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

vested interests of the freeholders had not been saved. He

signal for that agitation and that dissatisfaction out of doors
which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) depre-
cated. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. H. PHILIPPS always felt the greatest reluct-
ance to affirm an abstract resolution, especially when it had
reference to a bill before. Parliament. The right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) pre-
dicted the other night that if the bill passed as it stood,
there would hereafter be an " ugly rush" to pass the line
which excluded the working classes. Ile (33-r- Philipps)
believed that if the franchise could only be reached through
taxation, that " ugly rush" would be converted into a pace
as solemn and deliberate as the "Dead March in Saul."
(Laughter.) Reserving to himself the right to take what-
ever course he pleased, if the bill should come before them
on the question of the second reading, he should vote
against the resolution, of the noble lord, because it tended
to create an inconvenient precedent, and to prevent fair
Parliamentory discussion.
Mr. C. FORSTER said that on the previous night the
noble lord the member for Stamford had done him the
honour to refer to something which he had recently said to
his constituents. What he said, or meant to say, was that
as respected the bill under discussion there was perfect
agreement between the noble lord the member for London
and the hon. memberfor Birmingham, and that they would
be found walking into the same lobby. As a borough
member, he of course felt most interested in the operation
of the bill with regard to the representation of the bo-
roughs. Like his hon. friend the member for Middlesex,
he should have preferred meeting this bill with a direct ne-
gative, but not having the opportunity of doing that, he
should, whatever might be the ulterior consequences, vote
or the resolution of the noble lord.
Mr. STANHOPE said there were two points in which,
as a county member, he naturally felt especially interested
—one relating to the 40s. freeholds in lboroughs, and the
other to the £lO franchise in counties. As regarded the
40s. freeholds, he did not consider it right in principle to
deprive people of a franchise which had once been
granted ; but, on the other hand, he had never
' been able to understand why a person who lived
in a borough should be permitted to vote for the
county, and a person who lived at a distance from a
borough should not be allowed to vote for that borough, the
property possessed by both being the same. It appeared to
him that there were but two principles on which the house
could act in this matter. Ile had a few words to say on
the principle of the bill. Were he to consider it as a mere
disjointed set of clauses, many of them excellent, while
some were more questionable, he might not trouble the
house on this point. But he found that the principle of
the measure was the assimilation of the town and county
voters. If he were called upon to affirm that as the right
principle of his political life, he must say that he felt it west
surrounded with manifold objections, and however muechat
might distress him, he should feel it his duty to oppos
principle. But at the same time he never would, on any
consideration, give his sanction to the sort of amendment
now before the house. Such amendments had lately be-
come too prevalent. It was an amendment affirming
nothing, and put forward with a view of catching every-
body—an amendment so general, that while it took in men
of all sides, it would not commit the person proposing it to
any course whatever—(cheers)—aae amendment so vague
that he defied anybody to say what was its real meaning.
(Cheers.) It asserted that no measure which did not lower
the franchise would be satisfactory—but to what extent ?
Was it to be a £6 or a 8.,5 franchise? Was it to be man-
hood or universal suffrage ? (Cheers.) The noble lord re-
fused to give any statement of his views on this matter.
(Hear, hear.) If the noble lord and his friends were dis-
satisfied with the principle of the bill, let them, as he had
done, manfully say so ; but do not let them from mere per-
sonal motives endeavour to throw out a bill by an amend-
ment every part of which might be introduced in committee.
(Cheers.)
Mr. DODSON had heard it said that they ought not to
vote against this bill without knowing what measure was to
be brought in next. His answer to that was, he voted against
this bill because it was a bad bill, and should the next bill
be no better, he should vote against that also. As to the
resolution, every kind of objection had been raised against
it. It meant too much—it meant too little—it meant
everything—it meant nothing-. Now to his mind the reso-
lution affirmed two points of great importance—points so
important that no step ought to be taken with the Govern-
ment measure until those leading principles had been
affirmed by the house. Indeed, the resolutions seemed to
him to be an act of kindness to the Government. If they
passed the Government had only to follow the course which
it took on the India Bill, which it followed on the Jew Bill
and the Voters at Elections Bill, and acquiescing in the
resolutions alter their measure accordingly. The Govern-
ment, however, had as yet only defended to a certain extent
their measure,and it had been insisted thatthe system ofcounty
voters in boroughs was an anomaly. But if they touched
everything connected with our representative system where
were they to stop ? It was said that there could be no rea-
son why a person having property in a borough should
have a vote for the county ; but the reason for that was
plain enough. Property in the borough was no less pro-
perty in the county m which that borough was situate, and
the holder of that property had as much an interest in the
county representation as if the property were situate in the
county. He believed that the tendency of this bill was to
create a broad line of demarcation between different classes,
and as such he should give it his opposition.
Mr. VANSITTART had listened with considerable at-
tention to the speech of the noble lord the member for Lon-
don in the hope of hearing some reasons for the mischievous
amendment now under discussion. He had, however, heard
no such reason, and to his mind the noble lord appeared to
be smarting under the want of success which attended his
efforts in the cause of reform in 1854. He was aware that
there were certain members of the other side, who were very
anxious to give the right of representation to those who
hitherto had been represented by their leaders, rulers, and
paymasters—(ironical oheers)—and he would remind the
house that these gentlemen also wished to consign a large
number of peers to perdition. (Laughter.) With respect
to the savings bank franchise, Mr. Wright, the manager of
the Windsor bank, had favoured him with a return by
which it appeared that 20 per cent. of the depositors would
obtain the franchise under the clause. (Hear.) He trwsted
that in committee on the bill sonic means might be found
to make the machinery of registration less expensive, and
to counteract the baneful influence exercised by rate col-
lectors at the time of a general election.
Mr. CROSSLEY.—A good deal had been said of the time
which had been occupied by reform, and they were told that
it had been a cabinet question ever since 1851. It was said
that bills had been introduced, and had been withdrawn, and
that this was the only one which they Were called upon to
read a second time. He thought it very possible that this
bill might pass into a law, and still leave the question of
reform as unsettled as it had found it. (Hear, hear.) Who
now called for reform ? It was neither the higher nor the
middle classes, but those who were left out in the bill of
1832, namely, the working classes of this co-sultry. (Hear,
hear) The noble lord the Secretary for India asked how a
man was to be distinguised as belonging to the working
class. His (Mr. Crossley's) definition was, the man who de-
pended on the labour of his hands for the bread of life. Now
that class, he contended, had been left out im the bill of 1832,
;bad that they were also left out in the government bill of
.859. (Hear, hear.) He thought that right hon. gentle-
men opposite had shown great industry, and had devoted
most praiseworthy attention to the business of the country,
while they had most favourably impressed all who had
found it necessary to trouble them with deputations. For
these reasons he should be exceedingly sorry to give any
vote which should have the effect of turning them out of
office, the more especially as there was no one on that (the
opposition) side of the house who had proved himself fit to
lead the liberal party. So lately as Wednesday last they
found the two noble lords who assumed the leadership ab-
sent from their posts, and, indeed, they had so often de-
serted their followers in the lobby that they were now left
with scarcely any followers to desert. (Ministerial cheers.)
The conduct of the noble lord the member for Lynn had
been very different. Openly and manfully the noble lord
had voted for the abolition of church-rates, and he (Mr.
Crossley) regretted that the noble lord must, according to
rule, serve a seven years' apprenticeship before his attain-
ment of the premiership. For his part he should rather
have a horse who had his work still in him, than one who
had been completely used up. (Cheers and laughter.) With
great regret he should give a vote the effect of which must
be to turn out the governmout, but still he could not sup-
port the second reading of a bill which on the face of it re-
fused the admission of the working classes to the franchise.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. KNIGHTLEY said that the peculiarity of the go-
vernment bill was that, like the gold and silver shield in
the tub, it presented a different aspect according as it was
looked at from different sides of the house. The objection
he had always held to an extension of the county franchise
was very much mitigated by the bill of the Government,
but still he held that you should not enlarge the county
constituency unless you at the same time enlarge the county
representation. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that the
counties had never yet had their fair share of the repre-
sentation. As for the resolution of the noble lord, he under-
stood the noble lord's wish to be that the freeholders should
remain untouched. But what was the present state of the
law in this respect, and how did it operate? If a man had
a small house and garden, worth £l2 a year, he had out of
them two votes, one for the county and one for the borough,
while another man, his neighbour, might be worth £l,OOO
a year and have only one. This arrangement operated
heavily against the county interest. Take Middlesex for
instance. In that county, out of 17,000 voters, one half
voted for property within represented boroughs. In Lan-
cashire,_ out of 20,000, 12,000 held similar qualifications. It
was, therefore, quite obvious that in those counties, the
towns, as well as their own members, returned also the
members for the county. (Hear, hear.) The present bill
was, in fact, only a copy of that of the noble lord; and there
was even a greater authority, that of the late premier' in
favour of the
principle. On the same occasion the noble
lord the member for Tiverton eulogised this sort of dis•
franchisement, as tending to preserve the balance between
county and town, and ensuring- an efficient and independent
representation for both. (Hear, hear.) To deprive the
working classes in rural districts of any privileges which
were enjoyed by their brethren in the boroughs,
wete would be
an injustice so gross and so monstrous, that if it per-
petrated it would ere long lead to that " ugly rash" which
had been prophesied by a right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.)
Under these cu cumstances he (Mr. Knightley) should sup-
that
port the second reading, though he would frankly
the bill was not at present in a form of which hwencould
wholly approve. (Cheers.)
Mr. S. HERBERT (who spoke from the front opposition
bench below the gangway) confessed that he had been much
astonished by the speeches which he had heard in the course
of the present debate. If he were blind he should have
thought that the orations which had been delivered from the
other side of the house were spoken on that, and vice versa.
(Heer, hear.) He did not himself go so far as some of his
Conservative frienls. He was not prepared for electoral dis-
tricts, and he was not ready to argue the whole question of
the representation upon a mere numerical calculation of
aliquot parts. (Hear.) He had listened, as everybody
must have done, with admiration and delight to the speech
of the right hon, baronet the Secretary for the Colonies.
(Cheers.) But in the midst of that splendid declamation
he had listened in vain for any indication of some course
which the Government might adopt in order to extricate the
house from the difficulty in which they found themselves
placed. The right hon. gentleman spoke to them of what
might be done in committee, and asked;why those who were
opposed to the bill did not vote against the second reading
instead of moving a resolution by way of amendment. He
said that there were questions relating to the savings bank
qualification, to lodgers, to voting papers, and to other
matters ; and he added, " Prove your case. Those are
questions for corarnittee." Of course they were questions
for oommittee. Who questioned it ? No doubt they could
make many amendments in committee. (Hear, hear.) But
they were asked to vote for this bill under very peculiar
circumstances. The Government proposed to make certain
changes which' excited dissatisfaction amongst some mem-
bers of the house. -- The Secretary of State for India said,
ndeed, that it •was only by error and oversight that On

(Mr. Herbert) was not disposed to admit that this was a
case of vested interest—it was something far higher than
an interest—it was a right. (Cheers.) Wel . but. the

noble lord said it was an error, and the Chanc ,Ilor of the

- -
Exchequer had himself proposed to remedy ; but still,
he said, that this clause must not in any r ect be sup-
posed to militate against the principles of -.1 e bill which
were to disenfranchise neither borough nor county voter—
though some were "disqualified"—(hear, hear)—and to
secure a uniformity of franchise. The noble lord said that
the amendment, if carried, would be fatal to the bill. What
would be fatal to the bill ? Was it the first part—that
which related to the freeholders whose vested interests had
been accidentally overlooked, and whose case had been so
sagaciously met by the suggestion of the member for Dor-
setshire ? (Hear, hear.) Or, was it the second part of the
resolution that would be fatal to the bill? He could not
tell. If it were, then uniformity was the principle of the
bill ; and it was because the resolution touched that unifor-
mity that it would be fatal to the measure. (Hear, hear.)
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had said, that
as it would be open to any member to move amendments in
committee, he hoped the Government would not be de-
barred from pursuing the same course. Thus, in one sen-
tence they were invited to go into committee ; in another
they were repelled from it. (Hear.) It was said that
there was the greatest difference of opinion on the Oppo-
sition side of the house upon all the most important ques-
tions of reform. He (Mr. Herbert) did not deny that.
There were differences of opinion amongst the Opposition
upon church-rates, upon the ballot, upon this bill, upon the
disfranchisement of small boroughs, and upon the advisa-
bility of making a more or less democratic change in the
constitution. (Ministerial cheers.) But were those charges
confined to that side of the house ? (Hear. hear.) He looked
on the ether side, and what did he find ? Differences of
opinion upon church-rates, upon the ballot, and upon the
disfranchisement of boroughs. (Ministerial cries of " No,
no," and counter cheers.) To what was the objection made ?
(Cries of " The ballot.") Were the differences of opinion
confined even to the house ? Were they not to be found even
in the Cabinet ? (Opposition cheers.) He only wanted to
point out the position in which the house was placed—they
were all in respect of differences of opinion in the same boat.
(Hear, hear.) The other night the noble lord the member
for Leicestershire (Lord J. Manners) made a strong appeal
on behalf of the Government bill on the subject of church-
rates ; but the noble lord the Secretary for India voted
against that appeal. (Opposition cheers.) He believed,
also that the noble lord's (Lord Stanley's) opinions were
not unfavourable to the ballot. (No, no.) Nell, his (Mr.
Herbert's) authority might be but slender, but he would
tell the house what it was. He read that the noble lord,
a short time ago, received an invitation to a dinner held by
certain friends of the cause of the ballot, to celebrate the
arrival, he believed, of some gentleman from Australia. (A
laugh.) The noble lord did not attend ; but what was his
answer ? He simply regretted that a pre-engagement would
not allow him to attend. (Laughter.) Well, that did not
imply any very strong objection to the ballot. (Oh, oh.)
Usually, a refusal couched in those terms did not imply a
rooted objection. Suppose, for instance, the hon. member
for North Warwickshire were invited to attend the celebra-
tion of high mass by Cardinal Wiseman—(roars of laughter)
—he would probabiy couch his refusal in terms somewhat
stronger than a regret that previous engagements would de-
prive him of the pleasure. (Renewed laughter.) He (Mr.
Herbert) hoped that before long they would be able to ar-
rive at something like a sound conclusion as to what was
really the meaning of the Government with respect to the
resolution of the noble lord, which they at present looked
upon as a hostile attack—(cheers, and counter cheers)—but
the great principles of which, he believed, were identical
with the opinions entertained by a great number of gentle-
men sitting not only on the opposition benches, but behind
the Government themselves. (Cheers.) The Secretary of
State for the Colonies stated that the present ministry stood
as a shield, the one and only bulwark between the consti-
tution of the country and those extreme demagogic adven-
turers who met in Hyde-park, and who demanded manhood
suffrage, annual Parliaments, and vote by ballot. If that
was true (which it was not) he (Mr. Herbert) should look
with alarm on the prospects of this country. (Loud oppo-
sition cheers.) The right honourable gentleman made a
speech in defence of our mixed institutions, our tempered
liberty, and our limited monarchy ; but one would have
thought that such a speech would surely have been in
defence of a bill which made no innovation upon the con-
stitution and which started nonew principles. (Hear, hear.)
The house was a very mixed body. It was so, in fact, to a
degree whieh he hover knew to be before. (Laughter.) The
noble lord (Lord Stanley) said that his Government were
in a minority, but that party Government was broken up,
that the house was divided into sections, and that all Go-
vernments must for the future depend not upon old organi-
sations but upon the. measures which they proposed—that
they must prepare measures and press them forward ; carry
them, if good ; and if bad, be prepared to see them fall to
the ground; that all Government measures must, in short,
be tentative, and that all Governments must rely upon the
clear insight they possessed into the wishes of the people
and of the house. (Hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) believed
that the whole system of party government was pretty nearly
at an end. The change in our policy would be very diffi-
cult, and would require the Minister, who was leader of the
house, to display great tact and ability—qualities which he
was bound to say the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
did exhibit. (Cheers.) The change, he repeated, would
be a very difficult and dangerous one, but he hoped the Go-
vernment would not be so unwise as to refuse to listen to
the voice of a large portion of that house, who, bound to-
gether by no party ties, were trying to lead them in the
direction which they believed the safety of the country re-
quired. (Cheers.) If this were any party division, if it
were merely designed to turn out the Government, he must
frankly confess that in the present state of things he should
very much regret it. (A laugh.) Hon gentlemen did not
seem disposed to give him credit for sincerity in that decla-
ration ; but he hoped the house would believe that men
might be actuated by something higher than a mere party
motive. (Loud cheers.) He should for his part be sorry
to think that hon. gentlemen opposite, in resisting the mo-
tion of the noble lord, were merely animated by a wish to
retain office. (Cheers.) He hoped that the house would at
any rate do them (the Oppositisn) the justice to think that
in discussing this grave and weighty question, they had
motives far more important than the mere transference of
persons from one site of the house to the other. (Loud
cheers.) What was it that they wanted, and what
that they did not want?
.(Hear, hear.) They wanted,
he apprehended, an extension of the county and of the
borough franchise—they wanted, in short, reform. (Hear.)
He had seen during the last five or six years this question
used in a manner which he thought did not tend to the sta-
bility of our institutions. (Loud cheers.) He thought that
on coming into office the right hon. gentlemen opposite were
not only justified, but were compelled, to promise a measure
of this kind. At the same time he could not conceal from
himself the inconvenience of having questions of this kind
brought forward by those gentlemen. The proper and more
natural thing would have been for the Whig party to bring
in the Reform Bill, because then there would have been no
bidding against them for extreme measures, and those who
professed Conservative opinions would more naturally have
acted as a check upon their legislation, and would possibly,
have modified the measure. But, underthe present circum-
stances, bid as high as the Government might, it become a
political necessity to the Oppositionto outbid them. (Cheers)
The country had lost the value of an Opposition, and also of
a Government, in all respects in which the special value of
each consisted. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, circumstances
had been too strong for them, and they had now to discuss
a Reform Bill proposed by. a Conservative Government.
Hon. gentlemen opposite might allege that they had met
the wishes of the country in one respect, they had extended
the county franchise. He did not know what had led them
to accept the measure of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Locke
King) ; but people were under much apprehension on that
score. They would say, " Oh, the Government took Mr.
Locke King's bill as the foundation of their measure, be-
cause that bill had been carried over and over again." But
was that the case ? The first year the hon.. gentleman
brought forward his motion (1851), it was in the shape of
a bill to " assimilate" the borough and county franchise.
That bill.was read a second time. The noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) was Prime Minister ; and the second re ading was
carried in consequence of dissensions on the 'benches be-
hind him. But it was a small division—and it was a
snapped division. The bill was read on a Wednesday in a
house consisting of 152 members—the ayes be in g 100 and
the noes, 52, majority 48. The noble lord, taking, that divi-
sion as an indication of the feeling of his party a gainst him,
resigned. In the following year the hon. gentlemia n brought
in his bill again ; but this time it was thrown out in a larger
house—the numbers being for the second roatling 149,
against it 202, majority 53. (Hear.) During they ear the hon.
gentleman very properly abstained from putting: forward the
subject ; but in 1857 what happened ? The noble viscount
(Lord Palmerston) opposed the bill on the ground that
identity of suffrage would lead to electoral disti jets. " You
would at once have electoral districts," said the noble
viscount, " and you would soon have equal ones." (Hear.)
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer also said a great
many excellent things against identity of suffrage. The
only thing in fact in whic the right hon. gei itleman was
wrong was when he said that he could never g et himself to
propose such a measure. (Laughter.) On tl iat debate he
(Mr. Herbert) took exactly the same objection which he felt
now, namely, that it would destroy what ca nstituted the
great value of the Reform Bill of 1832, namely, that it ad-
mitted great variety in our representation. The bill was that
year thrown out by 192 votes against 179. (Hear.) In the fol-
lowing year (1858) the hon. gentleman, feeling the force of
these arguments, actually altered his bill. It was, in fact, a
perfectly new measure ; for it was no longer a bill to assimi -
late the county to the borough franchise, but "a bill to amend
the county franchise,". and the qualification was left blank
to be filled up in committee. It was no doubt read a second
time; but though that was as early as the 20th of June, and
there were plenty of Wednesdays yet to come the hon. gentle-
man never went into committee with his measure, because he
well knew that, with the existing tone and temper of the
house, he should not be able to carry it through that ordeal.
(Hear.) The present bill was one that moderately extended
the borough and largely extended the county franchise.
Those who wish further to extend the bdrough franchise
had that night been described by a great authority as " de-
magogic adventurers." For his own part ho (Mr. Herbert)
desired to see nothing better than a Reform Bill laid on the
table by those two
(Mr. Walpole), and the
dright hon. gentleman the member
for the county (Mr. Henley). (Cheers.) He (Mr.
Herbert) altogether
disputed
t the great merit of unifor-
mity as it had put forward
to-night, viz., as a safe-
guard against anundue extension of the suffrage.
waghee.nTonliceeriygohut
hon. gentleman (Sir E. Lytton) said e
that
had attained this magic £lO suffrage, iiwsreof thisfe agams t
institutions
suffrage
thoso who sought to Americanise gee
country. But whence came this uniformit
Was it not a foreign importation ? The right hon. o
hon. gentle-
man said said that those who attacked uniformity were many of
them clever men, but that he had never heard "such de-
plorable rubbish" talked by clever men before. But this
"rubbish" had been the constitution for 400 years, and it
had been the talk of the greatest statesmen and the most
far-seeing philosophers the country had ever produced.
(Cheers.) Such language ought rightfully to belong to the
Secretary of State for India, who had not the right hon. ba-
ronet's traditional reverence for the English constitution—
whose mind was less poetical and more philosophic.
(Laughter.) For his own part, he was not a democratic re-
former ; but he did want a Reform Bill which would give
the country a prospect of stability. (Cheers.) He did not
want to get a bill like the present, which the noble lord
(Lord Stanley) said was made to pass, but he wanted a bill
that would last. (Cheers.) He would say, with all respect
that he had no sympathy with the opinions of his hon.
friends behind him, as he had no sympathy for the bill
brought in by the right hon. gentleman. He occupied a
middle position, which he believed the great mass of hon.
members and of the country also held. He was attached to
our old institutions, which he looked upon as a sacred tra-
dition—a tradition which we were bound to maintain, and
to transmit, enlarged and improved, but still unimpaired, to
our posterity. (Cheers.) These were the sentiments which
he cherished, and he should not be deterred from expressing
them, even by the risk of causing a temporary annoyance to
his friends around him. (Hear, hear.) The bill he did not
consider at all met the requirements of the case; and it more-
over, contained features on which he looked with alarm. It

might, in fact, have.come out of one of the pigeOn holes of
the Abbe 'Sieze, who produced constitutions on paper fas-
ter than they could take them down. Inthe first place there
was the mode in whichit dealt with the boroughfreeholders.
The noble lord (Lord Stanley) said that a man who had
only one vote would not be disfranchised—he would merely
be transposed from the county to the town, which he said
would be no hardship. Nay, the noble lord argued that it
would be a positive advantage to him, for his vote being a
larger aliquot of a borough than a county constituency,
would have a larger value in the town than it had formerly
had in the county. He hoped the noble lord did not mean
that the voter would get a larger market price for it. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) The noble lord contended that it would
make no difference whether a man voted in the town or in
the county, but he (Mr. S. Herbert) must confess that his
own experience had ed him to a direcfiydifferent conclusion.
An observation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson), viz.,
that while the 40s. freeholders were the most independent of
voters in the counties they would be the most dependent in
towns, had excited a laugh ; but the reason of what the
hon gentleman had stated was plain. The employer of a
40s. freeholder had generally a vote in the borough and not
in the county. His vanity, or what was called his amour
propre, was involved in carrying his own man, and ho would
naturally Fxpct his servants to vote with him. But he did

not careabotit the county elections, and therefore he would
say to his men, "Oh, as to the county you may do as you
like." And they did do as they liked. *(Hear.) Besides, there
was something in the county franchise which seemed to
elevate the poorest Toter, and hence they clung to it with
the greatest tenacity. They would say, "The Duke of De-
vonshire or the Duke of Bedford is a landowner,and so am I."

It had been argued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
with great abilitythat if representation were given according
to numbers London would equal Scotland, and a shudder
ran through the house at the statement. (A laugh.) This
was not because the house objected to the metropolitan
members, many of whom were highly cultivated gentle-
men, but because they objected to the numerical principle.
The metropolitan members could not be accused of always
voting on the same side; for if ever they were unanimous
it was upon some question of rating. (Laughter.) There
were 16 boroughs in the kingdom having each a•population
of above 100,000, and they were all represented. There
were 17 boroughs of between 50,000 and 100,000, and they
were all represented ; and there were 51 boroughs between
16,000 and 50,000, and every borough of that size was re-
presented. Those boroughs represented themselves alone,
and nothing else. Then came 46 boroughs between 8,000
and 16,000 ; and 29 of the same size were unrepresented.
There were 55 boroughs of between 2,000 and 8,000; and
there were 232 boroughs of the same size which had no
member. These smaller boroughs stood upon a distinc-
tion, which they undisputably enjoyed, of sending to Par-
liament men of cultivated minds, men not connected with
trades, but with the professions, and who trained them-
selves to habits of business, and to leading a great popular
assembly. These were the men to whom all looked when
oppositions wanted leaders • and these were the men whom
a summary disfranchisement of small boroughs would with-
draw at once from the service of the country. These small
boroughs were of enormous use in that house. (Hear.)
Elections, polls, and so on were only means to an end. The
first object was to get the best men in that house ; the next
was to satisfy the people by giving them the franchise.
They might do both things, and the complaint against this
bill was that it did but one. The newprinciple of uniformity
was recommended only by its symmetry. But did anyone
imagine that the borough franchise could be retained more
than a few years at £lO. (Hear, hear.) It was said by Sir
James Macintosh that a variety of suffrage was the first
principle of the constitution. He should always look with
horror on a system which should lead to a division of classes
in that house, and put Birmingham on one side and Shrop-
shire and other counties on the other. (Hear, hear.) The
moment the country gentlemen were pitted against the de-
magogues, from that moment the constitution was over-
thrown. (Hear, hear.) Another point of great importance
in the diseussion was this. It was said the motion of Lord
J. Russell was brought forward with party objects. He had
no party motive, but wished to get to some substantive
ipint—something like that sketched out by Mr. Henley.
Hear, hear.) The nearer he could get to that the better.
The
Government seemed to be enamoured of this new prin-
ciple of uniformity ; but he preferred to stand on the old
paths. The hon. member for Stroud recommended that
they should discuss the bill in committee. He (Mr. Her-
bert) preferred to vote for the amendment rather than
throw out the bill on the second reading. He thought the
bill a bad one ; he wished to destroy it, and get a better and
if possible induce the Government to bring in a better.
(Hear, hear.) In answer to the recommendation that the
bill should be dealt with in committee, he would observe,
that the Cabinet itself was thought too numerous to frame
a Reform Bill, and a committee was appointed for the pur-
pose. (Hear, hear.) He wanted the bill completely altered,
he wanted to gut it—to take the inside out—(laughter)—
and if they wanted to put a house through that process the
original artist was sent for. He would not subject the Go-
vernment to such an indignity as having the bill altered in
committee, but would ask them to withdraw their bill and
bring in another constructed on simpler principles and
more comprehensive in its details. (Hear, hear.) He la-
mented that this question had been introduced by a con-
servative Government ; but having done so they ought to
carry the measure through. The discrepancies of opinion
on the opposition benches showed that they had no party
object. If the Government would introduce such a bill as
be had indicated it should receive his warmest support.
Though the resolution might in practice destroy the bill, it
would not prevent the Government from pursuing this
course. Let them look upon the resolution as an indication
of what the house objected to, and what it wanted. The
great majority thought it more important than a. change of
Ministry that this great question should be settled. (Cheers.)
He thought little of changes of Ministry, but even were
such the result, they ought to put up with the inconve-
nience for the sake of the object aimed at. A hundred years
hence nobody would ask who was Prime Minister in 1859,
but what were the principles of the constitution under which
we lived ; and these he hoped would be handed down to our
posterity. (Hear, hear.) On these grounds he should
support the resolution.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--If I were to say of the
amendment of the noble lord the member for the City of
London that it tends to confuse and embarrass the house as
to the issue upon which it is to decide, I should perhaps
only be saying that that amendment accomplishes the ob-
ject for which it was designed—(hear, hear)—but that it
has this effect a more signal proof could not be given than
the speech of the right hon. gentleman who has just sat
down. (Hear.) If the question which you, sir, have put
from the chair means anything, it means this—that the
House of Commons thinks it more expedient to pass by and
supersede the question of the second reading of this bill in
order to affirm an abstract resolution upon two isolated pro-
visions of the measure. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman is
going to vote for the amendment, but what has been his argu-
ment ? We have heard from him a very interesting treatise
—everything which falls from the right hon. gentleman is
interesting—upon the precise manner in which you ought
to reply to an invitation to a ballot dinner, upon the still
stronger terms in which you ought to refuse to hear High
Mass, upon the principles of party government, upon the
history of the bill of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. L.
King), upon the principle of uniformity which he says is
contained in this bill, and upon the advantages which he
thinks are to be derived from the existence of small
boroughs; but not until the close of the speech of the right
hon. gentleman did we hear one single argument why all
this might not have been said, and said just as well, upon
the second reading of the bill, or why the ordinary forms of
the house should in this case be departed from., (Hear,
hear.) And then, when we come at last to know why the
right hon. gentleman was about to vote for the amendment
what was his reason? He wishes to reject the bill, and he
wishes to inform the country at large of the grounds upon
which ho rejects it. The right honourable gentleman,who
throughout his speech deprecated the departure from estab-
lished principles, is about to do that for which no single
precedent can be found in our Parliamentary history—
viz., to vote in such a way as not only to reject the bill,
but to show by the motion made the reasons for rejeeting
it. (Hear, hear.) But that is not the strangest part, be-
cause the chief objection of the right hon. gentleman is to
the principle of uniformity. He therefore wishes to inform
the country that it is upon that principle that the bill is re-
jected. But does the amendment of the noble lord contain
' one word about the principle of uniformity ? Certainly
-not. (Cheers.) Therefore. the right hon. gentleman comes
to the conclusion that, in order to inform the country of
the principle upon which he opposes this bill, he will vote
for an amendment that is entirely silent with regard to that
principle. (Hear.) I desire, if the house will allow me, to
consider the propositions contained in the amendment of the
noble lord, passing by for the present the motives which
may or may not have led to its introduction. That amend-
ment naturally divides itself into two parts—that which re-
lates to the question of the freehold, and that which refers
to the lowering of the franchise in boroughs. As to the
first, the amendment of the noble lord denies that it is just
or politic to deal with it as proposed in this bill. We may
consider the question of justice first, because if it be unjust
I will admit that it certainly cannot be politic. I disembar-
' rasa the matter for the present of what may be called vested
rights, or the feelings of existing freeholders; and in the first
place I ask the house this question—where is it natural and
just that a vote for a freehold situated in a borough should
be given ? What is the reason that you have boroughs re-
turning members separrate from counties ? Why is it
that a borough has an interest to be represented separate
from that of the county. (Hear, hear.) Of what does the
interest of the borough consist ? It consists, first, of the
personal interests of the inhabitants, and, secondly, of the in-
terest of property in the borough. And if it consist in part
of the interest of property in the borough, I want to know
why freehold property is abstractedly to be dealt with on a
principle different from that applied to any other propeoty
in the, borough. Suppose I possess a freehold in the town
of Live rpool and live in London. So far as that property
is conee.rned are my sympathies and interests involved in
the welfai,v of Liverpool or in the welfare of the county of
Lancaster at large ? (Hear, hear.) In every question of
imperial legis.lation which may affect Liverpool that free-
hold must be 3 Imre or less interested. It is in questions
which affect Lip 'er1)001, and which the members for Liver-
pool will have to consider as affecting their town, that the
freeholders of Live "t pool are interested. This may be fami-
liarly illustrated by what occurred in this house not many
years ago, A meast u'e was introduced affecting the local
dues of Liverpool. I nee not argue the merits of the ques-
tion, but if the bill had horn carried its effect would have
been seriously to add to the burdens on propertyin Liverpool
by the withdrawal of the lo cal dues. What was the other
town that was most interested
in that question ? It was the
Yet town of Manchester. The pi 'ajierty in both these towns,
the freeholds in bath these tr.,,i+. na, were more or less
interested in that question which was debated in this
house. the same county
IT, °vibe rs represented the
Crera vrofor
two boroughs, and it was the n T the boroughs
by whom, and necessarily by whom, the whole contest
with regard to this bill was cons luctee (Hear, hear.) I
ask this further question upcs a the same ,mot_What
would be said if it were propos ed that tither a frkkeholder
or occupier outside the borough a Imuld vote for the member
for the borough in respect of his freehold or occupation out-
side ? (Hear, hear.) We should all recoil from the propo-
sition as one which was unjust and: =natural ; but I want
id know what difference there is 1 )et ween these two cases.
Is it more unnatural and more unj psttli at you should allow

THE SUN, LONDON, IVEDNESDI

the holder of propertyoutside a
ber, than that you should reve