The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 24, 1866.

their course when the Redistribution of Seats Bill makes

• --- ----..—..._ _
its appearance upon the table. Now, I shall have to appeal
toa righthon. gentleman opposite on the point to which 1
am now going
to address myself. I think that a Franchise
Bill which does not determine this question -for a period I
say at least as long as has passed since the bill of 1832, is
not a bill which it is desirable to have, and I think further
that a Redistribution of Seats Bill which will not settle
that question for an equal period is not a desirable bill to
be passed by the house. (Hear.) And it seems to me that
after you have settled the franchise question, and when
you come to dicuss the question of seats, Parliament and
the people directing their eyes solely to it, that single
question will in all probability receive a satisfactory set-
tlement, so that for 30, or it may be for 50 years, no fur-
ther change will be required. (Hear.) It is because I be-
lieve that if Parliament were honestly disposed to amend
the representation they could do it infinitely better, more
solidly, and more satisfactorily to the people, and with
greater duration to our legislation by passing the present
bill than if they took the course it is proposed by the
amendment of the noble lord the member for Chester, or

that proposed by the.hon. gentleman opposite, which I sup-
pose is to get rid of this bill and of the Government by the
same vote, that I approve the course taken by the Govern-
ment. Now, I believe that the argument I have laid be-
fore the house, perhaps not so clearly as I could have
wished, has had the effect of inducing great numbers of
representatives in the country to approve the course which
the Government have taken, and I believe that, if hon.

gentlemen opposite were friends of Reform, the argument
would be conclusive to them also; but, of course, if they
are not the friends of Reform, I must content myself with
saying what I have to say, and with leaving my words to
make what very small impression they may upon under-
standings not open to conviction, and which fear to receive

the truth in this matter. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now,
I said I must quote the right hon. gentleman opposite. My
own honest opinion is, that the course which has been pur-
sued by the Government is truly Conservative—(hears
hear, and laughter)—because I think nothing can be more
non-Conservative, if I may use such a term, than that Par-
liament should have this question of the representation
affecting the basis of power discussed in this house during
every session—(cheers and counter cheers)—and discussed
throughout the country during every parliamentary recess.
(Cheers and counter cheers.) Some striking things were
said on this side of the house on the Ist March, 1859, when
two right hon. gentlemen who sat in a very serene calm on
the Thursday when they withdrew from the Government
of Lord Derby, explained to the house the grounds of their
withdrawal from their former colleagues. On that occasion
the right hon. member for Oxfordshire made use of these

words :
tto in` Itfhoanne
another thing c
tnwwill
be
eo more
havedestructive
sßnf
Reform
n nntooty our.i
tolcveoentitsfi constitu-
tion
and that
will be the case if yonu
o.ulnddosntohtatsayyoutorcaanyrcaelasonognatbinilyoh—oflpnentliitasyt
youtezn will
resusucccheedgr.
you can't do that you are laying the foundation for revo-
lution."
out of the question, but for a decent number. of years. If
(Hear.) Now the foundation for revolution in almost every
country—unless history lies dreadfully—has been laid by
those who pretended to be specially Conservative. (Hear,
and laughter.) I agree with the right hon. gentleman. j
say that never was a passage or a sentence uttered in this
house of truer wisdom than that which the right hun. gen-
tleman spoke on that occasion. Now, I should like to ask
the house why it is that we are now involved in this ques-
tion of reform. (Cheers from the Opposition, and " Tell
us.") Yes, I will answer hon. gentleman opposite immedi-
ately. (A laugh.) The reason is this, because there is a §ense
universal throughout the country that the whole number of
electors is much too small to afford a satisfactory represen-
tation of the people—(" No, no," and cheers), and that the
largest class in the country, and that class which forms the
strength of the nation, is specially excluded. ("N0,n0," and
"Hear, hear.") It was on the 28th of-February, 1859, that
the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire stood up at this
table to propose a Reform Bill on behalf of the Conservative
party, of which he was the leader. He quoted on that occa-
sion no less than three Queen's Speeches, and he told us that
three Prime Ministers had distinctly stated that it was ne-
cessary to do something upon this question ; and that there
may be no mistake as to the peculiar manner in which ho pnt
this to the house I will read the question which he asked
at the time. After recounting previous attempts upon this
subject, a course which every Minister appears to think
necessary to adopt, and after quoting from the three
Queen's Speeches to which he had alluded, ho said :
" Were you to allow this question which the Sovereign
had three times announced as one that ought to be dealt
with, which three Prime Ministers among the most skilful
and authoritative of our statesmen had declared it was their
intention to deal with, to remain in abeyance ?" The
answer which he would have given was, of course, we
Ought not to allow it to remain in abeyance. • But since
then three other Royal Speeches have said the same thing
with even increased emphasis, and three other Prime Minis-
ters have declared their intention of dealing with the subject.
(Heir.) What, then, was the subject about which the right
hon. gentleman asked this question ? I maintain that it
was nothing short of the extension of the franchise. Now,
how did the right hon. gentleman deal with the subject ? He
gave, to quote his own words, "a Franchise Bill of the
largest proportions," of proportions so large, indeed, that
it dwarfs the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But what did he do with regard to the seats? Why, he
altered 15. That was, in my opinion, no redistribution of
seats at all, and can be regarded as nothing but a ludi-
crous attempt to deal with that branch of the subject.
(Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen opposite have possibly for-
gotten some of these matters, and I would remind hon.
gentlemen opposite that they would be a great deal wiser if
they would only remember some of the things which the
right bon. gentleman the member fol. Bucks tells them.
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman proposed that the
county franchise should be reduced to .£lO, and he said
that by that reduction the franchise in counties would be
extended to no fewer than 200,C00 electors. Well, 200,080
is the exact number which the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer proposes to add to the county electors by the bill now
before the house. What did the right hon. gentleman do
with regard to the borough franchise ? He proposed tkat
everybody deriving an income of £lO a year from the
funds, Bank stock, or East India stock, or bonds should be
enfranchised. It would be easy to show what a very fal-

licious idea of the franchise that was, because it was capa-
ble of the most distinct proof that every man who chose to
invest £5,000 or £6,000, from which he would receive a
steady income, might enfranchise his whole family, from
his grandfather to his youngest son, and even include all
his uncles, nephews, and first cousins--(laughter)—and
these would be enfranchised by a fraud which I believe it
would be impossible to detect. He then proposed that
every one who possessed £6O in the savings bank for one
year only should have a vote, and that pensioners receiv-
ing a pension of £2O a year should be enfranchised. His
fourth proposition was that persons occupying portions of
houses, lodgers, in fact, paying £2O a year, should receive
a vote ; and his fifth that graduates of Universities, minis-
ters of religion, members of the various branches of the
legal profession, medical men, and schoolmasters having
Council certificates, should receive a similar privilege. I
won't discuss whether this last proposition was a proper
extension of the franchise, though I am willing to admit
that the persons who were thus to be enfranchised were
suitable, or rather, as the hon. and learned member for Bel-
fast objects to the use of that word, were proper persons for
the reception of the franchise. Now, at what did he esti-
mate the addition that would result to the number of elec- c '
tors? At no less than 300,000—in other words, 50 per I
cent. more than are now proposed to be enfranchised by
the bill before the house. Perhaps it may be said that they
were not of the same class. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
But when you give the franchise to A or B, I take it to be
equally an extension of the franchise. When, therefore, at
the close of the discussion on the first night the right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks was asked what would be
the total 'addition to the number of electors in England and
Wales, the right hon. gentleman said, " The increasa, no
d
I
eubt, will be very considerable, exceeding half-a-million '
have no hesitation in saying." Well, then, in deference
to three Royal Speeches, and to what preceding Prime 31i-
nisters had said, and in answer to the question as to how
long the question should be left in abeyance, what did
Lord Derby's Government do ? They proposed a Franchise
Bill which, upon their statement, and I am not concerned
in allowing or refuting it, said that the electoral
England and 'Wales would be increased by
y half a bodybmi.l ill ttliooilnay
voters, 100,000 more than will be admitted b the
upon the table. Looking, then, at the mode in w
question of the redistribution of seats was treated,
am ao
which
hI
the
justified in regarding that measure as a Franchiseßill? For
what was done with regard to those seats? The right hon
gentleman pretended he did not wish to shock hon.
mem-
bers° who were to be extinguished, but he felt indeed that
the proposition he had to make was one so trivial that it
would be laughed at. lie did not even disfranchise the
borough of Caine. (Laughter.) He did not even disfran-
chise the borough of Portarlington,which, after an exhaus-
tive poll of 46 votes,had returned my hon. and learnedfriend
the Attorney-General for Ireland as a member to this house.
(A laugh.) He defended the borough of Arundel, and, in
fact, more, I believe, was said about that borough than
about the whole question of the redistribution of seats. The
right hon. gentleman defended that borough on the ground
that it returned a noble lord who might be regarded as re-
presenting 900,000 Catholics in England and Wales. The
borough of Arundel is, however, as much a nomination
borough as any borough placed on ScheduleA in the Reform
Bill. Although the right lion. gentleman touched the ques-
i uon of seats with so gentle a hand, lam • •
that the
redistribuf d was a fair and willing to admit
satis-
factoryon©
as
far as it went, for it proposed to give
four seats to th. West Riding of Yorkshire, two to South
Lancashire, two°
towns whose population
to
IMiddlesex, and seven to boroughs and
eation entitled them to representation.
lly argument, however, Derby felt that the ve;
is that the Government of Lord
of the franchise. real( , questionh involved was the exten-
sioneers.)
right hon. gentleman Now, if I were to ask the
why he touch
de-
licate a hand, and if he were to ed the seats with so
o iv
answer, he would say that the difficulties
Tne a candid and honest
ffleulties attending the
question of redistribution are very muchof greater than the
difficulties attending the extensionofth
would say that tha Government, in dealing :waieth hisae' questionaadhe
than which none can be more important,l
and, perhaps,
more difficult, would be justified in adopting that course

which avoided difficulties as much as possible, and enabledtl

Parliament to deal fairly and promptly with one important
branch of it. (Hear, hear.) Now, I will ask hon. gentlemen
and the house, and I will ask those gentlemen on this side
of the house who are supposed, I hope untruly, to be about
to vote with the noble lord the member for Chester, whether
they believe•that if the right hon. gentleman had passed
his bill admitting 500,000 new voters and distributing 15

seats, the question of the distribution of seats would have

been settled by that arrangement for 20, 10, or even for 5
years. (Cheers.) Is not every man in this house convinced,
and is not the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-

fordshire convinced, that in the very next Parliament
elected after the passing of that bill propositions would
have been submitted to the house declaring that the small
boroughs which the right hon. gentleman had left un-
touched ought not to be allowed to retain their power of

returning members, but that a certain number of them

ought to be extinguished and their powers of returning
members transferred to the populous counties and to popu-
lous and great cities. We should have had exactly what
theright hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire

wishes to avoid—we should have had every year a debate

on a new Reform Bill and a debate on the basis of power.

If the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-

quer were to add to the bill before the house the pro-

vision for the redistribution of 15 seats, according to the

proposal made by Lord Derby's Government, do you think
the house would agree to pass it ? (Cheers from the Minis-
terial side of the house.) Will the noble lord the member
for Chester, and his colleague the noble lord the member for
King's Lynn, who seconded the amendment, frankly tell
the house that they will give this bill their support if this
provision be added ? (Cheers.) If they will do so, I will
undertake, although it might ruin the Government if I said
it—(a laugh)—to give the Government a little advice—
(renewed laughter)—and will counsel them to take it. Why
you know perfectly well that all this clamour which you
have been making for the redistribution of seats—(cheers)
—I am afraid that there are no Parliamentary terms in

which I can express my meaning with sufficient delicacy
—(laughter)—but at least you know that you cannot im-
pose upon us with that cry. (Laughter and cheers.) Ido
not think that I felt the slightest satisfaction when the Go-
vernment proposed to lay on the table of the house their

bill for a redistribution of seats. If I bad been a Minister,
I think I should have recommended that the member for

Caine, for example, and the member for Stamford—bath of
whom must know a good deal about small boroughs—
should have been requested to propose clauses of disfran-

chisement for the fair consideration of the Government.

(Laughter.) Now, it is obvious— for the arguments on which
you have opposed this bill are your worst arguments—that
you would not support the bill even though the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer were to propose to add to it the dis-
tribution clauses of the bill of Lord Derby. And I think
you would be wise in refusing to do so, because, although
that distribution is perfectly satisfactory as far as it goes,
it would not in any degree settle the question ; and I am
satisfied that the greatest error the house can commit is to
agree to something on the franchise, and something on the
question of seats, by which neither the one question nor
the other shall be permanently settled. (Cheers.) But, at
this moment the Government is assailed by a united party

on the other side of the house, with a few recruits from

this side, and I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that they
are not in very good hands. The member for Buckingham-
shire and the member for King's Lynn, in my opinion, are
not counsel to be followed implicitly on this question of

Reform ; and if, anybody doubts it, I shall call as witnesses
the two right hon. gentlemen to whom I have already re-
ferred. (Cheers.) You have before you the bill of Lord
Russell's Government, and you know exactly what it is.

(No, no.) You may think quite honestly that the reduc-
tion of the franchise is something more than is necessary,
and you may even think it is something more than is safe,

and you know exactly to what extent it goes. (No, no, and
Hear, hear.) Well, you have listened with very small at-
tention to the speakers on your side of the house if you do
not at least know the worst of it. (Cheers.) What was
the bill that was brought in by the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) ? It had
in every clause of it the impress of his subtle understand-
ing. I will tell you what was said of it by the memberfor
the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). When he ex-
plained to the house why he had withdrawn from the Go-
vernment he said, speaking of the Government scheme for
the extension of the franchise :

" It is a most dangerous innovation, giving to temporary
and fluctuating occupations a preponderating influence over
property and intelligence, while it throws large masses into
the constituencies who are almost exempt from direct
taxation."

That is exactly what your friends have been saying of the
Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) It

might have been taken from a speech of the right hon.
gentleman the member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton),
although it isnot quite se, poetical as some of his utterances.
Again, the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, in a letter written to Lord Derby,
and read to the house, said :
" The measure which the Cabinet are prepared to recom-
mend is one which we should all of us have strongly opposed
if either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ven-
tured to bring it forward."
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman knew the character of
his colleagues. (Hear, hear.) His statement was prophetic
of the course which they would take, which they have taken
now in opposition to a bill which only proposes to admit

400,000 electors, while their bill proposed to admit 500,000.
(Cheers.) The member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on the
same evening with regard to the same question used these'
remarkable words :

" I believe that identity of suffrage, which is the prin-
ciple of the Government bill, is fatal to the constitution of

IS country."

I do not think anybody in the house during this discussion
has gone so far as to say that the reduction of £3 in the
borough franchise would be absolutely fatal to the constitu-
tion of this country, seeing that 500 years ago and less every
freeman being a householder in every borough had a vote
for members to sit in this house. Well, the two right hon.
gentlemen to whom I have referred expressed these opinions
of the bill introduced by the member for Buckinghamshire,
and I say, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman and his
colleagues, and especially the noble lord the member for
King's Lynn, are condemned out of the mouths of their own
i colleagues, and ought to be put out ,of court as advisers of
this question. (Hear.) I shall now ask the attention of the
house for a little time to the bill itself. Hitherto I have
been speaking as to the mode in which the government
have proposed to deal with it. Of the bill itself almost
everything that has been said has been said in connection
with the borough franchise. In thus speaking I omit alto-
gether reference to the frenzy into which the right hon.
gentleman the member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley)
worked himself the other night when discussing the county
franchise ; for anything I know the reduction of the fran-
chise to £l4 in counties may have a fatal effect in North
Staffordshire. (Laughter.) I like to take the views and
opinions of men of great experience and great moderation,
and it is for this reason I ask the right hon. gentleman the
member for Oxfordshire to step for one moment into the
witness-box on the matter. He said in the speech to which
I have before referred :
« Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 the working people
have been having a less and less share in the representation.
They had considerable representation before 1832 through
the scot and lot voters and the freemen. They are gradually
dying out, and I rick my hon. friends near me if they draw a
hard line, and leave the working people behind it, how long
they think it will stand ?"
(Hear.) That was a wise saying, and a pertinent question in
the year 1859, and it is not wise and less worthy of consi-
deration in the year 1866. The first part of this statement is
exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. The
right hon. gentleman has told the house that the proportionate
power of the working classes in the constituencies has been
diminishing since 1832. I believe there can be no manner of
doubt of it ; and here I must tell the right lion. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer that my opinion is—and
what I think every member in the house who represents a
borough, excepting the borough of Coventry, and perhaps one
or two others must know—that the figures which have been
laid before the house, which fix the numbers of workingmen
electors at 25 or 26 per cent., are not in any degree to be
relied upon, nor are they in any degree accurate. (Hear,
hear.) Hon. gentlemen have a perfect right, of course, in
assailing the Government to fight upon the figures which
the Government has laid before them ; and Government
would find it very difficult, of course, to retreat from the
position they have taken on those figures. But I am not one
of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am not one of the
Government responsible for these figures ; I am here as an
advocate, an honest advocate, of a moderate and just mea-
sure of reform— (cheers)—and, therefore, I must deal with
this question from my own point of view, and speak of it in
language based on the convictions I hold. I will give the
house only two cases. I have not sought for them in the
blue-book, nor have I written about the country for them.
The first is to he found in a petition presented to this house
by the hon. member for Stoke-upon-Trent. That is a bo-
rough which consists of three or four neighbouring towns
—one of them the town of Burslem. The blue-book says
that Burslem has a constituency of 680 electors ; of these
197 are represented to be working men, so that they form
29 per cent. of the whole number. But what does the peti-
tion say ? It has been accurately prepared, and it gives an
analysis for Burstein. It says that of the 197 which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures represent as working
men, one is a publican, and that there are 40 beersellers ;
that is 41 to begin with. I would rather have 40 real hard-
artisans in any borough than 40
working, industrious,
beersellers. (Hear.) But there are grocers and other shop-
keepers to the number of 48 ; and there are persons who
are put down as cart owners, eowkeepers;auct tradesmen
with assistants, earning profits from the capital in their
trade, to the number of 33. Adding these together and
deducting them from the 197 there remain in the town of
Burslem but 75 working men on the register. (Hear, hear.)
You may bring, if you like, the whole staff of the Poor
Law Board, but they cannot alter the se figures. It shall
not, however, be my fault if the house discusses this ques-
tion and decides it upon figures which are deceptive and
delusive. (Hear.) I will take only one other town, the bo-
The blue-book says that there are
rough of Wakefield.
really
ya. which
which
not
more
shall
than 77. If you will deduct the various classes
122 working men in the borough, or rather over 11 per
Cont.decid eo
who
htoh
ise register; ist e
workingr; but
man,
ttakinghe
to
numer ll
theb terms
I have referred with regard to Burslem, you will bring

he number 122 in Wakefield down to So ; so that,
instead of 11 per cent. of the constituency being working
men, there are not more than three per cent. (Hear, hear.)
I was talking the other day to a member on this side of the
house, the hon. member for Newark, who mentioned some
figures to me in reference to that borough. I have not them
in my recollection, but I hope he will take some opportunity
of stating them to the house. The return for Newark was
sent back twice, if not three times, for correction. I think
at least one country magistrate was put down among the
working men. (Laughter.) Now, I shall trouble the house
with a few figures. We have had the figures of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and quite as many more from
gentlemen opposite ; I shall therefore make mine as brief
as possible. The blue-book says that there are 126,000
working men on the register. I have given you cases which
are but samples of the rest, and my exceptions bring the
number down to one-third of it; but, for the sake of being
within the mark, I will call it one-half—that brings the
126,000 down to 63,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
calculated that by the repeal of the ratepaying clauses and
of the system of compounding 60,000 persons would be ad-
mitted; but he put the whole of the 60,000 down as work-
ing men. Why, there is not a man in England who will
say he believes that an accurate calculation. I have put
them down at 20,000. Then the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer says that the number of persons who would be ad-
mitted by a reduction of the franchise from £lO to £7 is
144,000, and he estimated all these as working men. But
we all know perfectly well that all these persons paying
between £7 and£lo are not, and cannot be, and never have
been, working men. I take it that two-thirds of them
are estimated as working men as it will be as fair a calcu-
lation as can be made. Now, look at the result. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer says that when the bill is
passed there will be 330,000 working men upon the re-
gister. I say there will be 179,000, or, say 180,000, of
whom 116,000 will be admitted by this bill. What, then,
will be the gross ? The whole number of borough elec-
tors in England and Wales, if this bill should pass, upon
the calculation of the blue-book, will be 691,000, of whom
180,000, or just one-quarter, will be working men. There-
fore, that portion of the people which forms at least three-
fourths of the whole population would only have one-
fourth of the electoral power in the boroughs, and have, of
course, a power so small as to be not worth reckoning in
the whole constituency of the counties. I shall say no
more about the statistics ; but, having made my calcula-
tions, I thought they were as proper to place before the
hcuse as those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any
gentleman opposite. (Hear.) But, after all, there will be
more than four millions of men left out; and yet I think
so much political cowardice, if I may use the word, has
never been exhibited as was shown by the mover and
seconder of the amendment before the house. Sir, I am
astonished at these alarmist speeches. The right hon.
gentleman the member for Hertfordshire, too, deals in
alarmist speeches. He comes down once or twice in a ses-
sion and makes a speech which gives great satisfaction to
the house, if not the least attention is paid to what there is
in it. (Laughter.) I mean that the tone and the manner,
the language and imagery all please 1.4; bid, I grieve be-
yond measure when I think of the side to which ho gives
his great influence. Now, in 1860, he said the bill which
was introduced by Lord J. Russell as a member of Lord
Palmerston's Government was a bill to admit poverty and
passion to the franchise. This is one of the passages which
fell from his lips•—" Though we are willing to admit
poverty and passion into the franchise, we are not willing
to give poverty and passion the lion's share of political
power over capital and knowledge." This is very similar
to what the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni-
versity said of the bill of the right hon. gentleman the
member for Buckinghamshire. (A laugh.) He did not use
ftahtae "pov
eetrtityotfaonodwpearsesiloihn,e"lybuttoshaeidfotthroatiueeeledmfeanttos
that bill. Now, the right hon. gentleman once held very
different opinions. (Hear.) Many years ago he published a
book called " England and the English"— a book which was
not profound, but very amusing ; and I should like to read
to the house a sentence which the right hon. gentleman
put as a motto at the beginning of his book, and putting it
so I presume he adopted it. Ho took it, I believe, from
Ben Jensen, and it raa

" I am he
Have measured all the. shires of England over,
For to these savages I was addicted
To search their nature and make odd discoveries."

And the discovery Nshich he made in 1860 was this, that
if you introduce artisms and working men of between 410
and £6 rental, you will give the lion's share of the repre-
sentation to the poverty and passion of the country. But
the right hon. gentleman now assumes a different tone, for
in his speech last week he did not treat the working people
as though they were made up mostly of poverty and passion;
but he said many getterous things of them—(hear, hear)-.
and he told us how there was a tie, not of interest only,
but of the strongest respect and affection between the rich
and the employing class, and the poor, and the labourers.
But what of these crmpliments ? They may be perfectly
sincere. Probably the right hon. gentleman never believed
that the working mea between £lO and £6 were represented
by poverty and passion; and the language he used the other
night far more accurately stated his real opinion of the
great body of his countrymen. Still he would give them
compliments and not votes—(laughter) - and it seemed to
me that if the mea had all these good qualities which he
described flattery of that kind would go down very ill with
the great body of the people who are asking that at least
some of them should be given representation in this house.
It reminded me very much of that couplet from Shenstone

describing how—
" He kicked them downstairs with such a sweet grace,
They may think ho was handing them up."
(Laughter.) No one would have thought that after a speech
full of such noble sad generous sympathy towards the
working classes the right hon. gentleman would have con-
cluded by throwing ill the weight of his character and all
the influence of his oratory into the side of the party which
not only says little that is kind and generous—(loud cries
of " Oh, oh !")—but which—(renewed cries of " Oh, oh ?")
ell, then, of a party which does sometimes say something
generous of the working class, but never shows the'slightest
disposition • to confer upon them a particle of political
rights: (Cheers.)- But I only ask the right hon. gentle-
man's attention to one point upon which he touched. With
great force and great beauty of language ho spoke of some
friends and neighbours of mine—the members of co-opera-
tive societies of Rochdale. I thought when I heard them

that he was going back unconsciously to tho year 1832,
when he was a most enthusiastic supporter of the Reform
Bill of that day—(hear, hear)—when he was a member of
the Parliainentary Candidate Society, with the learned
member for Sheffield and Jeremy Bentham, with Joseph
Hume and Daniel O'Connell, with Francis Place, with
Charles Buller, and many others. I thought he was going
back to that time ; but if not as far back as that, then to
1837 and 1848, in. both of which years, if 1 am not mis-
taken; the right hon. gentleman was in favour of an exten-
sion of the franchise. He said, and most of you must have
heard him :

"The operatives of Rochdale having been left thus free
to mature uncorrupted their self-guiding power would now,
I grant, be strong enough to resist such temptation. To
artisans of. that kind, whatever their political creed, I am
willing to grant the franchise." (Hear.) " Willing, do I
say ? That word is much' too cold. I wish that, like some
old commonwealth of Greece, we might admit them to the
franchise by acclamation, too proud of such fellow-citizens
to ask what rent they pay for their housed."

(Cheers.) Well, sir, 1 happen to live among those
persons of whom the right hon. gentleman has spoken

in such enthusiastic language, and if the house will
permit me I will state a little of their case, and I have no
objection to rest my case upon theirs. In 1860, upon the
discussion of the bill of the Government, I read some facts
connected with these co-operative societies. Those which

I purpose now to bring before the house will be very brief,
but they are very suggestive, and, I think, very gratifying.
There are three bodies or companies, managed by three
committees ; ono •is called the Equitable Pioneer Society,
and chiefly concerns itself with the various shops and re-
tail businesses Latoly,when I was at home, about a fort-
night ago, some facts were sent to me by the secretary of
the society. He says :—" The society now comprises 5,500
members, chiefly heads of families. It has a capital of
£85,000, and is selling goods and receiving money at the
rate of .£230,000 per annum." Now, let the house bear in
mind that there is not ono of these 5,500 ever gots one
farthing of credit in dealing with these shops. (Hear.) The
business is managed by a committee of 11, of whom two
only have a borough vote ; one of them is a bookkeeper
and treasurer of the society, and, therefore, in a certain
sense, is not what we understand as a working man. He
and another have borough votes ; but the president and
secretary of this great establishment have no votes.
(Cheers.) I come to the Rochdale District Corn Mill So-
ciety, which owns a very fine establishment. It has a capi-
tal of £6o,ooo,and its turn-over every year—the amount of
goods sold and money received—is £164,000. This is also
managed by a committee of 11. And let the house bear
this. Neither the treasurer, president, nor secretary, nor
any member of this committee, has a borough vote. One of
the committee has a county vote, being, I dare say, the
owner of a cottage in the neighbourhood. Then there is
the Rochdale Co-operative Manufacturing Society. This
has more than 1,500 members, a capital of £109,000, and has
built two of the largest and handsomest mills in the neigh-
bourhood. Amongst these 11 there are three borough voters
and two county voters; but of these five'voters only one is a
working man in the usual sense. The votes are thus dis-
tributed,—one manager, one manufacturer, one draper, one
out of business, and only one a workman or mechanic.
This is his summary:—"
Total capital of these societies,
£227,246." The whole of that has been contributed, or
nearly so, by the working men of Rochdale, of whom the
right lion. gentleman spoke the other night in such glow-
ing language.
The secretary goes on to say :—" The writer
has seen members of the Pioneer Society who had scarcely
any work or income for their family during the cotton
famine come for ss. or 108. from their investments of pro
• vious savings just to help them on with their small earn-
ings. They did not ask or receive relief. This does not
• show improvidence or want of forethought. (Hear, hear,
hear.) Now that the cotton famine is nearly over they are
again saving money. In June, 1865, their investments
were, in the Pioneer Society, £59,000 ; in September, 1865,
.03,000 ; in December, 1865, £69,000 ; and in March,
1866, they reached £76,600." (Hear, hear.) I hope the
right hon. gentleman the member for Calne will forgive

mo for reading the next line. He says,—" This does not
agree with the Lowe theory." (" Oh," and a laugh.)
" What is taking place in the Rochdale societies is occur-
ring in a greater or less degree in all the societies, of which
thero are 500 or 600 throughout the country." Now, what

is the answer that anylody is to give to these men i Will

you give them the same answer as the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Hertfoidshire ? Will you receive
them with open arms, and not inquire whether they pay

£6 or £7 for their rental ? (Cheers.) To every gentle-
man in favour of the reduction of the borough franchise—
excluding the member for Belfast altogether—l put this

question :—lf you accept all these as worthy the descrip-
tion given by one of your own eminent leaders, will you
allow these 5,500 to have the franchise in the borough of
Rochdale. And I tell the right hon. gentleman that it is a
great mistake to suppose the men of Rochdale are better
than the men of the various manufacturing towns of Lan-

cashire and Yorkshire. (Hear, hear.) They would alto-
gether scout the idea ; and I, who know them as well as
most men know them, and who also know a good deal
both of the working men of Lancashire and Yorkshire, I
would say, these men of Rochdale are a fair sample of the

general run of the industrious, intelligent, and indepen-
dent population among whom we live. (Cheers.) The

hon. member fcr Wick is terrified at the idea of the votes
of these mon. Northern breezes and long experience havo
done nothing for them. He described all the good things
that have taken place in Parliament during the last 20
years, but he did not seem to be aware that there was not
one of those good things that I know of that the working
men of Lancashire and Yorkshire did not heartily support.

(Cheers.) But he might have known that not half-a-dozen
gentlemen on the opposite side of the house gave any con-
tinuous support to those good things. (Hear and a laugh.)
The hon. gentleman puts it to the credit of Parliament that
it repealed the Corn Laws. Why, if he had asked my
right hon. friend the President of the Poor Law Board he
would have told him that until Sir R. Peel abandoned
protection there never were 100 members who gave a vote
in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws. (Cheers.) The
result was brought about, as everybody knows now, by
agitation at an enormous cost of money and labour, and
by the concurrence of a famine which was disgraceful to
our Government—(hear, hear,)—not because potatoes de-
cayed, but that when they did decay a whole population
ran the risk of being destroyed. (Hear, hear.) The same
men who out of doors and in Parliament asked for those
good measures are the very men who now ask for this
bilk ; and I venture to tell the house that if they do not
get this bill they will get one very much like it. I shall