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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time vald passed:—
The Cashel Junction Railway, and Bray andEnniskerry
Railway.

CHILD LABOUR.

Lord KINNAIRD presented a petition from certain in-
habitants of Sheffiald, praying that there should be an in-
quiry into the circumstances connected rith the employ-
ment of juvenile labourers, and that the. report should be
laid as soon as possible before the pubrc, in order that this
very important subject should bo car efully considered.
THE CATTLE PLAGUE.
The Earl of CARNARVON drew the attention of the
house to the alarming extent to which the cattle plague
had extended, and impressed on. the Government the ne-
cessity of obtaining accurate statistics on the subject with
a view of the malady being dealt with in a scientific way,
in order to prevent the pre gress of the disease.
JAMAICA OVERNMENT BILL.
Lord RUSSELL moved the second reading of the bill.
lie said that there was a large amount of misunderstanding
on the part of certain portions of the public in reference to
the circumstc.nces connected with the recent events in the
Island of Jamaica. In considering this subject, the cir-
cumstance of the relative proportion of coloured and white
persons in the colony was to be taken into account. It
was desirable that the affairs of such a place as Jamaica
should be satisfactorily arranged, and to accomplish that
object legislative action was necessary. The principle of
the bill had already been discussed, and he believed that
public opinion was in its favour. He considered that it
was calculated to effect the object of placing the affairs of
the colony in a satisfactory condition.
Lord DUNSANY made some general observations re-
lative to the position of the colony.
Lord TAUNTON expressed a hope that the course of
legislation that would be adopted in regard to Jamaica
would be of a nature calculated to 'develop the resources of
the colony, the value of which was great to this country.
Both the interests of civilisation and pecuniary incentives
were involved in this question.
Earl GREY supported the bill, and expressed his ap-
proval of the appointment of the commission. He contended
that the interests of the West Indies had not been dealt
with by the Legislature of this country in an enlarged and
proper spirit. All the evils with which they had now to
contend: grew out of this contracted legislation, and the
time had arrived when there should be an alteration in the
legislation with reference to the island of Jamaica.
After some observations from Lord LYTTELTON and Lord
LONGFORD, the bill was read a second time.
The Princess Helena's Annuity Bill and Prince Alfred's
Annuity Bill were severally read a third time and passed.
The Marine Mutiny and the National Debt Reduction
Bills were respectively read a second time.
The amendments to the Sale of Land by Auction Bill
were agreed to.
Their lordships then adjourned.

liflcations 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 one of the highest attd
noblest efforts of statosmanship—(Oppositioncheers)—and
to tamperwith it lightly, or to deal with it unskilfully, is one
of the most signal marks of presumption and folly. When
we speak of giving the franchise to a class who have it not,
or of transferring electoral power from one district to
another, we must always remember that the end we ought
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 are deserving, or to withhold it from one place
because it is 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 for the manner in which ho 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 temperand 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 thorn as a
guide in estimating the principles upon which he acts. I
am not wedded to anything particulaey 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 theyare always open to new
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 1 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 am 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 laugh)—ho went
into distinctions, into which few of us coulci 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 aro 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 bo 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 bo right, I say, or it
may bo 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 alreadyadmitted to the franchise is 120,000,
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
the exclusion of the best of the working men from the
franchise. Hero 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:
" But 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 aro 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 tnto ? 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 was
proved to have been founded on a mistake. I want to
know on what principle it is that the Government, having
r
received statistics which my noble friend the member
for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) moved foriloms
they
that these people, for the
with rtchPe bill at all.
asked for a reform bill, were s:ali-ree already
want to know why they
have
gc:rnetZat is worth wresen ted —I
(Opposition cheers.) Surely,
been there—my right
shtoonenfranchise the working man ;
explain-
ing. We could have understoodourSabi
lief tflirieesneds‘tvaotiusltdicsh
have
ed
told not
raiignhtth hen.is proposition
o friendositi
on assumeswth _
us at once that
fit
that this house is ready h
but, regardless o.
B country or the
the facts,
entertain
Con-
stituencies for acceding to it. These statistics prove a
reason for asking t
which I have been
greatly reproved, that the working classes have already the
loituttleanmOrwo.eigThthyey prove a thing for
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 groat increase in the constituencies took
place ; but no one who knows the history of this country
can doubt that it was owing to the great 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 the consequent depreciation of the precious
Metals gave an apparent rise of prices. This led to higher

rents and higher wages. Another cause was the emigratio
that took place in Ireland ; a third was the extension of our
trade and commerce, which is making labour every day
more and more in demand. I am not wrong in considering
there are causes still operating, and which will continue to
operate hereafter. I could not extract many principles from
the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but one
thing which he said was that he did not wish to see the
working classes in a majority of the constituency of this
country. He did not much care himself, but for the sake of
his weaker brethren. (Laughter:) But was not the case that
in a few years, from the causes I have mentioned, the
working classes will be in a majority. When we give
a vote to £7 houses do we not hold out a temptation to £6
houses to become £7 and so on, so that when I view the
system of my right hon. friend, as at present stated, we
shall in a short time see the working classes in a majority
of the constituency. Let us see what this implies. I
shall speak very frankly ; for having lost my character by
saying that the working man can gut the franchise if he
likes, which is all true, I shall state what I mean. Let
each gentleman consider the constituency he has had the
honour to be concerned with. (Laughter.) II you want
venality, ignorance ; if you want drunkenness, if you want
facilities for being intimidated, if you want an impulsive,
unreflective, violent people, where do you go to look for
them ? Is it to the top, or is it to the bottom ? It is ridi-
culous to raise the question. The sins of the constituencies
are mainly committed between the £2O and the £lO. It
may be said the £lO beer-house keeper is the man, but get
the artisan and you will see something very different,
(Hear.) That is the sort of theory the ancients had about
tho north wind. The ancients observed that as they went,
further north the wind grew colder, just as the constituency
gets worse nearer £lO. " Then, if it is so cold when you
get in front of the north wind," they said, " how verywarm
it must be if you could get behind it." (Laughter.) And,
therefore, they imagined for themselves a blessed land W 4
have all heard of called the Hyperborean, where the people
wore perfectly happy and virtuous because they had got on
the other side of the north wind. (Laughter.) That is just
what hon. gentlemen say with regard to the franchise. If
you only go a little lower, you get among a virtuous clash;
but if what •k say be true the lower you get the worse it
is, whether it be artisan or beer-shop keeper, or any other
person. We well know what sort of people those who live
in those small houses aro. We know what the freemen
were, and that it has been the opinion that there could
be no better act than to disfranchise them altogether. But
now when the class it was proposed to disfranchise is
dying out of itself, the Government proposes to bring it
back. I ask, what good shall we get? The effect will
be to add a large number of persons to every consti-
tuency from the class to which, if anything is going wrong,
we must look to find it. It will increase the expenses of
the management of elections, and I maintain that as we go
lower you may look for more bribery and corruption than
hitherto. Another thing I wish to point out is that hon.
gentlemen on this side of the house will find out from ex-
perience that the main mischief will fall on themselves. The
first stage will be to increase corruption, intimidation, dis-
order, and all the evils that often attend elections. That is
the first stage. What will be the second stage, when the
ms
oe lf ves
theirn
pao
wc lee
ra.r. majority,They
w ill hsiacyl
will make working
o menth e consciousmfind th e
we can do better than continue elections. Let us set up a

shop for ourselves, let us carry on for ourselves ; we have

our trade unions, we have our leaders, we have all the
power of combination, and when we have power to vote
we can get all this with tenfold force. (Hear, hear.) Where
then is the line to be drawn ? The right hon. gentleman
said that as he did not pledge the Government to redistri-
bution of seats, this Parliament might have to effect that
object. lam much obliged to my right bon. friend, but
for my part I do net think I should be worth preserving on
those terms. As long as wo have not passed the bill we
are masters of the situation. Let us pass the bill, and what
should we be ?—hewers of wood and drawers of water,
with the threat hanging over us that if we did not work we
should be sent about our business. (Opposition cheers.)
This we are told is a voter's bill, and does not deal with

the redistribution of seats. That, said the right hon. gen-
tleman, is the advice of the hon. member for Birmingham,
and I have followed it. It is lawful for me to be taught by
an enemy—how much more by a friend. (Laughter.)
Well, sir, I will read the language of the hon. member for
Birmingham, from which you will derive a very different
impression : " Repudiate without mercy any bill that gives

merely the franchise, whatever its acquisition may be, if it
does not unite clauses for the extinction of small boroughs,
and give them places to the great city and town population
of the kingdom."

Mr. BRIGHT—What is it you are reading from ?
Mr. LOWE—I am reading a speech made by the hon.
member at Bradford in 1859. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.)
There is a little bit more. (Laughter.) " The question of
redistribution is the very soul of the question ; but unless
you watch it you will be deceived; and when the bill is
passed you will pcissibly turn back to lament yourposition."
(Laughter.) I am not reading from the speech particularly
to get a laugh at the expense of the hon. member for Bir-
mingham, though I have no particular objection to that.
(Laughter.) I have not the least doubt the hon. member
for Birmingham, not withstanding his speech at Bradford,
is consistent. I believe he had in view the redistribution
of seats, and that what he now wants is to get the workmen
to make the tools, and then they will speedily construct the
machinery. The object of constituencies is to return mem-
bers. It is quite possible that the constituencies may be so
large as not to return the members best fitted for this house;
and it is quite possible they may return men vi mukl.rato
opinions and moderate means ; but it is quite possible to
divide the whole representation in this house between the
millionaire, to whom expense is amatter of no moment, and
demagogues, who compensate for their want of money by
pandering to popular passion. (Opposition cheers.) Since
the revolution of 1688 it has been the practice for the seats
in the Government to be approached through the House of
Commons ; but if you admit such members of popular re-
presentatives, whatever good you may do, you will destroy
that element, and will render it impossible to carry on the
happy union that now exists. Again, I would ask, what
reasons there can be for bringing in this bill at all. The
working classes have gone to hear the hon. member for
Birmingham speak—as I would go if I were within ten
miles—for the purpose of hearing him; but wherever he has
been he has condemned the franchise bill. The working
classes have met in St. Martin's-hall and elsewhere, but their
demand was for universal suffrage. (Mr. BRIGHT—No.)
Almost universally; and they have spoken in a manner
equally uncomplimentary of the hon. member for Leeds and
of his proposition. They have spoken out at St. Martin's
Hall, where Mr. Odgers told the working men what he
wanted. And what he wanted was to give to his own
trade first and keep up wages. Mr. Odgers moved the first
resolution, and he told them what ho wanted was a law to
keep up wages. (Hear, hear.) Another speaker asked,
why not pass an Act of Parliament and make Ireland per-
fectly happy ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I conclude
that there is no pressure at present from the working
classes. Is it the constituencies ? Lord John Russell says
it is on account of the selfishness of the constituencies that
the working men are kept out—that is to say, that they
are unfavourable to this measure. Is it the members of
this house ? A deputation went to Lord Russell and held
out extreme measures, and he told them that he agreed
with much of what they said, but he apprehended the
greatest difficulty in the House of Commons. Is it not the
House of Commons ? The next matter is a delicate ques-
tion. Is it the Cabinet ? There was a deputation to Lord
Russell on the question, and to the deputation the hon.
member for Birmingham said that Lord Russell had told
him that ho had immense difficulties to deal with in refe-
ence to the question of Reform, but that his greatest diffi-
culty was in the Cabinet. (Opposition cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT— I don't know whether the right hon.
gentleman believes it or not. I have only to say that there
is not a word of truth in the statement. Lord Russel/
has never said one word to me that led in any wayotf°
in-
timate to me what was the opinion of any
the right
portion his
Cabinet. (Ministerial cheers.) And I have o
recollec-
tion of having said anything of the kindta
anythingw
he has
hon. gentleman quotes ; and if he o
--n:ned must have been
read, I can only say I never sabideaiit)
inaccurately reported.
ofpoirnitohna,tithasis
it Miart.hLeosWtaEr_<—ladjeanu,goth(o)Hinear,
k the Star when I want infor-
perravdelregiunostaiiint gfirtutmhenm.
memory,
(Loud (Loud laughter.)
,lll:tt'umhter.) Let us come to the reason
mation. alenewe'"
house question s
seriously
oo
uf
It
t
o
11 disposed of. Is it, as the right hon. gentle-
manbeen pretty we workingis noin
menrespect
are t publicexcluded,
h Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that gentlemen
nofotthbeectahuinsag.the
the
slhyigtho moralityrn t hei
N?TouTldhaastkisthea
r
mind to it. Any gentleman who enters this house, enters
gAralaeuegmhm.)itteld
it not as the member for any particular borough, but for the
whole United Kingdom ; and. I apprehend that he is bound
by an obligation to which no promise can add, and from
which no promise can take away—(cheers)—that he will,
,to the best of his knowledge, will, and ability, do his duty
to the country. (Hear.) If a gentleman finds himself baru-
pored by pledges which touch his honour, he has
a course
He has
open to lain which is open to all honourable men.; Hand
he
got into a position incompatible with
his
honour,
it he must
can get out of it. If it is necessary to
u
remainfa in
honour to
not propose a lesser duty to a greater, ad
the true. As our great national poet satyon
" His honour rooted in dishonotrs,a_sae.y
true."
And faith, unfaithful, made him
Whatever may sway the opinionsef hon
i•
gentlemen, I hope
that we shall not hear that hon.n gentlemen are pledged
contrary to their consciences, ad that with their eyes open
they will do what they
believe to be a great injury.(Cheers.) Now, then, I have
ef little more to add as to the
found that there is nothing so dif-
reasons. I have always
r in
ors as to assign reasons for re-
ficult, apparently, to Reformers
to
assume
them,
is as the right
form. (A laugh.) The p
hon. gentleman when proposing it —ambtdando, by walking
into the question. (Laughter.) h
t Ido not say that we ought
not to have
Reform, but I. do say that the argument of the
different gentlemen
in promoting it is remarkable. They
say it is justice, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls
it a boon. This is not a question of justice and it
reason ; this is a question of experience and expediency—
(hear, hear, and Opposition cheers)—and a practical con-
sideration of human institutions, and the test of making
them conform to the end and object you have in view