The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-01 00:00:00

of,:and of the seats taken away—with regard to the increase
in the number of polling places, and the mode of voting
by polling papers—l wish to give no opinion whatsoever;
but this I should say upon the whole question, that unless
you are prepared to give more general satisfaction to the
country—unless yon mean to make a more effectual change
—it would be better to make no change at all. (Loud
cheers.) I can well understand that the country conic' bear
very well going on for a time discussing these matters with-
out any change in the present mode of voting; but what I
do not understand is that Parliament should offer to the
country, or rather that there should be inflicted by Parlia-
ment upon the country, a bill changing the representation
with all the qualities of invasion about it—with a great deal
of change and a great deal of disfranchisement—but includ-
ing not the slightest provision in favour of the honest and
hardworking man. (Ministerial cries of Oh 1 oh 1 followed
by opposition cheers.) Unless you give satisfaction—not
to everybody—(a laugh)—because somebody must be dis-
appointed—but unless you give satisfaction to those who
have a right to be satisfied, depend upon it your bill will
only be the signal of a great agitation. (Cheers.) It will
produce a great,dealmore of discontent than of contentment.
I shall consider the bill when it comes in. I shall see whe-
ther its provisions agree with the statement of the right
hon. gentleman. As the matter at present stands it does not
appear to me to 110 an improvement upon the state of the
representation—(cheers)—but above all, it does net appear
to me to be a Conservative measure. I can well understand
a Conservative Minister saying, " This question of repre-
sentation has been settled, and we do not propose to change
it until something shall be produced which shall appear to
us to improve the present state of things ;" but that a Con-
servative Ministry should produce a great measure of dis-
franchisement, extending to 90,000 or 100,000 people, and
refuse to admit the working classes to the franchise, passes
my comprehension. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK.—Change, sir, is of itself an evil. (A
laugh.) Change in legislation is only justifiable when the
change is to be a better state of things. Now, my charge
against the proposal of the right hon. gentleman is that it is
a change which leads to a worse state of things. (Oh, oh,
and cheers.) The right hon. gentleman started upon a strict
principle, which—he will, I hope, forgive me for saying so
—I cannot possibly understand. Ile said he was about to
base the representation of the people, not upon population,
not upon wealth, but upon their interests. Now, I want to
know what is the meaning of their interests. (Hear.) He
says he is going to give certain towns a certain number of
members, and also to disfranchise a certain number of towns;
and upon what principle does he begin ? Why, he disfran-
chises 15 boroughs that have not 6,000 inhabitants, thereby
making population his ground for disfranchisement.
(Cheers.) Now, my notion of representation is this,—that
the representative bodyis a watchman upon the Government.
Government has certain powers, and those powers would be
applied to mischief unless the representative body watched
over this Government. But how shall we prevent the re-
presentative body themselves from doing wrong ? Why, by
making them amenable to the whole people, or those who
represent the whole people. And how can you have any
body. representing the whole people who have not all the
passions, all the interests, all the feelings of the people whom
they, represent ? Well, then, the constituent body is this
body, and you say you will give the franchise to a certain
class, but you will giye it to nobody else. Why was the
Reform Bill of 1832 brought in by the noble lord in 1831 ?
It was brought in because the power of government in this
country was held by one class—namely, by the landed
gentry. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman himself said
the object of that bill was to give power to the middle classes.
And so it did give power to them. Recollect the conduct of
the working classes onthat occasion. (Cheers.) -What did they
say ? They said, " The bill brought in by the noble lord will
not give us power, but we have such confidence in you, our
fellow countrymen of the middle classes, that we will aid you
to beat down the opposition of the landed aristocracy, and
enable you to gain the franchise for yourselves." Without
the working classes on that occasion there would have been
no Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.) They behaved in a way
that I shall never forget. They behaved in a way that the
middle classes of England ought never to forget. (Cheers.)
And now, sir, I appeal in the name of the working classes
of this country to the middle classes of England, and I say
to them—ln 1832 you gained your power by the aid of the
working men, and I call upon you as earnest, as honest, as
generous men now not to neglect the interests of those by
whom you were aided on that occasion. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman's bill will not give one iota of power
to the working classes of this country. (Cheers.) It is a
bill of disfranchisement, and not of enfranchisement. It
disfranchises freeholders in towns, but gives no power to
any body in boroughs. I will suppose the case of the town
which I have the honour to represent. I have no doubt
that in that town there are many thousands of county
voters. Every man of them will be disfranchised as a
county voter, without being compensated by a vote for the
town. Therefore your bill confers nothing upon him, but
takes away from him his county franchise. (Cheers.) And
what will that do ? Why, it will enhance the power of the
landed gentry. (Cheers.) And that is the object of this
bill. Now, I tell the right hon. gentleman I, and many on
this side of the house, with the full consent of our consti-
tuents, have given the Government a complete and unvary-
ing support, but sure I am that 24 hours will not pass over
my head before I receive statements from my constituents
that, with their consent, this support shall not be conti-
nued. (Loud cheers.) And why so ? We have given the
right hon. gentleman and his friends our support, because
we thought that they would see their own position and the
position of the country, that they would apply the power
which we maintained for them to the good government of
this country. But in place of that generous and liberal
mode in which I thought the Government would act, they
are now bringing in a bill for the purpose of enhancing
the power of the gentlemen behind them. (No,
no.) The right hon. gentleman has thought only
of his friends behind him ; he has not thought of those by
whom he and his friends have been supported and kept
in place. (Ministerial cries of " Oh, oh I") I am speaking
, out. (A laugh.) The right hon gentleman knows as well
as I do that by the generous support he has received from
this side of the house he has been maintained in his present
position, and looking at the bill as explained by the right
hon, gentleman—and I can only judge of it by his explana-
tion—l say emphatically that every stage of it must be op-
posed, steadfastly opposed, by every friend of the people in
this house. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT—In the common affairs of life we gene-
rally find that when men undertake to do that for which they
are not fitted, either by nature or by inclination, they do not
generally succeed very well. (Laughter and cheers.) The
right hon. gentleman, I dare say, could have drawn a much
better bill for the reform of the representation, but he hap-
pens on this occasion to represent a party which has always
consistently opposed any extension of political power to the
people. (Cheers.) I have regretted very much that he and
his friends have consented :to open this question and to
make a pretence of settling it. I think there was some show
of reason when they charged a late eminent statesman with
doing wrong in undertaking matters which his opponents
ought to have undertaken, but in his case he always ad-
mitted that he was thoroughly convinced of the new prin-
ciples he had adopted. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman and his friends have never yet expressed to us
clearly anything by which we could gather that they have
undergone anything like a real conversion. I do not think
it possible, indeed, with what I will callthe unaequaintance
of the hon: gentleman opposite with the opinions prevailing
in the towns of this country upon the question, that they
could be expected to bring in or support a measure such as
the country expects from the Government that undertakes
a bill for the reform of the representation. Who has
asked them for this bill ? (Hear.) I have never heard
any gentleman upon that (the Ministerial) side remon-
strate with his leaders because they were not anxious or
zealous for reform. I never heard any of their sup-
porters in the country arguing at public meetings for a
change in the representative system. I have never seen in
their newspapers leading articles in favour of Parliamen-
tary Reform. In point of fact, as far as hon. gentlemen
opposite are concerned, if they did not think that the exi-
gencies of party required it, they would have preferred that
there should be no Reform Bill at all. (Hear, hear.) And
that is precisely the position they ought to have taken up
if they thought it good for the country. But there is a
class in the country—l will not say a class, but a large
portion of the people—who do and have asked, consistently
and incessantly, for 25 years for an amendment of the Re-
form Bill of 1832. And what has been the especial
grievance of which they complain ? Have they not stated
unanimously that, so far as regards the great portion of the
population of the United Kingdom, the Reform Bill was so
framed as to exclude them from the enjoyment of the fran-
chise ? (Hear, hear.) They have said that those who earn
weekly wages do not, for the most part, live in houses of
the value of £lO, and therefore to fix the franchise at £lO
was to fix a line which necessarily excluded them, and
made them, to quote the words of the right hon. gentleman,
" pariahs." The Reform Bill placed the great bulk of the
working classes in that position. I do not complain of that
bill, but I should have the utmost contempt—no, I will not
say contempt, but I should be utterly hopeless of the work-
ing classes of this country if I thought that they would re-
main content under a general exclusion like that. (Cheers.)
In obedience to the great call of the unenfranehised, whom
we represent, you propose a bill, and your newspapers have
told us that they latterly have become reforiaers, and that
" the bread was to be taken out of the mouth," as the
phrase was, of the noble lord the member for the City of
London, by the measure of the Government. Well, the
bill comes in, and when it goes to-morrow morning into
every part of the United Kingdom, 'every one of these
working, toiling, slaving men who are paying taxes,
measureth bill of
1859. (Cheers.) What are the modes by e
and performing the other duties of a citizen, will
see
,tnhngoseagt
not
eventl
classes hae gentleman
aphmnreew
tpsewrtl
nlo a s
remainl et a
na n
aoutcast
stillb y t hey
ey
whichibsyce the
which
se( righteartHh.ee
working
000enrsk
apboetsheaasdtmittohttheadydwidtoiltothbeetmhfraneodfrecshan
First of all he admits every man who is a lodger and pays
Bs. a week. That dots not refer to the working classes.
(Hear, hear.) Then every graduate of a university. Very
few of them can be considered in England as belonging to
the working classes. (A laugh.) The ministers of-reli-
gion, to whom votes are to be given, as a body have votes
already, and any pretence of introducing them into the bill
is merely a pretence and nothing , better. (Hear.) Then
come the gentlemen of the law, and the gentlemen who
practise medicine; but the right hon. gentleman is very
careful not to admit the latter unless they are registered.
There might be poison in the vote, such is the rigidity with
which unregistered persons are excluded. Then come the
schoolmasters who hold certificates from the Committee of
Privy Council for Education; but why should there be any
exclusiveness of this nature ? Are there no schoolmasters
to whom the right hon. gentleman might have extended the
right of voting but those gentlemen who have competed for
certificates? (Hear.) Why, I should be ashamed to come
before my countrymen and offer a franchise of this trifling,
this insulting character. (Cheers.) Then comes personal
property. Those who derive £lO a year from property in-
vested In the funds, Bank Stock, in India Stock, and rail-
way Stock, and those who have £6O in the savings-bank,
are to have a vote. To be original, the right hon. gentle-
man has departed from the sum fixed by the noble lord (j.
Russell), who settled upon £5O, and even in this small
matter, there is an abstinence of that, as we thought, in-
sufficient liberality which marked the bill of the noble lord.
Now, look at this savings-bank question, Let the house
imagine some young man who has saved £6o—and there
are thousands of them, I hope, in the country—and who
has put it into a savings bank. If anything should hap-
pen to him—if a parent should fall ill, or what would be
a happier thing, if he should think of entering into the
marriage state—he withdraws the £6O and furnishes
a house of £6 or £7 a year rental. By this step he
adds to the ties which bind him to his country—he
has additional reason for the love of order and obedience,
but by this bill he cuts away his franchise, and is put into
the class of outcasts. (Hear.) All these fancy franchises

are absurd, and merely seem intended to make it appear that
you are giving something when they really spring from the
fear lest you should give something. (Cheers.) The noble
lord (Lord J. Russell) has referred to another point which,
if there were no other, would be absolutely fatal to the bill,
and that is the transfer of the votes of freeholders who live
in boroughs. (Hear, hear.) We understand that very well,
and I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite understand it very
well too. (Hear, hear.) It is a compensation to hon. gen-
tlemen opposite for the £lO franchise. (Hear, hear.) You
have never had anything more valueless or more perilous
offered to you as compensation. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord has said that it will interfere with the Parliamentary
franchise of 100,000 voters. Now, I have taken the trouble,
or some of my friends have taken it for me, in anticipation
of what was going to be proposed, to make a dissection of
the electoral body of two boroughs. Here is the register of
the boroughs of Manchester and Salford, which has been
dissected to see how the bill of the right hon. gentleman
will work. In Manchester there are 2,918 persons qualified
to vote for South Lancashire. Of these the persons owning
freeholds and living within the limits of the borough are
1,493, and of those living outside the borough there are
1,425. Of the whole number there are 1,195 electors of
Manchester who have votes as £lO occupiers. Let the house
observe that 2,918 are the whole number qualified to vote
for the county. Those having votes for Manchester as house
or other occupiers are 1,195, therefore 1,195 cease to be
voters for counties, but have no additional vote for Man-
chester, and you diminish to that extent the county fran-
chise. There are 298 of these voters resident in the borough
who are not now electors for the borough, and who will be
disfranchised for the county, and there remain 1,429, of
whom no clear explanation can be given. They reside out-
side the borough, and may live, indeed, in all parts of the
world. They may, perhaps, be found in every. county
in England. I do not know whether it is intended
that these non-resident freeholders should vote for the
borough, but, if so, the right hon. gentleman re-establishes
a most evil system of a non-resident constituency, and we
shall have to repeal the Act of last session permitting the
payment of the expenses of voters. If we come to the re-
gister of Salford, the figures are less, but the return is simi-
lar to that of Manchester. Now, if there are 100,000 free-
holders in boroughs having votes for the county, and if we
deprive them of those county votes, there are 40,000, if not
more, non-residents who will be disfranchised altogether.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to these votes for counties, the
bill is a measure of disfranchisement. I am quite certain
the House of Commons will never pass a clause like that.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not think it would be possible to con-
trive anything more likely to excite dissatisfactionthrough-
out the country, and shake its confidence in, I will not say
the generosity, but the common sense of Parliament. Now,
the object of all this is to make the counties more exclusive.
There is nothing you seem so much afraid of ashaving good
constituencies, and especially free constituencies, in the
counties. The house, perhaps, is not aware of the remark-
able fact that in a large portion of the counties of England,
for many years past, the constituencies have not extended ;
they have even positively diminished. There are 11 coun-
ties in which, in the 15 years from 1837 to 1852, the whole
constituency has diminished not less than 2,000 votes. The
whole county constituency of England Wales has only in-
creased by 30,000 votes, and of that increase more than half
has taken place inLancashiro, Cheshire, and the West Rid-
ing of Yorkshire. Throughout the rest of England, from
the manner in which land is tied up, from the difficulty of
purchasing freeholds, and the increased size of farms, the
constituencies of the counties are stationary or diminishing.
As a compensation to the gentlemen who sat behind him—
and whose opinions, if he follows them, will be his ruin
(laughter)—the right hon. gentleman insists on transferring
100,000 votes, on a franchise that has existed for 400
years, from the counties of England to the boroughs Now,
the middle classes have also asked for a Reform Bill; but
the want a much better distribution of the electoral power
ear, hear)—and the right hon. gentleman, with an
au city that is positively interesting—(laughter) —tells
them their case is amply considered because, owing to the
fanaticism prevailing in the country—and I hope the argu-
ment will be found conclusive by the hon. members for
North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Spooner)—
only one English borough returns a Catholic member, and
therefore he has retained the borough of Arundel. (Laughter)
Did the right hon. gentleman know to whom he was speak-
ing when he specified Arundel, while he trifled with such
cities as Liverpool and Manchester, and never mentioned
Glasgow ? (Hear, hear.) But all this will be quite under-
stood by those who will read the newspapers to-morrow
morning. The right hon. gentleman had much better have
stood on the ancient practice of his party, and resisted
changes of this nature, or modified those introduced by his
opponents, than have originated a measure like this, which
will create nothing but anger and disgust in the great body
of the people of this country. The noble lord (Lord John
Russell) thinks the measure is not a Conservative one ; no
measure affecting the representation of the people can be
Conservative that disturbs but does nothing to settle. (Hear,
hear.) lam not so anxious about Parliamentary. Reform
as not to know it matters little whether a measure's carried
now or four or five years hence. The country is not bound
up with the legislation of any one session or one day. But
when a Government, having the confidence of the Crown,
and speaking from that bench, undertakes to meddle with a
question of this nature, it should not be a thousand times
less Conservative than those who, the right hon, gentleman
says, have been discussing new schemes of representation
throughout the country. If the right hon. gentleman al-
ludes to me, I beg to tell him that my new scheme is a very
old one • it is a scheme that was 00 years ago propounded
by severall able and leading men in this country. It was de
fended by eminent and leading men- at the period of the last
Reform Bill ; and there has been no time from 1790 to 1859,at
which it has not been upheld and maintained by leading
statesmen, sometimes by both Houses of Parliament, and by
wise and patriotic minds in the community. I have no ob-
jection to the scheme of the right hon. gentleman going
before the people of the united kingdom by the side of my
own. The population of the country has nothing to do with
it ; the wealth of the country has nothing to do with it;
but take away the population and wealth of the country
from consideration, and what use aro Reform Bills, or Par-
liaments, or Ministries, or Chancellors of the Exchequer at
all ? (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman talks about
interests. What are interests ? Surely they consist of
the wants and wishes of the people, and the right hon.
gentleman has taken the most efficacious plan—and I thank
him for it—of ascertaining what is the opinion of the people
with regard to this great question. Ido not wish for any
violent political discussion or angry controversy—(hear)—
in or out of the house. I had hoped the experience of 1831
and 1832 would have induced any Government who under-
took to deal with this question to do so on a broad and com-
prehensive principle. I hoped, from what the right hon.
gentleman said, that he was about to do so to -night ; for I
did not for a moment believe that the sketch we saw in a
certain newspaper—bribed, I presume, in supporting this
miserable bill by early information—was a fair description
of the Government measure. I hoped the right hon. gen-
tleman would have taken the bread out of my mouth by a
bill so broad, complete, and worthy of public support that
I could have given it my hearty approval ; and that I
should not be forced, as I now shall be, to ask the house
for leave to introduce another bill opi the subject on an
early day. The more you consider and examine that mea-
sure the more you will find it is based on the principles of
the jteform Bill and of the Constitution ; and that it is in-
finitely more Conservative—looking forward to the next 50
years—than the measure that disturbs everything, will irri-
tate vast masses of the people, and will settle nothing.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND regretted that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had engaged in a question of this nature. (" Hear,
hear," from Lord J. Russell.) The noble lord said " Hear,',
but he was one of their chief instigators. On a former
occasion the noble lord stated that the present Government
was not accustomed to play this tune ; yet he urged them
to begin. He (Mr. Drummond) thought it rather hard on
the house that they should be reed to listen to a concert
by professional non-performers—(laughter)—who were
hardly competent to lead a decent melody. (Laughter.)
But why did not the noble lord
" Take the good the Gods provide him;
" Lovely Thais sits beside him 1"
(Cheers and laughter; Mr. Roebuck was sitting next to
Lord J. Russell.) The hon. gentleman was quite ready,
" like another Helen, to fire another Troy" He agreed
with the hon. gentleman that the bill did not go to the
point. The noble lord spoke of 4th. freeholders. There
might be some such freeholders as he described, but in
many parts of the country they were in the hands of 'the
men for whom they worked—generally small farmers. The
40s. .freehold of the reign of Henry VI. was now worth £5O,
and, if the Reform Bill of 1832 had done anything in
really Conservative spirit, it would haie raised the 40s,
freehold to £5O. (Hear.) He did not understant what the
present Reform Bill was to do. He could not understand
what was its object, or the manner in which thatobject was
to be attained. (Hear, hear.) The last bill was an act of
vengeance by the Whigs on the party that had kept them
eio long out of power. (Laughter) To attain this end,
they deceived their master, and they undermined th e
throne. (Laughter.) They coerced the House of Lords,
and threatened that if they could not carry their bill by
any other means they would do so by insurrection, and by
a resort to blood and battle. (Hear, hear.) They suc-
ceeded, and they had some merit in success. (Hear, hear.)
All that he understood, but he confessed he did not under-
stand why they were to have this new Reform Bill from
the Government. (Hear, hear,) He quite understood the
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bright.) He was perfectly
honest and fair in what he was doing. He (Mr. Drum-
mond) knew what he was at, and what he aimed at, but
he repeated he could not understand about this bill,
or how to meet it. (Hear, hear.) It was said
everybody wanted reform, but then came the question what
was meant by reform ? In reality
,rdorm meant to take
taxation off yourself and put it on somebody else. (A laugh)
That was, no doubt, the meaning Of • the bill of the hon.
gentleman opposite, though he would not enter into the dis-
cussion of that measure till he introduced it. The ultra-
liberals, the gentlemen who were further advanced than
other people in the way of progress—how far down he did
not know (a laugh)—thought fit to meet together in cpm-
mittee-room No. 17, and took it into their heads that
there should be reform ; then they agreed to ask the
hon. member opposite (Mr Bright) to bring -forward a
bill, as, indeed, he was the only man who had honesty and
ability enough to carry out such a measure. • glear, hear,
and a laugh.) But everybody knew well'endngli-what it all
meant.' (Hear.) It mattered little what' etitellie extension
of the franchise that might be proposed( iAtter the first
Reform Bill was announced he (Mr. ,Drummond) said there
was no principle in £lO any more than in £9 or £B, for the
truth was that once begun they could not stop ihort of uni-
versal suffrage. (Hear, hear.) How could they stop short?
It did not at all follow that it • was revolutionary. That
which was really revolutionary was, to put political power
into the hands of men who had no property themselves, but
who would take upon them to dispose of the property of
those who had. (Hear.) The settlement of this point wag
the great problem to be solved, but it was not solved by the
hon. gentleman opposite, nor was it 'solv ed by the bill which
had been brought before them that night, (Hear.) If they
preserved political power in the hands of those who had pro-
perty, then they might extend the franchise as far as they
pleased (Hear, hear.)

Lord PALMERSTON would not now enter , upon the
merits of the bill which the right hon. gentleman had in-
troduced. He thought it better to defer expresiing an opi-
nion till he saw the bill itself, as it would nodoubt clear up
a great many points which the right hon. gentleman, in
the long statement he had made to, the house, had not, per-
haps, fully explained. He wished to guard himself against
inference being drawn one way or the other:by his abstain-
ing at present from going into details, and to sugge(A
to the right hon. gentleman that when he made his -..eply
he should state when it was hiy iniention to pro:pose the
second reading of the bill. -H9 hoped sufn,..-1"--iiit interval
would elapse to enable the lisitteeetuicl tbc- country fully to
consider the measure that Ite,livirpid.
Mr. CROSSLEY 4avitig trAvflied a distance of 200 miles
to hear the statement e right hen. gentleman, must be
allowed to express litErfegret at the result. It was full of
high-soun.dilv words but there was very little in them. To
use a hornet Yorkshire expression, " there was a great deal
more cloth t an dinner." (Laughter.) The working classes
had neither part nor lot in the matter. There could be no
better proof of this than the condition of the borough which
he had the honour to represent Ho employed;in addition
to WOMQII and children, not leas than 1,300 men, not one of

whom had a vote. (Hear, hbar.) The bill of the right hon.
gentleman would meddle with the evil without settling it
He was sorry to say that,- taking into consideration the pre-
sent bill and the Church Rate Bill, he and_ those who acted
with him would be unable to give the Government that
support which was necessary to keep them in power. He
was sorry for this, because they were so badly off for leaders
on that (the Opposition) side of • the - house. (Laughter.)
The noble lord the member for Tiverton was a bad parlia-
mentary reformer, and the noble lord the member for the
City was not -a good ecclesiastical reformer; and it would
have been very satisfactory if the present occupants of the
Treasury bench had taken a step in advance, so as to be 'al-
lowed to retain office until the Liberal party were prepared
with leaders. (Laughter.)
Mr. EDWIN JAMES said he would reserve until a future
opportunity the reasons which he should venture humbly
to urge upon the house would render this bill unsatisfactory
to the country. Coming as he did fresh from a popular con-
stituency, he was justified in saying that there were very
large numbers of the people calmly and anxiously expecting
that that franchise for which their intelligence fitted them
would be extended to them by any reform bill which might
be proposed, and he could not help thinking that the mea-
sure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had propounded
with so much ability and adroitness had been addressed
rather to the present electoral body of the country and to
the members of the existing House of Commons than to the
masses of the community, who, though there was no vio-
lent agitation on this subject, yet demanded admission
within the pale of the constitution. The right hon. gen-
tleman, when in his coy manner be deferred till next day the
announcement of the political doom of some of the .consti-
tuencies, appealed to the sympathies of members of that
house instead of bringing in a comprehensive measure of
enfranchisement. It was an idle dream on the part of the
Government to suppose that this bill would ever receive the
approval of the country.
Mr. BENTINCK referred to the remark of Mr. Bright,
that this bill was intended to be a boon to those who sat
behind the Ministerial benches. He should not canvass the
details of the bill, but in reply to the statement that reform
was not according to the nature • of those who sat on that
' side of the house, he had only to say that he was in favour
of reform, and for this reason, that he could not understand
any man getting up in that house and saying he was against
any measure of reform which would alter the Act of 1832,
which he had always looked upon as a one-sided measure,
and one of the most iniquitous political measures that had
ever been passed, full of anomalies and injustices which
were a disgrace to those who framed it. The hon. member
proceeded to point out the inaccuracies contained in the
speeches which. Mr. Bright had delivered in the country on
the subject of reform, denouncing them as unpatriotic and
revolutionary. The hon. member for Birmingham had
told them that the House of Peers represented the landed
interest. But he contended that the resolution of this
house which forbade the members of the other house from
interfering in elections was a most unwarrantable inter-
ference with their rights, and that, so far from represent-
ing the landed interest, they were not even themselves re-
presented.

- Mr. P. O'BRIEN wished to know whether a large por-
tion of this empire, represented by 105 members, was
totally ignored—(laughtsr)—or whether a bill would be
introduced for Ireland ?

Mr. ROUPELL had hoped that he should have had an
opportunity of supporting the Government measure, but he
should have almost equal happiness in giving it his most
strenuous opposition. (Laughter and cheers.)
Mr. S. BOOTH said this measure would disturb as little
as possible the balance which had for some years existed
in that house between the representatives of classes. He
contended against the supposition that the Conservatives
would receive any benefit from it. Still he was very far
from saying that it was not a measure which that party
sought to support, though he believed that he personally
should lose more than he should gain by it—(hear)—the
majority of the freeholders in the town of North Hampshire
being Conservative. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—In re-
plying on a motion for the introduction of a bill the duties
of a member are generally confined to answering inquiries
made in the course of the debate ; and I will in the first
place notice those that have been made during the discus-
sion this evening. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Radnorshire, who followed me, inquired what the in-
tentions of the Government are with respect to the seats ob-
tained by the disfranchisement of Sudbury and St. Albans.
The intention of the Government with respect to those seats
is that they should still remain in reserve, and probably, in
the course of our discussions on the bill now before the
house, there may be opportunities of deliberating on the
best mode of apportioning them. (A laugh.) The hon.
gentleman the member for Sussex asked me whether the
Government have any estimate of the reduction of the con-
stituency by transferring the borough freeholders from the
county. Sir, there are two returns, I believe, on the table
of the house already on that subject ; the amount of those
voters has been accurately stated by another member of the
house in the course of the debate ; and I believe the last
return is 105,000. The same hon. gentleman asked me
whether the 40s. freeholder will vote for the borough in
which he resides. He will vote for the borough in which he
resides if his 40s. qualification is within that borough.
Mr. DODSON—But supposing the 40s. qualification is
not within the borough ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--Then he
will have the advantage of polling by means of a voting
paper. Again, lam asked whether it is intended that an
elector who is an occupier of a £lO house, and who is also a
40s. freeholder in the borough where the £lO house is, is to
have only one vote. It is intended that he should have
only one vote, and I think one vote ought to satisfy his
ambition in electing the representative of the town
in which he lives. An hon. gentleman inquired of me
whether I could give him any calculation of the number of
voters that will be added to the constituency by the different
schemes which I have introduced to-night. It will be im-
possible to give any estimate that can be depended upon.
The increase, no doubt, will be very considerable, exceeding
half-a-million. I have no hesitation in saying that the
suffrage will really depend so much on the energy
of individuals—so many, I think, will be invited by
these avenues being thrown open to them for advancing
to the possession of the suffrage—that it is totallyimpossible
to give that dry statistical estimate of the number which you
could have if it depended merely on, property, occupation,
or rating, and which could be ascertained from returns.
The hon. member for Hull asked whether the cost of polling
places for boroughs as well as that of those for counties was
to be defrayed by the locality. It will be found that by this
bill such is not to be the case wherever, as we contemplate
will frequently occur, a public room suitable for the purpose
can be obtained without any expense. We do not propose
that the candidate should be freed from that expenditure
, which is a legitimate one • but I think that if the hop
member paid £4OO for polling places at the last election imr.
Hull his accounts ought to have been scrutinised with,. more
severity by the election officer. (A laugh,) The he:'n. mem_
ber for Cambridge inquired whether by a £lO ri nalffication
in counties I mean only a qualification whirl arises from
the possession of a house. The bill mear qualification
of £lO which arises from the occupativ, of lands and tene..
ments. The hon gentleman the r
ember for Southwark
denounced the bill on accourA of the innovation of
, restricting the votes of kreough freeholders to the
locality in which their :1 sough
arises ; and this was
the point at which the discussion, leaving the course usual
on such occasion's as the present, when hon. members
generally restricted themselves to inquiries, took a new
turn. The moment it passed the gangway inquiries ceased,
and the debate afforded opinions upon the measure. (Hear.)
I do not the least complain of that, but I am sure that gen-
tlemen will not object to my discriminating the character
of the debate. Below the gangway opinions are given upon
the measure, above the gangway there are merely modest
inquiries as to its intent. (Laughter.) The hon. gentle-
man who complained that he had to-day travelled 200 miles
to hear my speech and was extremely disappointed with it
(Mr. Crossley), said that he and his friends wish to main-
tain myself and my friends in power until they are prepared
to take our places. (Renewed laughter.) But he added that
of all the grievances under which they are suffering at pre-
sent, the deficiency which they most experience is a want
of leaders. Now, sir, I think that after the discussion of
to-night that want can hardly be felt. The noble lord the
member for the city of London, the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Sheffield, and the hon. member for Birmingham
have announced themselves as the leaders of the move-
ment ; and, represented by men of that character, autho-
rity, and experience, I do not think that the hon. gentleman
who travelled 200 miles to-day can regret the great effort
which he has made. The noble lord the member for London
has not hesitated a moment in expressing his opinion upem
this bill. He has two objections, which at once decide his
course upon the subject. The noble lord had the advantage
of being acquainted with the provisions of this bill before
they were detailed by me in the house to-night. lie must
have become acquainted with them through that corrupt
agency to which the. hon. member for Birmingham alluded.
All I can say with respect to that transaction is, that I
witnessed the publication of that information with dis-
may ; and I should have thought that the honourable
gentleman and the noble lord would have acquitted me,
of all members of her Majesty's Government, of any
combination of that kind ; for anything more suicidal than
to consent to that revelation before making the statement
which I have had to make, and which by the indulgence of
the house, and almost to my own astonishment, I have suc-
ceeded in making, I cannot conceive. (Hear.) Well, sir,
the noble lord reSts his opposition to this measure on two
grand principles. First of all, he cannot consent to any
measure which disfranchises in counties the ancient free-
holds which have existed for 300 or 400 years. I have had
to look into this subject, and I 'am sorry to say that the
great majority of the freeholds which I have considered are
not of that age. They are of much more modern days, and
have been created in a much simpler and more manufactur-
ing style—(laughter and cheers)—than the territorial tra-
ditions of the noble lord seem to contemplate. ,4 But," says
the noble lord, .'I will never consent to it; I will never be
Warty to a bill:which disfranchises the hardworking man."
hat did the noble lord do in his last Reform Bill ? What
was the first measure in his last bill.? Why, a proposition
to disfranchise idt the freemen in England. (Loud cheers.)
So much for this principle of the noble lord. A great and
perilousinnovation to restrict the borough freeholders to
vote in the locality in which their qualification exists 1
Why, if I mistake not, it was part of the first Reform Bill.
(Hear, hear.) It was adVocated by Lord Althorp, tb.en the
leader of the HouSetof Commons; and in the very Interest-
ing and able speech made by my hon. friend tb member
for Northamptonshire last year, in the course e:f the debate
upon the motion of the member for Surrey, tb.e attention of
the house-Was recalled, to these very ciremrsetances. Lord
Althorp when he brought forward the ,:.reform Bill was in
favour of providing that the freehol,ders who resided in
boroughs should vote where their qualification was found.
The noble lord says that he is for mixing the county and
the town.. He knowa n9-*ling more to be deprecated
than that we shouls, prevent the people of the
towns going to vote,, in the counties. I also am in
favour of that ble,ning of interests. I know nothing
more advantav,,ne than that people should go from
the t°31114_...--'(..n.d vote for the counties, but let them
votelodalifications in the counties. (Cheers.)
..;11. But, Sir,
't happened in 1832 ? Why, it was the carrying of the
Ohandos clause that made Lord Althorp say he would no •
longer insist upon the borough freeholders being restricted
to their towns. It was in consequence of votes being given
to £5O tenants-at-will that that resolution was arrived at;
and yet this is a great and perilous innovation 1 It is an
innovation which has been discussed in this house often and
often, that was projected by the political colleagues of the
noble lord, and which has, as I believe, been accepted by I
the good sense of the country for a considerable period.
(Hear, hear.) It was clear that the moment you considered
the county franchise in the spirit in which, on the part of
the Government, I have attempted to consider it to-day--
the moment you put an end to that exclusive character
which has been complained of in this debate, you must give
the counties, not to any particular order or exclusive class,
but to the inhabitants of the counties, and those who have