The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 4, 1866.

L as possible a£6 rental. The bill of Lord Aber•
; deen's Government was the same as to the franchise
; as the bill brought in by Lord Palmerston's Govern-
; merit in 1860, and I will show you exactly what that
is. Some cottages in which I have an interest will
serve as an illustration. The rents are 3s. per
week, or £7 16s. 3d. per annum, taking the exact
amount. The assessments are made in this way :
They take off 20 per cent. for poor rates, which
brings the amount down to £6 ss. ; for the purpose
of assessing the poor rate reduction is made for
landlord's repairs and perhaps losses of rent,
together 20 per cent. The £7 16s. 3d. house which
I am describing will stand as a house of the net
rental of £6 55., or as assessed to the poor rate
precisely £5, and therefore every man who pays 3s.
per week for his rent, his landlord paying the rates,
would have a vote either with a rental franchise of
£6, or a rating franchise of £5, and therefore every
man can tell whether he would have a vote under
either of the bills which have been proposed. The
Government may be considered pledged to one or
both of these propositions, because Earl Russell was
the man who brought in the Reform Bill under
Lord Aberdeen's Government, and who also intro-
duced the Reform Bill under Lord Palmerston's
Government, which at this moment is endeavour-
ing to prepare—perhaps, to speak disrespectfully
of it, to hatch—another bill for the coming session.
—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, as to the

Government, I should not find myself at liberty to

complain, if they adhere to either of these proposi-
tions, because they are not pledged to anything be-
yond them, and I am bound to allow that they have
the right to consider fairly the difficulties in their
path, and that the passing of a better bill is not so
easy as you or I may think it to be ; but still, if I
were asked to give my advice, and I do not know
why in a free country we have not the right to give
advice, I should say that the franchise which is es-
tablished generally in the corporations of England
_ _

and Wales would be a better franchise than either

of those. I think it would be, and if you adopted
household suffrage, you would restore, as it were,
the ancient constitutional borough franchise of the
kingdom.—(Loud cheers.) I took the opportunity
in a recent speech at Birmingham to show how en-
tirely this franchise was constitutional, and how
completely it was sustained by one of the noblest Par-
liaments that ever contended against despotism and
sustained the freedom of England—l mean the Par-
ment of 1628, which had so much and grave con-
tention with Charles I. There is one point in this
which I think it may be useful to mention. There
are plenty of municipal electors here before me, and
in the borough of Rochdale ; but in Scotland, if I
am not mistaken, the municipal bodies, the corpo-
ration, the town councillors, the bailies (who are
equal to our aldermen), and the provosts (who have

the same position as our mayors), are chosen by the
same electors who choose the members of Parlia-
ment, and not by a lower franchise. I have yet to
learn that the municipal bodies of Scotland have,
within the last thirty years, better fulfilled their duty
or administered the affairs of their municipalities
than the municipal constituencies of l 13gland.
(Cheers.) lam convinced enough to be able to say
that the corporations of England, during the last
nearly thirty years that they have been established,
have administered the affairs of the corporate towns
of England in a manner satisfactory to the inhabi-
tants; and I think that ought to be satisfactory to
the Government and to all classes of the people.
(Cheers.) If that be so, why should any man ima-
gine that your municipal constituency would not re-
turn as good members to Parliament as your present,
exclusive and £lO constituency ? If every house-
holder could. vote for every head of a family, my
hon. friend, when he came here, or when I went to
Birmingham, would not require to go through the
humiliating process, partly to us and still more to

the people, of addressing two classes—the electors
and the non-electors—at Rochdale and Birmingham.
We should find so many of the householders of the
town included in the great body of electors that we
should feel that when we threw ourselves on the good
opinion and support of the electoral body, we really
threw ourselves upon the opinion of all the intelligent
population of the town. There is in this question of
the franchise something even, if possible, deeper and
higher than any decision as to who should represent
you in Parliament. There is no slave class that
ever raised itself in slavery—there is no serf class
that ever grew great in serfdom—there is no ex-
cluded class in a country which calls itself a

free country, which did not work for their own
elevation under great signal and insuperable disad-
vantages. I believe if you give a vote to a large.

•
number of working men, or to all householders—
and although it included a large number of idle,
drunken, and profligate persons, who are indeed to
be found in every class—l believe that you s ould
give to the great bulk of them something that would
be invaluable ; it would give at least a great num-
ber of them occasion to think of their position, and
to entertain a much higher idea of it. You would
add enormously to and go far to create an idea of
self-respect in them—(cheers)—and I venture to
say that no measure which could take nothing that
private' benevolence or private teaching could ac-
complish, could approach the immense good of every
kind that would come to the great body of the
people from being admitted to the rank of citizens.
(Cheers.) To come to another point not connected
with the interests of the boroughs, there is the ques-
tion of the franchise in the counties. Many of you
probably know that before the Reform Bill of 1832
there was no occupation franchise in the counties,
the freeholders almost alone exercising the right.
The Tory party in the House of Commons in 1832
carried an amendment to the Reform Bill of that
year, which gave the franchise to the occupiers of
houses and farms of the value of £5O a year; they
did so with the known intention, with the known
object of conferring on all the tenants of the landed
proprietors a vote, which vote they knew, as we
now know, they would exercise in the main exactly
as their landlord or his steward would point out.
Now, the question of the county franchise, so far as
public opinion has really discussed and considered
it, seems to have fixed itself at the same amount of
rental which has hitherto been the franchise in the
boroughs--that is, that the occupation franchise
should no longer stop at £5O rental, but be brought
down to £lO. I will show how irresistible, under
the circumstances, this claim is. Lord Derby
brought in a bill in 1859, and that bill, because
it did not reduce the borough franchise, was in
consequence rejected. It did, however, re-
duce the county franchise from £5O to £lO, but it
added a clause—a most mischievous clause to us and
to the people—a clause which disfranchised every
freeholder within the limits of a borough from vot-
ing for the future in the counties. The object being
that as they had reduced the county franchise, it
was a popular act, as they would call it in their po-
litical jargon, to compensate for it and not disturb
the existing supremacy of the squires by excluding
all the freeholders in the borough from voting in
the counties. Earl Russell is not likely to make a
proposition of this kind, for that was the one strong
point on which he took exception to the Derby Re-
form Bill. And how can the friends of Lord Derby,
after having proposed a reduction of the county

franchise to £lO themselves, have now the face to

oppose it? It is true they now say they would pro-

pose it, but with a compensation. But what answer
is that to the £lO occupier, whom they proposed to
admit? Did they propose to admit £lO occupiers
who were unsuited and unfit ? If the Derby Cabi-
net, after much discussion, in 1859, thought it was
proper to admit all occupiers of £lO in the counties,
is there any one of them who will get up now and
say that the £lO occupier in the counties is not fit
to be entrusted with the elective franchise? (Cheers.)
Will, when the Palmerston Government came in,
their bill of 1860 reduced the county franchise to
£lO. That, clause in the bill, as far as I remember,
was not even objected to by the Tory party in the
house as far as they discussed the measure,although
they succeeded, with the aid of certain other gentry,
in talking it out altogether. (Hear, hear.) Their
objection, then, was not to the extension of the
county franchise, but to the extension of the borough
franchise. I should alsopropose to reduce the county
franchise to £lO, but it would be necessary to state
that no occupier of land should be enfranchised
under it whose house was not of certain real value,
say a value of £6, at which it might psssibly be fixed,

because, unless a value befixed with the landowners,
who cut out squares of land of two, three, or four
acres, and make as many electors of that class, who,
wholly dependent on themselves, would place every
county constituencyin the kingdom at their disposal.
There is no party in the country to whom the pro-
position I have been discussing with regard to the
borough franchise is so important as the inhabitants
of the boroughs which form the metropolis of this
country. In London the value of land is so high,
and the houses are built so large, that a great num-
ber of the working classes—heads of families—live
under some condition or other as lodgers,who would
still be excluded by the Act of 1860, but who must
be considered in the bill which I am discussing.
Although there is no question so difficult as not to
be put into a clause in an act of Parliament, I tried
some years ago, and found it extremely difficult to
do what I thought right. It appears to me that a
much wider interpretation must be given to the term
lodger, and that some moderate rental and moderate
residence must be fixed, in order to meet the large
class in the metropolitan boroughs who are now
excluded, and would still be excluded, under a £6
rental, or under anything that could be called a
household suffrage. This is a point so evident that
Government will no doubt take it into consideration.
If, however, I might give them a bit of advice, it
would be this—that the bill should be simple, that
it should offer as few opportunities as possible for
contests in Parliament, that it should be drawn up
with all the ability that the ablest lawyer in the
employ of Government can give to it, and that when
presented to Parliament it should be manfully de-
fended to the last. (Cheers.) I have been told—
but I do not attach much value to it—that there
are persons who advise Earl Russell to have a £l2
or a £l5 franchise for the counties, and that there
are men of such remarkable timidity and credulity
as to think that a £2O franchise would be satisfactory.
I believe there are persons who think that there is
something dreadful in a £6 franchise, and that one
of £7 or £8 would be enough to admit the working
men ; and now that we have one at £lO, only just
open it a little and admit those who happen to be
extravagant enough or ostentatious enough in the
matter of rent, and that then the door should be
shut again ; so that this great body of the people,

le 5,000,000, after all, would be as much
excluded as at present. I venture to think that if
the Government yields to these propositions they
will be guilty, not only of weakness—not of false
weakness t they will show that they do not compre-
hend the position which this question occupies in the
minds of their countrymen, and will prove that they
are pedlars in politics, and not statesmen. I have
said that I think that the position of the question is
in some respects intricate, although on the whole
favourable, because of the long discussions that we
have had with respect to it, because we have a ripe-
ness of opinion with regard to it, and because its
necessity is admitted in the unmistakable pledges of
Government. But there are points on which the
question occupies rather a critical position, and one
of these is said to be this—l am not much afraid of
it myself—it is this :We have only just had an elec-
tion—l am not speaking of those who have got in ;
either they or their friends musthave incurred a very
large expenditure. There are about 200 members in
this Parliament who were not in the last, who have
incurred an expenditure of from £5OO to £lO,OOO
for retaining or obtaining their seats. The election
for the Riding cost both parties about £27,000, the
winner £14,000 and the loser £13,000. I have also
heard of a borough not to be compared in popula-
tion or importance, where the losing candidate paid
£12,000, and a Parliamentary committee may soon
discover how much the winning candidate paid. It
is said that when the forthcoming bill is presented
to the House of Commons there will be a sort of
cold shudder run through the men who have paid so
much money for their seats ; and they will say that
if they vote for the bill it will pass, and if it passes
it w ill be necessary to dissolve Parliament ; there-
fore I take it for granted that, if the measure fail,
one of two things must happen—either we must
retire and Mr. Disraeli and his friends come in, or
else Parliament will be immediately dissolved. I
believe the last is quite certain ; but if the bill
should pass during the session, it is not at all
necessary that Parliament should be immedi-
ately dissolved. Many imagine that the circum-
stances in 1866 are the same as they were in
1832. That is not so. They are totally different,
and the country is in a totally different position.
In the bill of 1832 a large number of boroughs were
swept away into space, and never heard of again, !
and a great number of boroughs were enfraychised
for the first time. There was an attempt, or some-
thing like one, to give a really popular representation
in all the great towns by extending the franchise to
£lO householders, and in counties by extending it to
£l5 occupiers. One could not have imagined that
Government, after having proposed a bill of that
extent in 1832, could proceed to legislate, for four
or five years, with a Parliament -which included
within it a great number of boroughs which could
not be found on any chart as exact as the Ordnance
map of the country. We are not in that position
now. The bill which I am now discussing, drawing
in some measure of course upon my imagination,
and assuming that it does not disfranchise the small
boroughs and deal only with the suffrage, will not
condemn any political representation. It will not
say that the electors of Rochdale or Birmingham are
more unworthy of the trust which they hold. It
will not condemn the present constituencies, but
it simply adds to them a certain number of electors,
and infuses a somewhat more popular element.
Surely that would not render necessary another elec-
tion. The new voter will not come on to the regis-
ter until August or September. The register itself
would not come into operation until next January.
It would therefore not be a matter of complaint if
Parliament went on for one, or even two sessions,
and came to an end, somewhat sooner because of
this change ; but still came to an end, as it would do,
were it not for one of those accidents which do
sometimes in this country cut short the lives of Par-
liaments. Therefore, what in my opinion Govern-
ment would say, and say very truly, without any
intention to affect unduly the minds of any persons,
would be this, " The gentlemen opposite must either
come here, and we change sides with them, which,
after the majority which was returned at the last
election, would be obviously absurd, or we must dis-
solve Parliament, and if you vote against the bill,
you must go back to your constituencies, and ask
whether you have done your duty." On the con-
trary, if the bill passes it is in the power of Govern- •

ment to say that they will not consider an immediate
dissolution of Parliament necessary, and it is their
duty to allow Parliament to retain such an existence
as the course of events may render proper without
any exact reference to this subject. This is one of
the dangers which I am told is consideredto be hang-
ing over us ; but there is a danger which is very dif-
ferent, and infinitely more substantial, viz., whether
the Government will have force and courage to do
what a Government can do in carrying such a mea-
sure through Parliament. Edmund Burke, who was
a great critic, said, " This is my idea of a Govern-

ment—one consisting of presiding principle and

- -
prolific energy." At this moment the principle of

the Government is admitted to be the extension of

the political rights of the people. Whether they will
show the prolific energy which is necessary for mak-
_ _ ___

ing their bill an act of Parliament, time only can

show. Now, if Lord Russell holds the reins with

tremulous and feeble hands, I think the dangerfrom

this source is tenfold more than anything that can
arise from any other source in the coming session.

I saw the other day a paragraph from an Indian

newspaper, which, describing the immense extensive

household of an Indian rajah or prince, stated that
there were some hundreds of what were called pro-

phesying Brahmins in his establishment. A Brahmin

is a Hindoo priest, and is of great authority. Now
I have no daubt whatever that there are prophesy-
ing Brahmins in the great Whig House somewhere,

and I dare say they are foretelling all sorts of evils
that may come from the passing of this bill.
(Laughter.) I have heard a member, and a member

since then of a Whig Cabinet, declare that he be-
lieved that there was no one in the country more
frightened of the Reform Bill than certain members
of Brookes' Club—the great Whig club in St.
James-street, London. If the prophesying Brahmins
are foretelling all kinds of evil, I venture to tell

Lord Russell that their councils, if followed, will
be not only perilous, but I believe they will be
fatal councils to him and to his Government.
(Cheers.) Every open foe of this measure
will be emboldened, every concealed and
treacherous foe will be stimulated to his treasure.
The confidence of the people throughout the coun-
try, which is now healthy and growing, will be lost,
and the end of the present Government maybe easily
predicted. (Hear.) There are two facts that have
lately occurred which fill my mind with some ap-
prehension. I hope that they are accidental, and
exceptional. To one of them my hon. friend has
already referred, namely, the question of what has
been transacted in the island of Jamaica. I think I
observe a deplorable feebleness in the course which
has been taken. Many of you have read the long
despatch—of I know not how many scores of para-
graphs—sent home to the Colonial-office by the
governor of that unhappy island. I venture to say
that the very hour when that despatch was read by
the Colonial Minister he should have issued sum-
monses
for a Cabinet meeting to take it into consi-
deration ; but it appears that for about three weeks
literally nothing passed before that great deputation
waited on Mr. Cardwell, when he did not feel him-
self able to tell them anything the Government had
done. They tell us that we are to wait. Well, Mr.
Cardwell waited, and apparently nothing has come
from his waiting. lam told that one of the great
actors in this great tragedy has come from Jamaica
—has had an interview with members of the Go-
vernment, and that even he has nothing further to
communicate. Then what was the object of wait-
ing? If facts were admitted, the illegal putting to
death of subjects of the Queen and citizens of the
empire was minutely and accurately described by
the very pen and hand of the governor himself.
(Cheers.) Nothing that he could say afterwards
could unsay or undo that which had been said and
done with regard to the execution of Mr. Gordon.
I believe there is not a judge in this kingdom at
this hour—there is not a law officer of the Crown in

the three kingdoms—there is not a lawyer in
practice in the three kingdoms—which will differ
from the opinion that I now express—that the
execution of that unfortunate man (Gordon)
was in all its parts—in his transference from
the place where he was arrested --•, in his being
handed over to a court formed, it is said, of two

lieutenants and an ensign, or some such inferior
officers—in the manner in which lie was treated
before that tribunal—in the manner in which he was
treated after his mock trial,—l say, from the begin-
ning to the end, it is a mass of illegality ; and I be-
lieve there is not a judge who sits upon the bench in
this United Kingdom who, speaking in his private
capacity, would doubt for one single moment that
Gordon was murdered. (Cheers.) You have all
read that letter which he wrote to his wife within an

hour of his execution. I know nothing in letter
writing that surpasses it. When I read it my .ex-
clamation, my first thought was—why this reminds
me of the temper and the language of the Martyr
Stephen ; and since that martyrdom I have read of
nothing in which the language and the temper were
so beautiful as the expressions contained in that
.melancholy and wonderful epistle. And yet lam
told—l hope my authority is not good—that when
Parliament meets there will be a desperate onslaught
on Mr. Cardwell and the Government because they
have suspended the Governor and have sent out a
commission of inquiry. One of these Tory gentle-
men said, "Ay, if so and so had been Prime Minis-
ter he would not have given way to the clamour of a
hundred dissenting persons." (Derisive cheers.) I
cannot believe that that party which calls itself
Conservative will make this question of Jamaica a
battle-ground in the ensuing session. Mr. Disraeli
is a man a head and shoulders taller than all those
who sit about him or follow him in all intellectual
statesmanship, and I do not, and I will not until I
see it, believe that Mr. Disraeli will ever permit the
shocking atrocities committed in Jamaica, or a de-
fence of them, to be in any way associated with his
public character and career. (Cheers.) Besides,
suppose—which I should think highly probable—
suppose that Mrs. Gordon were to retire from the
island so sad to her henceforth, and come to Eng-
land—suppose she came to the bar of the House of
Commons to ask for justice—is there any man in
that house who would dare get up to deny justice
to that woman ? Or if she should make her way
as a suppliant to the steps of the throne, will the
widow of the murdered Gordon ask in vain for jus-
tice at the hands of England's widowed Queen ?
(Loud cheers.) There is one other fact which has
given me some apprehension also. It is said, and I
believe with truth, that Earl Russell had asked Lord
Stanley to join his Government. Lord Stanley
knows quite well that I shall say nothing to depre-
ciate him. Ile is informed much above the average
of public men ; he is without passion ; he is impar-
tial ; and in matters at least which do not menace
his order he is liberal and just—in fact, he is re-
markable for nearly all those qualities in which Lord
Derby is singularly deficient. (Laughter and cheers.)
But it appears to me to be a mistake on the part of
Lord Russell to seek strength from the Opposition.
Lord Palmerston did the same thing, but with equal
success so far as regards Lord Stanley. But Lord
Palmerston thought every man had his price, and
that he knew his price. It was not likely that Lord
Stanley, standing in the relation that he does to the
leader of the Tory party, and bound up by political
and personal association with its leader in the House
of Commons—it was folly to suppose that he would
step from his old friends on that side and take his
place among their persistent opponents
on this side;
but I complain of this, and I lament it, because it
appears to me like a confession of weakness. It
appears as if Earl Russell acknowledged to the
world that the Whig party as far as statesmanship
was concerned was nearly worn out. If it be so it
must be by their own policy. It has been a com-
plaint against them, that they have not encouraged
young men, or able men, except just a few men of
their own particular party ; and it is thus that they
now find themselves in great difficulty in-filling up
the offices of the Government. Now there are 360
Liberals, it is said, in the present Parliament, and
yet it appears that Earl Russell and his col-
leagues cannot find one among them all who can
join his Government, or who would be so advan-
tageous to it as some one--in this case Lord Stanley
—from the Opposition. Suppose that all the old
Whigs—and Ido not speak of them without respect,
because in past times the country has had great ser-
vice from many of them—but suppose the old Whigs
were quietly deposited with all the symbols of na-
tional respect in Westminster Abbey—(laughter)—
does any man believe that you could not form a '
Government out of these 360 members of Parlia- ,

ment ? (Cheers.) Switzerland forms Administra-

tions, and there is now a general admission in Europe
that the United States even can produce statesmen.

(Cheers and laughter.) If that be so, is it not within
the bounds of probability or credibility that out of
the 360—0 r rather 354, for six of them are already

, -
in the Cabinet—that out of the 354 who are not in

the Cabinet a Cabinet might not be formed that

would conduct the affairs of the country just as
satisfactory as the Cabinet which now exists. I say
that this appears to me to be a symptom of weakness.
I lament it only on the ground, because I am quite
of opinion that Cabinets sometimes fall to pieces or
come to an end, just as the human system, without
any specific complaint except that which all the old

women who look on say is a sort of weaknesswhich

they cannot understand. (Laughter.) Now, I ven-
ture to say here that a great deal depends upon Lord

Russell himself. I lament that Lord Russell is not

at this moment a member of the House of Commons.

I think in that House on this question of Reform
he would have had much more influence than any

other man can have, and infinitely more influence

than be can have as a member of the House of

Lords—but unhappily he is in the house of Lords.
Much, however, depends upon him ; and I am not

sure with regard to the measure which is coming
that everything does not depend upon him. Hemay,

if he chooses, gather fresh strength. If he looks to
the ancestral voices which speak to him of the past,

or if at times he seems to listen to the memories of

his future fame, he may draw an inspiration and a

fire that may give him strength in this most critical
period of his public career. There are times when
what is called caution is feebleness and ruin—there

are times when the highest boldness is the highest

prudence and the greatest wisdom. I believe this a
time when, if Earl Russell will take up this ques-
tion with the firmness which distinguished him
30 years ago, and will rely upon the good feel-
ing, the good sense, and the general support
of Parliament and the people, he will carry
this measure to a triumphant success. (Cheers.)
But two things are possible. lam not sure that
they are not clear. One is, that if this question is
treated with a feeble hand the Government will fall ;
and the other is, that if this Government fall, pre-
sided over by the most eminent statesman now living
of the Whig party, we are likely to see the entire
extinction of the Whigs as a governing party in the
affairs of this country. But whether the Govern-
ment are equal to the time or not, the cause we
espouse, and which I am endeavouring to defend,
is nevertheless quite safe. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
It has within it an indestructible life. Feebleness
or treachery may retard it for a time, but cannot
prevent its final and its early triumph. (Cheers.)
There is an old poem that I read with great pleasure
many years ago, the Faerie Queen—there is a line
which I think may teach us something of our present
position

" No fort so fencible, no wall so strong,
But that continual battery may rive."
I feel certain that the fort of selfishness and mono-
poly cannot be held for ever, and that the wall of
privilege cannot through all time resist the multitude
that are gathering to the assault. (Cheers.) In all
the nations of the world of this day I believe the
powers of good are gaining steadily on the powers
of evil. I think it is eminently and happily so in
this country. Let us take courage, then. 'We are
endeavouring, by constitutional means, to compass
a great constitutional end : to make the Parliament
not only the organ of the will, but the honest and
the faithful guardian of the interests, of all classes
in the country. It is a great and noble purpose
which we have set ourselves to do, but it is a pur-
pose which cannot fail, if we are true to it and to
ourselves. (Cheers, and prolonged cheering, amidst
which Mr. Bright resumed his scat.)
The resolution was unanimonsly adopted ; as also
was a petition praying for an amendment of the
Reform Act ; and the proceedings terminated with
a vote of thanks to the Mayor for presiding.