spoken to with
of the bill would undergo more close and searching
examination on the second reading,aonyloethvrouid venture
to submit one or two observations to
question as it stood. The principle, or oruasetheurpoln the
no
principle of the bill, was beginning to be understootd7
It
was a remarkable fact that no ono had spoken in support of
the bill on behalf of the Government save the right hon.
gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, who had.
made a speech in which he had shown in what thorough
contempt he held the British constitution. (Hoar, hear, and
laughter.) The only hope he (Mr. Whiteside) entertained
was that the right hon. gentleman did not recollect what
he was saying, and that no one in the Cabinet would be
maim to abide by the principle whicll he emaciated.

With respedt to the rest of the right hOii. gentielliAn's
speech, it was composed more by the aid of the scissors
than the head—(laughter)—for it seemed to himthat it was
a collection of a number of passages from old debates on
the question of reform, in which the right hon. gentleman
took the opportunity to answer Mr. Croker, who was in his
grave. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. White-
side) had had the happiness of hearing Mr. Croker, and
having also heard the right honourable gentleman,
he was struck with the contrast. (Laughter.) But what
was the use of evoking those old speeches ? What we
wanted to know was not what was said on the first Re-
form Bill, but what were the ideas of the Minister at the
present day—(hear, hear)—and how he intended to prove
that the crude bill which had been thrown on the table
was warranted by the circumstances of the times, and
was justified by policy and experience. It was said that
those who sat on the Opposition side of the house were
opposed to an extension of the franchise. No such
thing. They were not opposed to an extension of the
franchise, but they were opposed to a bill of the nature
like that before them, which unsettled everything and
settled nothing. (Hear, hear.) He was not unaware
of the ideas which the Chancellor of the Exchequer en-
tertained on the subject. One Wednesday, when Lord
Palmerston was alive, and when we had no nonsense—
(laughter)—the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down
to that house, and, in reference to the bill introduced by
the hon. member for Leeds, declared that the reason why
he supported it was that the influence of the working
classes was almost infinitesimal in the franchise of the
country. Well, the hon. gentleman was poetical with the
"rule of three." (Laughter.) But was the statement
which he then made true ? He said himself the other night
that he was surprised at the result of the returns which
had been laid upon the table. From those returns it ap-
peared that a large percentage of the working classes
already enjoyedthe franchise, and it had been demonstrated
in the speech of that right hon. member for Caine, that the
same causes which had operated to produce that result
must continue to prevail, and that the number of the work-
ing classes in possession of the franchise must increase.
That being so, what was the course to which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was driven for the maintenance of
the bill ? He said that there were inequalities in the fran-
chise ; that while in one place the working classes pos-
sessed the franchise to a large degree, in others they pos-
sessed it only to a small degree. But how did the bill meet
that case, or how could any bill meet that difficulty?
Wherever employment was to be found there the working
classes would congregate, and therefore it was never meant
that they should be equally represented all over the coun-
try, but that their representation should be in some way
or in some manner felt. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor
of the Exchequer had told them that it was impossible to
introduce a complete measure upon the subject of reform,
but by way of solace assured them that the present mea-
sure being passed, other and supplemental measures would
subsequently be introduced. But was that fair ? Was it
Parliamentary—(laughter)—that they should be subjected
to a long course of Ministerial torture—(laughter)—and
was it true that a complete measure could not be framed ?
In saying the right honourable gentleman had pronounced
sentence upon the capacity of his Ministry ; for the
confession proved one of two things—either Ministerial
imbecility or Ministerial incapacity. Now, for the pur-
pose of showing that there was not one particle of
foundation for what the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had said, ho would ask the house to recollect the
scope of the Reform Bill which was introduced by Lord
Derby. In the first place, every one of the questions that
had been mentioned were disposed of in that bill. There
was a moderate disfranchisementclause, there were en-
franchisement clauses, and the work was done sensibly,
worthily, and completely. If the question were again to
be cpened now, it ought to be opened up with equal com-
pleteness. He believed the hon. member for Birmingham
to be.a sincere man on the subject of Parliamentary reform,
and he believed this bill had been separated into several
bills, because the hon. member for Birmingham had dis-
tinctly stated there ought to be three steps—the first, ex-
tension of the suffrage ; second, vote by ballot ; and the
third, redistribution of seats. If the house believed, as he
did, that the hon. member for Birmingham was conscien-
tiously speaking his opinion, and if the objects he had
aimed at were attained, the Government would then be
practically a democracy. Not that the form of the consti-
tution would be abolished, but the entire power would be
in that house, the House of Lords would remain a pleasant
sort of place, and the Crown would be a phantom. The
principle of the old 40s. freeholders was that the voter
should have an independent interest in the State, and as
that sum in older times would be equal to £4O, to recog-
nise 40s. freeholders in the present day would be absurd.
The 40s. franchise suggested to his mind that which oc-
curred in Ireland many years ago. A thick-beaded secre-
tary went over and suggested that the 40s. freehold fran-
chise then in operation in England should be extended
to Ireland. It was represented by the opponents that
this would hold out a premium to landlords to cover their
estates with a pauper constituency, but in time the priest-
hood would intervene, and there would be priesthood and
democracy. Well, that bill was carried. The priesthood
did interfere, and O'Connell and the priesthood were
triumphant. That system had been altered ; but now,
after all their social evils and all their political evils, the I
Chancellor of the Exchequer told thorn hq intended to
lower tho franchise in Ireland. All he could say
was, that if Parliament assented to that, it was a
Parliament gone mad. (Cheers.) It appeared to him to be
most impolitic to first introduce 400,000 voters and then to
see what effect they would have on the constitution of the
country at large. If he rightly understood the principle of
the bill, it was proposed to go lower and lower in the scale
of civilisation, instead of holding out an inducement to these
men to elevate themselves to a place to which they might
fairly aspire. The bill was, therefore, unwise, unfair, and,
he believed, unsafe. No one had told a word of the great
evils to be redressed. On the contrary, while for years the
continent had been disturbed by wars, this country had
been contented and peaceful. It was the fancy of a philo-
sopher that our beautiful system of representative govern-
ment was invented in the woods ; but whether it was the
realisation of the idea of the wise men of old, or was the
result of happy accident or providential arrangement, the
effect was to combine private happiness with public free-
dom. There was no part of the world in which the arts of
industry and peace were more perfectly developed ; and as
he was satisfied that the constitution rested upon a sound
and satisfactory basis, he trusted that those who were
olected to this house would prove themselves the wise and
faithful guardians of the blessings which the country en-
joyed. (Cheers.)

Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Goschon rose together, but the
latter giving place to the hon. member for Brighton,
Mr. FAWCETT said—l deeply regret that I have for
one moment stood in the way of one of the most distin-
guished members of the Cabinet. (Laughter and cheers.)
I thank him for his courtesy, and will endeavour to be as
brief as possible. I would scarcely have adventured, as a
very young member, to have intruded myself into so
important a debate as this had it not occurred that some
few weeks since a personal appeal was made to me by a
right hon. member, and he seemed to think I was defi-
cient in courage because I, as he was pleased to call
me, a Radical representative of the working classes, had
not expressed myself on reform. Had that appeal come
to me from a different quarter I would immediately have
responded ; but I doubt an appeal from a right hon.
gentleman who sits on the Liberal benches, and who is
always enthusiastically cheered by the Conservatives. But
if I have delayed, I think the time has now come when I,
an independent member, may give expression to my o pi-
nions on this question. If I do represent the working
classes, I am glad to be able to say that I accept this mea-
sure thankfully, and will do everything I can to give it my
cordial support. (Hear.) ,The hon. gentleman the member
for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) gave a speech last evening, re-
plete with brilliant epigram and telling antithesis, which
it seemed to me was a carefully-preparedessay on this sub-
ject. He says Earl Russell is inconsistent, and the right
hon. member for Birmingham is a republican. Suppose ho
had proved the inconsistency of Earl Russell, and the re-
publicanism of the hon. member for Birmingham, that
would not have affected me on this question. I think, on a
great question like this, we have far greater and nobler in-
terests to deal with than the inconsistency of a noble lord
or the extreme inconsistency of one hon. member. I must
say I do not know the impression produced upon men
who have had greater experience of this house than I have
had, but it seemed to me that the right hon. gentleman
threw away his brilliant gifts of rhetoric when on a great
and important question like this he occupied one hour and
three- quarters in uttering miserable personalities. (Loud
cheers, and cries of " No, no.") Well, then, I will leave out
the adjective, and say paltry personalities. (No, no.) We
have listened this evening to a speech of altogether a dif-
ferent kind. (Hear.) You listened last year—and I wish I
had been in the house at the time—to a still more remark-
able speech; but before I deal with one or two arguments
of:the hon. member for Caine, I wish to put a simple and
homely question to him, and if he cannot answer it to my
satisfaction, I will toll him with the frankness with which
he speaks all his arguments, that I believe they will not
much impress the country. The question I wish to put
is this : Did he not join the combination that de-
clared no Government was worthy of the confidence of
this country unless they enlarged the borough
franchise ? I think the Willis's Rooms' compact was fac
tious. I think it was based on insincerity, and I think the
insincerity on which it was based has for six years haunted
this country, and that we must have outspoken Liberal
action before we can give a regenerated and healthy vigour
to this house. The hon. member continued : Was not the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) a distinguished member
of a Government which came into office expressly to carry
an extension of the franchise ? did he not sit upon the
Treasury bench when a wider extension of the franchise
was proposed than that which was now proposed. (Cheers.)
So that the right hon. gentleman once gave his approbation
to a scheme which he now described as calculated to de-
grade the suffrage. (Hear.) Surely the right hon. gentleman
must have been aware of every one of his present argu-
ments against the extension of the suffrage when he sat
upon the Treasury bench? He must then have read his
Bentham, he must then have read his Bentham, he must
have remembered those passages from Aristotle ; he had
seen Australia and he had seen the democracy there. It

might he that the right hon. gentlemat had thatiged his
mind; but why had he not told them what had induced
hint to change his mind ? (Hear, hear.) Two years ago and
no one would have had the slightest right to deny that the
right hon. gentleman was not as earnest and as sincere a
Reformer as sat in that house. But what had quenched his
reforming zeal ? He (Mr. Fawcett) hated personal insinua-
tions, and he should be the last man to insinuate that that
reforming zerl had been repressed by the strong reasoning
of the noble lord the member for Stamford (Lord Oran-
bourne). (No, no.) He would bo the last to say it, but he
knew it had been so asserted out of doors and in high circles.
However, something must have occurred in this country
within the last three or four years which must have pro-
duced a groat effect upon the mind of the right hon. gen-
tleman and the friends who now acted with him on these
benches. Yes, certainly one event had occurred, but from
that event there could be drawn an argument infinitely
more unanswerable than 50 columns of statistics in favour
of an extension of the suffrage. During the last four years one
of the most important branches of the national industry
had been paralysed, and how did the people bear their
misfortune? Why, it was thought by many in the coun-
try—it was thought by many of our leading statesmen—
that if England should be deprived of its cotton supply, the
cotton operatives would break out in open rebellion. But
what was the feeling which pervaded these men ? Why,
the glorious and noble sentiment that rather never again
should a bale of cotton enter Lancashire than that slavery
should continue. (Cries of " Oh, oh," on the Opposition
benches, with cheers from below the Ministerial gangway.)
When the future historian of the country came to describe
the events of the nineteenth century he surely will be able
to recount this conduct of the working classes as not the
least brilliant page in his narrative. Well, the destruction
of the cotton industry was the chief event which had oc-
curred of late years affecting the artisan population of the
nation ; but was that the event which had induced those
gentlemen to change their minds? (Cheers.) The hon
member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) said that he had come
back from Australia, and that he stood aghast at the spec-
tacle which the democracy of that country presented.
Well, he would only observe that he too had looked at
Australia, and that if his energies had met with great pecu-
niary success, and if he had seen, as the hon. member had
seen, the laws of the country well and justly administered
and property secure, he should have been ashamed to re-
turn home to speak of its population as if they were a band
of bandits. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") Wore not the
people of Australia as loyal to the Queen—were they not
as free, as happy, and as wealthy as the people at home ?
Property was as secure there, the law was as justly ad-
ministered, and, unlike the people at home, they were
without the burden of destitution, to constantly remind
their statesmen that they had yet the highest mission to
fulfil, namely, to wage an unsuccessful war against pau-
perism. (Hear, hear.) He thought he knew as much of
the working classes as either the right hon. member for
Caine (Mr. Lowe) or the right hon. member for Wick
(Mr. Laing), and he would not allow that if they were
to extend the franchise to the working man that no one
but working men could gain access into that House. He
went to Brighton without having a friend there ; he told
the constituency that he was extremely poor, that he could
not afford to subscribe is. for any purpose, and yet nine-
tenths of the working classes in that constituency voted
for him. (Hear, hear.) Nor was there any reason to ap-
prehend that the working classes if enfranchised would
overwhelm the other classes of the population. Why, the
working classes were as much divided with respect to
public questions as any other class ; and in regard of such
measures as the Factory Act—legislation the most bone-
ficiont of modern times—the support of the working
classes might always be counted on, in opposition to the
policy of capitalists and manufacturers. He thought those
members who were so loud in their calls for a complete
measure were not very anxious for any reform at all. He
cordially supported the measure, and concluded by thank-
ing the house for the indulgence with which it had listened
to his remarks.

Mr. BRlGHT—Although, Sir, during the course of this
debate, I have been the subject of much remark—(hear,
hear)—and of not a little which may fairly be termed un-
usual attack—(hoar, hear)—l beg to assure the house that
I have not risen for the purpose of defending myself ; for I
am ready to leave my course in this house and my political
character to the impartial view of the members of the
house, and to the just judgment of my countrymen.
(Cheers.) Nor have I risen for the purpose of entering into
a laboured defence of the views of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. I think, however, that there has been so much
said which is not to the point, that it may be advantageous
if I endeavour to explain what 1 understand the bill to
be —some of the grounds on which it appeals to us for
support, and to ask the house whether, in the circum-
stances of this question and the nature of the existing
condition of the country, it is the duty of Parliament to
permit it to pass into a law. One thing in connection
with this bill is highly satisfactory—viz., that what it
proposes to do it proposes to do distinctly and clearly,
without any tricks—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition)
without giving something in one clause, and then, under a
feeling:of alarm, withdrawing something in the clause which
follows. (Hear.) I have always been in favour of deal-
ing with this question in some manner so that every per-
son who is to be included in the bill should comprehend
that it was a measure, so far as it went, fair and generous
to the people of the country whom it was intended to en-
franchise. I think I can show reasons why this house
should readily, and without hesitation, agree to this bill.
One portion of it will recommend itself to all gentleman
who are enthusiastic admirers of the bill of 1832—that is,
the portion of the bill which is intended to remove the legal
obstacles or quibbles by which many persons who were in-
tended to be enfranchised, by the Reform Bill have been up
to this time deprived of their votes. The Reform Bill pro-
posed to give a vote to every occupier of a £lO house in a
burgh. Now, it is shown that this extension of the fran-
chise was never completed, but that by the operation of
clauses which made it necessary to pay rates many thou-
sands have been disfranchised. In Scotland there is no
such disqualification as that which this bill proposes to re-
move, and the object of this bill is to assimilate our law in
this respect to the law of Scotland, and to give to the Re-
form Act of 1832 the complete efficacy which was expected
from it when it passed. The hon. member for Caine can-
not refuse his consent to such a proposal, because if there
is one thing outside the classical times of antiquity to
which he is more devoted than another—(a laugh)—it is
clearly the bill of 1832. The next point to which I wish
to call the attention of the house is that which the bill
proposes to do with respect to the county franchise. Let
members opposite bear in mind that the occupation fran-
chise in counties was a measure of their own carrying in
1832 ; and when once you established a £l5 occupation
franchise, with a £lO occupation in burghs, he must
have been a very dull man indeed who would not have
foreseen that the county franchise must at some time be
mog
of
billae many
ythnl yetyr
years
ahed
rduosuue cesaedeod
byo.
having
awTtvhhiheneengmCeiihn
tni ca et
el l
do r
to
hi ts h e r
eEf Exchequer
cussTi okne
nat
becarrrifioerd
Etlasiet fisrurstrreeya.dinEguof
frtohme
that time to this there has been a good deal more
done upon this question. The member for Buckingham-
shire and his Cabinet brought up in their bill a proposition
for a franchise of £lO in counties, and Offered a certain
compensation by attempting to withdraw all freeholders
within the limits of boroughs from the county franchise
and transfer them to the electoral power within the limits
of the boroughs. But that did not in the slightest degree
change this fact, that they, after due deliberation, came to
the opinion that the occupiers of £lO houses and land in
the counties were fit and proper persons to exercise the
electoral franchise. (Ministerial cheers.) I do not suppose
that they proposed to put on the roll some scores of per-
sons in the counties of whose fitness they were not assured
They believed then, and no doubt believe now, that £lO
was a fit and proper franchise for the counties of England
and Wales, and I :should like to find thorn consistent in
proposing an amendment to reduce this sum. from £l4 to
£lO. (Cheers.) I shall promise that if they wish to have
an easy victory over the Government, and to prove their
own consistency by such a course, that a good many of us
who sit on this side of the house will be extremely happy
to give them our cordial support. (Cheers.) I think, so
far es I have gone, I have shown that gentlemen opposite
and the member for Caine should not oppose this bill on
those two portions of it. My right hon. friend has stated
that in Ireland they have a £l2 rating franchise. That, I
suppose, is as near as may be of £l4 value. After the ex-
perience of a number of years of that £l2 franchise in
Ireland, I think the hon. member for Caine might screw
his courage to support this proposition in this bill. We
come then really to the only point on which there is a dif-
ference, and I think the world does not afford a spectacle
of such a legislative assembly as this making a great
disturbance among themselves, exciting themselves,
getting into violent passions, pouring out a cataract
of declamation upon this simple question, whether the
franchise in the boroughs of this country should re-
main at £lO, or should be fixed for a time at £7.
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Wo must have
a very poor notion of what our children will be if we think
they will not be as competent to decide the future of this
question as we aro to decide at present. Therefore, do
not suppose that when I used the phrase " for a time,"
that I am of opinion that this bill, if it be carried, will in
all probability put an end to further movement in tho
direction of reform. This bill, in addition to the £7 fran-
chise, proposes a lodger franchise. The right hon. mem-
ber for Buckingham in his bill proposed something of tne
same kind, but of a different amount ; but the member for
Buckingham proposed it in a manner that would be ex-
tremely difficult, and lead to perplexity, and I have no
doubt he will agree that the proposition of the Government
is simpler than his, and is likely to be carried out with less
difficulty. Let us examine this £7 franchise. Somebody
has said that this bill is mine, and that the Government
have brought it in at my recommendation. (Hear, hear.)
Now, I have not been able to find the point in the bill
which was what %recommended. I never was in favour
of a £6 franchise, for I believe in a household franchise in
boroughs. (Hear, hear.) But when I found a powerful
Government like the last proposed a £6 franchise with the
e
way
yecotaf
atiocnonistiwdeorualbdlebeencfararnricehdi,
£7 franchise is a proposition which I have never said one
s elm we
nut ofn otthteo pseteapulde n 'lt' hh
syllable 0, but it never entered into my mind that the

(Imminent would leave tho otG CrltiachiBo, Which was
their own proposition, and offer to the house a £7. But
here it is, and beggars in the House of Commons must
not be choosers, and we must take what we can get when
we cannot get what we expect. When the bill of the
right hon. member for Buckingham was brought in a very
remarkable thing happened. Two members of tho Cabi-
net seceded from it and took up their seats on the third
bench, and there they are sitting till this moment. And
they both made a personal explanation to the house, and
the explanation was that they differed from their
colleagues on this question. They did not like the
suffrage in counties to be brought down to the same rate
as in boroughs, and that the suffrage in boroughs should
be continued at what it had been since the Reform Act.. I
am not sure whether they coincided with their colleagues
that the county franchise should be brought down to £lO ;
but at least they were of opinion that the franchise in the
boroughs ought to be reduced to £B. The Government
have been splitting hairs with regard to £6 and £7. I hope
the right hon. gentlemen sitting on the third bench will not
split hairs as between £8 and £7. Surely after the discus-
sion which the question has undergone, and after the man-
ner in which the house really has been brought into diffi-
culty by past transactions, after the great expectations
which have been raised throughout the country, I think
it would show ill statesmanship on the part of those right
hon. gentlemen, and an obedience to the calls of party
which would hardly be becoming in them, if they were not
willing to make that small obncession of £1 in answer to
the concession of which I am willing or forced to make,
and join with me in giving at least a friendly if not an en-
thusiastic support to the bill. After all, what is this £3 ?
The right hon. gentleman behind me (the member for
Caine) has conjured up a frightful apparition. (Hear, hear.)
That £lO is the salvation of the country. After 31 years
its operation has been such as to extort from him, I will
say, unlimited approval. 1 don't know whether he will
think £9 perilous, or £8 in any degree of doubtful utility ;
but £7 he considers to be actually destructive to the inte-
rests of the country. He has shown, moreover, thatit would
destroy the connexion between the executive government
and the house, and reduce us to the evils which are sup-
posed to exist in Washington without any of the advantages
of their system. In fact, I know not that a more gloomy,
discouraging, and appalling picture of the future of this
house and country was ever drawn by any member of the
house ; and the whole foundation of these horrors is that
we should reduce the franchise in boroughs to £1 lower
than was recommended by the right hon. gentleman the
member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and his colleague,
the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wal-
pole.) (Hear, hear.) Now I appeal to gentlemen opposite
whether they will allow themselves, in considering the
position of this question, to make it impossible—l do not
say that they can, but it may be that they can—to make it
impossible that this question of the suffrage maybe got out
of our way during the present session of Parliament. If
they do make it impossible, I am not much given to pro-
phesy, but I venture to predict that there are many on
these benches who will live to regret the course they have
taken. Now, there is one other proposit ion which is made
in this bill which I hope the house will not listen to for a
moment, and that is the proposition of the savings-bank
franchise. I think conscientiously that it is the very worst
of all the fancy franchises that have been proposed. It will
be unequal to the last degree, and it will be, I believe, a
source of every kind of fraud. I agree with the right hon.
member for Wick (Mr. Laing), who, in speaking of it, said
he did not see why an investment of £5O in a savings-
bank should give a man a higher social and political posi-
tion than an investment or saving of a similar sum in any
other description of property, where the investment could
be fairly ascertained. But I object altogether to give the
franchise to one man and shut it out from another, that
second man, it might be, being far more heroic than the
other. For example, a man might have to provide the
humble equipment for a daughter's marriage, apprentice a
son, or something might be taken from his earnings for
the education of his children ; he might have under his
roof an aged parent, and might be performing to that pa-
rent the most sacred and most holy of duties, and this might
cause him to withdraw £5 or £lO from his little fund in the
savings-bank, or might prevent his having any fund there
at all. The law here steps in, and because ha is doing what
in every rank is so honourable and so excellent, says there-
fore his name shall be erased from tho list of voters in the
town in which he lives. I protest also that it would be
liable to great fraud, because ii would be easy for three or
four members of a family to put savings in ono name, and
so give that ono person a vote. I don't object to the one
person having the vote, but I do to its being given under
a system which is different altogether from all other
processes of enfranchisement, and which is liable to the
utmost inequality and to direct fraud which could not be
prevented. Having gone through the bill and its many
provisions, I would ask the house what they think of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that in England
and Wales there are 51 millions of grown men. Ho told
us that this bill would place within the franchise some-
thing less than one in four, something a little more than
one in five. It will leave out of the 51 millions more than
1 millions of grown men in England and Wales who would
still not have the franchise. He says by his proposal there
will be 330,000 working men enfranchised. Of this, how-
ever, I am confident, whenever the matter is fairly looked
into, it will be found that this is a very exaggerated esti-
mate. The right hon. gentleman includes 60,000 persons
who now live in £lO houses, besides those who are re-
turned in the blue-book, and more than that if he includes
every man between £lO and £7. I will venture to say
that there is not an hon. member, except the hon. member
for Coventry, who is not astonished at being told that
there are so many working men. Is not the whole a delu-
sion of the most transparent character. I should only be
too glad if it were honestly ascertained that so many work-
ing men were upon the register. I think it would do some-
thing to reconcile hon. gentlemen to the admission of more
of them, seeing that hitherto their conduct has been so ex-
emplary in the exercise of the franchise which they now
possess. I appeal to the hon. centlemen in favour of this
measure ; for whatever they may think to the contrary, I
never spoke on any question in which I took a greater in-
terest or with a deeper conviction that I was serving the
true interests of their class, as well as of my countrymen
at large. I do not know whether I can appeal to certain
members of the house. Strangely enough, I have in my
hands a paper called the Nei folk News, dated the 4th of
February : one column is headed " Election Addresses,"
and consists of extracts from the election addresses in
June, 1859. There aro extracts from the addresses of
Lord Palmerston, Earl Russell, Sir George Grey, the
President of the Board of Trade, the then Solicitor-
General and Attorney-General, all referring to the im-
pending question of Parliamentary reform, and then
there is an extract from the address of the right .hon.
Robert Lowe, Vice-President of the Council for Education.
(Cheers and laughter.) What does the right hon. gentle-
man say in 1859, just at the moment before the Govern-
ment of the gentlemen opposite was discharged from the
service of the house and of the country. (Laughter.) The
Vice-President of the Council for Education says, " It will
be the duty of the Government to prepare a measure of
reform, and I have every confidence that it will be one, if
not fully satisfactory to men of extreme opinions, accept-
able to the great body of the people." (Hear.) I think the
right hon. gentleman has a very short memory, or else he
trifles wtih the house. Is it conceivable that a man who
wrote that in his election address in 1859, and delivers such
a speech as the right hon. gentleman has done to-night.
Cheers and counter-cheers.) I am afraid under these cir-
cumstances men change their opinions after they are 50 years
of age, and there is not much expectation of bringing them
back so I feel as I could not with much hope appeal to the
hon. member for Cane or his colleague the member for
Stroud—(laughter)—I do not know that I could appeal to
the noble lord the hon. member for Haddingtonshire (Lord
Elcho), who, I believe, with the exception of the hon. mem-
ber for Salisbury, is the only member on this side of the
house who cheers the sentiments which they utter. 1 should
like to know what is the reason why those right hon. gen-
tlemen, who have both held office, should take the course
they do with regard to this bill ant with regard to this
Government. I will not deal in insinuations, but I must
say that when gentlemen have held office with Ministers
on that bench, and are left out of what I may be allowed
to call the "daily ministrations," I think ono has a right
to expect from them a very minute account of the reasons
which have induced them to change their opinions. In
office these gentlemen are as docile as other gentlemen in
office ; but I fear, notwithstanding, the curious idea which
some people have of my influence with Earl Russell. I am
not able to offer any any of those arguments which might
be supposed to influence them in favour of this bill.
(Laughter.) I don't complain that men are fond of office,
though 1 never could comprehend the reason why they
liked it so much. If I might make an alteration in two
lines of a stanza of ono of the most beautiful poems in our
language, I might ask
For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey,
The pleasing, anxious office e'er resigned,
Left the warm precincts of the Treasury,
Nor cast one longing, lingering look behind.
(Cheers and laughter.) What I complain of, and it is a fair
complaint to make, of these two right hon. gentlemen is,
that when place recedes into a somewhat dim past, that
which when they were in office was deemed patriotism
vanishes with it. (Cheers.) Wo have had from these benches
a howl of despair because it is proposed to diminish the
franchise in boroughs from £lO to £7, and to add by so
simple a proposition as that something to the freedom of
the people of this country. The right hon. gentleman the
member for Stroud has said little against the government,
and little against the bill; his speech was an attack on so
humble an individual as myself. He is the first of this new
party that expressed by his utterance, his great grief, and
retired into what might be called his political cave of Adul-
larn, to which he invited every one who was in distress,
every ono that was discontented. (Laughter.) He has been
long anxious to form a party in this house. There is
scarcely a member at this end of the house who is able to
address the house with effect that he has not tried to bring
over to his party or cabal, and at length he has succeeded
in hooking the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine,
(Cheers.) I know it was the opinion many years ago that
two men could form a party, and from two men so amiable
as the right hon. gentlemen the members for Caine and
Stroud we may hope to see for tho first time in Parliament
a party perfectly harmonious and distinguished by a mu-

4
tusi and unbroken trust. But there ts one great difficulty
in regard to this next party, it is impossible to tell, like the
case of the Scotch terrier that was so covered with hair,
which is the head and which is the tail. (Laughter.)
The right hon. member for Caine told us he bad had some
peculiar election experience. There aro men who make
discord wherever they go. The right hon. gentleman
went down to Kidderminster, got into some unpleasant
altercation, which ended in his having his head broken—
though I am happy to say, and the house will bear me
witness, that it is just as strong now as it was before the
accident. The right hon. gentleman loft Kidderminster
and went down to Caine, a village somewhere in the West
of England—(laughter)—and got in there. He, found in
the list of electors 174 men, of whom seven were working
men. The right hon. gentleman went down there and
found a tumult even more aggravated than that at Kidder-
minster. They did not break his head, but they did some-
thing in the eye of the law far worse, for they shut the
police up in the Town-hall, and the little mob in this little
village had the whole game to themselves. The right hon.
gentleman told us in his speech of some animal attaching
itself to rocks which takes its colour from the rock upon
which it lives, and suggested that hon. members took the
colour of the constituency which they represented. (Laugh-
ter.) Now, the constituency which he represents only con-
sists of 174 men, of which seven are working men, but the
real constituency is a member of the other House of Par-
liament—(laughter)--who might have sent his butler here,
or his groom. I think in one sense, as an intellectual gla-
diator in this house, we are much indebted to the Marquis
of Lansdowne, that he did not do that, but sent instead the
right hon. gentleman. I said I wanted to explain the par-
ticulars of this bill, and to appeal to the good sense and
patriotism of hon. gentlemen opposite not lightly to reject
it. I ask them, then, not to take the despairing view of
their countrymen which has been offered by the right hon.
member for Caine, and the hon. member ;or Salisbury, who
I presume from their association at the Antipodes, seem
only to take a Botany Bay impression of the character of a
great bulk of their countrymen. The right hon. gentleman
one night when I was not here said that I, even in the matter of
the cattle plague, must set class against class. Hon. gentle-
men opposite, who from the ease with which they are amused
must be a most amiable party, laughed at that observation ;
but I ask any man, is it possible to do anything more likely
to set classagainst class than that which is attempted by
the right hon. member for Caine and his colleague the hon.
member for Salisbury, by attempting to make it appear
that there is a gulf which shall not be passed by legislation
between the English and the most powerful portion of the
middle classs, and the great body of the working men, who
are really the heart of this great nation ? The right hon.
gentleman tells us that if we wait long enough everybody
will get over this barrier. Well, that is no great consola-
tion, as it only offers us this difference that by the bill of
the Government we shall be eaten up now, and by the pre-
sent process either we or our children will be eaten np at
.a future time. If they all pass that barrier, the democracy
the right hon. gentleman is afraid of will equally have
come. Would it not be infinitely better to show our trust
in the people now, for of all the follies and crimes which
Governments commit, that of constant distrust of their
subjects or the citizens of the country is about the wildest
and most foolish. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Stroud and the right hon. member for Caine, and I
dare say somebody else, will be telling us that the people
are very indifferent about this matter. I think I caught
from the hon. member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) in the
hubbub of the house at his rising—(a laugh) —something
about the number of petitions presented in favour of the
present bill ; and the right hon. member for Caine said he
should not be particular about the number, but ho thought
there were four. How many petitions were there previous to
1831 ? Did he ever look back to the list to see ? Let hon.
members bear in mind that Lord John Russell had for
some time discontinued bringing forward his measure for
Parliamentary Reform. In 1821 there was one petition
presented in favour of Parliamentary Reform. In 1822
there were 12 ; in 1823 there were 29, and in the six
years between 1824 and 1829 there was not a single
petition presented in favour of Parliamentary Reform.
In the year 1839 there were 14 petitions. What
took place in 1831 and 1832 ? Why, some of you were
fleeing for your lives--(" Oh, oh !"—amidst the storm
which you had not foreseen, but which was as inevitable
as any storm that rises, in the heavens. That was an
accident which was brought about by the French Revolu-
tion. But there are always accidents. A great portion
of the things which happen in ouriives, so far as we can
judge, have the appearance of accident. But with that
accident there was material, and matertal for a conflagra-
tion, and a conflagration arose; and I recollect the ex-
treme things came to. I remember that some gentlemen
wont to the Duke of Wellington, when he took office
after the fall of Lord Grey's Government, and remonstrated
with him, or proposed to do so—for the Duke was not a
man who liked remonstrance—and they told him what
was going on, and how dissatisfied the people were, and
how perilous would be the course of the Government in
opposing reform. What did the Duke say? Standing
warming himself at the fire, he got these gentlemen out of
the room very quickly, and said, "I don't care for what-
ever occurs ; I am prepared. You have got your heads on
your shoulders, and I advise you to keep them there."
(Laughter.) Two days after the Duke was obliged to re-
sign. The popular feeling in the metropolis and the coun-
try was such, that this great soldier, who knew nothing
of fear, and was, I daresay, as honestly disposed for the
honour of his country as I or any of us are— (a laugh)—
such was the alarm, such the feeling prevalent, that he was
obliged to resign, and Lord Grey came back, and the Re-
form Bill was eventually carried. (Cheers.) I ask hon.
gentlemen whether a similar accident might not occur
again ? That accident was in Paris. In 1848 there was
another accident in Paris, which was followed by a succes-
sion of accidents in other parts of Europe. I recollect at
that time a noble lord, a member of the house, who sat
opposite, being greatly alarmed, coming to me and saying
that he was always in favour of a great extension of the
suffrage. (A laugh.) I always did believe, and I now be-
lieve, that the noble lord was afraid of what was coming,
and ho was not quite sure that I might not be a member of
some provisional Government. (Laughter.) Now, I ask, is
it wise to wait for accidents, or whether it is not bettor to
accept a measure so moderate and reasonable if you like,
so inadequate as some may think, but to some extent so
good—is it not better to accept that measure, and show
confidence in the people, than take the advice of the right
hon. member for Calne—the most revolutionary advice
ever given in this house—(a laugh)—to shut your door and
bar out five millions, unless they can scramble over this
barrier ? The right hon. member for Stroud was loud last
night in talking about constitutional principles. Who made
those constitutional principles almost more than other men
in our history ? Surely the men of the first and second
Parliaments of Charles I. Is it not in the journals of the
house, and could not the clerk easily find and read the
resolutions that wherever there is not some direct interdic-
tion or contradiction of it, the ancient and common franchise
of this country in towns is the householding franchise ?
And do you mean to tell me that Lord Somers, who lived
in later times, was not a great authority, and to a great
extent one of the fathers and builders of our existing con-
stitution ? and yet Lord Somers, representing the House
of Lords, being on a joint committee of both houses, said
in a conference, that although the lords were of opinion
that no man by birth had any right to office, yet that by
birth he had a right to vote, and that the possession of a
vote was the only true security an Englishman had for the
protection of his life and property. (Cries of "No.") I do
not say that that is my opinion, but it is the opinion of one
of the greatest men in the Parliamentary and historic
annals of the country. And I say if you, as a party, aro
wise, you will not put any obstacle in the way of a bill so
moderate as this, and which yet may give great satisfac-
tion to the people of this country. If this bill is rejected,
you will show that you are against all reform. (No, no.)
You will show that you have no confidence in that portion
of the population who live in houses between £7 and £lO
a year rental. If you pass this bill, you will show that
you are not cut off from sympathy with the multitudes of
your people. I say there is peril in delay, and every day
increases that peril. You have a population almost entirely
divorced from the land and shut out from tho franchise.
My hon. friend the member for Brighton (Professor Faw-
cett) touched on emigration this evening; and the right
hon. member for Caine spoke of the intelligence of the
people in this way—he spoke of their combinations and
associations. Why, we all know they are reading and
debating, and thinking and combining; and they know
that in all our colonies, including the United States, the
position of their class is wholly different. I believe, if you
don't moderate your tone and your views with regard to
the great bulk of the working classes, you will find your
country weakened by constantly increasing emigration ; or
vou will find some accident happening when you will have
something more to do than you are asked to do to-night,
under the threat, and it may be the infliction of violence.
(Oh, oh.) I do not rise to defend this bill. I rose for the
purpose of explaining it. (Laughter.) It is not the bill
which, if I had been consulted by its framers, I should have
recommended. If I had been a Minister it is not the bill
which I should have consented to present to the house.
(Laughter.) I think it is not adequate to the occasion,
and that its concessions are not sufficient. But I kno w the
difficulties under which Ministers labour, and the disin-
clination of Parliament to do much in the direction of this
question. I shall give the bill my support, because, as far
as it goes, it is a simple and honest measure, and because I
believe if it becomes law it will give more solidity and
duration to everything that is good in the constitution,
and to everything that is noble in the character of the
people of these realms. (Loud cheers.) •
Lord CRANBORNE contended that the Government
had in the main followed the dictation of Mr. Bright in the
preparation of the bill, and argued that the first effect of
the measure would in counties be to swamp the rural con-
stituencies by the urban element. With regard to its effect
in the boroughs, he had carefully investigated the returns,
and found that at present there were seven boroughs re-
turning 13 members where tho working classes had
already a majority ; that a £7 franchise would give them
a majority in 22 boroughs returning 40 members, and
that a reduction to £7 would give them a majority in 47
other boroughs returning 80 members. The sum total of
this was that if the bill passed, 133 seats would be at the
absolute disposal of the working classes. Further, if ho

took into account the eonztitueueiu that were likely to-b 4
affected by a redistribution, that number would be 1!1-
creased by 25. Thus, 158 seats, or a majority of the
English borough members in the house would be handed
over to the working classes.

Mr. J. HARDY thought the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had begun at the wrong end, and that he ought to
have introduced a bill for the redistribution of seats to s
certain extent, in the first instance, accompanied by a
simple measure for two or three fancy fanchises. When
everything was rising in value why lower the franchise?
He was not opposed to the extension of the franchise, but
he did object to its being lowered, and should ever do so.
Mr. HIBBERT said that if the statistics before the
house were not more correct with regard to other towns
than to the borough of Oldham, so far as the working
class element in the constituency was concerned, much
reliance could not be placed upon them, for in the return
from Oldham persons who were beershop keepers and
small traders and farmers were put down ac working men.
He hoped the bill would be passed by a large majority.
Sir R. KNIGHTLEY moved the adjournment of the
debate, but the motion was negatived on being put to the
house, and

Leave was given to bring in the bill, which was then
brought up and read a first time, and the second reading
fixed for the 12th of April.
The Labouring Classes Dwellings Bill was passed
through committee,,

The other business on the paper was also disposed of,
aid the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

Birmin;ham and Midland Freedmen Aid

Association.

A writer in a contemporari, says :
The American Government and Legislature have re-
cently extended the provisions of what is called the
" flomstead Act " to blacks as well as to whites. Through
this wise measure, eighty acres of the public lands in
Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida may be
claimed by any Freedman wishing to settle therein, on the
payment of $5 ; that is, if the rates of currency
countries were equal, ono sovereign in English money.
Advantage ought certainly to be taken of this offer bY
Great Britain, to the greatest possible extent, at once, at
behalf of the freed coloured people.
While many of them may thus become landlords from
their own honestly-earned and carefully-hoarded resources,
many others, who are in deep necessity, will be furnished with
means for becoming so by generous friends in Americo, ;
and the freedmen's friends in this country will not be
backward in helping others—multitudes of whom could not
be otherwise helped. in both.
We have already materially assisted the freed pcePle
"in time of famine "—in clothing their nakedness, and
supplying them with blankets during the winter—the
worst period:of which, we hope, is over—we have sent out
some thousands of plantations and garden hoes and other
implements, and hope to forward many thousand more ;
and now, just at the right time, an inviting opening is Pre-
seated to the more enterprising and industrious of the
freed people, to enter in, possess, and improve the lands
above referred to ; and thus demonstrate more fully the
truth of what their intelligent sympathisers and helPers,
have asserted with doubt—namely, their capability and
willingness, by God's blessing, to sustain and elevate
themselves, their relatives, and their country in the social
scale.

In 1860 the State of Mississippi contained a slave popu-
lation of 436,631; Louisiana, 331,726; Arkansas, 111,115;
Florida, 61,745. It will be thus seen at a glance that these
four States—in which eighty-acre allotments of public
lands may be secured at five dollars each contained in
the aggregate 941,127 slaves (nearly ono-fourth of the
whole slave population of the United States)—to wh°s,e
forced and uncompensated labours we have been so deep,l
indebted for cotton, and other American produce in com-
mon use in this country. It would pay a further instal-
ment of that, debt, and would confer a great boon on tho
freed people and their posterity—on America, on Great
Britain, on Africa, and on the world at large—if this coun-
try were to raise a special fund of ten thousand pounds for
placing 12,500 freedmen—plantation hands and others-:
who were slaves but yesterday, as settlers on the virgin soil
of the vast valleys of the States already named.
ten thousand pounds in English money would do this ; for
one sovereign of our money is worth about thirty shilling°
in American currency.

Such an outlay might rapidly result in maintaining
comfort and independence not less than 200,000 persons,
and in producing, at the very lowest calculation, 200,000
bales of cotton. Is it too much to infer, therefore, making
all proper allowances for personal incompetency and per-
sonal failures, that, under the fostering influence and °-
operation of the American Government ; under the whole-
some stimulus of Northern exemplars and of general coin-
petition ; encouraged by philanthropists, enlightened 11
the schoolmaster, hallowed by the Christian religion an,
blessed by God that 12,500 freedmen, thus located
through the instrumentality of ten thousand pnlind,sl
1"„
especially contributed by Great Britain with that object `"
view ; should realise results scarcely possible to be over-
estimated ; which should reach and affect society, and re-
act on the benefactors, in a kindred manner and in a pro-
portionate degree.
The Birmingham and Midland Freedmen's Aid Associa-
tion earnestly, urgently, and hopefully appeal to the b°11?:
volent of all classes throughout the land, to enable them Pi
raise and forward ten thousand pounds for this 81)068
purpose.
if the comparatively degraded negroes of the Sea Island:
of South Carolina, working at a disadvantage, wrought
such wonders in producing double the average
an improved quality of cotton on abandoned and partiallY
exhausted lands there, what may we not hope for from to
labours of 12,500 settlers on the rich bottom lands of Jib
sissippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida ? quantity
.01