The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-27 00:00:00

taxable commodities, which is a very different thing. 1
But this includes criminals, idiots, paupers, children, and
everybody. Well, then, "flesh and blood"—(laughter)—
that applies not only to the whole human race, but also to
the animal kingdom. (Loud cheers, and laughter). I sus-
pect that we shall next have a proposition for a beasts' par-
liament after the pattern of that assem,ibTlyheinwtuhreh .onlgd
celpasicseosf
tr haveou £ s 2t
that
, Otohoe,
yOooofshould income,h
e xa
cnldu, therefore,ded ffrom
uni is i
the
ftrna
no tu
hmi
soon
?s
,-,
But who are the 204,000 ? If it is to go amongst them—
ifsthaeuma them
—they
about the £215,200, 0000a,00 yearis toe a
eg oh amongst(ehe e r
would disqualify them for the sympathy of the right hon.
gentleman, because they would hardly belong to the work-
ing classes. Of course he means to say that the whole of
the working classes have this income; but he does not
propose to admit the whole of the working classes by this
bill. I say the argument of the right hon. gentleman is
good for nothing at all, or it is good for admitting the
whole of them. (Cheers.) In the same way he says that the
working classes contribute more than one-third of the
revenue. But who contributes it? The whole working
classes ; and it is made up principally from the taxes on tea
and sugar, and on stimulants—beer, spirits, and tobacco—
the revenue from which has reached the enormous sum of
£20,000,000. It is not the 204,000 that contribute this sum.
The thing comes round again to this. It may be quite true
that the class that spends only £1,260,000 in £lO houses
and can spend nearly £20,000,000 in exciseable articles
shoulcrhave the franchise, but that is an argument for the
whole class, and not for a small instalment of it. What I
mean is this; I want to show that this measure is not
founded upon any calculation of result; but on a broad
sweeping principle, having its foundation on the assumed
rights of man or some other figments of that kind, which
tend to prove not that the measure before us is a good
one, but that there should be universal suffrage. And
that is the point of view in which, being denied infor-
mation by the Government, we are bound, in duty
to ourselves and the country, to look at it. The right
hon. gentleman says, "Can it be believed that the political
limit of £lO will exist for ever ?" Might not the same thing
be said of £7—one figure is as good as another? Have we not
a specimen in the hon. member for Birmingham of the er-
roneouslogic with which these things aro accomplished. He
tookliis stand with a right hon. gentleman opposite who was
in favour of £B, and said, " This is only a £7 franchise;
there is only £1 between us, you will not fall out with me
for £l," and thus the constitution is knocked down to the
lowest bidder. (Loud cheers.) I would not fall out with the
hon. member for Birmingham for £l. I would give him a
pound out of mypocket rather, if that were all (a laugh)—
but his pound is no joke, it means 100,000 men, of whom
he may know a great deal himself, but of whom we know
nothing except from public documents before the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—"ls it to be tolerated
that in this country we are to have a narrow precinct called
the constitution, within which there are 1,200,000 or 1,300,000
people, and without the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of fathers of
families." I want to know if you admit the 204,000 within
the precincts will the proportion of members be influenced
in any appreciable degree ? Is it not clear that the argu-
ment goes not for the 204,000 but for the whole number.
The arguments of the right hon. gentleman in support of the
bill,are the most dangerous, sweeping, and anarchical ever
uttered by any minister of state in this house--(0h, oh, and
cheers)—not to work upon our minds, for I believe very few
gentlemen of education would be influenced by it, but to
work upon the people at large who have not the advantages
of education, culture, and communication with each other,
that we are so happy as to have. We have for the last few
years been doing something for the working classes : we
have done a great deal for education, something for reli-
gion, something for police, something for sanitary mat-
ters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says—" Is it not
necessary after all this has been dene to lower the fran-
chise?" He does not put any tangible result before us—he
does not show us any reason upon the point of fitness for
lowering the franchise, he only agrees in this way, " You
have done all these things, you must have some results,
and you should lower the franchise accordingly." Even if
he could prove his results it would have been no argument,
unless he could show that the lowering of the franchise
would be for the good of the whole society of which we
form a part. He does not prove this—he does not satisfy
his own condition when he asks us to admit persons of
whom he knows nothing, except that they contribute
largely to the revenue, and that a great deal of money has
been spent on them to improve their condition. His argu-
ment is, " We have done a great deal for them, therefore
we should take them for masters." He says that if demo-
cracy be liberty there is reason to be offered for it, but if it
be vice and ignorance then the Government is not for de-
mocracy." Who said it was? The question is not whether
the Government is democratic ; but whether a sweeping
measure of this nature is not democratic ? Does he not
know what democracy means ? Whatever else we learned
at Oxford we learned that democracy was a form of Go-
vernment in which the poor, being the many, governed the
rich,who were fewer, for the benefit of the poor. (Cheers.)
Is that not the form of Government which the right hon.
gentleman is seeking to introduce? It is neither liberty
nor vice; it is the government of the rich by the poor,
and why cannot we call things by their right names at once?
(Hear, hear.) That is a very short but sufficient analysis
of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ido
not profess in the least to answer it, but I protest against
a measure being founded upon the notion that you are
bound to avert your eyes from what you do, my theory
being that you are bound to look most strictly and care-
fully (hear,hear), and I have no common ground with him.
1 cannot refute him to minds to which he is not refuted
already. I infer from the nature:of the bill, and from the
arguments with which it is supported, that it is foimded
on two principles—that the franchise is a debt due to every
one whom you cannot prove disqualified; and that you
are bound to pay this debt just as you are an ordinary debt,
without inquiring whether, when paid, the creditor will
make a proper use of it. Anything more dangerous or
utterly subversive I cannot conceive. My hon. friend the
member for Westminster came out in this debate in a new
character. lam not surprised at his eloquent speech, for
having known him for many years I was quite sure that
when he gave the house his best thoughts, instead of hasty
impromptus, he would produce an impression proportioned
to his great ability and knowledge. But my hon. friend has
taken up a new character, he has come forward as the ad-
vocate of the clais theory ; he says that the working classes
have not sufficient representation, and that we ought to
give it. I have frequently insisted in this house that if the
working classes have only 128,000 electors in the present
constituencies, it is very much their own doing; they have the
mean; if they choose to use it, of living in £lO houses, and,
therefore, if they have not the vote the fault is not so much
that of the law as their own. I will mention the case of the
Smethwick Glass Works, which is a type of many others.
In this large establishment there are men earning £4 and
£5 a week, and a communication to a newspaper has been
sent to me complaining that not one of these men had the
franchise. But whose fault is it? It is the fault of these
men, some of whom are earning £250 a year, or the fault of
the law ? Of course I must not say whose fault, because,
according to the rule upon which this debate has been con-
ducted, everybody may say anything that is pleasant and
complimentary to the working classes ; but anybody who
says anything in the slightest degree not pleasant to
them is considered to have grossly misconducted himself.
(Laughter.) My hon friend having adopted the theory of
classes he cannot escape from it so easily as he has tried
to do. lie must follow his argument to its conclusion ;
he is bound to show that what he claims can be given to
the working classes without injury to the other classes.
He must take up the theory not for the working classes
only, but for all classes. He has accepted the Govern-
ment proposition in block : he has not shown that these
persons have any peculiar fitness or knowledge, nor how
their having the franchise would influence the other classes.
Now, I am going to cite to my hon. friend some of his own
opinions, in order to show that he was bound to look a little
more
of
into this question. I am citing from the pre-
face ot the third edition of his "Political Economy," pub-
lishedwp rheiscehn it any l 8
editionsg.
great
in which he says tg The only objection to
ea
ist importanceth
eunprepared
will
ral, and of the labouring •
treme unfitness at
would make a
in-
tellect or their virtue.
did my hon. friend say '
five governreent ?
inad-
missible that any perso
without being able t state
tfeounof dmatoukaitutadcit in the
classes in particular; their ex-
n y
considerable Present
demand any ordero n eoifthtehrinthgesirthat
Now that was in 1852. But what
n Should participate in the suffrage
o read, write
form the common operations of
ing must precede universal
and hear, hear, from Mr. Mill.
whom an a priori theory
Heay in 1861 6,14 in
regard
dw
it
trka
so nwhully represents_,
and I will add to per-
has silencen; :xcept those in
enfranchisement.athmetic. Universal teach-
il:renon sense—
)Noo (Cheers,
(laughter) will maintain that power over OT
who
the
_ sites f_ r
whole community—should be given to peoplers—
not acquired the commonest and most essential relio• have
taking care of themselves" (cheers, and hear, hear, from
Mr. Mill.) My hon. friend cheers those remarks. I hope
that he will take some opportunity of telling us what is
the process of investigation that he has entered into with
regard to the electors so as to define the relative merits of
a £7 and £lO householder, and I hope that be will tell us
what evidence he is going to produce to establish their in-
tellect and their virtue. (Cheers.) I hope ho will satisfy
us that they can read and write and that they can perform
all the common operations of arithmetic, including, though
he does not state it in the passage 1 have quoted, the rule
of three. fhope that he will tell us that he has satisfied
himself that universal instruction has preceded universal
interests of others tfienfranchisement.is I hope that he will show us how he has
ow
Satisfied himself that those persons whom he proposes to
enfranchise are
about an a persons who are fit to be trusted with the
else hats of
he
and the interests of the community; or
priorei hrteconcile his proposal with his statement
cannot do
au
present my hon_ that h All orYa
? I do not say that my hon. friend
that. ile
ghter.) I say is,
can do most things, and perhaps he can
do that. (L.
not done it, and that his very
writings are distinctly a s
that as things stand at
mends. My hon. friend far tto the
course which he recom-
threw out, to point out iii whatok up
the challenge which I
this Parliament, which
has only just come into existewncaey,for its
Ndoultvi,esi
and he referred to our old friend the unfit
gain, but my hon.
tag
the represen-
einfhatiofffiffhethathaaat battlerarliamoeveelart
farimenndotsagyo

tatives of the working classes in it we should not have
compensated the farmers twice over. I cannot persuade him,
but I think I could persuade a working man of this—that
supposing I were a farmer with 100 head of cattle, and that
those cattle were killed for public purposes in order to pre-
vent the spread of the disease, and that I am compensated
for my losses at a less value than they were worth, and then
supposing thatlit is necessary for agricultural purposes that I
should get 100 more cattle,in that case I should have to add not
only the difference between the money I received for my
former cattle and their value, but an enhanced price created
by the disease in question, and enhanced still further by
the slaughter which the Government had ordered. Ido
think that, although I cannot persuade my hon. friend, be-
cause he is a philosopher, I could make a working man see
that so far from being paid twice over, I was never paid over
the value of my cattle, nor anything like it. Of course,
you can put a case where a man would be paid twice overif
he had a large herd, and is compensated for very few cattle,
and the value of the remainder increases much ; but what I
complain of is the narrowness and illiberality of saying in
a case of this kind, which clearly admits of these two
aspects and a great many more, not only that those who
differ from my hon. friend are wrong, but that they are wil-
fully and perversely wrong, and that it is the faulty con-
stitution of this house, and the class from which we come
which prevents us seeing things in the same light. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. S. MILL—The right hon. gentleman has greatly
misrepresented my argument in the last statement he has
made. I never imputed to gentlemen opposite that they
were wilfully wrong. (Cries of " Order, order.")
Mr. LOWE—WeII, I pass from that. I have very little
more to say of my hon. friend, except that I do not suppose
there is anybody in this house that has any objection to
the working men coming here if the constituencies choose
to send them. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend need not
have taken up his time in arguing that point. It is for
the constituents tc say whom they choose to send here.
(Hear, hear.) I have no doubt whoever they send here
we shall receive with propriety, and listen to with respect
and attention. (Cheers.) But when we are told of the
subjects that we are to have debated—when my hon. friend
points to debates upon the rights of labour, which sounds
to me very much like the right to labour, of which we
heard so much in 1848—when we are told that we are to
discuss the doctrine and discipline of strikes and trades
unions, it seems to me that we are going to argue the prin-
ciples of St. Simeon over again, and, in fact, to constitute
ourselves a means of education for :the working classes. I
protest against this system altogether. (Hear.) We legis-
late for the country, and if we manage its finances—if we
look after its executive government pretty sharply—
(cheers and laughter)—and attend to its foreign affairs, I
think we do enough without converting ourselves into a
gymnasium or an academy—even for the elite of the
working classes. (Cheers.) My hon. friend said if the
working classes had the franchise they would establish,
as in America, a school in every parish. Now, I
should like to know upon what data my hon.
friend makes that statement. (Cries of "Hear, hear.")
This is a subject of which I ought to know something.
(Cheers.) I can say this, that the main object which I had
in view in the changes I proposed on behalf of the Go-
vernment in the educational system of the country was the
benefit of the working classes. The old system of giving
grants was that of awarding them on the examination of
the children in Ihe upper classes of the schools. The lower
children were neglected. The object I had was to have
those grants given to the poorer as, well as to the richer,
and the change was mainly for the benefit of the working
classes. In following out that object I never received the
slightest assistance from the working classes. The opposi-
tion which 1 met with came principally from the members
representing large towns, where the working classes have
a good deal to say in the constituencies. It was not the
workmen, but the schoolmasters, who interfered against
me, and it was the schoolmasters who influenced members
against me—the working classes never stirring a finger in
behalf of my measure. (Hoar, hear.) On what ground,
therefore, my hon. friends thinks the working classes would
come immediately to understand this complicated ma-
chinery that has baffled the most experienced statesmen in
the country, and put it in right order, I cannot conceive.
(Hew, hear.) My hon. friend ought to be prepared to
show how the change he advocates in this theory of
classes would avoid what he calls the faults of a mono-
poly. We have now got apparently a majority of the
working classes in the borough constituencies, and besides
we are to have a Redistribution Bill which will enor-
mously intensify that interest. (Hear.) It would be quite
legitimate to argue that the house, which would then be
produced by the compound effect of the reduction of the
franchise and the Redistribution Bill, might not be content
with the franchise or redistribution which they found
before them; and that the Redistribution Bill would help
to another lowering of the franchise, and the franchise so
reduced would help to another redistribution, and thus we
might assign a ruinous see-saw to which no man could as-
sign any limit. (Hear, hear.) There would in fact be no
reason why we should stop at any particular redistribution
or lowering of the franchise until we got to the
point of equal electoral districts, and a franchise so low
that it would amount to no qualification at all. (Hear, hear.)
Another subject very germane to this is the question of
combinations. It is said, and I believe it most sincerely,
that there is great danger in the present machinery of
strikes and trades unions being employed for political pur-
poses. (Cheers.) I will here read an extract from a speech
made by the hon. member for Birmingham in 1860. He
said, "Working men have associations; they can get up
strikes against capital, sometimes for things that are just
and sometimes for things that are impossible. They have
associations, trade societies, and organisations. I want to
ask them why it is that all these various organisations
throughout the country cannot be made use of for the pur-
pose of obtaining their political rights?" (Opposition
cheers.) The hon. gentleman asked that question in 1860,
and I admit that hitherto he has received no answer. Why
has he not received an answer? I will tell him why. To
use his own expression, the working men have a good lever,
but they have no fulcrum to work it. Give them, however,
a majority of votes in a number of boroughs, and that ful-
crum will bo supplied to thom. (Cheers.) It is not by
speeches and resolutions that the working men coerce their
masters and each other; it is because they watch their op-
portunities. When many orders are in they strike and bring
the machinery to a stand-still. They can work their lever
upon tho fulcrum of their vote. Let me draw attention to
the condition of those trades unions, because it throws im-
mense light on the future of that democracy which I believe
this bill is meant to inaugurate. I take one class—the co-
! operative masons. They number 80,000 members, and have
lodges in England and Scotland. They have a large capital,
and are a veryinfluential body, having defeated the masters
last year, after a strike of 19 weeks. I will read a letter sent
to an employer at Edinburgh :—" We present you with the
wishes of our trade union, requesting a reply on or before
Saturday next. Mr. Thomas and all non-society plasterers
to be discharged,' all non-society carpenters to be discharged,
and piece work to be abolished.—Signed on behalf of the
United Building Trades, Joim BRAY, Chairman." (Cheers.)
Mark what that is. See the power these trades unions have
of drawing men within their own circles. It is said that if
they become political bodies, men who wished to have
nothing to do with politics need have nothing to do with
them. But how can they help themselves? Those unions
are like a maelstrom, into which every man who comes
within its reach must inevitably be sucked. (Hear.) Here
is an extract from an Edinburgh paper—" The tailors'
strike may now be considered at an end. We have been in-
formed that the men have made it a condition with their
masters that the black sheep who continued working during
the lock-out shall not obtain employment until they have
joined the society and paid a fine of 10s. each." (Hear.)
'You say that those men do not want to join the society. I
daresay not, but what choice have they ? The truth is that
these trade unions are far more unions against the best, the
most industrious, and the most skilful men than they are
against their masters. (Hear, hear.) Listen to a rule froma
printed book of the co-operative masons—" Working over-
time, tending to our general injury, or keeping members
out of employment, shall be abolished, excepting in case of
accident or necessity." There is political economy !
I (Cheers.) "It is also requested that lodges harassed by
piecework, or sub-contracting, do apply at a reasonable
time for a grant to the body." (Hear, hear.) This is to say,
no man is to be allowed, whatever his necessity, to eke out
his earnings by piecework, or by overtime, or to raise him-
self from his sphere of life, and gain a competence, although
he may have attracted the confidence of his employer by
taking sub-contracts. The manifest object is to enclose as
many men as possible in these societies, and then to apply
to them the strictest democratic principles—that is to say,
to make war against all superiority, skilled industry, and
capacity, and make them the slaves of clumsiness, idleness,
and ignorance. (Cheers.) Another extract says—" In loca-
lities where that most obnoxious and destructive system,
generally known as chasing, is persisted in, lodges should use
every effort to put it down. When it is plainly visible that
any member or other individual tries to overwork or chases
his fellow-workmen in such a way as is calculated to lead
to the discharge of men or the reduction of wages, he must
be summoned before the lodge and a fine must be imposed
ou him? That is to say that the poor workman who may
geniusill
l bo
h\qvi quicker k
ande
hris
tthebhlakei
and
ep milvilh makes
.ikbeghlehei
sesbutaohi,uestriy,ll
possesses,is ivttfhee hmes e
of
aiftsrhteet chooseoordsrenbo.ep
or
terrorism
esofilominrwhich
ho
to jaexerciseoibncisdhnt
itept
the
dand blacallcl
unions. Look at the immense machinery would have
if you only armed them with the Parliamentaryyou vote they
ask for. (Cheers.) It now remains for us to consider the
results of what we are going to do. I will assume that this
is a sweeping change in the dernocraticdirection, and would
give the majority in the boroughs to the working classes.
(Cheers.) This, I assume, would be followed by another
important change—that in the distribution of seats. And
when these two great changes are effected it does not de-
pend upon any Minister, or upon any House of Commons,
to say where those changes will stop. (Cheers.) It would
be like fixing the time that a stone let loose down the side
(li
advantages.ea r.)W e
.ewwoiunlgd
ttake
mt oa rt
teearc hmtomohset bpeet tuolia .r
tion we should either praise the wo
haveof annoout vi aini v
e way to argue this
It has been thought by many that irnkdinisgcuelsassinsgotrhisreqmuaeisn-
silent. But I think that that is not th
eecot.lonOiuesr
oq
wu ens tsi ot
ant.e
mWaey abree
mry be called a transition state ; and
we have the experi-
rinaerynce; ot nh
atth
oi sf s
tuhbej
criaclhledLisetaxtPeio