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

E N ING, MARCH 23, 1859.

vote for its mem-
-ocesS, and kermit

the holder of property inside tc a member outside
the borough ? I go a step furthe how, in the case
of counties, do you deal with the a freehold who
is at the same time the occupier of a £6O hol, and mat,
likewise, have other franchises, such ascopyli s, within the
county ? You tell him that he has only one vote for the
county. (Hear, hear.) But how do you deal with the
owner of property lade a borough who has got a free-
hold and a £lO house, and may have other qualifica-

tions ? You tell hini, "You may vote first for the
borough in respect of your occupation, and then
for the county in respect of your freehold." We are still
upon the question of justice, and I ask, supposing you were
for the first time considering this question, would any one

stand up and say that this is fair and equitable P (Cheers.)
But what did you do in the Reform Bill? The noble lordis
in the habit of referring to the bill of 1832 as one founded
in this respect ' upon every principle of justice, but what

did.that measure do with regard to freeholds in boroughs
which were above DO ? Up to 1832 every one of those free-

holds gave a vote for the county; but by that bill you said

that a freehold above £lO in value inside a borough,

which was occupied by its owner, should lose its county
vote, and merge into the borough. (Cheers.) Therefore,
after all, your principle of borough freeholders voting for
counties only comes to this : those of between 40s. and

£lO value are to votes for the counties, but if they are
above £lO in value they lose the vote for the county even
although the owner is not registered for the borough.
(Hear, hear.) We are still upon the question of justice
only, and I ask if that question were now brought be-
. .

fore the house for the first time would any one affirm
that it was just to make this distinction between the
two classes of freeholds ? (Hear, hear.) But I want to
know how it was that in the bill of 1832 the provision with
regard to the 408. freeholders in boroughs voting for coun-

ties' came to be preserved. Any one who will take the
trouble to look back to the debates of that time will find that
this occurred. It was uniformly protested against by Sir R.
Peel. (Hear.) It was frequently protested against by many
eminent members on the Liberal side of the House,
among others by Mr. Cutler Ferguson. Lord Althorp
admitted that it was a very difficult question, on both sides
of which a great deal might be said, and he defended the
provision only on the ground that the Government
desired to have for counties a representation of nothing
but property, and for boroughs a representation of nothing
but occupation. This defence, of course, fell to the ground
the moment the Chandos clause was introduced, and it is
further weakened now that every one admits that you
must go beyond that clause, and admit in counties
a still lower qualificaiion from occupancy. (Hear,
hear.) So much, therefore, with regard to the
justice of the case; now let us come to its policy. The
noble lord and the right hon. gentleman who has just sat
down have both given us their reasons in point of policy.
The noble lord's reason is this—he says that it is very con-
venient that these freehold voters should mix with the
county voters, because they contain a very liberal element
which you are about to take out of the counties. That
might very well have been said in the way of accusa-
tion against the Government if such had been the result
or the object of our bill, but the very reverse is the case.
I pass by the fact that the rights of existing freeholders are
preserved, at least of such as desire to preserve them ; but, I
ask the house, is not the effect •of our bill confessedly to
put into the counties, for the first time, 200,000 voters
with respect to whom the noble lord himself said in 1857
that they comprised a body of men highly liberal, and whose
insertion in counties would be productive of the greatest
benefit ? (Hear, hear.) What is the argument of the right
hon. member for South Wilts upon the point of policy ?
Ho uses a most singular argument, for he 'says
the freeholders are a remarkably independent class of men,
and one proof of their independence is that where they
have double votes their employers make a bargain with them
by which, in return for then• borough franchises, they are
allowed to do what they like with their county votes:
(Hear, hear.) The right honourable gentleman also says
—and here he speaks from experience on the subject—that
they have the greatest pleasure in exercising their fran-
chises in counties. I can understand, if I were a freeholder
in South Wilts, that I should have great satisfaction
in voting for the right hon. gentleman ; but'l want to know
if the intrusion of borough freeholders into counties be unjust
in itself, how the personal desire of their owner can be a
reason, when you are readjusting your franchises as a whole
for abstaining from doing what is right and proper. (Hear.)
Nor, I contend, is there anything impolitic or harsh in the
way in which we deal with existing interests. It is a prin-
ciple well recognised in this house that when you intro.
duce a measure which will have the ultimate effect of alter
ing franchises you take care, whenever you can do it safely
and consistently with your scheme, to preserve the rights
of existing holders. Are there no precedents for that
proceeding ? The noble lord well knows there are, for
that is exactly what was done in 1832 in the case of whht
were called reserved franchises, and a precisely similar
course was adopted in connexion with the Irish bill of
the same date. We, in like manner, propose to pre-
serve to all who desire to' continue to vote in counties
a right which the right honourable member for South
Wilts says they value so highly, as long as they enjoy the
property to which the qualification is attached but the
noble lord asserts that our proposal falls short of the
exigencies of the case, because there are persons who
have possessed their freeholds from the time of William the
Conqueror, and who desire to continue them in their fami-
lies, and yet we intend to deprive their children of them. I
certainly was surprised to hear that argument from the
noble lord, for at the time of the first Reform Bill he stoutly
denied that there was anything in the franchise in the
slightest decree in the nature of property, and in one of his
most celebrated speeches the same position was maintained
by Lord Macaulay. " I deny," said Lord Macaulay, "that
the elective franchise is of the nature of property. I
believe on this point I have with me all reason, all prece-
dent, and all authority. This at least is certain, that if the
proposed disfranchisement is founded upon robbery, the re-
presentative system which now exists is founded upon rob-
bery." I take that as a sample of the arguments used
during the whole of the Reform debates by the noble lord
and his friends with respect to there beingright of property
in the franchise; and therefore I say when we preserve
to existing holders the right to their votes in counties we
do all that precedent, or authority, or principle requires,
and we fully satisfy the exigencies of the case. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord, however, objects to what he calls the prin-
ciples of disfranchisement, and asks the house to affirm his
amendment upon that ground ; but, let me ask, what has
the noble lord himself done in this matter ? What did he
propose in 1854 ? He proposed by one stroke of the pen to
disfranchise some 45,000 freemen in towns and boroughs,
persons of whom it has been said by a eminent member on
the other side of the house that they comprise some of the
most meritorious, most hardworking, and most deserving
and independent electors in the country. (Hear, hear.)
What did the noble lord propose to do in the same bill with
the voters in the boroughs which he intended to disfranchise ?
They amounted to between 20,000 and 30,000 persons, and
wherever they possessed votes such as we are now dealing
with they were deprived of them by the bill' of the noble
lord. The noble lord made no apology; he preserved no
rights—neither the rights of the freemen, which had been
respected in 1832, nor the rights of the double voters ; and
yet he now calls upon the house, merely because he says
the freeholders will be deprived of their double votes, to
affirm his amendment to the second reading of our bill.
(Hear.) But I trust the house will remember that, although
in following the argument of the noble lord I have used the
term "disfranchisement," there is a marked difference between
the cases I have mentioned and that which arises tinder the
presentbill. In the cases I have mentioned the votes were put
an end to, and were not to be revived ; 'whereas in the present
instance the votes are not extinguished, although I admit
they are transferred from counties to boroughe, and the;
question whether they can be used will depend upon other
considerations, just as the question whether you can exer-
cise your right in respect of a freehold in a county depends
upon whether you have another_ vote for that county.
(Hear, hear.) Let me here say a word upon another point,
closely connected with what I have already stated—l mean
the cinestion of the residence of freeholders in boroughs as
a condition-precedent to their votes. The right hon. mem-
ber for 'Halifax said last night that if we introduced the
system of non-resident freeholders yoting in boroughs, and
also the system of polling-papers, the result would be that
the resident electors would be swamped by votes sent down
by non-residents. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Does
not the'right hon. gentleman see that, if I am right in say-
ing that there is nothing unjust in making these freeholders
vote for boroughs, the rest of his argument is only an argu-
ment against polling-papers ? Now, no person ever said
that polling-papers were an essential part of our bill, or
that they did not form one of those subjects which the
house might fairly and properly consider in committee.
(Hear.) Every one admits that they are convenient, many
see difficulties in the way of working them out, and the
question, upon the, whole, is eminently suited for conside
ration at a subsequent stage. (Hear, hear.) But, apart
from polling-papers, let us see whether there is any preba-
bility of freehold votes for boroughs being turned to an im-
proper or illegitimate use. Is there at present any consi-
derable manufacturing of votes in this country ? When I
say " manufacturing of votes," I take the term used by the
right hon. member for Halifax ; but what I mean to ask is,
is there to any considerable extent a planting down of voters
in the hope that they will exercise their franchise in a par-
ticular way ? Everybody admits that up to the present
time that has not been done to any extent worth mention-
ing. There is one way, and one only, in which the manu-
facture of votes used to be carried on. It consisted in taking
extensive premises in some borough, and granting rent-
charges upon them in such a way as to get a number of votes
• out of one tenement. The present bill provides against that
case, and if further checks can be suggested they ought to
be proposed in committee. (Hear.) I have said so much
upon the first part of the amendment because the right hon,
member for South Wilts, with some unfairness, said that a
right hon. gentleman who had occupied the attention of the
house for a considerable time had not gone into it; but,
having answered the arguments advanced on the other side
to the best of my ability, I must close with the remark that
every one of the points which I havebeen considering ought
to be discussed in committee upon the upon the bill, and not
upon the motion for the second reading. (Hear.) I was
amazed to hear the hon. member for Devonport say that my
noble' friend the Secretary for India had informed thp
house that they must take the bill as it stands, and that
no amendment could be accepted by the Government. My
noble friend said and meant nothing of the sort. What he
said was that if you pass the second reading and put the
bill into committee the bill would then share the fate of
every other bill that went into committee ; and if amend-
ments should be proposed it would be for the Government
to consider whether they would accede to them or modify
them. (Hear.) But it is not possible for the Government ,
until those amendments are proposed, to state what course
they will pursue with respect to any one particular amend-
ment. (Hear.) What my noble friend also said—and what
I repeat—is, that this Government will not, and Ido not
think that any Government which values it honour would,
consent to take on the motion for the second reading of a
bill, and not on going into committee, an instruction as a
pledge of the terms on which the second reading is to be
passed. (Cheers.) I say that the course of raising every
question that can be legitimately raised in committee is
open with respect to this bill, and to ask the Govern-
ment to give pledges to the house before approaching
the second reading. is a step which has never been taken
with respect to any Government in the history of Par-
liament, and I hold any Government tolerating such a
proceeding unworthy for one minute •to sit on, these
beaches- (Loud cheers.) Now I come to the second part
of the amendment of the noble lord—tho part which relates
to lowering the franchise in boroughs. Before approach-
ing that subject I renst observe that the amendment of the
noble lord clearly admite that the noble lord is perfectly
satisfied with the extension of the suffra outside the bo-
rough bouetiaries, and that has an important consequence.
We all know peeectly well •the- nature of tarp mad popu-
loins towns. There ig ge
magic Parliamentary circle, mid

outside of that there is a considerable amount of building.
There is, -wherever it can be done outside the boundary, a
desire to raise mannfactorieg and to build houses of a some••

what better kind, in which clerks and skilled workmen are
found tb live. Now, the noble lord's amendment admits
that what we
.proposerwith respect to occupations outside
the boundary is a fair and proper• franchise ; but if there
be introduced withinside that magic boundary—it may be
on one side of a street—the franchise proposed by the noble
lord, be it £4, £5, £6, or any other sum, I want to know
how the noble lord is to satisfy the man lving on the other
side of the boundary, to whom you give, and the noble lcrd
admits rightly, only a £lO franchise ? (Hear, hear.) All
the eloquence of the noble lord will not persuade the man
living on the wrong side of the street that-he is dealt fairly
with in the distribution of the franchise. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman who spoke last said that for 400
years this constitution had continued to take its present
course, and the innovation now proposed had never been
practised before. When the right hon. gentleman talks of
the history of the country for 400 years, I would ask him
how long back does he date the right of voting in counties
in respect of occupatson ; for it is in vain to tell us about
freehold rights of voting prevailing from Henry VI. down
to the present day, when at the time of the Reform Bill you
swept away the freehold right as the sole test of county voting
and added to it the right of voting in respect to occupation.
(Hear, hear.) I could understand the amendment if at the
time of discussing this question there were freehold
voters and nothing but freehold voters in the counties ;
but the question we have to consider is, whether,
as there is an occupation franchise for the counties, there is
any reason why there should be a different value for the oc-
cupation franchise on one and on the other side of a bound-
ary line. ' The right hon. gentleman has just given us the
history of the bill of the hon. member for East Surrey. Is
there any doubt that for some eight or nine years you have
had an agitation with the object of lowering the county oc-
cupation franchise to £lO ? The principle of the first bill
of the hon. member for East Surrey was founded on the
desire to assimilate the franchise in counties to the fran-
chise in towns. In a division on this bill, whether taken
by surprise or not, the hon. member succeeded, and in
another year he renewed his efforts, when the noble lord the
member for -Tiverton was in office, and on that occasion he
failed. The right hon. baronet the member for Halifax had
told a most singular story. He said that he voted against
that bill and communicated with his constituents, who were
surprised at what he had done, but he explained the case,
and showed them what would be the effect of the £lO
county franchise, and they were perfectly satisfied. I do
not doubt the powers of persuasion of the right hon. baro-
net, but still I doubt whether he satisfied his constituents,
because next year, when he had left office and sat on the
Opposition side of the house, the bill of the hon. member for
East Surrey was renewed, the title was altered but the con-
tents were the same, and the right hon. baronet voted for
it. (Cheers.) I was amazed to hear the flimsy pretence
that there were blanks in the bill; fat these blanks were
filled up with " £10" in italics, and there was nothing in
the bill, good, bad, or indifferent, but this—that a man
might vote for the county in respect of a £lO occupation.
(Cheers.) But it may be said that the bill might have
been amended in committee. Does the right hon. baronet
adopt that defence ? Because if he does I think it is fatal
to his consistency in voting as he is going to vote on
the present occasion. There was nothing in the bill then
before the house, but that one point, to whioh he
had objected; and yet it is said that bill might be altered
in committee. But the bill now before the house is as
capable of amendment in committee. The right hon.
baronet says he approves part of it, and yet he will not vote
for the second reading, but will support the resolution of
the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I will not stop
with the, right hon. member for Halifax, but I will also
claim the' vote of the noble lord the member for Tiverton,
who, I find, said, " Gentlemen may say, and with truth,
that although the bill is a different one, and though it does
not propose an assimilation of the borough and county
franchise, .yet the manner in which the blanks are filled up
will attain that object. No doubt that is the state of the
case, but those who, like myself, adhere to the opinion that
it is undesirable and objectionable to assimilate the borough
and the county franchise" may do what ?—" may vote for
the second reading"—(hear, and laughter)—" with the in-
tention of proposing alterations in the franchise that is
intended to be established for county voters." Well, that
could be done with this bill. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord wont en, " And therefore any one who contemplated a
reduction in the rate of the county franchise may well and
consistently vote for the second reading, reserving to him-
self full liberty of proposing in committee the particular
amount of qualification he may think is best. ' (Hear,
hear.) The question could not be raised in a better form,
because the noble lord, like the right hon. baronet, objected
to the whole of the bill, but they voted for the second read-
ing, intending to turn it into a different bill in committee.
The right hon. gentleman no doubt satisfied themselves
that was the proper course; but if there is such a thing as
consistency I claim their votes for the second reading of
this bill. (Cheers.) That was the course taken with re-
gard to the agitation for the reduction of the £5O county
franchise to a level of £lO. It succeeded because it was
carried in this house. Not only was it carried in this
house, but the bill of the noble lord (John Russell) in 1854
proposed to reduce the county franchise to £lO. Well,
now it is said, "You may reduce the county franchise,
but you must not have the same franchise in boroughs
as in counties." What, then, is the consequence ?
We have seen one agitation bringing the county
franchise down to £lO. Apply the principle of not
having a uniform franchise in boroughs and counties, and
you must lower the borough franchise below the county
franchise. (Hear, hear.) Shall I say what will happen
next ? The next thing will be a repetition of that process.
(Hear, hear.) When the borough franchise is at £5, and
the county at £lO, you will have an agitation to bring down
the £lO to £5. It may not succeed in one year, nor in two,
but after a time, when right hon. gentlemen have first voted
against it and then for it, that proposition will be carried.
But then will step in the objection against uniformity, and
you will have to lower the £5 borough franchise. (Cheers
and counter cheers.) And tllus we shall go on, after the
fashion of what is called a Dutch auction, auctioning the
counties against the boroughs, the boroughs against the
counties, always adhering to this cardinal principle, and to
that only, that the franchise in boroughs must be lower
than that in counties. (Hear, hear.) Where that will end
I can imagine, but I am surprised that such a system should
find favour with some hon. members, who seem to approve
it. The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has
referred us to Sir J. lqackintosh, who looked to a variety of
rights of suffrage as one of the safeguards of the English
constitution. I accede to every word of the opinion of Sir
J. Mackintosh upon the subject. I also desire to see a
variety of rights of suffrage, but that question is a wholly
different question to whether the same suffrage in counties
shall confer the right of voting as it does in boroughs.
(Hear' hear.) If you want to see a variety of rights of suf-
frage, take the bill of the Government, which I find con-
tains no less than 11 varieties of suffrage. Surely that
would satisfy even Sir 3. Mackintosh. But did Sir J.
Mackintosh say one word in the extract which has been
read to us of there being any impropriety, any offence to
the constitution, in providing that the same franchise in
regard to occupancy should confer the right of voting in
counties as it did in boroughs ?
Mr. S. ,HERBERT—Different franchises in different
places.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I accept that, "and
say that will meet the franchises here laid down, because
they are franclAses which from their nature must be in dif-
ferent places. Some spring from freeholds, some from lease-
holds, some from copyholds, some from occupancy; some
represent personal property, some educational tests. That
is what Sir J. Mackintosh points out, because, of course, he
did-not mean mere difference of locality. He meant diffe-
rent franchises which by their nature would introduce dif-
ferent classes of the country to the right of voting, and
that is what this bill provides. (Hear.) The right hon.
baronet and the right hon. gentleman who last spoke say
that this is a system which must lead to electoral districts.
I will 'tell the house my opinion upon that subject. I need
not say that I desiro as little as any man to see that system
adopted here. I believe electoral districts are utterly at
variance with and would be destructive of the system of
representation in this country; but I also believe they are
utterly repugnant to the tastes and wishes of any
inconsider-
able body this country. (Hear.) In my opinion that
which preserves us, and long will I trust preserve us, from
electoral districts, is that they are repugnant to the wishes
of the country, and not because of any fancy difference be-
tween a £2O and £lO occupancy franchise; and if the right
hon. gentleman could convince me that the only protection
against electoral districts was the maintenance in boroughs
of an £B, or £6, or £5 franchise, and £2O or £25 franchise
in boroughs, then I say that will not save us from electoral
districts for a single year. If we are to have any protection
against electoral districts, let us have ore with a principle
upon which we can argue, and not a mere difference of a
few pounds. (Hear.) Passing from that subject, I wish
the house to allow me to consider the question of lowering
further the borough franchise. I will put to the house
this point, although it does not cover tile whole argument.
A £lO franchise, or any particular number of pounds,
appears at first sight an unbending and unvarying fran-
chise ; but is it so in point of fact ? The noble lord has
told us that. since 1332 the working classes of this coun-
try have increased in intelligence, in education, in every-
thing which we all desire to see, in conduct and manners.
I entirely 'agree with that, but have not the working classes
altered their condition otherwise ? No one who is not blind
to what has been going on, even within the last 15 years,
can have failed to see that the working classes of this coun-
try have been not only growing in intelligence and educa-
tion, But they have also been increasing in material pros-
perity. Wage's have increased, employment is more regu••
lar, food is cheaper, taxes aro lighter, and all these circum-
stances together have brought about this state of things,—
that houses conferring a £lO franchise are now occupied by
a classof men to whom they were unattainable at the pass
ing of the Reform Bill. Although I do not desire to carry
the argument to any unreasonable length, yet I say that
the lapse of 27 years, to which the noble has referred, if
accompanied by a progress of prosperity in the country,
must naturally bring the franchise within the reach of the
greater number, just as the recession of the country in pros-
perity would diminish the number entitled to the franchise.
Now, it has been often asked of the Government " Why
can you not trust the working classes, who you see and ad-
mit are advancing in intelligence and education ?" My
answer, which I give unhesitatingly, is this,—I trust the
working classes fully, I trust their loyalty and patriotism,
and I venture to think I trust them even more than the
noble lord shows that he trusts them, for it is some-
what singular that with all the boasted trust of the work-,
ing classes I find that all who propose a diminution in
the borough franchise come to some limit at which they
say they are desirous of stopping, all least for the present.
•
Now, I make no such limit. I do not trust a man in a
£5 house and withhold my confidence from a man in a £4
house. I say I trust the working men of this country. I
trust their loyalty and patriotism ; but is it a reason, be-
cause I trust their loyalty and patriotism, that therefore I
must give them all votes ? (A cry of " Oh I") The hon.
member signifies dissent. I have seen some publica-
tions, in which, among many other proposals, was one
that women should be admitted to the franchise. Beyond
doubt, thoroughly advanced Radicals and philosophers say
there is no reason why a woman should not be admitted to
a share in the representation of the people. Now, I have
no wish to see the franchise conferred on women, but if we
are to lay it down as a rule that wherever you can trust
loyalty.and patriotism there you are to give the franchise, I
do not see what arguments you can raise against the admis-
sion of women within the electoral pale. (Hear, hear.) I
say, therefore, that you may allow to the working classes
the possession of loyalty and patriotism, and yet at the same
time may fairly say that the franchise ought not to be ex-
tended to them indiscriminately. (Hear, hear.) I acknow-
ledge no principle' but this—namely, that we are bound to
make our representative system one whichwill to the greatest
degree
,preserve an equal, even, impartial balance between
all dames in this country. (Hear, hear.) I am perfectly
willing to admit the working classes to their fair share in the
representation, though not to more than their share; buf
if you lower the franchise consider #y beyny
.111,---al.ld I
say q ciisiderably'l because, if thprg is'to, be merely an in
considerate diminution, it is not what we are talking about
—(hear, hear)—you introduce a body of melt whp by their
very numbers are able to putweigil, to outvote, a practi-,
tally to disfranchise every other ctass of voters in the king-
dom. (Cheeri.) Now, I decline to do this? but not beoo,lel

they are the working classes. There is no class in the coun-
try to whom I would allow this undue share of power. I
would not extend it to employers any more than the em-
ployed, to dwellers in counties any more than to dwellers
in boroughs. I would not give it to merchants, tradesmen,
or any other class, and I say, therefore, when once it is as-
certained that the proposed alteration in our representative
system would enable ene class by force of numbers to out-
weigh the class above it, I feel bound, without further con-
sideration, to reject any such proposition. These are my
reasons for contending that the principle of the bill which
will make the occupation franchise the same in the boroughs
and the counties a sound one, and these are my reasons
for decling to effect any considerable alteration in the
borough franchise. But now allow nee to ask this question
—Although we do not propose any alteration in the amount,
of the borough franchise, do we not in point of fact admit a
very large number of the working classes to the enjoyment
of the franchise ? I desire to put this fairly before the house
and the country, because it is much too serious a question
to allow of any misunderslanding with regard to it. In the
first place, in the counties we admit not less than 200,000
electors. I do not say that these will all belong to the work-
ing classes ; but you will remember the clouds of small
houses on the outskirts of all the Parliamentary boroughs
of this kingdom, you will remember the number of voters
who wilt come from unrepresented towns, and you will then
see that a large proportion of these 200,000 electors will be
more or less derived from the working classes. (Hear.) But
we do not stop there. By this bill we open the borough
franchise as it has never been opened before, and in a way
which I think will prove of the greatest importance to the
welfare of the working classes and to the extension of our
representative system. Observations have been made on
what is tolled the savings' bank clause, and upon the clause
relating to the 40s. freeholders. Well, we provide two means
by which any member of the working classes who is able to
realise and save a small sum of money may procure the
franchise either if he makes a permanent investment in a
small freehold or if he lodges his money in a savings-bank.
We have no precise statistics' as to the number who would
derive a vote under the savings-bank franchise, and I con-
fess I was lately much surprised to read the report of a
meeting at which the right hon. bart. (Sir B. Hall), when
commenting upon the Reform Bill before his constituents,
was represented as saying " that the bill was one of the
greatest political frauds ever attempted to be perpetrated."
(" Hear,:hear," and a laugh.) Now, I know it is usual,
especially when you are speaking to very popular consti-
tuencies, to use very broad and emphatic language in attack-
in g an opponent ; but I was anxious to know what was the
ground for this very serious accusation, made by a gentle-
man of such gravity as the right hon. baronet ; so I read the
rest of his speech, and the only point in the bill to which
he was reported as objecting was this savings-bank clause.
The right. hon. baronet said he had sent to Newport, he had
had a calculation mLde, and it was found that 60 people in
Newport had £6O in the savings-bank, but that with one
single exception all of them were either women or else had
the franchise already, the result being that only one person
in the place would be enfranchised under this bill. (A laugh.)
Now, while readinc, these remarks I could not help thinking
it would have been better if the right hon. baronet had taken
the case of the borough which he represents, and in which
he was speaking, and had endeavoured to find out the num-
ber of depositors there. (Hear, hear.) I dare say, though, he,
had some good reason for taking the borough of Newport.
(Hear, and laughter.) But I wanted to discover what there
was about this measure, although perhaps, it may not en-
franchise as many ad was expected, which should render it
" one of the greatest political frauds ever attempted to be
perpetrated," because the house will allow that this is rather
strong language. (Hear.) I looked back, therefore, to see what
had been proposed before on this subject, and I found that
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) in 1854 proposed a savings-
bank qualification. The person entitled to the franchise
was to have £5O in the bank, but he was to keep it there for
two years, and was to reside one year more in the place
where it was kept, so' that after three years he would have
the privilege of voting. (Hear and a laugh.) Well, I
thought if ours was a great political fraud, the scheme of
the noble lord would demand still harder language. (Hear.)
But on looking back I found that the right hon. baronet
took part in the debate. (Hear, hear.) He was not
a member of the Government at the time, but joined it a
very few months afterwards.; and ho thanked the
noble lord' .very much for introducing the measure, his
only objection to it being that it did not give half-a-dozen
additional members to Marylebone. (Laughter.) Not one
word did he say then. about a great political fraud. (Cheers.)
lam sorry the right hon. baronet is not here. [Sir B. Hall
was sitting on the front bench below the gangwaay.) I beg
his pardon. I see he has changed his place. (Cheers and
laughter.) He has now taken his seat beside the noblejord
the member for the City of London, and I leave them to
settle the question of the difference between a £5O or a £6O
savings-bank franchise, as creating or not creating a great
political fraud. (Cheers.) So much for the objections of
the right lion. baronet. But, now let me ask the house to
consider this savings-bank qualification. An error has pre-
vailed with regard to it, which may as well be corrected.
It is said that owing to the limit upon the amount of de-
posits received it will require two years before a man can
put £6O in a savings-bank. That is a mistake, because
though £3O is the limit for a year, two days over the year
willisuffice to enable a man to deposit a second £3O. (Hear,
hear.) This, however, is only by the way, and does not
touch the essence of the measure.. (" Oh 1" and cheers.)
But, now remember that was said by an hon. member last
night. Speaking as to the operation of this savings-bank
clause, he said there were in a particular town 1,200 depo-
sitors of ao and upwards, a very great number of whom
did not posseds the franchise at all. (Hear, hear.) I think
that is a tolerably significant fact, and if we had the means
of searching we should probably find that a very large
number of persons all over the country would be enfran-
chised by means of this clause. (Hear, hear.) What, how-
ever. I take to be the merit of this franchise is, that it en-
courages the working classes to display providence, fore-
thought, frugality; and the very means by which they are
obtaining the franchise, which it is supposed they desire,
is thus in itself a kind of moral training which must reflect
upon their conduct and welfare in the future, and must
exercise a most wholesome influence over the working
classes at large. (Hear.) There is a difference between
this franchise and every other we have hitherto had. Tell a
man that if he will only take a £lO, £B, or even a £5 house
he shall have the franchise, and you may be doing the very
worst thing in the world for his interest, for you maybe en-
couraging him to live in a manner which his earnings or his
means do not justify. (Hear, hear.) But say to a man,
"It is your duty to lay by money for yourself in time of
sickness, and for your family after your death, and at the
same time you thall have this further inducement, for we
will give you the right of voting, as though you lived in a
£lO house," and you invite him to do that which must be
beneficial to himself. and his family, and which must tend
also greatly to encourage habits of prudence among the
working Llasses at large. (Hear.) I have now gone through
the various points contained in the bill of the noble lord,
and explained the nature of the propositions which we have
laid before the house. But I cannot help thinking that I
should altogether fail in the performance of my duty on this
occasion if I were now to stop short and not to inquire what
the practical object is which the noble lord proposes by
means of his amendment to attain.. (Hear, hear.) His re
solution must clearly have been moved with some object,
and we ought, as sensible men to consider what that object,
is, and to form our opinions accordingly. Now there are
two conclusions which were to be drawn from the amend •
wont andthe speech of the noble lord. - The first of those
conclusions is, that he is afraid to meet this bill on the
second reading. (Cheers.) The second conclusion is, that
the noble lard declines to tell us what measure he proposes
to substitute for that which he condemns. (Hear, hear.)
Let me take the resolution itself and dissect it. To what,
let me ask, does it amount ? It condemns two particular
features in the bill, and the inference to be drawn from that
fact is this, that the noble lord does not object to anything
in the bill, with the exception of those two points. (Cries
of " Ne, no 1") Ido not say that that is exactly the case,
but I have drawn, I contend, the logical deduction from the
noble lord's proposition. (Cheers.) Well, I want to know if
this be a fair interpretation of the views of the noble lord
and of those who are prepared to support his amendment,
because we are entitled, upon a subject of this importance,
to know what those who oppose the bill in its main fea-
tures propose to substitute for it. (Hear, hear.) In the
elucidation of that point I thought we might de-
rive some advantage from the sentiments of the noble lord
when a short time ago he was called upon to give expression
to them upon this subject. There was not long since a meet-
ing of the constituents of the noble lord—for his constituents
—like any other member's of this house—will meet and ask
questions—(a laugh)—and they desired to have the noble
opinions upon the subject of reform. It is, no doubt, an ad-
vantage to have a popular constituency, for you may corre-
spond with them by letter when it is inconvenient to attend
their meetings in person—(Hear, and a laugh)—and we all
know that the noble lord is fond of epistolary correspon-
dence. (Renewed laughter.) At all events, he had recourse
to it upon this occasion. An hon. baronet, an old and most
respected member of this house (Sir J. Duke), adopted a
different course; he went to the meeting, and, having done
so, was reported to have addressed it to the following effect.
He said, " He had felt it to be his duty to attend there that
day instead of writing a letter. Ido not know what that
means. (Cheers and laughter.) ' The observation, how-
ever, was received with cheers, and the hon. baronet con-
tinued—" He felt it to be his duty to attend there that day
in order that he might hear the sentiments of that great
assemblage, for the guidance of his conduct in Parliament.
He had done all in his power to promote the extension of the
franchise, and he had hoped that Lord J. Russell, or some
other person, would have done them the justice of laying
upon the table of the house a measure to supplant the one
under discussion, in. order that the Liberal party might see
what they would bo called upon to support when the Go-
vernment scheme had been rejected." (Cheers.) " Such
a course would have been straightforward towards the
Liberal members of the House of Commons." (Hear.) Now
T cannot help thinking that there is a great deal of truth in
the observations which the hon. baronet addressed to the
nieeting, and I for one thought it was an unnatural ex
pectation to indulge in. But, although the constituents of
the noble lord had not been afforded the satisfaction of
hearing him, yet he would, in accordance with his pro-
mise made m his letter to them, state his views upon
this subject distinctly when it came under discussion
in this house. (Hear.) But We now have the advantage of
having heard the noble lord's speech, and I ask what his
views are upon some of the questions which appear to me
to be involved in the consideration of this measure? Let
me take, for instance, the question of the ballot, which I
contend is involved in the discussion, not because it enters
into the bill, but because a large section of the members of
this house look upon it as a necessary ingredient in any
scheme of Reform. (Hear, hear.) I know what were the
opinions held by the noble lord in times past upon this
question. I have often experienced great satisfaction in
listening to his declarations of hostility to the ballot in this
house. I want to know whether he still retains the same
views with respect to it to which he formerly gave expres-
sion. (Cheers.) I wish particularly to have an answer
upon this point, for I find that a large number of those hon.
members who sit near the noble lord below the gangway
haie attended public meetings, and have contended that,
although they deemed the extension of the franchise in
boroughs to be expedient, yet they did not desire to have it
unaccompanied by the ballot. (Cheers.) If, therefore, the
noble lord continues to maintain the sentiments to which he
to Xl!":.; a
has so often given expression on this subject, I should like
to know who are those gentlemen sitting below the gaug..
way on the opposite side of the house who can he reckoned
popularand the hop..
upon as his supporters in any schern;ofr.
Freofrosrtmeriwhich.; he
may introduce? (Cheers.) We were Informed last
told-fist
phrase, "
n;--
that the hon. member for 'Walsall
constitnents distinctly that the noble. lore
tmheemsbaemrefobro
aeed upon eve, subject."
(Cries of " No, no 1" and cheers.) The, 4-4
gentleman's words :—" you Will Wait till 11.
Bati,rmanindghpeamrfewctej,e,
the
will find that there is
,pgfect
agreement bet
next week you
between Lord
John Russell and 01.11.1 bright." I bethe hon. member
for Birming]?ta,l4l4 Pardon fer
wam
ngmentionof him in
suF torus. (441140
Mr. FOARTBR rose to • explain that what he had said on
the onpasion to, which the hen, and learned gentleman
the nOble lord the was matter of common notoriety that
4414°
for Birmingham—(great laugh-
ter)--he corm the, ruemb9r for London—and the hon. gen-
tleman the ,Member tor
coßimini
WA to Vast'gham were perfectly agreed
urso to be taken with regard to the bill under