The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-, APRIL 28. 1866.

that ought to exist ? (Cheers.) Tho hon. member for
Rochdale—
Mr. BRIGHT dissented.

Mr. DISRAELI—WeII, he may be, or some of the lion.
member's friends may be, standing for Rochdale, and per-
haps not very high on the poll, but sufficiently so to make
them feel a little anxious about three o'clock, and what
would they say if a stalwart body of Yorkshire or Lanca-
shire farmers came riding into Rochdale town, and on the
faith of some old franchise in the county, prefer voting for
Rochdale town instead of voting for the county? (Cheers.)
Wo should soon hear from the hon. gentleman the member
for Birmingham a new argument for parliamentary reform
to put an end to such an injustice. (Loud cheers.) All the
boroughs is the north, as a general rule, are in this condi-
tion. All the boroughs of Lancashire, the West Riding,
the counties of Durham and Chester are in the same con-
dition. (Hear, hear.) It is not easy to put precise informa-
tion before the house, because we have not got authentic
returns, but that is the thing of which I complain. (Cheers.)
But we have it every now and then in our power to illus-
trate the case. I will take the case of the town of Halifax,
which has a population within its parliamentary borough
of 38,000. Now we have there, fortunately, a more recent
political creation than the parliamentary boundary, the
municipal franchise, and we have a return of the muni-
cipal population within the boundary, and we find that
whereas the population is 38,000 within the parliamentary
boundary there are 60,000 within the municipal
borough—(cheers)—and the consequence will be that
there will be 20,000 of that population who are to be
county voters. (Cheers.) I want to know if that is a state
of affairs which is ;to bs tolerated when you have before
you a scheme of parliamentary reform—(hear)—which cer-
tainly a fortnight ago was not a complete and conclusive
one ? (Cheers.) This state of things is not peculiar to the
north of England. I will now take the borough of Bir-
mingham, which the hon. gentleman certainly represents,
and what is the state of affairs there ? Why, it is much
more monstrous than that of the northern boroughs to
which I have alluded. (Hear.) The population beyond
the parliamentary borough of Birmingham—and when you
walk along the streets you cannot see a line of demarca-
tion with regard to the boundary, but you eee, like London
and Westminster, a homogeneous community, with the
same feelings and interests, but the population beyond the
parliamentary boundary is immense. In the neighbourhood
of Aston alone, taken from a person whose name cannot
be questioned, because he has the means officially of mak-
ing the return, there are 2,000 persons who could qualify
under the £lO clause, but who do not vote for the borough
of Birmingham, which they ought to do. (Cheers.) But he
says that 1,400 of them will immediately qualify under this
bill, if it passes, as county voters. (Cheers.) Is this, I again
ask, a state of affairs which ought to be permitted ? And
if you pass this bill with all these anomalies left mare-
moved, what, I ask, will be the condition of the county
constituency ? (Loud cheers.) I take it there may be indi-
viduals in this house—l will not dwell on their eccentric
opinion—(laughter)—but take it for granted that a great
many of the members of this house who wish to retain
the legitimate influence of land in the interests of England
as one of the best securities of public liberty, and the only
security for local government. (Cheers.) I take it, I say,
that that is the feeling of both sides of the house ; but can
you do this if you make this great change in this imper-
fect manner—(cheers)—and do not ask, as the amendment
does, to have before you a complete scheme ? (Hear.)
I know it will be said by the right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade that while he admits this
condition of affairs, and that it ought to be remedied
that Lord Derby did not bring forward a remedy for it. In
the first place, that is not au argument, but only a captious
remark. (Cheers and laughter.) If there be a great evil,
and if I have shown that there is one and it is permitted,
it is not the slightest argument to say that Lord Derby,
placed in a similar position, did not remedy it. If they
take him as their model, and avow that their Government
is established on the principle of imitating Lord Derby,
then there world be something in the remark—(hear)--
but it is not the case, and, therefore, it is no argument
whatever. (Cheers.) But is it true that Lord Derby neg-
lected this question ? (Hear, hear.) Is it not true, on the
other hand, that Lord Derby, in the bill which I had the
honour of introducing into this house on his behalf, pro-
posed to enact that the day that hill passed there should
be a compulsory revision of all the boundaries of the Par-
liamentary boroughs ? (Loud cheers.) And was not that
plan combined with an arrangement which would have
rendered it morally certain that it would have passed
with facility and promptitude (cheers)—because the great
difficulty in passing a boundary bill hon. gentlemen
well know, or have heard, when the bill of 1832 passed
was settling the boundaries. It was a constant source of
misrepresentation and imputation, of injustice and con-up-
tion, because the boundary commissioners under the reform
bill of 1832 were appointed by the Government; but Lord
Derby, profiting by his experience, took their appointment
from the Government and gave the duty to the enclosure
commissioners. (Cheers.) And I might add that the late
Mr. Ellice, who m as a great partisan and admirer of Lord
Derby's bill, though be voted against it (laughter)—said
that that part of the bill was so perfect that we had solved
a great difficulty, and he defied any one to make a party
question out of the decisions as to the allotments by the
enclosure commissioners. And he and every person did
approve entirely of that plan ; but we have now nothing
personal in respect of it. (Hear, hear.) I have asked the
house to consider the effects of this immense population
that has spread beyond the parliamentary boroughs upon
the county constituencies, if some measure is not brought
in by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) And I have
shown you that from these millions an immense population
may be enfranchised, under this bill, which will be a county
constituency, yet have no sympathy whatever with the
counties. (Cheers.) I do not for a moment pretend that
there is any more political principle in the figure of £4O in
the counties any more than there is in the figures of £lO
in boroughs, but they have the advantage of having been
settled and that some degree of prescription has gathered
round them. But you disturb the settlement of 1832, and
I am, therefore, ready to consider the revision of the
county franchise. And I say there is a principle in the
county franchise when you deal with it, and the prin-
ciple is this—it must be a county franchise—(hear,
hem)—it must be a suffrage exercised by those who
have a natural relation with the chief property and in-
dustry of the county. (Cheers.) They must be and ought
to be members of the same community, and not strangers,
whose thoughts, feelings, interests, capital, and labour are
employed and occupied in another industry. (Cheers.) That
is the principle I contended for. (Hear, hear.) I have
shown what must be the effect on the county constituencies
if thousands, and for aught I know hundreds of thousands
whom this great population will produce under this bill in
the revision of the constituency. I now ask the house to
consider what will be the effect oil the county constituencies
of the population of those boroughs which are not parlia-
mentary boroughs. (Hear.) That is the next step in consi-
dering the county constituencies. The house knows very
well that in almost every county in England there are towns
exceeding 5,000 population that are not represented—are
strictly agricultural towns, but have a keen sympathy with
the property and industry of the counties in which theyare
situated; no apprehension need be felt as to the general
population possessing votes under this bill because there is
a community of interest and feeling between them, and they
would, no doubt, vote for those men who best represented
their interests. But where large towns spring up with an
interest adverse to the counties, if those persons are allowed
suddenly to exercise the franchise in a community with
which they have little sympathy and interest great injustice
will be done. (Hear, hear.) I ask you, therefore, to support
the legitimate influence of the land. (Cheers.) In the bill
of 1859, which was referred to by the hon. member for
Birmingham the other night, there was an allotment of
seats which he spoke of with some contempt, though he
was obliged to admit the allotment was most efficient.
(Hear, hear.) It was of this character, that there was not
a single unrepresented town of 20,000 inhabitants that was
not provided for by representation, and scarcely one of
15,000 that was unrepresented. That would greatly relieve
the effect the bill would have had upon the county consti-
tuencies. (Hear, hear.) What will be the effect on unre-
presented towns by the reduction of the franchise on the
county constituencies the Government tell ns we must wait
till we see their bill for the re-distribution of seats. (Hear,
hear.) My first and principal answer to the Government
on hwhat security have we
if we onshe of this bill to-night
that
subsequentee
woulds
onaturallyn dmeasures be,reading
which
t a consent subjectt
nt
t o t the
the amend-
ment calls for, and whi4h all now acknowledge
to be absolutely necessary, will be passed also ? No speech
that we have heard has met that argument; even the new
device—the pari passu devisee—of which we have heard so
much, does not in the slightest degree meet it, because you
cannot understand the action of this measure without hav-
ing the whole scheme before you, and, therefore, you ought
not to be asked to approve of the principle. But you may
go on with the pari passu principle—you may pass this bill
by one step, and by another the other may be thrown out
You may pass the Franchise Bill on Monday, and on Thurs-
day the Seats Bill may be thrown out. (Cheers.) But I
will not insist on that primary objection, because it hasbeen
treated on so much ; but it was necessary to my argument
that I should briefly refer to it. There are on this subject
other objections which appear to me to be worthy of the
gravest consideration of this house. The Government say
"-We are going to produce a Seats Bill which will meet all
the objoctisns with reference to the population of the unre-
presented towns." Well, my question is, What are you going
to do with the counties? You will find when you pursue
that subject, and you will find that if you proceed with
this bill without having the scheme of the Government
with regard to the distribution of seats before you, it will
be impossible, and I will prove it, for you to come to any
sensible and satisfactory decision of the amount of what the
county franchise should be. (Cheers.) But I want to know
first what security we have at this moment that any bill for
the distribution of seats will be brought forward at all, be-
cause the other night the President of the Board of-Trade
whom I did not intend to interrupt the other night when
I spoke across the table —told the house that on this most
important subject we have the engagement of the Prime
Minister. Wo have no engagement of the Prime Minister
—that can only be given by the Prime Minister in his
place in Parliament or by some document placed on the
table of the house. But the Prime Minister has made no

speech in his place in Parliament, nor has any document
been laid on this table which gives us any information.
(Cheers.) The right hen. gentleman alluded to a speech
that bad been made at a private meeting of the followers
of the Government—and which was printed in certain
newspapers—in order to influence their votes. Therefore
it was necessary for me to ask what engagement he made,
and the right hon. gentleman replied that the engagement
was an engagement given by Lord Russell at a private
meeting, which has now been publicly recognised in this
house, and the right hon. gentleman said that engagement
was " to lay on the table of the house a bill that will show
the intention of the Government with regard to the dis-
tribution of seats, and to proceed with that bill with a
view to carry out as soon as circumstances shall permit."
This is a very dangerous phrase, and it will show you that
it was totally impossible for us to be asked to fix the
amount of the county franchise until we have in full detail
before us a bill for the distribution of seats. It is abso-
lutely necessary that the house should carry in their minds
—and know they have it - the comparative claims to repro-
sentation of laud and of the boroughs. lam sure the house
will recollect it, but it is in round numbers 9,350,000
the population in the boroughs, against 11,400,000 in the
counties, 514,000 electors in the boroughs against 501,000
in the counties, X 33,000,000 of rateable property in
boroughs, against .£60,000,000 in the counties; but you must
bear in mind—l will put it before you very shortly, the most
perfect and pregnant calculation on a subject of this kind
that was I believe ever made. I propose for a moment that
the house should consider this proposition to transfer to
counties the representation of all boroughs under 500 elec-
tors. Let us see what that is —there are 87—and see what
the result would be of transferring to counties all boroughs
under 500 electors, being 87 seats. It would be necessary,
of course, to deduct this population from the boroughs and
add it to the counties. The result would be, the population
would then be a little under 9,000,000, and the population
of the counties a little under 12,000,000 ; the electors of the
boroughs 492,000 against 523,000 electors in the counties.
The rateable value of the boroughs would be about
X 34,000,000, against £59,500,000 in the counties. None of
these great quantities much change, but instead of the
boroughs having 334 members, and the counties 162, the
boroughs would have 247 members, and the counties 249 ;
therefore, by disenfranchising 87 boroughs and 500 elec-
tors, and giving them all to the counties, you still would
not entirely remedy the balance. (Cheers.) It is necessary
the house should bear in mind that striking instance of the
singular inequality there is in the relative representation of
the counties and boroughs. Well, sir, then under these
circumstances 1 address to the Government the question—
what aro you going to do with the counties? You are going
to:increase representation in the boroughs—you are going to
transfer the representation of small boroughs to larger
boroughs in counties that are not represented, and so far
you relieve the county constituencies from the possible
danger of being absorbed in a great degree by the popula-
tion of those towns; but at the same time I ask what are
you going to do in the counties ? (Hear, hear.) Now, look
here : are you, in the first place, going to add a great
many members to counties and a great many or more mem-
bers to the counties' and some to the large towns ? On what
principle are you going to act ? Do you mean to establish
plurality of representation when you shrink from plurality
of voting in your constituent body ? (Hear.) Do you mean
to say that members are to come here to represent numbers
instead of opinions ? I ask this because on your determina-
tion of these points and your conduct our decision as to the
amount of county franchise entirely depends. Or have you
found eut—as they have found out before you—and no
doubt Lord Russell, in his long studies and numerous ex-
periments has found out—have you found out that that
plan would be extremely inconvenient and impossible ;
that it would not faithfully represent the country, and the
constituencies would find greater difficulty than they now
do in getting members? Would you have recourse then
to a system of further division of the counties and the Go-
vernment boroughs and cities ? Well, we want a decision
on that point, because on that point depends the judgment
that we can arrive at as to the amount of the county con-
stituencies. I will give an instance. Take the county of
Middlesex—half is a rural community and the rest a very
flourishing suburban county, it is not large but rich ; if you
give it four members by adding two, you will have four
suburban members with your £l4 franchise ; but if on the
other hand you divide the county, and give two members
to the rural population and two to the suburban, then it is
possible that the £l4 franchise will give us two good bo-
rough members and two excellent county members. (Hear.)
Therefore I contend that unless we have the whole scheme
before us it is utterly impossible to arrive at any conclusion
as to the amount of the county franchise, therefore I ask
what can be more rational than the amendment of the
noble lord ? If it be true there are to be futher measures
let us have them all, for without them we cannot come to
a decision. I cannot conceive what argument can be
urged against this claim. We have a right to ask the
Government, generally speaking, what is theplan on which
they mean to proceed with regard to the disposition of
seats ? At present, not a word has yet been said on the
subject by the Government ; but those who have avowedly
a very great influence with the Government have made
speeches and written on the subject, and if we are to take
those speeches as intimations of what the Government in-
tends to do, to my mind the course they are going to pur-
sue is most unjust and injurious to the landed interest—.
that is to say, to England, because I say the legitimate in-
terest of the land is the interest of England. Nothing is
more simple than the mode, according to the last state-
ment of the distribution of seats. I have always considered
the distribution of seats was one of the deepest, one of the
profoundest, and one of the most difficult subjects to which
a statesman could apply himself. He must have general
general principles to guide him, est modes in rebus. He
cannot apply them with extreme severity. He must apply
them with great forbearance, and consideration of various
interests of the country, and any one who has to deal with
the subject knows that it is one in which forbearance and
temper and considerable knowledge of the complicated in-
terests of the country is required. But this is not the opi-
nion of those who seem to have corresponding influence on
this question—because the last thing I have seen or heard
is that iu the North of England there is a flourishing borough
with a population of 100,000, doing what is called a roar-
ing trade, which hes two members in this house. Then
there is a small borough in the south, with a population of
5,000 or 10,000. It is quite asleep, with merely a country
market. Now can there be anything more anomalous, that
this great borough of the north, with its groat population,
its great industry, should be represented in the house by
two members in the same manner as this little borough in
the south ? The thing is utterly indefensible, and if 1 were
in the Music-hall of Birmingham, it might not be difficult
for me to :produce very great effect by disclaiming it.
There is nothing so easy as to disfranchise the borough in
tho south. Yes ; but the moment you do that there is a new
issue arising. That issue is no longer between the borough
in the north and the borough in the south, but the issue is
between the borough in the north and a district in the
south, equal in population and property, but which is im-
perfectly, inadequately represented. I will take the great
county of Kent, of West Kent. The population at this
moment is about half a million. There are several flourish-
ing boroughs and towns in this county—flourishing
boroughs, four towns I think—and their aggregate popula-
tion exceeds 100,000. They are represented by eight mem-
bers, while the county itself is represented by only two
members —very capital members I admit--but still only two.
Well, Kent says, there is a borough in the south of Eng-
land, close to us, in the next county, which is to be dis-
franchised, and its members given to a borough in the north
of England, because it has a great trade, and has 100,000
inhabitants. But surely the 400,000 men of Kent ought to
be considered. It is a very wealthy, a very progressive,
and a very proud county ; and they say, very naturally, if
the borough in the south is to be disfranchised why give the
members to the north ? Why not give more representa-
tives to the county of Kent ? (Hear, hear.) And, there-
fore, sir, it is not so simple an issue as those who are in
favour of these sweeping changes would tell us. I think
the argument is unanswerable. It is not to be answered
by a statement I read to-day, made by a member of the
house at a public meeting, that the superiority of population
and property in the north would no longer admit the pre-
sent state of representation of boroughs to remain. 1 think
it is most unwise to have these constant comparisons be-
tween the north and the south. (Hear, hear.) if so, we shall
have a state of things like that in America. We shall have
secession at last, or, as Mr. Canning said, "bring back the
Heptarchy." (Hear, hoar.) I do not want to make compari-
sons between the north and south. Whatever you do with
your representation a wise statesman would take care that
the representation be spread over the country. (Hear, hear.)
But as these statements are made and this sort of rantipole
rhetoric prevails, I must deny that the north of England
has a superiority over the south in population and pro-
perty. (Hear, hear.) It is not true. Taking the tradi-
tional and acknowledged line of demarcation—namely,
the River Trent —the population and property of the
south are equal and superior to the population and property
of the north. I have heard an answer to this—that fortu-
nately for the south it includes the metropolis.
Mr. BRIGHT—Hear, hear.

Mr. DISRAELI—Hear, hear? Is that any reason why
the population, the intelligence, and the property of the
metropolis should not prefer their claim before those now
boroughs? (Hear, hear.) Suppose I were to say to the hon.
member for Birmingham, who cheered me, " You are always
speaking of the great predominance of population and pro-
perty and industry of the north, but you know that if you
take off from the north the West Riding of Yorkshire and
South Lancashire, you in the north will not go for much."
This plan, therefore, of disfranchising the boraughs in tho
south to enfranchise boroughs in the north will not stand a
moment's consideration. The problem is a very difficult ono
and must be approached with more calmness and with more
comprehensive views. (Hear, hear.) I would stop for a
moment to say that I am not one of those who think that
a great system of parliamentary reform would lead to the
destruction of the country. I never believed that it would.
(Hear, hear.) I have too much confidence in the country.
(Hear, hear.) I think there is sense and spirit and creative
power in this kingdom to form a government, but I think
it would end in the destruction of parliament. (Hear, hear.)
You might get rid of the House of Commons. I hope you
will not destroy England; but you will get rid of the House
of Commons. Suppose the Government make up their minds
to-night, as for anything I know they may do, to meet the

case on a great scale, and astonish the house with a -new
scheme founded on their statistics. Suppose they say "we
are prepared to disfranchise those 87 boroughs which have
not 500 electors; we cannot promise to give all the members
to the land, notwithstanding it is entitled to them, but look-
ing at the matter as statesmen, we will endeavour to esta-
blish a fair balance of the constitution, and wo will as far as
possible represent population and property blended, and at
the same time we will now and then allot representatives to
some distinctive interest." Suppose they do that, what would
happen? If the house will permit me I will tell them. This
would probably occur first. I do not suppose that you will
have a Parliament in the confidence of the country. You
will have a great Parliament. If you adopted electoral dis-
tricts to-morrow you would have a great Parliament owing
to the character of the individuals, the great progress, and
great interests, and the great landlords, and the great
manufacturers and some merchants it would include. But,
after a short time, you will find you do not have the hold
over the executive pctiver as you have over the old system.
The want of variety in the elements of the house will cause
that. Well, in proportion as your command over the ex-
ecutive recedes, your great proprietors and your great
manufacturers would cease to belong to a house of which
tThhneoinfluence and the importance proportionately
the story will be that the House of Commons is not
what it was, and then you must extend the franchise to
manhood or to universal suffrage, and you will not advance
loseyou your
ccoams e You
m.
andw overi l 1
thhaevea executive.
oxw h. c h
That) will entirely
t
always happensevery m thea considersm oment youhim
sheave universal suffrage ;
further,good
as
any other. Well, then, whentheHolufse mas
o ns is en-
tirely without any asofbeciong
command over the executivem it will be
in the condition of Continentalthose popular assemblies
that we have seen rise up and
rience. There will be no superior education,
class, no evidence of historic lineagetin;
disappear n
o ar within our
perspec-
tiveexpe-
rience.
will
not
have any of the great families round which; you w
to rally when
liberty is assailed. There will be no eloquence, no learn
ing, no genius. But you will have a horde of 'selfish and
obscure mediocrities capable of nothing but mischief, and
that mischief devised and regulated by the raging dema-
gogue of the time. (Loud cheers.) Now, sir, I think I
fhaveranc shown,franchise
anddunert
Nwith
heads,
someas the reason,influence—if
in viewing the county
h
a reduction of the franchise—the influence of the popula-
tion in non-parliamentary boroughs. Unless we aro in-
formed precisely what the Government intend to do with
them, I think I have shown the house that it is impos..
Bible for us to form any opinion as to the expediency
of the change they propose, and of the appropriateness
of the sum which they fix for the amount of the
county franchise, unless we have before us further in-
formation. And what is the amendment of the noble lord?
It asks for that further information. And what surprises
me is that the amendment should have been resisted. I do
not see why it should not have been anticipated, and why
the Government should not have felt that they have taken
a false step. It is unfair to say that the opposition was the
cause of the Government taking this limited move. That
is not only unjust—that is not only ungenerous, but it is
not a well-founded charge. It is upon record that although
we disapproved of the measure of Lord Russell in 1860, it
was permitted to be read a second time, being a competitive
measure. Therefore our opposition is not open to that
charge, and I never can understand why the Chancellor of
the Exchequer should have taken the view which he has
taken in this case, and which he has avowel with so much
bitterness, relative to the amendment of the noble lord.
It is not only a rational amendment, but an amendment
expressed in language so clear, so simple, and so significant
that it cannot be misunderstood. I know there is nothing
so difficult as to draw up an amendment. But Lord Rus-
sell in his time was considered as able to devise a cunning
amendment as any man. And if the amendment of the
noble lord (Grosvenor) were a device, as some have pre-
tended it to be, instead of a reflex of his own mind—if it
were a cunning amendment, I can imagine that Earl Rus-
sell must have felt the sympathy of a master mind. But
what is the motion that would have suited the Chancellor
of the Exchequer ? The Opposition has been most unjustly
attacked. The house is not satisfied with the course
which you have taken. It is impossible for us not to op-
pose it. (Cheers.) If the noble lord had not come forward,
somebody on this side of the house must have done so.
(Ministerial cheers.) The principle of a complete measure
has been approved of, and we must have opposed the
measure for the reasons I have stated in reference to the
-county franchise. (Cheers.) I want to know, under these
circumstances, what motion the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would like. The other day I was looking over the
records of a celebrated assembly—l will not say so cele-
brated as the House of Commons, although no doubt men
as illustrious belonged to it—l allude to the records of a
period precisely similar to the present. It was at the time
the great Reform Bill was introduced in 1831. The country
was greatly agitated, and in that assembly the whole ques-
tion was brought forward and a motion was made on the
subject on May 16, 1831, at Wyatt's rooms. The Parlia-
mentary Reform Bill was brought before the Oxford Union,
and an ardent member (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) moved
the following resolution :—" That the present Ministry is
incompetent to carry on the Government of the country."
(Cheers and laughter.) That motion was supported—ono
remembers it almost with a sigh—by Mr. Sidney Herbert.
But there was a member who was not satisfied with Mr.
Hugessen's amendment, and on the next day he moved
the following rider :—" That the Ministry has unwisely in-
troduced and most unscrupulously forwarded a measure
which threatens not only to change the form of our Go-
vernment, but untimely to break up the very foundations
of social order, as well as materially to forward the views
of those who are pursuing these projects throughout the
civilised world." (Cheers and cries of " Oh, oh.") Now I
shall be willing to take that amendment instead of that of
the noble lord now before the house. It was moved by
Mr. Gladstone, of Christ Church. (Cheers and laughter.)
It only proves how difficult it is to devise an amendment
that will please everybody. But that is an amendment to
which I should be prepared fully to assent, because I
think the Ministry have "unwisely introduced, and most
unscrupulously forwarded," a measure of similar descrip-
tion. (Cheers.) I wish to speak strictly with reference
to the amendment of the noble lord ; but there is one point
connected with a clause in the bill on which I must
just touch. I mean the clause referring to leaseholds.
(Hear.) That alone would prevent us entertaining the
present bill, because it is a suggestion that has not been
made with a sufficient knowledge of the subject. It has
always been considered a great anomaly that free-
holders in towns should vote in counties on behalf of
freeholds that were in towns. At the tidle of the Re-
form Bill Lord Althorp was favourable to a provision
that all freeholders should vote where freeholds
were situated. (Hear, hear.) The Cabinet did not take
that line, but there was a stout resistance on the part of
certain Whig gentlemen (hear, hear). A great deal is to
be said in favour of the old franchise. We attempted to
deal with it, not merely because it was an anomaly, because
it had been terribly abused, but a number of split votes
had been made. I do not think it can be defended, but
still prescription was in its favour. Government have,
however, gone out of their way to aggravate the ano-
maly (hear). I think they must have done so without un-
derstanding what the effect would be, because my hon.
friend the member for Stamford told us the other night
that in a town in his district 5,000 voters would be added
under this qualification (hear). I wish now to speak of
the borough franchise.. The reduction of that franchise
is the real cause of the introductien of this bill, and the
wish to introduce the working classes to a fair share of the
franchise is the real motive for reducing the franchise. 1
speak on the subject without reserve, because it would not
be becoming a public man to speak on such a subject with
reserve (hear). I shall divest the question of all sentiment,
After the speeches of the right hon. baronet the member
for Herts, and of the noble lord the member for Stanford,
I need not say a word on that point. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer has heard quite enough of sentimentality,
and I have no wish to taunt him on that subject. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer asks if we are afraid of the
working men. I don't think that is the question before
us. I take it for granted that gentlemen on this side are
not afraid of working men or anything else. (Hear,
hear). The question is not whether we are afraid of
working men, but whether we can improve the consti-
tution (hear, hear). I take the constitution of England to
be not a phase, but a fact. I hold it to be founded on strict
principles, and to have definite aims (hear, hear). I hold
the constitution to be a monarchy limited by co-ordinate
bodies of subjects vested with privileges and duties
for their own defence and for the common good (hear,
hear.) They are called Estates of the Realm, and of these
is the Estate of the Commons, of which we are the represen-
tatives. Of course, the elements of the Commons must
vary and be modified according to the vicissitudes and
changes in a country like England. (Hear.) Nevertheless,
in the original scheme of the Plantagenets, which always
f
guided us, the Commons consisted of the proprietors
land, citizens, burgesses, and skilled artisans. ilhawicliasto
s,
preserve, to foster, e constitu-
but I wish to retain the original character
departo from the
and, if necessary, to increfaishe t
tion, to legislate in its spirit, and not to
le and necessary in genius of the original scheme. (Hear.,)
any estate of the Commons must
tbee P
represent an
with
(Ifear.) Our
any age like this, and they
"'serous enough to be inde-,
The elements of
constituent body should be ntounbte
resp
onsible. (Hear-) We,
pendent, and select enough
When we had
indiscriminate multitude,
enjoy, and also entrusted with duties
the representatives of the
but
7,
privileges which they e rat
anibuondlytYo'fdionennotenrde
in 1858-59 we d to discuss
a what
to consider this question
• of skilled artisans was in the Plantagenet
the proportion
which they must perform. (Hear, hear.)
scheme, and was after inquiry it represented to be about
of the eonstituent body. That did not
one-eighth seem to
us to be enough. (Hear.) We had to consider how that
number could be increased, and first whether that should
be done by a reduction of the borough franchise. We be-
lieved that to be a convenient arrangement, and we decided
never to hesitate taking the question whether we should
reduce the borough franchise, or whether we should exclude
the working classes from a fair share of electoral power.
We never hesitated on that point. (Hear.) We believed
that it was most dangerous
to reduce the borough franchise,
for we did not see, if this reduction were commenced,where
it was to end, and we thought that the reduction would
not obtain the entrance into the constitution of the very

people whom you desired to see admitted. But we en-
deavoured by other means to obtain this result for them,
and upon careful consideration we calculated that by these
other means, some of which have been adopted from us by
o
fst
oht
iritts7l
eGnheotvoet
body.rtno
se
eneci
efforts of
fu
ours,
d double
du
stleb edkoanmonloov ust uflolt,
rho
aaf
ttihnweoaucsloten -
tet
wish to dwell upon the subject. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the Secretary of State for th 6 Home De-
partment taunted me because in 1859 I had expressed a
willingness, on the part of the Government of Lord Derby,
to reduce, if necessary, the borough franchise ; but there
was no inconsistency in this expression of mine. Sir, in cur
appeal to the country we had to deal with a majority of
140 against us, and it was difficult to know what the effect
of the appeal was, to know where the majority were. We
were bound not to desert the subject, and after this appeal
to the country we were ready to consider it. But., sir, has
nothing happened since 1859 ? A period of seven years has
elapsed, which, with regard to this question, have been
the most remarkable in the history of England, for though
the working classes are prosperous, and in a state of con-
tentment, they have not been studying the principles on
which the representation ought to be founded ; on the con-
trary, during these seven years, while the country was thus
progressive in its prosperity, the intellect of England and
the thought of the most intelligent, and cultivated, and
west enlightened of the country, have most intently been
studying the principles of representation, and considering
those questions which hitherto have baffled statesmen.
(Hear.) Sir, Ido not give it as my opinion, but I give it
as my observation of what I believe to be the opinion of
the country-the opinion which regulates the affairs of this
country-that the opinion of the cultivated, the thoughtful,
the impartial, and the responsible, who view with favour,
and are desirous that the choicest members of the working
classes should form a part, and not an unimportant part, of
the state of the Commons, recoils from obtaining this en
by gross and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise.
(Cheers.) That I believe to be the real opinion of the country
and nobody has advanced that opinion more than the hon,
member for Westminster himself. I listened with surprise
to the speech made the other evening, because it was not at
all consistent with his writings, and with those opinions of
his which have so much influenced the convictions of
society. (Cheers.) I do not taunt him with anything he
wrote 25 years ago. I speak only of his present writings.
I will speak only of the last edition of his latest book-
tpwoorltiiittitiiecnnakl aftero events,v er ttheea ns
ud failurebiaefctote.fr 1859 -wri t t e n after that
here,
i eor erwel y,
hh
eienciacsouinsnes
,ifs tent with the Ahvel views eh
experi-
ment of Lord John Russell, and when his mind was full of
s vtandsato fI
tabundantrhead hon. opportunities
uisn
gentlemani teines-
vsfroiungreaohtfhiseeirn. from the purport of his speeches
reduction of theaa
from the most recent writingsdilscdr indiscriminate,
the
eta, theh,ooni
however,
nevoetran
gentleman.g ,ther illimitablethatHe
has, I know, been always in favour of an extension of the
franchise, but modified by conditions of a character which.
might have induced any gentleman on this side of the house
to accept his proposition. (Cheers.) There was certainly
to have been a representation of minorities, and in that
chapter he said I was a:blunderer for refusing it. (A laugh.)
I do not care what is said so that nothing is done that I
do not approve of. (A laugh.) Then, again, plurality of
voting is strongly enforced by the hon. gentleman ; but
we did not hear of the rights of minorities or of plurality
of voting in his speech the other night. (Cheers.) i
admit that the hon. member is not only ker an extended
but universal suffrage, although upon principles upon
which I am not sure I myself would not advocate universal
suffrage to-morrow. (Cheers and laughter.) The first
principle is one upon which I need not dwell - it is that the
suffrage should not be confined to the dark sex. (A laugh)
I have always agreed that with universal suffrage women
have as much right to vote as men ; and more than that,
women in possession of property in a country where they
can hold manorial rights, and sometimes elect a church-
warden. (Cheers.) But there is another condition,
and it is one to which I must call the attention of the
house, and particularly that of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. It is that no man shall exercise the
franchise who does not pay taxes. Gentlemen below
the gangway, I know, will say, " Oh, everybody
pays taxes-on tea, sugar, and tobacco." But that will not
do for the hon. gentleman. He says, "I do not mean indi-
rect taxation-indirect taxes are no security whatever for
the prudence of individuals or the fitness of them to have
the vote-I must have direct taxes." Well, that seemed to
me rather a difficulty- but I have immense confidence in
bpehisloolsvoepdh.erss-ta(a tesmlauengha)n-and
adniffiarcruolwty
rwa
coeu ld
of
men-they live in the limited sphere of experience, and you
do not get much out of thorn if they leave that sphere. But
a philosopher is an exuberant and an imaginative being,
and the hon. gentleman was ready with an admirable expe-
dient, although it was certainly more simple than original ;
and that was a poll-tax. (Hear, and laughter.) He said,
"We must have universal suffrage in this country, but
every man must pay direct taxation, and what I propose is
that there should be a poll-tax." Well, it is a great thing
to have a future, and we now know what will be the future
of this country when the philosophical Cabinet, which I
understand is intended, shall take its place on those
. benches. (Laughter.) We know that there are preparing
in the same armoury measures for imposing a poll-tax on
England, combined with compulsory education and com-
pulsory cleanliness. (Renewed laughter.) I say we shall
then be the admiration of cosmopolitan Europe, but this
I fear, that before nine months shall have passed away
the country will be in a state of insurrection. (Hear, and
continued laughter.) There is one point of primary import-
ance which ought not to be evaded in this debate. I have laid
down my views as to the position of the working classes
with reference to their share in the constituencies. I wish
them to take their position in the estate of the Commons and
to have an adequate share of that great and privileged body.
But what is the number of the working classes at present
enfranchised ? That is a subject on which the greatest
mystery exists, and on which the information that had been
given to the house seems to have startled.everybody, and
the ministers more than and other persons ; and yet it
appears to me that it is one on which we ought to
have accurate information before we can give any
opinion upon this bill. There is one very startling fact.
We used to be told when we had to deal with questions of
this kind-we used always to be told that before the Re-
form Bill all the freemen and scot and lot voters were
working men. That was always taken for granted; but
now it turns out that at no period before the Reform Bill
the majority of the freemen and the scot and lot voters
were working men. On the contrary they were to be found
in different classes of society, and many of them were
among the gentry. We have a return of the number of
freemen at the present moment. The freemen and scot
and lot voters now amount to 60,478, of whom 28,000
belong to the working classes, so that the working classes
form 45 per cent. of the whole body. That may be taken
as a very good estimate of the relative proportions of the
different classes at the time of the Reform Bill. There
were then 108,000 freemen and scot and lot voters, of whom
48,000 may be assumed to have belonged to the working
classes. At the time of the Reform Bill there were 174,000
£lO householders, and the working men appear to have
then amounted to 68,000, while they are now, accordingto
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 128,000, so that they
must have increased by 90 per cent. The result would be
en seem to
Buckingham s 01. tW h
il
that they would form one-third of the borough population.
One-third of the borough population is rather a fair pro-
portion, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says one-
fourth of the borough population, and if you take borough
and county population it is only one-seventh. I think this is
a fallacy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you want
to estimate the amount of the working class interest in a
borough you should calculate it by the borough constituency;
if you do not you get a great preponderance; andif you want
to calculate the number of the working lass you must take
both counties and boroughs. On that subject we have no
information. Did I say nothing ? (Hear, hear.) For I have
something here which is rather startling. The other night
the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to doubt the state-
ment that the working classes had any share in the
t county
.oint-
ment."
constituencies, and he spoke of the "fly in tlhloerp:.
,11.0 iEx-
chequertke:resnehsrriiviirinleac :s: ni
eansdns t one
to know the
go intolim,oorkstinin-
ment." I have a doubt whether the Chanecoie
of the highegs;
effect
tof wthase
Land Society.
oacniedtyth. aotnhethdisidicou
first I entered Parliament there
teresting details, but at thibsAel
r sa:wot there
area sixth of the population. (Hear,
man, and now they
hear.) But go to the
analysis
shire and Hertfordshirrothw.
of his township. He analyses
authority gives n
class, the middle class, and the lower middle
the upper
class, s
oeially belonging to the middle class; and then he
comes to
the working class, receiving weekly wages under
1
30s. lie says as thorough a knowledge of
the West Riding as of this township, and declares that at
this moment there are upwards of 15,000 working men, at
weekly wages, who possess the suffrage in the West Rid-
ing. (Cheers, and a single cry of "No" from the Ministe-
rial benches.) An hon, gentleman says " No ;" but he may
digest it at his leisure. But here is a man who says he is a
Conservative agent for South Derbyshire-I do not know
him -and he says that in South Derbyshire there are more
40s. freeholders than all the tenant-farmers and estate
holders put together. I think I have shown that the
condition of,the working classes in the West Riding is not
such as has been stated. (Hear, hear.) The question is,
have they or have they not their fair share of that estao
of which they are and caro to be members ? (Hear, hear.)
I say that you should inquire, that you should pause, that
you should obtain a great amount of information before you
make a change; but, above all, that you should act in
house
the
•
spirit of the English constitution. I think that this
should remain a House of Commons, and not merely a
house of the people, not the house of a mere indiscriminate
multitude, devoid of any definite idea, and not responsible
to society, having no duties and. no privileges. Are we
to consider this subject in the
spirit of the constitution, or
are we to meet it in the spirit of the American constitu-
tion ? (Hear.) I prefer to consider the question in the spirit
of our own constitution. I approve of American institu-
tions as they are adapted to the country in which they
exist. The point that I always
consider is, whether the
institutions of a country are adapted to the country where
they flourish. But Ido not think that because a certain
class of institutions may suit America, that therefore it
should suit England. If I could see a body of intelligent

menland
of
fn possession of an immense expanse of culturable I awl I will ask every man to consider whetlernwhoaatrsh2aBs
almost unlimited area, and where there might rise teen said can be proved ? During the lastie
onlyy
object
.prace of men of almost sovereign power, the question.( bills had been introduced into this house,
ot
the people, to
umi aht assume a very different aspect. But the fault of the of which was to ameliorate the condition
?ay-
It political system is not essehli.l, but aeeidental. reduee the hour., of labour, and to soetcue,,iinif: tthheemretahlem7
It is the turbulent and demoralised multitudes that disturb , meet of their wages in the curl
colliery ; to extend to all engage
save them from torture and oppression.
ingenioust he mine andne s the, iin
deinthien
lace-work and in the bleaching ground the successful ame-
lioration introduced into factories. Sir, those measures
" ' ,
were passed with much difficulty ; never was an opposi-
tion exorcised agaansta measure stronger, more resolute, or
moreo pitiless than that which was organised against
se to which I have referred. (Hear, hear). Who pro-
posedth
them ? There was not one of those measures that
was not proposed by the gentlemen who usually sit
upon these benches. (Cheers). Not one of those mea-
sures, but was passed by the united energies of the Tory
party. (Cheers). And who opposed them ?"' (Hear). The
Liberal Government of the day invariably. (Cheers.) But
they were opposed mainly and chiefly by the influence of
one individual especially, who offered, as he does on all oc-
casions when be opposes anything, an.opposition that is
formidable because it is able—who throws all his energy
and eloquence into the opposition to those claims, and who
for a time retarded their advancement ; but notwithstand-
ing his power of organisation— notwithstanding his energy
and eloquence—he was ultimately defeated, and that was
the hon. member for Birmingham. (Loud cheers.) Shall
I be told that these are merely the schemes of dreamy
philanthropists— that they are part of the maudling huma-
nitarianism that has been referred to in this house. I ap-
peal to the last 30 years. The hon. member for Westmin-
ster says we know nothing of the working classes, and the
hon. member for Lambeth, in hisfreakish speech—(a laugh)
—claimed a monopoly of that knowledge--(cheers)—but
all I know is that years ago when this struggle took place
my home was full day after day, and year after year of
these men. (Hear.) They raised a large fund in the manu-
facturing districts in order to pay for deputations to be
constantly in the metropolis, and constantly to be commu-
nicating with members of Parliament ; they communicated
with me, and they were always in my house. I made their
acquaintance to this degree, that when a great calamity
occurred a few years ago they wrote to me to recall their
names to my recollection. I think, then, I know them—l
think my noble friend near me, to whom they aro more
deeply indebted thanmyself, knows something of the work-
ing classes. (Cheers.) I remember when we passedthrough
the lobby of the old house, which many of you will remem-
ber, there they were sometimes with their wives and chil-
dren, and they would cling to you as you entered the House
of Commons. (Cheers.) I say they were not measures of a
pseudo-philanthropy—these men were persons in earnest;
they felt their interests, their future happiness, and their
prosperity depended on the success of those measures, they
felt an interest in them with a feeling which, perhaps, we
cannot experience on any subject. They felt their all was
at stake in these measures, and that we were their only
friends, but they feared the opposition of those who are
now the friends of the working classes. (Loud cheers.) Well,
sir, I hope I was justified in vindicating the great party
on this side of the house from those elaborate attacks made
to the people of England by one who is the representative
of the new opinions, who influences the policy of the Go-
vernment, whose opinions I confess in themselves I do not
believe the people of England would rally round. His elo-
quence is unrivalled, he, possesses great energy and rare
ability, and he places before the people of this country in
commanding language his own views, but they are to my
mind opposed to the interests and character of the English
people. (Loud cheers.) I believe that English and not Ame-
rican principles will predominate in this country (cheers),
but I confess there may be some danger. (Hear, hear.)
There is at least an excellence in the hon. gentleman which
all must acknowledge, and that is his candour. He never
conceals his opinions. He speaks with a frankness which
we do not find in the measures of Government. (Cheers.)
We
know what he wants and what he intends to do, and
though we might think it most dangerous, wo at least
have the opportunity of guarding against its evil. (Cheers.)
But where I think there is peril is here. The principles of
the hon. member for Birmingham are avowed—they are
dangerous, and consequently they may be evil, but we
may guard against them ; but the great and extreme
danger is this, that the hon. member for Birmingham has,
to use a phrase borrowed from one of our noblest pasttimes,
a confederate, and that confederate sits upon the Treasury
bench. (Loud cries of "No, no.") Now, sir, I venture to
put before the house to-night the principles upon which.
Parliamentary peform, if it is to proceed, ought to pro-
ceed, viz., on English and not on American principles.
(Loud cheers.) It ought to proceed on this ground, that
we are the House of Commons and not the house of the
people—(cheers) that we represent a great political order
in the State and not an indiscriminate multitude—(hear,
hear)—and that in settling what share the working classes
are to have in the State—which I do not begrudge them
—we ought to act in the spirit of the Constitution, and
form that estimate in its spirit. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. member for Birmingham candidly takes the opposite
view, but the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer goes down to Liverpool—the leader of this
house—the councillor of the Government—and what does
he do ? (Hear, hear.) Why, he professes American prin-
ciples in the widest sense. (Cheers, and cries of " No.")
No ! I would make no statement in this house that 1 am
not prepared to substantiate. (Cheers.) I have expressed
pretty clearly my views of the English constitution, and I
confidently assert that they are correct. (Cheers.) I say
the right hon. gentleman, following the example, as he
always does, of the member for Birmingham—(cheers, and
cries of "No, no") —went on a tour of agitation, and, I say,
he expounded his policy founded on American and not on
English principles, and I am here prepared to prove it.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman went to a well
organised meeting, and of course he well considered what
he had to say. He made some observations on the general
policy of the Government, and he then referred to the real
business of the session. He said the Government had
brought forward a Reform Bill which was a very moderate
measure, as it would only introduce 400,000 additional
voters to the constituencies. (Hear.) Well there might be
I very good reasons for it, only we have not argued the
point—(hear)—but we shall do it in committee, if the bill
getsthere. (Laughter and cheers.) If, however, your views
of the English constitution are the same as mine, that num-
ber is a great addition to the Estate of the Commons, and
the right hon. gentleman said, "We brought in a very
moderate measure of reform—(Ministerial cheers and coun-
ter cheers)—and we propose only by this bill to add4oo,ooo
to the franchise ; and be treats with great obloquy and
contempt all wtho oppose the bill and support the amend-
ment. (Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding, says the right
1 honourable gentleman, the moderation of our measure,
there were still, he reminded his audience, four and a half
millions who are still excluded—" living, breathing men,
citizens like ourselves, who pay taxes, and who, like
ourselves, are bound by every civil duty, and interested
in the peace and 'prosperity of the country." (Hear,
hear, and cheers.) That is all very well. But the
object of discussion is to elicit truth. I do not object to his
entertaining American principles, but let us clearly under-
stand—(oh, oh, laughter, and cheers)—what is the inter-
pretation that is to be put upon his speech. I say that
every man of candour must say there is but one interpre-
tation that can be put upon it, viz., that the 4,500,000 have
a right to become constituents and exercise the franchise,
although it is prudent and practical in the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, as a man in office, to propose that 400,000
only shall now be brought within the pale of the con-
stitution. (Hear, and cheers.) By that line of policy you
show that you are not in favour of the English constitu-
tion, but that you are introducing American principles.
There can be no other interpretation put upon the lan-
guage of the hon. gentleman. If there was any doubt it
can remain no longer when we remember the speech which
he made a year and a half ago, when he startled all parties
and agitated the whole country by placing the foundation
of the suffrage on the rights of man. (Cheers.) The right
thon. gentleman published that speech, with an explana-
tohrYereprefane, which nobody understood. (Laughter.) But
man
whenwas no mistake on the part of the right hon. gentle-
to please his colleagues, but he neveroe ephangisehde
he made that speech. He published
heat,And inbu
tLNivveei Liverpool, :011
s,his
ish is
opinions. preface
occasion—not speaking in
considering recentwhat
and.suffrage ordera a
s t
heo
w catchsaid'
as i da,
votes,
moral
right,h e e expressed pr
andess edopinion
so thatceh' s
it
dlTeeri
oughtan to
speaking of the improved condition of the main of the
community, "It is that changed and that im n
constantly increasing capacity, which constitutes and
~ notl only
fitness, but, in a moral sense, constitutes a right.
sense can it exist but as a moral right ? That coniniwhlat
vindicates the statement that I have made. (Loud cheers.)
I have here the words of ono of the wisest men that ever sat
in this house. Though not politically connected with him,
I remember spontaneously offering my tribute to his cha-
racter and services. These are the words of Sir George
Lewis—"
You may talk of the rudeness of monarchical go-
vernment, but I defy you to point out anything in mo-
narchy so anomalous as counting votes, instead of weighing
them, as the making decisions
depend not upon knowledge,
ability, experience,
or fitness of the judge, but upon num-
bers." (Hear, hear.), I think Sir G. Lewis was a great
loss to the country—(hear, hear) —a great loss to the House
of Commons—(hear, hear)—but the
would not greatesthave loss to gentle-
men opposite. (Cheers.) Sir G. Lewis
built up the constituency on the rights of man. He would
not have entrusted the destinies of the country to the
judgment of a numerical majority - (cheers)—he would not
have counselled the Whig party to reconstruct our insti-
tutions on an American model, or to profit in time from
the wisdom of the children a their loins. (Cheers.) It is
because I wish to avert from this country such calamities
and disasters . that I shall vote for the amendment. (The
right hon. gentlem
lasted for soan sat down amid loud cheers, which
me minutes.)
The CHANCELLOR
party. He said Mr. and was received with of the EXCHEQUER then rose,
enthusiastic cheers by the Liberal
a clear declaration from Speaker,a at last, sir, we have obtained
an authoritative source—(hear,
hear) —and we know now t
5;000,000 adult males. (Intern by bill in a country with
benches and cheers from the dbeoralsfrora the Opposition
mitted to proceed ? (Ministerial
chee.r)s.)Am I to be per-
now that the bill, which, in a country with And we know
males, proposes to add to a limited constituenco 'oo2oadult
of the middle class and 200,000 of the working Ls 00;010

the peace of their cities which lie upon the coast that con-
stitute so great a reproach to American institutions, and,
if you were to attempt to introduce these into England I
believe the effect would be decidedly disastrous. If a domi
nant and turbulent multitude were to succeed in the object
of obtaining the land of England, it would not be done with-
out a long and painful struggle, and then, after all, the land
so obtained would occupy only a small area. And what would
be the consequence of this? Why, that you would reduce a
first-rate kingdom to the level of a. third-rate power. I am,
therefore, opposed to the prevalence of these American
principles which must pull down the prosperity of an old
country into which they might be introduced. The bon.
member for Montrose deprecated any allusion to the hon.
member for Birmingham. Well, sir, that is very
it
con-
venient. (Laughter.) It is a convenient arrangement
is very convenient to make speeches in two places, and not
to be answered in either. (Cheers.) lam not one of those
who depreciate the talents or the character of the hon.
member for Birmingham. I admire his great abilities. I
listen to his eloquence, often with delight, and while I re-
cognise his unexampled energy, I regret that such gifts as
he possesses should be exercised-I am sure conscien-
tiously-in favour of principles which, if successful, I be-
lieve, would be fatal to this country. (Cheers.) It is very
disagreeable to me, as it must be to any honourable gentle-
man in our debates, to comment upon the conduct or the
words of any individual member of this house. I feel the
embarrassment and the pain of it all, but it is not my fault.
If the hon. member for Birmingham were in his right place
this would not occur. I have to make remarks upon gentle-
men opposite, and they have to make remarks upon us on
this side of the house, but it is the policy of Government
which we oppose, and it is the manceuvring of the Opposition
which they expose- (laughter)-and there is nothing painful
about it. Dealing with a corporation softens the necessary
asperity in the midst of our political conflicts. If the hon.
member were seated on that (the Treasury) bench, as he
ought to be seated-(cheers)-we should not hear of the
member for Birmingham any more ; but we should hear of
her Majesty's ministers, and therefore I am bound to say
something, disagreeable as it is to me. If the hon. member
for Birmingham, who really, though not avowedly, dictates
the policy of this country, is not in the position in which
he ought to be placed, I nevertheless must comment upon
the sayings and doings of so eminent an individual. (Laugh-
ter.) Some of my friends have spoken with indignation of
the manifesto which the member for Birmingham thought
fit to publish when this house was not sitting. My feeling
when I read the letter was not a feeling of indignation, nor
did it contain any expression of contempt-nothing of the
Bind ; it was a feeling of pain, of mortification, of disap-
pointment. I felt that I had totally misunderstood the cha-
racter of the individual with whom we had so long been
placed in a connection which I thought was at least digni-
fied. I thought, for example, that the member for Birming-
ham was proud of being a member of the House of Com-
mons, and I confess myself that I saw sometimes, not with-
out satisfaction, that the house seemed not disinclined to
bo proud of him. (Cheers.) But that he should leave
us only to hold us up to public obloquy, and in such mode
was, to me, not the cause of indignation, but of deep re-
gret and mortification that he should speak of us in a
manner which lethink was very different in candour and
judgment, and wanting alike in truth and taste. (Cheers.)
It was painful-I say unaffectedly-it was very painful to
me. He was the last man, knowing what I know of him,
and of this house, that I should have supposed would have
held up the House of Commons, with almost the truculence
of a Denton, to public obloquy. (Cheers.) It is not to
vindicate the House of Commons that I say this. That is
not my place, it is the privilege of another. (Cheers.) I
must say that it was a souree of astonishment to me that
the leader of the House of Commons who must have been
in that part of the country at the time-I do not know
whether he was at the same meeting, but he must have been
in that part of the country, as we all know-who was attend-
ing dinners and making speeches in theatres and amphi-
theatres-(cheers)-I say it was a subject of astonishment
to me that the leader of the House of Commons should not
have come forward, and nojiced that address, that he
should not have come forward and vindicated the honour
and the character of that assembly of which it ought to be
his greatest pride to be the leader- (cheers)-he, who is the
champion of our honour and privileges. (Cheers.) These
were not hurried words, and he had not the excuse of ex-
cited oratory, but they were penned with malice prepense.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman could find time at one
of those dinners given him by the Financial Reformers of
Liverpool-(no, no)-well, attended by one of the most
distinguished of those provincial fanatics-(ioud cheers)-
he could find time to criticise the es:imperatively insignifi-
cant
letter of the right hon. the member for Calne. That
was the staple of one of his speeches ; but he could not
find time to comment on the letter of the hon. member
for Birmingham, although it was an attack upon the
honour and the character of those of whom he is
the leader, and of the house of which he ought to be proud to
be the chief and champion. (Loud cheers and counter cheers.)
But, sir, although I have not the honour to be the leader
of the House of Commons, although that proud position is
not mine, I am, at least, by the favoured indulgence of
my friends, the leader of the Torty party-(cheers)-and I
therefore take this, the earliest opportunity, of telling the
hon. member for Birmingham that the attack that he has
made upon the Tory party is one that he cannot substan-
tiate in fact, and which would convey to the country an
impression that it is impossible for him to demonstrate by
any reference to anything that occurred. (Cheers.) The
hon. gentleman has said that the Tory party were only
anxious to plunge this country into war to divert it from
that domestic progress and public concord to which he has
devoted all his energies. (Laughter.) I want to know
from the hon. member what grounds he has for making
that assertion ? (Cheers.) We have heard from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer enough of the last 30 years
during the recess. I have been in this house for nearly
those 30 years, and I believe that the hon. member for
Birmingham has been more than two-thirds of that time in
this house, and therefore he has had some experience of
public affairs, or, at the least, in our public deliberations
has taken an eminent part. What war have we plunged
the country into in that time ? -(Cheers.) There was the
Crimean war. Were the Tories the authors of the Cri-
mean war? (Cheers.) They might have carried it on in
a different way, but they were not the authors of it. When
he charges us with this grah offence against the pros-
perity and the fortunes of the realm, has he forgotten that
a man, who I suppose he still reveres, rose in that very
place where the hon. member now sits, and declared before
God that he believed that if Lord Derby's Government
had not been turned out, in 1852, the Crimean war would
not have occurred? (Loud cheers.) Those words were
uttered in the house by Mr. Cobden. (Cheers.) There
was another war. Did we take advantage of the
Italian war, to plunge this country into it ? Is it
not upon record-those records were not published until
the delusive amendment which turned. us out of office
was passed -is it not upon record that every fair
means was used by this country to prevent that war, and
tnothing?but the headstrong conduct of Austria caused
Then, I say, what reason has the hon gentleman to
say that the Tories were always' anxious lo plunge this
country into war, tobedeivnertanoatthtention from progress and re-
form ? There has
between or war in Europe during the
last 30 years, a war
Denmarkryi and Germany. Did
we want to plunge the count
proved
oveear on that subject ?
Is it not notorious ? Can it be
ler and the present
this table that both the late Prime Minister
tby documents on
in
into that
Prime Minister of England did much to plunge
existenceh
war ? (Loud cheers.) Are the des
inviting France to join England in going to wanr-(
-and, indeed, nothing but that policy could justifye eetrhs!
promises they held out to betray Denmark ? Andwho
prevented that war? They resolved to wait until the
meeting of Parliament to decide on their policy and
to control their rebellious colleagues. But the con-
duct of the Opposition, and the declaration I made, with
the full consent and by the adviee of those with whom I
act, prevented that war. (Oh, and cheers.) Why, it is
notorious, and believe that the hon. gentleman himself
has
,said, that we prevented that war about Denmark. How
can ne justify those statements made by a mannf his great
leading in the country, calumniating, I will say, a great
political party ?
same manifesto did
(Cheers.) But the hon. gentleman in the
alone, he state not confine his statements to Europe
d that we wanted to involve the oountry in
war with America.
for making thate I.want to know what ground he has
that painful eteug iertil.7.• It is upon record that during
gleagues, and especially
bd all I could, assisted by my col-
King's Lynn, to moderaZ, nith.3' noble friend the member for
councils of this house and to
avert war between this connt°
Zoand the "United States ; and I
many gentlemen, not confined
believe we deeply contribute that
result. I admit that
wished the recognition of the
nzher side of the house,
aoffvernment are not to
we come to this passin Englansd o
that Grn :hates.
Well, are
express their own opinions on public
of consider-
fess that there were members on this sideairs ? 1S .ow, I con-
at the South
able ability, who took a very decided view, :a"
causethefsor this
glaerthbelieved that
it was for the honou r and interestof
should be recognised. Well, bad they no
belief ? It is a fact thatno one can deny that
wished to recognise the Southern States had encoeuraNvgilo
ment from the Government. It is notorious that the chief
organ of the Government in this house made one of those
pilgrimages of passion (loud laughter, and cheers) of which
we have had lately several specimens. Not content with
speaking in this house, he made one of the most inflam-
matory harangues ever made in England, which, if it meant
anything, meant the recognition of the Southern States.
And did not his speech disturb every market in Europe, did
it not affect the price of public securities and produce confu-
sion throughout the world ? (cheers). Yet this is the
friend of the hon. gentleman who goes doWn to' the coun-
try and says that we want to plunge the country into war
(cheers). But the hon. gentleman is not content with im-
puting to us an anxiety to involve the country in these in-
ternational calamities, but he says that the Tory party is
the cause of all the abject misery and wretchedness of the
People of England. Well, I will take the last 30 years that
has been dinned into our ears at these Liverpool banquets,

LON

the judgment of the leader of the Tory party, a bill to
reconstruct the Constitution upon American principles.
(Cheers.) Rising, sir, after one o'cicck in the morning,
to review, as well as I can, a debate of eight nights' dura-
tion, I would gladly have passed by the defence, as he
calls it, which the right hon. gentleman has made for
himself and his friends. (Hear, hear.) I will not attempt
to follow him through his details. I have too much respect
for the time of the house to weary it at this hour with
matters which it' is in my power to avoid. I have too
much respect for the judgment of the house, and for
those who will become acquainted with our proceedings,
to have the slightest apprehension that any one of the
misstatements, that any one of the misrepresentations con-
sequent upon the misstatements, which have proceeded
from the right hon. gentleman— (interruption from the
Opposition)—will have any influence on the house or the
country. Sir, I will begin by endeavouring to clear away
some misapprehensions which the right hon. gentleman has
assisted to propagate. In the first place, I must presume
to say one word on the subject which has reference to a
great name, a great name in this house and in the country,
I mean the name of Lord Palmerston, It has been assumed
by the gentlemen who are supporters of the amendment

that they honour the memory of Lord Palmerston by de-
scribing him as the enemy of Parliamentary Reform—
("No, no," and "Yes, yes")—by describing him, especially
as the enemy—(interruption from the Opposition, and
cheers from the Liberal benches)—of that which consti-
tutes the very essence of the very change proposed by this
bill—the reduction of the franchise. 1 will read, there-

fore, a few words which Lord Palmerston used when he
spoke upon the Reform Bill of 1860. He said, " That there
were fundamental principles in that bill which they could
not consent to have infringed, or they would destroy the
bill altogether, and one main principle of the bill was the
reduction of the borough franchise." (Cheers.) It has
been supposed that the life of Lord Palmerston was a
security against the introduction of a measure of Reform.
I think it not less due to Lord Palmerston than to his
colleagues to say that, as far as I am aware—and I pre-
sume that the right hon. gentleman will admit that if
mischief had been brewing in the Cabinet on the sub-
ject I probably should have known it—(a laugh) —as far
as I am aware there never was a difference of opinion
between Lord• Palmerston and his colleagues upon the
question of Reform. (Cheers.) In my opinion we
underwent a great responsibility with regard to the
measure of 1860. The introduction of the measure was
an important step in redemption of a very solemn pledge.
The right hon. gentleman grossly misquoted a speech of
mine. (Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) I will not
say misquoted, but misstated the effect. The right hon.
gentleman referred to my speech, and said that I declared
it would be wrong for the Government to introduce or take
up the question of parliamentary reform until they arrived
at a state of public opinion which would seem to offer a
prospect of suceess. That, sir, was the unanimous opinion
in the Cabinet. The right hon. gentleman said that the
Secretary for the Home Department had declared that we
did not go to the country last year as the patrons of a great
measure of reform. Certainly not. We made no such pro-
fessions. We lef t the country to produce its own impartial
judgment. But my right hon. friend has said when the
elections took place he formed the opinion—which I be-
lieve was the opinion formed by the members of the Cabi-
net—that the manifesto which had been given by the coun-
try and by the candidates in respect to parliamentary reform
had rendered it necessary for us to become responsible for
such a measure. (Cheers.) Nor have we the smallest ques-
_ _ _

tion that Lord Palmerston would have differed from that
opinion at the moment of his lamented death. No single
Cabinet had been held for the purpose of considering this
measure which we now adopt; but Ido know this-and
it is posthumous record of some interest-that in a con-
versation which he had with one of his colleagues, Lord
Palmerston not long before his death, looking forward to
the dissolution, stated his opinion "that, within a limited
time it would be right for the Government again to intro-
duce the subject of reform." (Cheers.) So much for the
honour of Lord Palmerston, which I must confess has not,
I think, been judiciously referred to during this debate.
(Hear, hear.) I hope that opinion may be expressed with-
out offence or transgressing parliamentary rules. And now
I come to another subject. My hon. friend the member for
Birmingham has been made a charge against the Govern-
ment-(laughter and cheers)-that they are identified
with my hon. friend, and that we are the nominal Ministers
of the Crown, and that he is its irresponsible and real ad-
viser. To that charge I shall make no reply whatever.
(Hear, hear.) Such persons as are disposed to admit it
must have minds in a condition entirely inaccessible, I will
not say to reason or justice, but at any rate to any obser-
vations I can utter. But more specific charges have been
made, and it is right that I should notice them. It has
been stated that her Majesty's Government have taken ad-
vice from the hon. member for Birmingham upon that sub-
ject, which is one that admits of being dealt with by me.
Let us consider what is the case. I must preface my state-
ment by saying that in my opinion it would be no discredit
to the Government, as was said by the hon. and learned
member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), if as policy recom-
mended that they should consult with the great organs of
opinion in the different sections of their party - (cheers)-
and if so, it would, I consider, be culpable in us if we over-
looked the advice of my hon. friend. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment, however, felt no such necessity. They did not
purste that course of consultation. They felt that they
were responsible for the introduction of this measure; and
not being altogether inexperienced theyhad sufficient con-
fidence in themselves and in their knowledge of the state
of the public mind of the country to form their own judg-
ment with regard to the leading provisions of a bill. We
were aware of the opinions of my hon. friend the member
for Birmingham just as much as hon. members opposite
were aware of them, and through the same channels of in-
formation-the public press of the country. What we under-
stood his opinions to be were these : In a speech which he
made in the course of last autumn he stated that he was in
favour of a certain franchise for counties, the maximum
being £lO, and that he. thought the highest suffrage for bo-
roughs ought to be £6. The third point in the hon. member's
speech was that the consideration of the franchise ought
to be separated from the re-distribntion of seats. (op-
position cheers.) And the fourth point was that he
thought the separation ought to take place in order to give
time for the ripening and maturing of the public, so that a
full and satisfactory settlement of the question might take
place. What have we done ? We agreed with my hon.
friend upon the policy and duty of separating the two mea-
sures, and would we not have been the most contemptible
poltroons if, holding that concurrence of opinion with him,
we shrank from acting upom it because the leader of the
Tory party forsooth founded on that concurrence a charge
of subserviency against us-(loud cheers)-a charge which
tnwhul
hoeehitenki ecanrhansiolt.
3)wslhpvesiealmaflstrfsoi
neatilhdnbfoioe:spthhtseueuerlndbvinfas, lbdeauyyrotnypt
de(iolteoreiunsoedr
ourselves
s exists, well as w
whye
doesdo .
(Renewedt not
hibit
ei
tlovfn(e Host
hteaeanarpdx,
phtleheoaaerer
io.r)niuguthlht:ye hhfayio.
adoption
poc does it
of a£6 borough franchise, which was included in the bill
of 1860, and which had the express sanction of the mem-
ber for Calne-(cheers)-and which the hon. member for
Birmingham declared to be the highest figure at which it
ought to be allowed to stand? How is it that these
opinions of my hon. friend have not been followed ? My
hon. friend, nevertheless, with great moderation supports
the bill as it stands. We have now arrived at this state
of things. We propose a measure for lowering the fran-
chise - a step which had the approval of Lord Palmerston
and Sir George Lewis-but because it is supported by my
hon., friend that support is supposed to taint and poison
the measure. Is it to be believed that such extremes of
political and personal animosity exist in this house-
(cheers)-that the very essence of the facts and objects of
the case is to change its nature because of the support of
an individual? That is the state of facts with regard to
my hon. friend. But I must say one word more. lam
sure he is agreat deal more obliged to hon gentlemen oppo-
site than he is to us. It is my firm opinion that it is the
gentlemen who adopt the line of argument that we are
Americanising the institutions of the country that are doing
their utmost against their will and against their know-
lege-indeed, much of what they boast of having done for
the last thirty years has been against their will-it is those
gentlemen who are doing everything they can to increase
the influence of my hon. friend. And if my hon. friend be
the dangerous man he is supposed to be, and has in his
breast such wicked schemes against the institutions of the
country, it is not through her Majesty's Ministers, nor
through the agency of those who are voting with them on
this occasion, he would obtain means of giving, effect to
those schemes, but through the line of arguments and
statements adopted by his and our opponents. (Cheers.)
I will now occupy the house for two minutes touching some
expressions of my own, and my best apology for doing so
will be that they are expressions which have furnished
arguments to several members who have taken part in this
debate. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn, in
his clear, forcible, very argumentative, and, under the cir-
cumstances, by no means uncandid speech, complained of
me for using one of those expressinos which may be shortly
summed up in what I may call the flesh and blood expres-
sion. (Laughter and cheers.) I wish the noble lord and
the member for Calne had more considered what really
took place with regard to this expression. The member
for Calne occupied half an hour in commenting upon it,
and the right hon. member for Hertfordshire for another
half hour detained the house with arguments and denun-
ciations, and I know not what, upon the assumption that
I had used that expression as an argument in favour of ad-
mitting the working classes to the franchise. The right
hon. baronet said that as an argument it was a gross ab-
surdity, and so it was. But I never used it here or else-
where in that sense. I used it as a reply, and, if I may pre-
sume to go further, as a reproof-(hear)-of the language
of some of the opponents of the bill. There are, in my opinion
times in debate when extraortdriuntahry.
Werrhoerus
larheebaredstitmsetattebyd
question of ofthethe expression of elementaryabili
ty
working that
atsosuecuhwtuhuel
would
him that the perform-
ance
revo-
lution, I timethoughooftftihte to remind
for civil rights, and that the b
representation egseennttlaetmi oann
them. (Hear, hear.) That
con-
trary lay upon those who exclude
doctrine. In
of citizenship gave some purrdeseunmopftipornoooff
ttohethcaopacity
the same way, when I heard _ he
has
scribingthe working classes fronai to.t;IV
sentiment was magnified intothaerriovgohlut thioonna.
ti
rYgentleman de-