The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

vested interests of the freeholders had not been saved. He
(Mr. Herbert) was not disposed to admit that this was a
case of vested interest—it was something far higher than
an interest—it was a right. (Cheers.) Welt, but the
noble lord said it was an error, and the Chanc2.llor of the
Exchequer had himself proposed to remedy it ; but still,
he said, that this clause must not in any net ect be sup-
posed to militate against the principles of ri e bill which
were to disenfranchise neither borough nor county voter—
though some were "disqrialified"—(hear, hear)—and to
secure a uniformity of franchise. The noble lord said that
the amendment, if carried, would be fatal to the bill. What
would be fatal to the bill ? Was it the first part—that
which related to the freeholders whose vested interests had
been accidentally overlooked, and whose case had been so
sagaciously met by the suggestion of the member for Dor-
setshire ? (Hear, hear.) Or, was it the second part of the
resolution that would be fatal to the bill ? He could not
tell. If it were, then uniformity was the principle of the
bill ; and it was because the resolution touched that unifor-
mity that it would be fatal to the measure. (Hear, hear )
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had said, that
as it would be open to any member to move amendments in
committee, he hoped the Government would not be de-
barred from pursuing the same course. Thus, in one sen-
tence they were invited to go into committee ; in another
they were repelled from it. (Hear) It was said that
there was the greatest difference of opinion on the Oppo-
sition side of the house upon all the most important ques-
tions of reform. He (Mr. Herbert) did not deny that.
There were differences of opinion amongst the Opposition
upon church-rates, upon the ballot, upon this bill, upon the
disfranchisement of small boroughs, and upon the advisa-
bility of making a more or less democratic change in the
constitution. (Ministerial cheers.) But were those charges
confined to that side of the house ? (Hear. hear.) He looked
on the other side, and what did he find ? Differences of
opinion upon church-rates, upon the ballot, and upon the
disfranchisement of boroughs. (Ministerialocries of "No,
no," and counter cheers.) To what was the objection made ?
(Cries of " The ballot.") Were the differences of opinion
confined even to the house ? Were they not to be found even
in the Cabinet ? (Opposition cheers.) He only wanted to
point out the position in which the house was placed—they
were all in respect of differences of opinion in the same boat.
(Hear hear.) The other night the noble lord the member
for Leicestershire (Lord J . Manners) made a strong appeal
on behalf of the Government bill on the subject of church-
rates ; but the noble lord the Secretary for India voted
against that appeal. (Opposition cheers.) He believed,
also that the noble lord's (Lord Stanley's) opinions were
not unfavourable to the ballot. (No, no.) Well, his (Mr.
Herbert's) authority might be but slender, but he would
tell the house what it was. He read that the ,noble lord,
a short time ago, received an invitation to a dinner held by
certain friends of the cause of the ballot, to celebrate the
arrival, he believed, of some gentleman from Australia. (A
laugh.) The noble lord did not attend ; but what was his
answer ? He simply regretted that a pre-engagement would
not allow him to attend. (Laughter.) Well, that did not
imply any very strong objection to the ballot. (Oh, oh.)
Usually, a refusal couched in those terms did not imply a
rooted objection.' Suppose, for instance, the hon. member
for North Warwickshire were invited to attend the celebra-
tion of high mass by Cardinal Wiseman—(roars of laughter)
—he would probabiy couch his refusal in terms somewhat
stronger than a regret that previous engagements would de-
prive him of the pleasure. (Renewed laughter.) He (Mr.
Herbert) hoped that before long they would be able to ar-
rive at something like a sound conclusion as to what was
really the meaning of the Government with respect to the
resolution of the noble lord, which they at present looked
upon as a hostile attack—(cheers, and counter cheers)—but
the great principles of which, he believed, were identical
with the opinions entertained by a great number of gentle-
men sitting not only on the opposition benches, but behind
the Government themselves. (Cheers.) The Secretary of
State for the Colonies stated that the present ministrystood
as a shield, the one and only bulwark between the consti-
tution of the country and those extreme demagogic adven-
turers who met in Hyde-park, and who demanded manhood
suffrage, annual Parliaments, and vote by ballot. If that
was true (which it was not) he (Mr. Herbert) should look
with alarm on the prospects of this country. (Loud oppo-
sition cheers.) The right honourable gentleman made a
speech in defence of our mixed institutions, our tempered
liberty, and our limited monarchy; but one would have
thought that such a speech would surely have been in
defence of a bill which made no innovation upon the con-
stitution and which started no new principles. (Hear, hear.)
The house was a very mixed body. It was so, in fact, to a
degree whieh he hever knew to be before. (Laughter.) The
noble lord (Lord Stanley) said that his Government were
in a minority, but that party Government was broken up,
that the house was divided into sections, and that all Go-
vernments must for the future depend not upon old organi-
sations but upon the measures which they proposed—that
they must prepare measures and press them forward ; carry
them, if good ; and if bad, be prepared to see them fall to
the ground; that all Government measures must, in short,
be tentative, and that all Governments must rely upon the
clear insight they possessed into the wishes of the people
and of the house. (Hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) believed
that the whole system of party government was pretty nearly
at an end. The change in our policy would be very diffi-
cult, and would require the Minister, who was leader of the
house, to display great tact and ability—qualities which he
was bound to say the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
did exhibit. (Cheers.) The change, he repeated, would
be a very difficult and dangerous one, but he hoped the Go-
vernment would not be so unwise as to refuse to listen to
the voice of a large portion of that house, who, bound to-
gether by no party ties, were trying to lead them in the
direction which they believed the safety of the country re-
quired. (Cheers.) If this were any party division, if it
were merely designed to turn out the Government, he must
frankly confess that in the present state of things he should
very much regret it. (A laugh.) Hon gentlemen_did not
seem disposed to give him credit for sincerity in that decla-
ration but he hoped the house would believe that men
might be actuated by something higher than a mere party
motive. (Loud cheers.) He should for his part be sorry
to think that hon. gentlemen opposite, in resisting the mo-
tion of the noble lord, were merely animated by a wish to
retain office. (Cheers.) He hoped that the house would at
any rate do them (the Oppositisn) the justice to think that
in discussing this grave and weighty question, they had
motives far more important than the mere transference of
persons from one site of the house to the other. (Loud
cheers.) What was it that they wanted, and, what
that they did not want? (Hear, hear.) They wanted,
he apprehended, an extension of the county and of the
borough franchise—they wanted, in short, reform. (Hear.)
He had seen during the last five or six years this question
used in a manner which he thought did not tend to the sta-
bility of our institutions. (Loud cheers.) He thought that
on coming into office the right hon. gentlemen opposite were
not only justified, but were compelled, to promise a measure
of this kind. At the same time he could not conceal from
himself the inconvenience of having questions of this kind
brought forward by those gentlemen. The proper and more
natural thing would have been for the Whig party to bring
in the Reform Bill, because then there would have been no
bidding against them for extreme measures, and those who
professed Conservative opinions would more naturally have
acted as a check upon their legislation, and would possibly
have modified the measure. But, underthe present circum-
stances, bid as high as the Government might, it become a
political necessity to the Oppositionto outbid them. (Cheers)
The country had lost the value of an Opposition, and also of
a Government, in all respects in which the special value of
each consisted. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, circumstances
had been too strong for them, and they had now to discuss
a Reform Bill proposed by a Conservative Government.
Hon. gentlemen opposite might allege that they had met
the wishes of the country in one respect, they had extended
the county franchise. He did not know what had led them
to accept the measure of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Locke
King) ; but people were under much apprehension on that
score. They would say, " Oh, the Government took Mr.
Locke King's bill as the foundation of their measure, be-
cause that bill had been carried over and over again." But
was that the case ? The first year the hon. gentleman
brought forward his motion (1851), it was in the shape of
a bill to "assimilate" the borough and county franchise.
That bill was read a second time. The noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) was Prime Minister • and the second reading was
carried in consequence of dissensions on the benches be •
hind him. But it was a small division—and it was a
snapped division. The bill was read on a Wednesday in a
house consisting of 152 members—the ayes being 100 and
the noes, 52, majority 48. The noble lord, taking that divi-
sion as an indication of the feeling of his party against him,
resigned. In the following year the hon. gentleman brought
in his bill again ; but this time it was thrown out in a larger
house—the numbers being for the second reading 149,
against it 202, majority 53. (Hear.) During the year the hon.
gentleman very properly abstained from putting forward the
subject ; but in 1857 what happened ? The noble viscount
(Lord Palmerston) opposed the bill on the ground that
identity of suffrage would lead to electoral districts. " You
would at once have electoral districts," said the noble
viscount, " and you would soon have equal ones." (Hear.)
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer also said a great
many excellent things against identity of suffrage. The
only thing in fact in which the right hon. gentleman was
wrong was when he said that he could never get himself to
propose such a measure. (Laughter.) On that debate he
(Mr. Herbert) took exactly the same objection which he felt
now, namely, that it would destroy what constituted the
great value of the Reform Bill of 1832, namely, that it ad-
mitted great variety in our representation. The bill was that
year thrown out by 192 votes against 179. (Hear.) In the fol-
lowing year (1858) the hon. gentleman, feeling the force of
these arguments, actually altered his bill. It was, in fact, a
perfectly new measure; for it was no longer a bill assimi-
late the county to the borough franchise, but " a bill to amend
the county franchise," and the qualification was left blank
to be filled up in committee. It was no doubt read a second
time; but though that was as early as the 20th of June, and
there were plenty of Wednesdays yet to come the hon. gentle-
man never went into committee with his measure, because he
well knew that, with the existing tone and temper of the
house, he should not be able to carry it through that ordeal.
(Hear.) The present bill was one that moderately extended
the borough and largely extended the county franchise.
Those who wish further to extend the borough franchise
had that night been described by a great authority as " de-
magogic adventurers." For his own part he (Mr. Herbert)
desired to see nothing better than a Reform Bill laid on the
table by those two
dxtfhorde right demagogic adventurers"—the right
hon. gentleman themem
hon.orthe University of othCoammberimhodgre
(Mr. Walpolo), an
for the county of Oxford
Herbert) altogether dise(us:a Henley). (Cheers.) He (Mr.
against anundue extension of
forwartdhet great merit of unifor-
mityuniformitY wereeelnueryo
as it had been put
-finight, as a safe-
guard
thatsuffrage. w he
hon. gentleman (Sir E. Lytton) said Tonhceerlygohut
iiinwst7rtetsafe ag-ams t
had attained this magic £lO suffrage, y
theso who sought to Americanise
unthiefoormit:oifens of this
never heard
country. But whence came this
Was it not a foreign importation The right honsugentlee-f
rhanemscalledvethr that
hadetnh,oshenwthtohaatttahcoked
de-
plorable rubbish" talked by clever men before. But this
"rubbish" had been the constitution for 400 years, and it
had been the talk of. the greatest statesmen and the most
far-seeing philosophers the country had ever produced.
(Cheers.) Such language ought rightfully to belong to the
Secretary of State for India, who had not the right hon. ba-
ronet's traditional reverence for the English constitution._
whose mind was less poetical and more philosophic.
(Laughter.) For his own part, he was not a democratic re-
former; but he did want a Reform Bill which would give
the country a prospect of stability.
(Cheers.) He did not
lord
(Lord to get a bill like the present, which the noble
(Lord Stanley) said was made to pass, but he wanted a bill
that would last. (Cheers.) He would say, with all respect
that he had no sympathy with the opinions of his hon.
friends behind him, as he had no sympathy for the bill
brought in by the right hon. gentleman. He occupied a
middle position, which he believed the great mass of hon.
members and of the country also held. He was attached to
our old institutions, which he looked upon as a sacred tra-
dition—a tradition which we were bound to maintain, and
to transmit, enlarged and improved, but still unimpaired, to
our posterity. (Cheers.) These were the sentiments which
he cherished, and he should not be deterred from expressing
them, even by the risk of causing a temporary annoyance to
his friends around him. (Hoar, hear.) The bill he did not
consider at all met the requirements of the case; and it more-
over, contained features on, which he looked with alarm. It

might, in fact, have come out of one of the pigeon holes of
the Abbe Sieze, who produced constitutions on paper fas-
ter than they could take them down. Inthe first place there i
was the mode n which it dealt with the borough freeholders.
The noble lord (Lord Stanley) said that a man who had
only one vote would not be disfranchised—he would merely
be transposed from the county to the town, which he said
would be no hardship. Nay, the noble lord argued that it
would be a positive advantage to him, for his 'vote being a
larger aliquot of a borough than a county constituency,
would have a larger value in the town than it had formerly
had in the county. He hoped the noble lord did not mean
that the voter would get a larger market price for it. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) The noble lord contended that it would
make no difference whether a man voted in the town or in
the county, but he (Mr. S. Herbert) must confess that his
own experience had led him to a directlydifferent conclusion.
An observation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson), viz.,
that while the 40s. freeholders were the most independent of
voters in the counties they would be the most dependent in
towns, had excited a laugh ; but the reason of what the
hon. gentleman had stated was plain. The employer of a
40s. freeholder had generally a vote in the borough and not
in the county. His vanity, or what was called his amour
propre, was involved in carrying his own man, and he would
naturally expect his servants to vote with him. But he did
not care about the county elections, and therefore he would
say to his men, "Oh as to the county you may do as you
like." And they did do as they liked. (Hear.) Besides, there
was something in the., county franchise which seemed to
elevate the poorest voter, and hence they clung to it with
the greatest tenacity. They would say, " The Duke of De-
vonshire or the Duke of Bedford is a landowner,and so am I."
It had been argued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
with great abilitythat if representation were given according
to numbers London would equal Scotland, and a shudder
ran through the house at the statement. (A laugh.) This
was not because the house objected to the metropolitan
members, many of whom were - highly cultivated gentle-
men, but because they objected to the numerical principle.
The metropolitan members could not be accused of always
voting on the same side ; for if ever they were unanimous
it was upon some question of rating. (Laughter.) There
were 16 boroughs in the kingdom having each a population
of above 100,000, and they were all represented. There
were 17 boroughs of between 50,000 and 100,000, and they
were all represented; and there were 51 boroughs between
16,000 and 50,000, and every borough of that size was re-
presented. Those boroughs represented themselves alone,
and nothing else. Then came 46 boroughs between 8,000
and 16,000 ; and 29 of the same size were unrepresented.
There were 55 boroughs of between 2,000 and 8,000; and
there were 232 boroughs of the same size which had no
member. These smaller boroughs stood upon a distinc-
tion, which they undisputably enjoyed, of sending to Par-
liament men of cultivated minds, men not connected with
trades, but with the professions, and who trained them-
selves to habits of business, and to leading a great popular
assembly. These were the men to whom all looked when
oppositions wanted leaders • and these were the men whom
a summary disfranchisement of small boroughs would with-
draw at once from the service of the country. These small
boroughs were of enormous use in that house. (Hear.)
Elections, polls, and so on were only means to an end. The
first object was to get the best men in that house ' • the next
was to satisfy the people by giving them the franchise.
They might do both things, and the complaint against this
bill was that it did but one. The new principle of uniformity
was recommended only by its symmetry. But did anyone
imagine that the borough franchise could be retained more
than a few years at £lO. (Hear, hear.) It was said by Sir
James Macintosh that a variety of suffrage was the first
principle of the constitution. He should always look with
horror on a system which should lead to a division of classes
in that house, and put Birmingham on one side and Shrop-
shire and other counties on the other. (Hear, hear.) The
moment the country gentlemen were pitted against the de-
magogues, from that moment the constitution was over-
thrown. (Hear, hear.) Another point of great importance
in the dissuasion was this. It was said the motion of Lord
J. Russell was brought forward with party objects. He had
no party motive, but wished to get to some substantive
Fint—something like that sketched out by Mr. Henley.
lew., hear.) The nearer he could get to that the better.
The Government seemed to be enamoured of this new prin-
ciple of uniformity; but he preferred to stand on the old
paths. The hon. member for Stroud recommended that
they should discuss the bill in committee. He (Mr. Her-
bert) preferred to vote for the amendment rather than
throw out the bill on the second reading. He thought the
bill a bad one ; he wished to destroy it, and get a better and
if possible induce the Government to bring in a better.
(Hear, hear.) In answer to the recommendation that the
bill should be dealt with in committee, he would observe,
that the Cabinet itself was thought too numerous to frame
a Reform Bill, and a committee was appointed for the pur-
pose. (Hear, hear.) He wanted the bill completely altered,
he wanted to gut it—to take the inside out—(laughter)--
and if they wanted to put a house through that process the
original artist was sent for. He would not subject the Go-
vernment to such an indignity as having the bill altered in
committee, but would ask them to' withdraw their bill and
bring in another constructed on simpler principles and
more comprehensive in its details. (Hear, hear.) He la-
mented that this question had been introduced by a con-
servative Government; but having done so they ought to
carry the measure through. The discrepancies of opinion
on the opposition benches showed that they had no party
object. If the Government would introduce such a bill as
he had indicated it should receive his warmest support.
Though the resolution might in practice destroy the bill, it
would not prevent the Government from pursuing this
course. Let them look upon the resolution as an indication
of what the house objected to, and what it wanted. The
great majority thought it more important than a change of
Ministry that this great question should be settled. (Cheers.)
He thought little of changes of Ministry, but even were
such the result, they ought to put up with the inconve-
nience for the sake of the object aimed at. A hundred years
hence nobody would ask who was Prime Minister in 1859,
but what were the principles of the constitution underwhich
we lived ; and these he hoped would be handed down to our
posterity. (Hear, hear.) On these grounds he should
support the resolution.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—If I were to say of the
amendment of the noble lord the member for the City of
London that it tends to confuse and embarrass the house as
to the issue upon which it is to decide, I should perhaps
only be saying that that amendment accomplishes the ob-
ject for which it was designed—(hear, hear)—but that it
has this effect a more signal proof could not be given than
the speech of the right hon. gentleman who has just sat
down. (Hear.) If the question which you, sir, have put
from the chair means anything, it means this—that the
House of Commons thinks it more expedient to pass by and
supersede the question of the second reading of this bill in
order to affirm an abstract resolution upon two isolated pro-
visions of the measure. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman is
going to vote for the amendment, but what has been his argu-
ment ? We have heard from him a very interesting treatise
—everything which falls from the right hon. gentleman is
interesting—upon the precise manner in which you ought
to reply to an invitation to a ballot dinner, upon the still
stronger terms in which you ought to refuse to hear High
Mass, upon the principles of party government, upon the
history of the bill of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. L.
King), upon the principle of uniformity which he says is
contained in this bill, and upon the advantages which he
thinks are to be derived from the existence of small
boroughs; but not until the close of the speech of the right
hon. gentleman did we hear one single argument why all
this might not have been said, and said just as well, upon
the second reading of the bill, or why the ordinary forms of
the house should in this case be departed from. (Hear,
hear.) And then, when we come at last to know why the
right hon. gentleman was about to vote for the amendment
what was his reason? He wishes to reject the bill, and he
wishes to inform the country at large of the grounds upon
which he rejects it. The right honourable gentleman,who
throughout his speech deprecated the departure from estab-
lished principles, is about to do that for which no single
precedent. can be found in our Parliamentary history—
viz., to vote in such a way as not only to reject the bill,
but to show by the motion made the reasons for rejecting
it. (Hear, hear.) But that is not the strangest part, be-
cause the chief objection of the right hon. gentleman is to
the principle of uniformity. He therefore wishes to inform
the country that it is upon that principle that the bill is re-
jected. But does the amendment of the noble lord contain
one word about the principle of uniformity ? Certainly
not. (Cheers.) Therefore. the right hon. gentleman comes
to the conclusion that, in order to inform the'country of
the principle upon which he opposes this bill, he will vote
for an amendment that is entirely silent with regard to that
principle. (Hear.) I desire, if the house will allow me, to
consider the propositions contained in the amendment of the
noble lord, passing by for the present the motives which
may or may not have led to its introduction. That amend-
ment naturally divides itself into two parts—that which re-
lates to the question of the freehold, and that which refers
to the lowering of the franchise in boroughs. As to the
firsts the amendment of the noble lord denies that it is just
or politic to deal with it as proposed in this bill. .We may
consider the question of justice first, because if it be unjust
I will admit that it certainly cannot be politic. I disembar-
rass the matter for the present of what may be called vested
rights, or the feelings of existing freeholders; and in the first
place I ask the house this question—where is it natural and
just that a vote for a freehold situated in a borough should
be given ? What is the reason that you have boroughs re-
turning members separrate from counties ? Why is it
that a borough has an interest to be represented separate
from that of the county. (Hear, hear.) Of what does the
interest of the borough consist ? It consists, first, of the
personal interests of the inhabitants, and, secondly, of thein-
terest of property in the borough. And if it consist in part
of the interest of property in the borough, I want to know
why freehold property is abstractedly to be dealt with on a
principle different from that applied to any other propeoty
in the borough. Suppose I possess a freehold in the town
of Liverpool and live in London. So far as that property
is concbrned are my sympathies and interests involved in
the welfare of Liverpool or in the welfare of the county of
Lancaster at large ? (Hear, hear.) In every question of
imperial legislation which may affect Liverpool that free-
hold must be more or less interested. It is in questions
which affect Liverpool, and which the members for Liver-
pool will have to consider as affecting their town, that the
freeholders of Liverpool are interested. This may be fami-
liarly illustrated by what occurred in this house not many
years ago, A measure was introduced affecting the local
dues of Liverpool. I need not argue the merits of the ques-
tion, but if the bill had been carried its effect would have
been seriously to add to the burdens on propertyin Liverpool
inferseetehaol in freeholds
ta
t question
the withdrawal of the local dues. What was the other
town that was most interested in that question ? It was the
town of Manchester. The property in both these towns,
thet interested
bath these
w, a
sw e rdee
bma
toe
dr e
in or
this
house. Yet the same county members represented the
two boroughs, and it was the members for the boroughs
by whom, and necessarily
by whom, the whole contest
jetqtuhe:tbio:rouugphonshthouledsamvotee subject—What
with regard to this bill was conducted. (Hear, hear.) I
as
were proposed that either a freeholder
thisowrokonhiccu hp ei
esfraiulhthrserid
from for the borough in respect of his freehold or occupation out-
side?
(Hear, hear.) We should all recoil the propo-
sition as one which was unjust and unnatural; but I want
to know what difference there is between these two cases.
Is it more unnatural and more uujuattliat you *Aid allow