The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 4, 1866.

MR. BRIGHT AT ROCHDALE.

ROCHDALE, Wednesday Evening:

A public meeting for the purpose of discussing
the question of Parliamentary Reform was held in
the Theatre Royal of this town this evening, Mr.
S. Stott, Mayor of Rochdale, in the chair. The
theatre was densely crowded. Among those pre-
sent upon the stage were Mr. Bright, M.P., Mr. T.
B. Potter, M.P., Mr. Alderman Ashworth, Mr. H.
Kelsall, Mr. Alderman Heape, Mr. Petrie, and a
large number of local celebrities.
The CHAIRMAN briefly opened the proceedings.
He explained that the meeting had been convened
in pursuance of a requisition signed by nearly a
thousand of the inhabitants of the borough, who
were anxious to give expression to their feelings in
regard to Parliamentary Reform before the meet-
ing of the new Parliament.

Mr. H. KELSALL, with a few appropriate re-
marks, moved the first resolution, " That, in the
opinion of this meeting, it is imperative on the pre-
sent Government to introduce a Reform Bill in the
approaching session of Parliament which, in its
provisions, shall fully satisfy the just expectations of
the people."
_ _ _

11cir. PETRIE seconded the resolution ; in sup-
porting which,
Mr. POTTER, M.P., expressed his belief that if
the Liberals were now united a real measure of Re-
form would' be passed by the present Parliament.
He entertained far greater hopes from the Ministry
of Lord Russell than that of Lord Palmerston, but
he should have had even more confidence in the
Reform movement if the great leader of the Reform
party in England (Mr. Bright) now held a seat in
the Cabinet. (Loud cheers.) It was impossible
that any measure of Reform less comprehensive
than the bill of 1859 could be offered to the coun-
try ; and by accepting and supporting the pro-
position which the Government would have to
submit to Parliament early in the ensuing session,
he was satisfied that an immense boon would
be conferred upon the artisan and working classes.
He did not believe that the Government would
offer less, or that the people of England could be
fairly expected to be satisfied with less ; but
it would be a substantial instalment of what they
would ultimately claim. He referred to the present
state of the constituency of Rochdale, in which the
really artisan class had only four and a half per
cent. of the representation, whilst the upper and
middle classes had 87 per cent. This could not be
claimed in common sense or in common justice a
fair representation of the working classes. He ridi-
culed the fears of the Tories with respect to the ad-
mission of the working classes to the franchise,
which he believed would be as baseless as those of
Sir Robert Inglis and Sir Charles Wetherell in 1832,
for this party then loudly denounced Reform as
little less than a revolution. He would only add a
few words with respect to Jamaica. He believed
the Government was anxious to do justice, but he
could not help fearing that needless and illegal
severity had been exerted ; that British law had
been violated, and must be vindicated. (Cheers.) He
had great pleasure in supporting the resolution.
Mr. BRIGHT, M.P., on rising to support the reso-
lution, was received with loud and prolonged cheer-
ing. He said—Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen, I was
glad when I heard that it was intended to hold this
meeting, but now I stand before this audience, I feel
myself filled with a sadness which I cannot easily
describe. I remember some of your former meetings
—one great meeting that was held two years ago,
and another still greater that was held last year, at
which I was not able to be present ; but I remember
that great and most noble speech which many of
you were privileged to hear. The lips whose words
then charmed and instructed you are now closed for
ever, but there remains to us one thing—the priceless
example of a great and noble life devoted to justice,
and whose labours have added whole realms to the
ever-widening empire of human freedom. (Cheers.)
In the midst of our unavailin g regrets let us thank God
that such a life has been lived amongst us. (Cheers.)
I said that I was glad when I heard that this meeting
was intended to be held, for, to speak the truth, I
felt that there was no town in England that had
a greater right to speak on the subject of Reform
than the town in which we are now assembled,
and I felt—perhaps it was presumptuous to feel it
—that I had something to say on this question of
Reform to my townsmen, and through them to my
countrymen at large. Th uestion of Parliamen-
tary Reform occupies now 4mewhat new position.
I think it may be not in curately described if I
say that position isin some degree critical, but in a
large degree favourable. To take the favourable
view of it, we have had a long discussion on this
question, more or less, for nearly thirty years ; for
very soon after the passing of the bill of 1832 at-
tempts were made to amend and extend it. We have
had during that time, with this long discussion, a
constant growth and formation of opinion, and now
we have a Government which is strictly pledged to
introduce, and so far as they are able, by all means
which the Constitution allows, to carry that bill into
an act of Parliament. Now some persons who re-
member the time of 1832, or who have read of it,
seem to fancy that we live under the same circum-
stances. There is a wide difference between that
time and this. The measure of 1832—notwithstand:
ing that my hon. friend (Mr. Potter) was rather
disposed to call in question the expressions of some
of the Tories of that day—the bill of 1832 was in
reality a revolution of the character which they de-
scribed. It was a measure which came after long
years of disappointment to the people. It now
reached the excitement of the revolution in France
—it swept away at one fell swoop all the past re-
sistance that had been made to the question, and it
excited a commotion in the country under which the
institutions of the kingdom tottered and trembled
to their very base.
(Cheers.) Now, at this Moment,
discussing
this question, there appears to me to be
this difference—one effect of the Reform Bill of 1832
was to make all sorts of violence unnecessary and
absurd with the view of carrying any particular
changes in this country; and therefore I conclude
that our position differs entirely from that occupied
by the Reformer in the year 1832. We are
not
likely to have a connection of that character, nor
are we likely to have a great revolutionary
change of the representation carried through Par-
liament by any Government within the clauses' of
one bill. I believe it will be necessary and ad-
vantageous to proceed on this question step by step.
(Cheers.) Now what are the steps ? Fortunately,
perhaps, I am not, as my hon. friend and some of
his ill-advised friends here would apparently have
me, one of the exalted and sacred number of the
statesmen who are the advisers of the Queen.
(Laughter.) Still every honest man who stands
before his countrymen to discuss intelligently and
honestly public questions is necessarily, at the same
time, both an adviser of the Queen and of the
people—(cheers)—and under that character and
from this platform, if you will permit me, I will dis-
cuss this question as it presents itself to my mind.
(Cheers.) I hold that there are three things neces-
sary to give completion to the Constitution of this
country, and to confer upon the people a full and
real representation. The first of these is such an
extension of the suffrage as should leave us in this
position,—that no class is excluded. (Cheers.) I
don't say such an extension as shall leave us in the
position that no man shall be excluded, but that no
class shall be excluded. (Cheers.) There are many
persons in what we call socially the higher classes who
are, from one cause or other, excluded, but whole
classes are not excluded; whereas that greatest class
of all, the five millions who are the source of the
great industry of this country, is perpetually ex-
cluded by the clauses of the Reform Act. (Cheers.)
Such an extension of the suffrage as shall exclude
no class is absoluteiy necessary. (Cheers.) I be-
lieve also that the shelter of the ballot—(cheers)—
will be found to be absolutely necessary to the effi-
cient and honest and independent exercise of the
franchise. (Continued cheers.) And I believe fur-
ther, that there will be required such a change in the
distribution of seats as shall give a more equal
share of Parliamentary power to the various bodies
of electors scattered throughout the United King-
dom. But of these three things which are necessary,
to be done, it seems to
'me quite obvious that that
which is the most pressing is the question of the
suffrage. Because the 5,000,000 that arc shut ,

out, having no votes, can have no great interest in
the ballot ; and being themselves a class, as it
were, excluded and violently shut out, they are not
likely to take any strong interest whether Rochdale
returns one member or two, or whether Birmingham
has no more members than Clitheroe. (Cheers.)
These are not questions that can seriously interest
and affect men who have no votes at all, and who
are therefore shut out for the most part from the
consideration of public questions. I hold, therefore,
that although the ballot is needed, and although
small boroughs are a great evil, they are not class
grievances; they are general grievances. The class
grievance is the exclusion of a great and whole class
from political rights by legislation which shuts the
door at £lO a year, when the great body of the
people live in houses of £5, or £6, or £7. (Cheers.)
But another reason why we should proceed first with
the question of the suffrage is this, that public opi-
nion is much more made up and more ripe on that
question than on either of the other questions ; and
we must recollect, too, that the exclusion of the
working classes from the franchise has formed the
sole ground for the introduction of the various mea-
sures which have been brought into Parliament
within the last 15 years with a view to • the amend-
ment of the Reform Act. If you turn back to the
Parliamentary proceedings of 1859, you will find
that Lord Derby, when he brought in a bill which he
called a Reform Bill, found his bill rejected—and his
Government rejected with it—(laughter)—on the
express ground that his bill made no provision for
the introduction of the working classes to the elec-
tive franchise. (Cheers.) Then, again, we have the
special pledge of Earl Russell in 1859, and on the
introduction of the last bill. We have also the
special pledge of Mr. Gladstone, in that very re-
markable speech which he made in the House of
Commons on the second reading of the bill intro-
duced by Mr. Baines. (Cheers.) We have also what
I may call the special demand of that great portion
of the nation which is thus, in my opinion, wrongly
excluded. The working men do not now ask for
the ballot, because they have no votes to
shelter. They do not ask for an alteration in
the distribution of seats, for they have nothing to
do with the election of members. But what they
do ask is, that they shall be put upon the
same platform, under the same law, received with
the same favour, trusted with the same great na-
tional trust as the richer classes of the community.
(Loud cheers.) And then another reason for pro-
ceeding by steps is this—that a suffrage bill pure
and simple is much more easy to carry through
Parliament than a more extensive measure. And I
will tell you very soon why that is the case. To
introduce clauses and schedules for disfranchising a
number of small boroughs treads very painfully on
the toes of the representatives of those small
boroughs. (Laughter and cheers.) Now, if I were
a member for a borough of 240 electors, and re-
turned chiefly by a sharp attorney in that little
town, perhaps with my strong opinion on this ques-
tion I might be induced to vote for the suppression
of that constituency. But still, even then, acting
as their representative, I should feel it a question of
some doubt whether I could honourably remain
their representative and give a vote, if it were
wholly contrary to their wishes. (Cheers.) Well
then, I will say at once, that if the Government
proposed to disfranchise twenty or thirty small
boroughs, and transfer their members to large
boroughs and populous counties, they would soon
find on their own side of the House a large num-
ber of members who for various reasons—some
commendable and some very much the contrary—
would find it difficult to support the bill. I argue,
therefore, that it would be an encumbrance to a
suffrage bill at this moment to interfere with the
distribution of seats. It would make it more diffi-
cult to carry a bill ; and whatsoever distribution of
seats you could now make must necessarily be
trifling and unsatisfactory, and would leave that
question still unsettled even for the shortest pos-
sible period. (Cheers.) Now that is not a new
opinion of mine, for before the last bill was intro-
duced in 1859 I topic the trouble to converse at
length with some of the members of the then
Ministry, and with some of the members of the
present Government, urging them not to touch
the question of the distribution of seats at al] at
that time, but to bring in a bill which should esta-
blish a sensible and rational suffrage throughout the
country. I said you will carry such a bill much
more easily. Public opinion hereafter will be more
ripe to deal with the question of the distribution,
and when there are a larger number of electors re-
turning your members to Parliament—l mean a
larger number in the different boroughs—you will
have what a mechanic would call a larger lever and
a better Parliament, which would deal more satisfac-
torily with all questions which may come before it.
(Cheers.) There are some Liberals in this country
who do not hold this opinion, andl had a letter from
one the other day complaining very much of the
rumour that Government do not intend to disfran-
chise the small boroughs in their bill. In reply I told
him that I had considered and discussed this ques-
tion as much as any man in England, and I had
come to the conclusion that Government would do
right to treat the question of the suffrage separately,
and that I thought I could give my reasons for that
course to the reformers of the kingdom, and that!
none of them would complain of the proceedings of
the Government in this matter except those who do
not really understand their business •as reformers.
(Laughter.) We now come to the question what
sort of suffrage should be given—having discussed
every other question—what sort of suffrage should
I advise—if I were asked to advise—the present Go-
vernment to offer in their bill? Bear in mind that
we here are not the Parliament; we are merely a
portion of public opinion. It would be easy to fill
this room with men connected with the country who
would probably object to any extension of the suf-
frage. Therefore, in discussing this matter, Minis-
ters must take into consideration what is right in
itself—what the state of public opinion would enable
them to carry—what they can see conclusively that
Parliament will not hesitate to assent to ; and there-
fore in discussing this question we must leave out of
view a little all our own personal wishes, and see
what is the right thing for a Cabinet considering
this question to propose and to endeavour to carry.
(Hear, hear.) I said that the suffrage must be so
extended that there shall be no class exclusion. The
£lO clause in the Reform Act does exclude, and was
intended to exclude, and has permanently excluded,
until this hour, the great body of the working people.
I told them in the House of Commons in 1860 that
out of 32 men who in this town formed committees
of the co-operative classes—who managed the stores,
the corn-mill,
the factory--that out of these 32 there
were only two had a vote, one for both the county
and the borough and the other for the borough only
—and that the other 30 were absolutely excluded.
Will anybody say
that men who could manage these
great concerns with so much success for so many
years, who were so much trusted by their fellow-
workmen
—will anybody tell me that they are not
competent to say whether Mr. Potter or Mr. Baliol
Brett was a suitable man to be returned from Roch-
dale to Parliament?
labour of any kind r •
Of every man who by manual
agents
and
dlerks
ing clerks and ag receives weekly wages—deduct-
factories, and even foremenana men and m
receivingan a ger managers
no
-f
comes and salaries to the amount of £2OO, £3OO,
or £4oo—there are only about l5O electors, or about
10 per cent. of the entire number. If
you look at
another fact you will find that one
single class of
tradesmen, the publicans, amount to o the same num-
ber within one, for there are 149 in
this borough.
Will you tell me that this is a fair system of repre-
sentation ? (No, no.) I dare say that the same is
the case with respect to many other boroughs.
(Hear.) If we do away with the £lO reform rate
exclusion, what, in the present state of public
opinion, ought we to substitute for it? When Lord
Aberdeen's Government brought forward a bill in
1854, just before the commencement of the unhappy
Crimean war, they proposed that every man should
have a vote in every borough whose house or pre-
mises of any kind were rated to the poor rates to
the amount of £6 a year. The bill of 1860 proposed
not a rating franchise, but a purely rental franchise
—that every man occupying premises of the net
value of £6 a-year should be entitled to vote. Now,
I have ascertained what is the operation of the pre-
sent system. I find that a£s rating is as nearly

as possible a£6 rental. The bill of Lord Aber-
deen's Government was the same as to the franchise
as the bill brought in by Lord Palmerston's Govern-
ment in 1860, and I will show you exactly what that
is. Some cottages in which I have an interest will
serve as an illustration. The rents are 3s. per
week, or £7 16s. 3d. per annum, taking the exact
amount. The assessments are made in this way :
They take off 20 per cent. for poor rates, which
brings the amount down to £6 ss. ; for the purpose
of assessing the poor rate reduction is made for
landlord's repairs and perhaps losses of rent,
together 20 per cent. The £7 16s. 3d. house which
I am describing will stand as a house of the net
rental of £6 55., or as assessed to the poor rate
precisely £5, and therefore every man who pays 3s.
per week for his rent, his landlord paying the rates,
would have a vote either with a rental franchise of
£6, or a rating franchise of £5, and therefore every
man can tell whether he would have a vote under
either of the bills which have been proposed. The
Government may be considered pledged to one or
both of these propositions, because Earl Russell was
theman who brought in the Reform Bill under
Lord Aberdeen's Government, and who also intro-
duced the Reform Bill under Lord Palmerston's
Government, which at this moment is endeavour-
ing to prepare—perhaps, to speak disrespectfully
of it, to hatch—another bill for the coming session.
—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, as to the
Government, I should not find myself at liberty to
complain, if they adhere to either of these proposi-
tions, because they are not pledged to anything be-
yond them, and I am bound to allow that they have
the right to consider fairly the difficulties in their
path, and that the passing of a better bill is not so
easy as you or I may think it to be ; but still, if I
were asked to give my advice, and I do not know
why in a free country we have not the right to give
advice, I should say that the franchise which is es-
tablished generally in the corporations of England
and Wales would be a better franchise than either
of those. I think it would be, and if you adopted
household suffrage, you would restore, as it were,
the ancient constitutional borough franchise of the
kingdom.—(Loud cheers.) I took the opportunity
in a recent speech at Birmingham to show how en-
tirely this franchise was constitutional, and how
completely it was sustained by one of the noblest Par-
liaments that ever contended against despotism and
sustained the freedom of England—l mean the Par-
ment of 1628, which had so much and grave con-
tention with Charles I. There is one point in this
which I think it may be useful to mention. There
are plenty of municipal electors here before me, and
in the borough of Rochdale ; but in Scotland, if I
am not mistaken, the municipal bodies, the corpo-
ration, the town councilors, the baffles (who are
equal to our aldermen), andthe provosts (who have
the same position as our mayors), are chosen by the
same electors who choose the members of Parlia-
ment, and not by a lower franchise. I have yet to
learn that the municipal bodies of Scotland have,
within the last thirty years, better fulfilled their duty
or administered the affairs of their municipalities
than the municipal constituencies of England.
(Cheers.) lam convinced enough to be able to say
that the corporations of England, during the last
nearly thirty years that they have been established,
have administered the affairs of the corporate towns
of England in a manner satisfactory to the inhabi-
tants ; and I think that ought to be satisfactory to
the Government and to all classes of the people.
(Cheers.) If that be so, why should any man ima-
gine that your municipal constituency would not re-
turn as good members to Parliament as your present
exclusive and £lO constituency ? If every house-
holder could vote for every head of a family, my
hon. friend, when he came here, or when I went to
Birmingham, would not require to go through the
humiliating process, partly to us and still more to
the people, of addressing two classes—the electors
and the non-electors—at Rochdale and Birmingham.
We should find so many of the householders of the
town included in the great body of electors that we
should feel that when we threw ourselves on the good
opinion and support of the electoral body, we really
threw ourselves upon the opinion of all the intelligent
population of the town. There is in this question of
the franchise something even, if possible, deeper and
higher than any decision as to who should represent
you in Parliament. There is no slave class that
ever raised itself in slavery—there is no serf class
that ever grew great in serfdom—there is no ex-
cluded class in a country which calls itself a
free country, which did not work for their own
elevation under great signal and insuperable disad jj
-
vantages. I believe if you give a vote to a large

number of working men, or to all householders—

and although it included a large number of idle,
drunken, and profligate persons, who are indeed to

be found in every class—l believe that you IA ould
give to the great bulk of them something that would
be invaluable ; it would give at least a great num-
ber of them occasion to think of their position, and

to entertain a much higher idea of it.

You would

add enormously to and go far to create an idea of

self-respect in them—(cheers)—and I venture to

say that no measure which could take nothing that
private benevolence or private teaching could ac-
complish, could approach the immense good of every
kind that would come to the great body of the

people from being admitted to the rank of citizens.
(Cheers.) To come to another point not connected
. .

with the interests of the boroughs, there is the ques-
tion of the franchise in the counties. Many of you
probably know that before the Reform Bill of 1832

there was no occupation franchise in the counties,
the freeholders almost alone exercising the right.
The Tory party in the House of Commons in 1832

carried an amendment to the Reform Bill of that

year, which gave the franchise to the occupiers of
_ _

houses and farms of the value of £5O a year; they

did so with the known intention, with the known
object of conferring on all the tenants of the landed

proprietors a vote, which vote they knew, as we
now know, they would exercise in the main exactly

as their landlord or his steward would point out.

Now, the question of the county franchise, so far as
public opinion has really discussed and considered

it, seems to have fixed itself at the same amount of
rental which has hitherto been the franchise in the

boroughs—that is, that the occupation franchise
should no longer stop at £5O rental, but be brought
down to £lO. I will show how irresistible, under
the circumstances, this claim is. Lord Derby
brought in a bill in 1859, and that bill, because
it did not reduce the borough franchise, was in

consequence rejected. It did, however, re-
duce the county franchise from £5O to £lO, but it
added a clause—a most mischievous clause to us and

to the people—a clause which disfranchised every
_ _

freeholder within the limits of a borough from vot-
ing for the future in the counties. The object being

that as they had reduced the county franchise, it
was a popular act, as they would call it in their po-

litical jargon, to compensate for it and not disturb
the existing supremacy of the squires by excluding

all the freeholders in the borough from voting in

the counties. Earl Russell is not likely to make a
proposition of this kind, for that was the one strong

point on which he took exception to the Derby Re-

form Bill. And how can the friends of Lord Derby,
after having proposed a reduction of the county

franchise to £lO themselves, have now the face to
oppose it? It is true they now say they would pro-

pose it, but with a compensation. But what answer
is that to the £lO occupier, whom they proposed to
admit ? Did they propose to admit £lO occupiers

who were unsuited and unfit? If the Derby Cabi-

net, after much discussion, in 1859, thought it was
proper to admit all occupiers of £lO in the counties,
is there any one of them who will get up now and
say that the £lO occupier in the counties is not fit

to be entrusted with the elective franchise? (Cheers.)
Well, when the Palmerston Government came in,
their bill of 1860 reduced the county franchise to
£lO. That clause in the bill, as far as I remember,
was not even objected to by the Tory party in the
house as far as they discussed the measure,although
they succeeded, with the aid of certain other gentry,
in talking it out altogether. (Hear, hear.) Their
objection, then, was not to the extension of the
county franchise, but to the extension of the borough
franchise. I should also propose to reduce the county
franchise to £lO, but it would be necessary to state
that no occupier of land should be enfranchised
under it whose house was not of certain real value,
say a value of £6, at which it might pssaibly be fixed,

because, unless a value befixed with the landowners;
who cut out squares of land of two, three, or four
acres, and make as many electors of that class, who,
wholly dependent on themselves, would-place every
county constituencyin the kingdom at their disposal.
There is no party in the country to whom the pro-
position I have been discussing with regard to the
borough franchise is so important as the inhabitants
of the boroughs -which form the metropolis of this
country: In London the value of land is so high,
and the houses are built so large, that a great num-
ber of the working classes—heads of families—live
under some condition or other as lodgers,who would
still be excluded by the Act of 1860, but who must
be considered in the bill which I am discussing.
Although there is no question so difficult as not to
be put into a clause in an act of Parliament, I tried
some years ago, and found it extremely difficult to
do what I thought right. It appears to me that a
much wider interpretation must be given to the term
lodger, and that some moderate rental and moderate
residence must be fixed, in order to meet the large
class in the metropolitan boroughs who are now
excluded, and would still be excluded, under a £G
rental, or under anything that could be called a
household suffrage. This is a point so evident that
Government will no doubt take it into consideration.
If, however, I might give them a bit of advice, it
would be this—that the bill should be simple, that
it should offer as few opportunities as possible for
contests in Parliament, that it should be drawn up
with all the ability that the ablest lawyer in the
employ of Government can give to it, and that when
presented to Parliament it should be manfully de-
fended to the last. (Cheers.) I have been told—
but I do not attach much value to it—that there
are persons who advise Earl Russell to have a £l2
or a £l5 franchise for the counties, and that there
are men of such remarkable timidity and credulity
as to think that a £2O franchise would be satisfactory.
I believe there are persons who think that there is
something dreadful in a £6 franchise, and that one
of £7 or £8 would be enough to admit the working
men ; and now that we have one at £lO, only just
open it a little and admit those who happen to be
extravagant enough or ostentatious enough in the
matter of rent, and that then the door should be
shut again ; so that this great body of the people,
the 5,000,000, after all, would be as much
excluded as at present. I venture to think that if
the Government yields to these propositions they
will be guilty, not only of weakness—not of false
weakness : they will show that they do not compre-
hend the pdsition which this question occupies in the
minds of their countrymen, and will prove that they
are pedlars in politics, and not statesmen. I have
said that I think that the position of the question is
in some 'respects intricate, although on the whole
favourable, because of the long discussions that we
have had with respect to it, because we have a ripe-
ness of opinion with regard to it, and because its
necessity is admitted in the unmistakable pledges of
Government. But there are points on which the
question occupies rather a critical position, and one
of these is said to be this—l am not much afraid of
it myself—it is this :We have only just had an elec-
tion—l am not speaking of those who have got in ;
either they or their friends musthave incurred a very
large expenditure. There are about 200 members in
this Parliament who were not in the last, who have
incurred an expenditure of from £5OO to £lO,OOO
for retaining or obtaining their seats. The election
for the Riding cost both parties about £27,000, the
winner £14,000 and the loser £13,000. I have also
heard of a borough not to be compared in popula-
tion or importance, where the losing candidate paid
£12,000, and a Parliamentary committee may soon
discover how much the winning candidate paid. It
is said that when the forthcoming bill is presented
to the House of Commons there will be a sort of
cold shudder run through the men who have paid so
much money for their seats ; and they will say that
if they vote for the bill it will pass, and if it passes
it will be necessary to dissolve Parliament; there-
fore I take it for granted that, if the measure fail,
one of two things must happen—either we must
retire and Mr. Disraeli and his friends come in, or
else Parliament will be immediately dissolved. I
believe the last is quite certain ; but if the bill
should pass during the session, it is not at all
necessary that Parliament should be immedi-
ately dissolved. Many imagine that the circum-
stances in 1866 are the same as they were in
1832. That is not so. They are totally different,
and the country is in a totally different position.
In the bill of 1832 a large number of boroughs were
swept away into space, and never heard of again,
and a great number of boroughs were enfranchised
for the first time. There was an attempt, or some-
thing like one, to give a really popular representation
in all the great towns by extending the franchise to

£lO householders, and in counties by extending it to
£l5 occupiers. One could not have imagined that
Government, after having proposed a bill of that
extent in 1832, could proceed to legislate, for four
or five years, with a Parliament which included
within it a great number of boroughs which could
not be found on any chart as exact as the Ordnance
map of the country. We are not in that position

now. The bill which I am now discussing, drawing
in some measure of course upon my imagination,
and assuming that it does not disfranchise the small

boroughs and deal only with the suffrage, will not
condemn any political representation. It will not

say that the electors of Rochdale or Birmingham are
more unworthy of the trust which they hold. It

will not condemn the present. constituencies, but
it simply adds to them a certain number of electors,
and infuses a somewhat more popular element.

Surely that would not render necessary another elec-
tion. The new voter will not come on to the regis-
ter until August or September. The register itself
would not come into operation until next January.
It would therefore not be a matter of complaint if
Parliament went on for one, or even two sessions,

and came to an end, somewhat sooner because' of
this change ; but still came to an end, as it would do,

were it not for one of those accidents which do

sometimes in this country cut short the lives of Par-
liaments. Therefore, what in my opinion Govern-
ment would say, and say very truly, without any
_ _

intention to affect unduly the minds of any persons,
- -

would be this, " The gentlemen opposite must either
come here, and we change sides with them, which,

after the majority which was returned at the last
election, would be obviously absurd, or we must dis-
solve Parliament, and if you vote against the bill,
you must go back to your constituencies, and ask
whether you have done your duty." On the con-
trary, if the bill passes it is in the power of Govern-
ment to say that they will not consider an immediate
dissolution of Parliament necessary, and it is their

duty to allow Parliament to retain such an existence

as the course of events may render proper without
any exact reference to this subject. This is one of

the dangers which I am told is considered to be hang-
ing over us ; but there is a danger which is very dif-
ferent, and infinitely more substantial, viz., whether
the Government will have force and courage to do
what a Government can do in carrying such a mea-
sure through Parliament. Edmund Burke, who was
a great critic, said, "This is my idea of a Govern-

meat—one consisting of presiding principle and
prolific energy." At this moment the principle of
the Government is admitted to be the extension of

the political rights of the people. Whether they will
show the prolific energy which is necessary for mak-
ing their bill an act of Parliament, time only can
show. Now, if Lord Russell holds the zeins with

tremulous and feeble hands, I think the danger from
this source is tenfold more than anything that can
arise from any other source in the coming session.
I saw the other day a paragraph from an Indian
newspaper, which, describing the immense extensive
household of an Indian rajah or prince, stated that

there were some hundreds of what were called pro-

phesying Brahmins in his establishment. A Brahmin

is a Hindoo priest, and is of great authority. Now
I have no daubt whatever that there are prophesy-

ing Brahmins in the great Whig House somewhere,
and I dare say they are foretelling all sorts of evils
that may come from the passing of this bill.
(Laughter.) I have heard a member, and a member
since then of a Whig Cabinet, declare that he be-

lieved that there was no one in the country more

frightened of the Reform Bill than certain members

of Brookes' Club—the great Whig club in St.

James-street, London. If the prophesying Brahmins
are foretelling all kinds of evil, I venture to tell

Lord Russell that their councils, if followed, will

be not only perilous, but I believe they will be
fatal councils to him and to his Government.
(Cheers.) Every open foe of this measure
will be emboldened, every concealed and
treacherous foe will be stimulated to his'treasure.
The confidence of the people throughout the coun-
try, which is now healthy and growing, will be lost,
and the end of the present Government may be easily
predicted. (Hear.) There are two facts that have
lately occurred which fill my mind with some ap-
prehension. 1 hope that they are accidental, and
exceptional. To one of them my hon. friend has
already referred, namely, the question of what has
been transacted in the island of Jamaica. I think I
observe a deplorable feebleness in the course which
has been taken. Many of you have read the long
despatch—of I know not how many scores of para-
graphs—sent home to the Colonial-office by the
governor of that unhappy island. I venture to say
that the very hour when that despatch was read by
the Colonial Minister he should have issued sum-
monses for a Cabinet. meeting to take it into consi-
deration ; but it appears that for about three weeks
literally nothing passed before that great deputation
waited on Mr. Cardwell, when he did not feel him-
self able to tell them anything the Government had
done. They tell us that we are to wait. Well, Mr.
Cardwell waited, and apparently nothing has come
from his waiting. lam told that one of the great
actors in this great tragedy has come from Jamaica
—has had an interview with members of the Go-
vernment, and that even he has nothing further to
communicate. Then what was the object of wait-
ing? If facts were admitted, the illegal putting to
death of subjects of the Queen and citizens of the
empire was minutely and accurately described by
the very pen and hand of the governor himself.
(Cheers.) Nothing that he could say afterwards
could unsay or undo that which had been said and
done with regard to the execution of Mr. Gordon.
I believe there is not a judge in this kingdom at
this hour—there is not a law officer of the Crown in
the three kingdoms—there is not a lawyer in
practice in the three kingdoms—which will differ
from the opinion that I now express—that the
execution of that unfortunate man (Gordon)
was in all its parts—in his transference from
the place where he was arrested in his being
handed over to a court formed, it is said, of two
lieutenants and an ensign, or some such inferior
officers—in the manner in which he was treated
before that tribunal—in the manner in which he was
treated after his mock trial,—l say, from the begin-
ning to the end, it is a mass of illegality ; and I be-
lieve there is not a judge who sits upon,the benchin
this United Kingdom who, speaking in his private
capacity, would doubt for one single moment that
Gordon was murdered. (Cheers.) You have all
read that letter which he wrote to his wife within an
hour of his execution. I know nothing in letter
writing that surpasses it. When I read it my ex-
clamation, my first thought was—why this reminds
me of the temper and the language of the Martyr
Stephen ; and since that martyrdom I have read of
nothing in which the language and the temper were
so beautiful as the expressions contained in that
melancholy and wonderful epistle. And yet lam
told—l hope my authority is not good—that when
Parliament meets there will be a desperate onslaught
on Mr. Cardwell and the Government because they
have suspended the Governor and have sent out a
commission of inquiry. One of these Tory gentle-
men said, "Ay, if so and so had been Prime Minis-
ter he would not have given way to the clamour of a
hundred dissenting persons." (Derisive cheers.) I
cannot believe that that party which calls itself
Conservative will make this question of Jamaica a
battle-ground in the ensuing session. Mr. Disraeli
is a man a head and shoulders taller than all those
who sit about him or follow him in all intellectual
statesmanship, and I do not, and I will not until I
see it, believe that Mr. Disraeli will ever permit the
shocking atrocities committed in Jamaica, or a de-
fence of them, to be in any way associated with his
public character and career. (Cheers.) Besides,
suppose—which I should think highly probable—
suppose that Mrs. Gordon were to retire from the
island so sad to her henceforth, and come to Eng-
land—suppose she came to the bar of the House of
Commons to ask for justice—is there any man in
that house who would dare get up to deny justice
to that woman ? Or if she should make her way
as a suppliant to the steps of the throne, will the
widow of the murdered Gordon ask in vain for jus-
tice at the hands of England's widowed Queen ?
(Loud cheers.) There is one other fact which has
given me some apprehension also. It is said, and I
believe with truth, that Earl Russell had asked Lord
Stanley to join his Government. Lord Stanley
knows quite well that I shall say nothing to depre-
ciate him. He is informed much above the average
of public men ; he is without passion ; he is impar-
tial ; and in matters at least which do not menace
his order he is liberal and just—in fact, he is re-
markable for nearly all those qualities in which Lord
Derby is singularly deficient. (Laughter and cheers.)
But it appears to me to be a mistake on the part of
Lord Russell to seek strength from the Opposition.
Lord Palmerston did the same thing, but with equal
success so far as regards Lord Stanley. But Lord
Palmerston thought every man had his price, and
that he knew his price. It was not likely that Lord
Stanley, standing in the relation that he does to the
leader of the Tory party, and boun,d up by political

and personal association with its leader in the House
of Commons—it was folly to suppose that he would
step from his old friends on that side and take his
place among their persistent opponents on this side ;
but I complain of this, and I lament it, because it
appears to me like a confession of weakness. It
appears as if Earl Russell acknowledged to the
world that the Whig party as far as statesmanship
was concerned was nearly worn out. If it be so it
must be by their own policy. It has been a com-
plaint against them, that they have not encouraged
young men, or able men, except just a few men of
their own particular party ; and it is thus that they
now find themselves in great difficulty in filling up
the offices of the Government. Now there are 360

Liberals, it is said, in the present Parliament,, and
yet it appears that Earl Russell and his col-
leagues cannot find one among them all who can
join his Government, or who would be so advan-
tageous to it as some one—in this case Lord Stanley
—from the Opposition. Suppose that all the old

Whigs—and I do not speak of them without respect,
because in past times the country has had great ser-
vice from many of them—but suppose the old Whigs
were quietly deposited with all the symbols of na-
tional respect in Westminster Abbey—(laughter)—
does any man believe that you could not form a
Government out of these 360 members of Parlia-

merit? (Cheers.) Switzerland forms Administra-

tions, and there is now a general admission in Europe
that the United States even can produce statesmen.
(Cheers and laughter.) If that be so, is it not within
the bounds of probability or credibility that out of
the 360—0 r rather 354, for six of them are already
in the Cabinet—that out of the 354 who are not in

the Cabinet a Cabinet might not be formed that

would conduct the affairs of the country just as

satisfactory as the Cabinet which now exists. I say
that this appears to me to be a symptom of weakness.
I lament it only on the ground, because I am quite
of opinion that Cabinets sometimes fall to pieces or
come to an end, just as the human system, without
any specific complaint except that which all the old
women who look on say is a sort of weakness which

they cannot understand. (Laughter.) Now I ven-
ture to say here that a great deal depends upon Lord
. .

Russell himself. I lament that Lord Russell is not

at this moment a member of the House of Commons.
I think in that House on this question of Reform
he would have had much more influence than any

other man can have, and infinitely more influence

than he can have as a member of the House of

Lords—but unhappily he is in the House of Lords.
Much, however, depends upon him ; and I am not

sure with regard to the measure which is coming

that everything does not dependupon him. He may,
if he chooses, gather fresh strength. If he looks to
the ancestral voices which speak to him of the past,

or if at times he seems to listen to the memories of

his future fame, he may draw an inspiration and a
fire that may give him strength in this most critical

period of his public career.

There are times when

what is called caution is feebleness and ruin—there

are times when the highest boldness is the highest