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

THE CATTLE DISEASE.

Mr. LONG asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, whether the Government was taking any
steps to ascertain if the disease resembling the rinderpest,
which had recently been observed amongst sheep in dif-
ferent parts of the United Kingdom was really the rinder-
pest or no ?
Mr. BRUCE said in the opinion of the veterinary ad-
visers of the Privy Council the disease was considered to
be identical with the rinderpest in cattle. There was, how-
ever, hope that it would not spread as rapidly as that ter-
rible disease. Professors Symonds and Brown were the
gentlemen who had given their opinion on which he had
answered the question.
THE CUSTOMS CLERKS.

Mr. BLAKE asked the Secretary to the Treasury whe-
ther it was the intention of Government to increase the
salaries and alter the classification of the outdoor officers of
Customs, as has been recently done in the instance of the
clerks of the indoor department ?
Mr. CHILDERS said there was no intention to make
any alteration in the arrangements at present existing.

THE BUDGET.
Sir F. KELLY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he was able to inform the house at what time he
proposed to bring forward the budget?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
the intention of the Government, supposing the adjourned
debate on the representation of the people was finished
that evening, to take the second reading of the bill on the
12th April, which was the first Government night
after the Easter holidays. The Government pro-
posed to go on with that bill night by night,
without allowing other business to interfere with it—
(hear, hear)-1-until the measure was completed as far as
the second reading was concerned. The budget would be
taken the first Government night after the second reading
of the Reform Bill.
THE NEW REFORM BILL.—ADJOURNED
DEBATE.

The 'adjourned debate on the motion of the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER for leave to introduce a bill to amend
the representation of the people was resumed by
Mr. LOWE, who said—Sir, in the course of a long and
illustrious career thisllouse of Commons has gathered into
its hands a very large proportion of the political power of the
country. It has outlived the influence of the Crown ; it
has shaken off the dictation of the aristocracy ; in finance
and taxation it is supreme. It has a very large share in
legislation, and it can control, unmake, and sometimes
nearly make the Executive Government. Probably when
the time shall come that the history of this country shall
be written, as the history of that which has passed away,
it may be thought that too much power and influence were
concentrated and condensed in this great assembly, and
that England put too much to hazard on the personal qua-

flcations of those who sit in it. But in proportion as the
powers of this assembly are great and paramount, is the
exploit to amend its constitution ono of the highest and
noblest efforts of statesmanship—(Oppositioncheers)—and
to tamper with it lightly, or to deal with it unskilfully, is one
of the most signal marks of presumption and folly. When
we speak of givingthe franchise to a class who have itnot,
or of transferring electoral power from one district to
another, we must always remember that the end weought
to have in view is not the class which receives the fran-
chise—not the district that obtains the power of sending
members to Parliament—but that Parliament itself inwhich
those members are to sit, and for the sake of constituting
which properly those powers alone ought to be exercised.
(Cheers). To consider the franchise as an end in itself—to
suppose that we aro to give this to ono class of persons be-
cause they
is small
deserving, or to withhold it from one place
because
use it small and give it to another because it is largo
—is, in my opinion, to mistake the means for the end.
(Hear, hear.) This franchise has been of enormous ad-
vantage to this country, and we are naturally enamoured
of it—but when we treat the franchise as an end of itself,
and the conferring of it as the ultimate effort of states-
manship in the matter of Reform, it appears to me that
we fall into the same error as a man would do who,
having found that money contributed much to his
pleasure when young, and his power in middle life, on
arriving at the close of life, when pleasure can charm no
longer and power is no longer within his grasp, turns his
affection from the end to the means, and ends by loving
the money for its own sake. (Hear, hear.) I mention this
because I have some reason to complain of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. ler the manner in which he introduced
this great question to the house. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer told us in substance that he feared he had much to
say to the house, and therefore he would not take up our
time in,giving any arguments or reasons in favour of the
revision of our electoral system, or extension of the elec-
toral franchises of the people. I wish to speak of this mat-
ter with perfect temper and good humour, but I do not think
the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, on consideration, say
that he dealt altogether respectfully with the house. It is
not right that a great assembly like this should bo called
upon to entertain propositions of the very utmost moment
touching the most vital part of our constitution, effecting,
if carried into law, an immense redistribution of power and
an enormous alteration in the constitution of the country ;
it is not right, I say, that such a proposition should be in-
troduced without the Minister introducing them laying be-
fore the house the reasons which have induced the Govern-
ment to make these propositions, and giving them as a
guide in estimating the principles upon which he acts. I
am not wedded to anything particularly because it exists.
I am quite prepared to follow experience and expediency as
my guide in political matters, wherever they may lead me.
I have no prejudice in favour of the existing state of things.
I care not, as far as my own feelings and prejudices are con-
cerned, what the amount of the franchise is, or what are
the places where political power exists. This is a question
I am open to consider, because I profess to guide myself by
experience. and induction, the nature and essence of expe-
rience and inductionbeing that they are always open to now
light from whatever quarter it comes, and reject anything
that savours in any degree of dogmatism. Therefore, if I
complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is not
because I am unwilling to give consideration to anything
the Government may propose for improving the constitu-
tion of this house, but it is because, although perfectly wil-
ling to entertain such question, I think it only fair to exist-
ing institutions to say that the burden of proof is in their
favour—that the presumption is in favour of whatis, until
argument shows that what is can be replaced by something
that is better. And when the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, without condescending to utter a word depreciatory
of the present system, pointing out its faults or suggesting
remedies, at once proceeded to state his plan so materially
altering it, I think he took for granted that the burden
of proof was the other way, and that those who defend the
constitution are bound to answer the arguments of innova-

tors, instead of waiting until the innovators make out a
case. (Opposition cheers.) I hope I ara clear in this matter.
I only uphold the £lO franchise or the present state of cir-
cumstances because it exists, and because it has a right to
exist until something better is substituted ; but I deprecate
the spirit of innovation which assumes that what exists is
wrong, and calls upon us to pull down the noble work of
our forefathers before a single word is uttered to its dispa-
ragement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found plenty
of time for many subjects of less importance. He discussed
with exquisite felicity the difference between the annual
value and the gross estimated rental —(a laugh)—ho went
into distinctions, into which few of us could follow him,
with regard to compound householders, tenants of flats,
lodgers, and other abstruse personalities—(cheers and
laughter)—but although he was able to go into all these
matters with a detail which reminded us more of a speech
on the Budget than a speech on Reform, he did not find
time to say a single word why the constitution under which
we lived so long might not last a little longer. I will
state in a few words all I think necessary for the argu-
ment I have to address to the house with regard to the
bill of the right honourable gentleman. That bill pro-
poses, in short, to increase the whole of the electors of the
country, at present estimated at 900,000, by 400,000 ; that
is to say, by nearly one-third. [An Hon. Member :
Nearly one-half.] Half of the existing electors, and one-
third of the whole when this bill is passed. Then he pro-
poses to give to the counties 171,000 new electors, and to
the boroughs 204,000 new electors, these being altogether
derived from a single class of persons of £lO or under £lO
rental. (No, no.) It will be almost entirely so. But there
may be some slight difference ; 144,000 of them are abso-
lutely working men, and the rest of them pretty nearly so.
(Hear.) Now, as to the county franchise, I have only one
observation to make. It may be right, or it may be wrong,
but there can be no doubt that it will very much extend
the electoral districts, enormously increase the expenses of
elections, and that it will create a great redistribution of
political power. (Cheers.) That may be right, I say, or it
may be wrong ; but before we pass it, I think we ought to
have been told the reason why we did so. When we come
to boroughs the case is much more serious. The right hon.
gentleman opposed the one to the other. The counties, he
said, had a middle-class franchise, and the boroughs had a
working man's franchise. I will not trouble the house with
figures, but I may sum up the result of them, which will
be that, when this measure passes, there will be 330,000
working men and 362,000 who are not working men. That
is the system he proposes for our adoption. Here, I think,
we get to very grave considerations, because we have not
only the statement of the hon. gentleman, but we have laid
before us statistics from which it appears that the number
of working men already admitted to the franchise is 126,000,
which is about one-fifth of the electors. That is a mos
grave and momentous fact. Look what it proves? In the
first place, it proves that the Government were entirely
mistaken upon the main ground for bringing in this bill.
(Opposition cheers.) The main ground that theyproposed for
bringing in the bill until they came to bring it in, when
they thought it expedient to put forth no ground at all, was
tho exclusion of the best of the working men from the
franchise. Here is an authority that no one can dispute.

We have heard it said often enough—l cite from a work,
" The Constitution of England," issued by Lord Russell
twice last year, once in the spring and once in the autumn.
(Laughter.) This is the passage with reference to Reform:
" Bet may there not be still improvements ?"—in the Re-
form Bill the noble lord referred to, and this is the whole
answer he gives: "Each of the last four Ministries have
been willing to add, as it were, a supplement to the Reform
Act. For my part, I shall be glad to see the sound morals
and clear intelligence of the best of the working classes
more fully represented. They are kept out of the franchise
which Ministers of the Crown have repeatedly asked for,
partly by the jealousy of the present holders of the suffrage
and partly by a vague fear that the members of this class
will swallow up the other. Both these objections may be
removed by a judicious modification of the proposed suf-
frage." What does this prove ? In the first place, this
proves that in the autumn of last year, in the opinion of

Lord Russell, the best of the working classes were not in-
cluded in that suffrage. Is that true ? Take the noble
lord's own statistics, and compare them with his preface.

Can you reconcile them? No, for they are absolutely irre

concilable. It is true that Lord Russell would be under a
delusion which is shared in by every gentleman who has
used the argument, and that nearly comprehends all the
gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. (Laughter.) We all more
or less shared in it. I do not pretend to say we did not
We all shared in the delusion that the working classes were.
excluded from the franchise, and that there was a sharp
line drawn at the £lO, through which the working men
could not penetrate. That was the only proposal of the
noble lord with regard to the Reform Bill, and that we
tit,:
proved to have been founded on a mistake. I wan.
know on what principle it is that the Governmtheleat,Zmvihliegr
received statistics which my noble friend
s.
ew.n.
for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) movedof whomli
thiey
that these people, for the sake of
P
—1
asked for a reform bill,
want to know why
y Sir, that is worth explain-
(Opposition cheers.)
friendtstatisticshesewo
have
ahvaedtnooldt
they halvew goneel.,
on with the bill at all.
uld
er e could— h
right honourable
been t hWe ve uSnudr: r-s
us at once that it was.to enfranchise the working man ;
but, regardless of the facts, my right hon. friend assumes
that this house is ready to entertain this proposition with-
out any weighty reason for asking the country or the con-
stituencies for acceding to it. Those statistics prove a
little more. They prove a thing for which I have been
greatly reproved, that the working classeshave already tho
franchise. Sir, I have been reviled in the best and worst
of English on that subject—(laughter)—and by no one
more so than by the noble lord the author of that preface
—for saying that the franchise lies in the power of the
working man. All I can say is, if the working men have
not that power how should they get there ? (Laughter.)
That proves something more still which is also very well
worthy of the notice of the Government, and that is this :
I do not apprehend we had any statistics to tell us when it
was that this great increase in the constituencies took
place ; but no one who knows the history of this country
can doubt that it was owing to the groat expansion of the
last few years. Well, then, when we know the causes,
are they permanent or transient ? The first cause was
undoubtedly the discovery of gold in California and Aus-
tralia, and tho consequent depreciation of the precious
metals gayo an apparent rise of prices. This led to higher