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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 1, 1859

mental. They had to solve certain problems with a great
want of data on which nice and accurate conclusions could
be arrived at ; in many respects they had to treat the sub-
j ect empirically, and it is not to be wondered at if in the
course of time it was found that some errors were com-
mitted in that settlement, and if as time rolled on that
some, if not many, deficiencies were discovered. I beg the
house to consider well these effects of time, and to consider
well also what has been the character of the 25 years

that have elapsed since the Reform of 1832. Those years
form no ordinary period. In a progressive country and
a progressive age progress has been not only rapid, but
perhaps precipitate. There is no instance in the history Of
Europe of such a vast increase of population as has taken
place in this country during this period. There is no ex-
ample in the ancient or modern history-of Europe, or of
America, of the creation and accumulation of capital so
vast as has occurred in this country in those 25 years. And
I believe a general diffusion of intelligence has kept pace
with that increase of population and wealth. .In that period
you have brought science to bear on social life in a manner
no philosopher in his dreams could ever have anticipated.
In that space of time you have, in a manner, annihilated
both time and space. The influence of the discovery of print-
ing is really only beginning to work on the multitude. It is
therefore not surprising that in a measure passed 25 years
ago, in a spirit necessarily experimental, however distin-
guished were its authors, and however remarkable for
their ability, some omissions have been found that ought to
be supplied, and some defects that ought to be remedied.
In this state of things a question in England becomes what
is called a public question ; Parliamentary Reform, in our
present circumstances, has become a public question—a pub-
lic question in due course of time becomes a Parliamentary
question ; and then, as it were, shedding its last skin, it
becomes a Ministerial question. (Cheers and laughter.)
Reform has been for 15 years a Parliamentary question ;
for 10 years it has been a Ministerial question. It is 10 '
years since the Minister of that day, who sat in this house,
after a series of motions, the object of which was to change
the settlement of 1832, after resisting those motions for
some time, declared it to be the opinion of himself and his
colleagues that some alteration ought to be made in it.
Public events prevented that Minister from immediately
acting on that public declaration. But in 1852, 1 believe
in this very month of February, the Prime Minister coun-
selled her Majesty to address Parliament from the Throne
in these terms :

"It appears to me that this is a fitting time for calmly
considering whether it may not be advisable to make such
amendments in the Act of the late reign relating to the re-
presentation of the Commons in Parliament as may be
deemed calculated to carry into more complete effect the
principles on which that law is founded. I have the
fullest. confidence that in any such consideration you will
firmly adhere to the acknowledged principles of the Consti-
tution by which the prerogative of the Crown, the authority
of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties
of the people are equally secured."
In consequence of that announcement from the Throne a
measure of Parliamentary Reform was brought forward by
the Ministry of the day. It was not pressed, in consequence
of a change of Government which then took place. But
two years afterwards, another Minister being at the head of
affairs, a Minister who, in the general tenor of his politics,
afforded a contrast to the one who introduced the measure
of 1852—a Minister born and bred in what is termed the
Tory camp, as his predecessor was born and bred in the
Whig camp,—(hear, hear)—this Ministe )eing called on
to form a Government, had to consider the equirements of
the country, as every individual with that responsibility is
bound to consider them—felt it his duty to counsel her
Majesty in February, 1854, to address to Parliament this
language from the Throne :
" Recent experience has shown that it is necessary to take
more effectual precautions against the evils of bribery and
corrupt practices at elections. It will also be your duty to
consider whether more complete effect may not be given to
the principles of the Act of the last reign, whereby reforms
were made in the representation of the people in Parlia-
ment. In recommending this subject to your consideration
my desire is to remove every cause of just complaint, to in-
crease general confidence in the Legislature, and to give ad-
ditional stability to the settled institutions of the State."
In consequence of that announcement another measure was

brought forward by the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen, which
was considered stronger than the measure of 1852, pro-
posed by Lord J. Russell, if it is not against order so to men-
tion that distinguished name. But circumstances again
changed, and prevented the Legislature from proceeding

with that measure of Reform. The countrybecame involved

in a war with a first-rate Power—a war that might be de-
scribed as European. Before it terminated a change of Go-

vernment again occurred. Another statesman, who may
well be compared with the two distinguished men who pre-
ceded him, a statesman renowned not only for his ability,
but his great experience, ap.d whose political prejudices-•.if
he has any (laughter and cheers)—l will say, then, from

whose superiority to prejudice (cheers) was considered a
statesman who had no morbid sympathy with advanced
opinions. (Renewed cheers and laughter). Then what did
the noble lord deem it to be his first civil duty to accom-

plish when he accepted the responsibility of office, and peace
had been concluded ? In the same solemn and impressive
manner adopted by the noble lord the member for the city,
and by the Earl of Aberdeen, the noble lord in 1857, on the
termination of the war, counselled his Sovereign to address
Parliament in these words:—
" Your attention will be called to the laws which regulate
the representation of the people in Parliament with a view to
consider what amendments may be safely and beneficially
made therein."

The house will, therefore, see that during three Ministries
the subject of Parliamentary Reform has been formally
brought before the attention of the Legislature. And let me
remind hon. gentlemen that, although circumstances have
prevented the Ministers preceding us from either proceed-
ing with the measures which they introduced, or with the
measures whichthey proposed, the house has shown during
that interval no disposition to wait and no reluctance to
deal with it. The consequence is, that you have had, up
to the end of the last session of Parliament, independent
members of this assembly continuing that course which was
pursued before any of those messages from the Throne were
delivered to the Legislature—namely, that of carrying a re-
form of Parliament by measures of detail instead of taking
a general view and bringing forward a comprehensive plan
which should effect a fair adjustment of all the points in
controversy. This, sir, was the state of the question when
a change of Government again occurring Lord Derby be-
came responsible for the administration of this country.
Let me now ask the house what in their opinion was our
duty under these circumstances ? That, from the peculiar
position at which this question bad arrived, it might have
been practicable by evasion for a time to stave off a solution
which had become, in our mind, a public duty, I do not say
is impossible ; but that is a course which, speaking for my
colleagues and myself, I may respectfully observe, is not at
all congenial with our tastes. (Hear.) Were you to allow this
question, which the• Sovereign had three times announced
was one that ought to be dealt with—which three Prime
Ministers, among the most skilful and authoritative of our
statesmen, had declared it was their intention to deal with
—to remain in abeyance ? Was it to be left as a means of
re-organizing an opposition ? Is that the opinion of either
side of this house ? Is it the judgment of this house that
that is a wholesome position for political questions of the
highest quality to occupy ? Was Parliamentary Reform
—a subject which touches the interests of all classes and all
individuals, and in the wise and proper settlement of which
the very destiny of this country is concerned—to be suffered
to remain as a desperate resource of faction ; or was it a
matter to be grappled with only at a moment of great po-
pular excitement, and settled, not by the reason, but by the
passion of the people ? (Cheers.) Were weto establish, as it
were, a chronic irritation in the public mind upon this sub-
ject, which of all others should not form the staple of
our party contests ? Were the energies of this country—an
ancient country of complicated civilisation—were they at
this time of day, boasting as we do of a Throne that has
endured for a thousand years, to be distracted and diverted
from their proper objects, the increase of the wealth and
welfare of the community, and wasted in a discussion of
the principles of our constitution, and of what should be
the fundamental base of our political institutions ? I can-
not for a moment believe that this house would think that a
posture of affairs which would be free from danger to the
empire, or which it would be honourable for any public
man to sanction. (Cheers.) Having, then, to consider the
state of the country with reference to this question, and re-
calling all those details which on this occasion I feel it in-
cumbent on me to place before the house, the Government
of Lord Derby on their accession to power had to inquire
what it was their duty to fulfil. And, Sir, it was the opinion
—the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet of Lord Derby,
that this subject must be dealt with, and dealt with in an
earnest and since spirit. (Cheers.) But I am told that,
although it might be necessary that a solution should be
effected, although three Prime Ministers who had made the
attempt had withdrawn from the effort, yet it was not for
Lord Derby—even if he deemed it for the interests of his
country, and held it to be his paramount duty in the posi-
tion that he occupied—to undertake such it task. Sir, I
dispute that statement. (Cheers.) I say it is not a just
statement, and cannot in discussion be at all maintained.
What is there in the previous career of the noble earl at the
head of her Majesty's Government which should preclude
him from taking this course ? (Cheers.) Tho noble lord
the member for the City of London has connected his name
with the question of Parliamentary Reform to his enduring
honour. I do not grudge the well. earned celebrity which he
enjoys. But the noble lord can remember the day when
Lord Grey summoned him and Mr. Stanley to his Cabi-
net in 1832, and the noble lord knows well that,
had it not been for their high ability and
energy, probably the Reform Bill, and certainly not in
its present shape, would never have been passed into law.
I think, therefore, it cannot for a moment be contended that
there is anything in the position or antecedents of the head
of the Government that should preclude him from dealing
with this question. What is there in the position of hon.
gentlemen who sit on this side of the house to render it an
inconsistent act on their part to adopt the course which I
shall recommend to-night ? Why, when the noble lord in-
troduced his measure, and also when the measure of the
Earl of Aberdeen was introduced into this house, I, acting
with the complete sanction and at the personal request of
many now sitting behind and around me on these benches,
expressed our views upon the course pursued by the Govern-
ment of that day. I stated then, on their behalf, that we
should offer no opposition to any measure which might be
brought in the object of which was to effect a reconstruction
of this house. I said that we were prepared to adhere to

the Conservative compact which was wrung from the Con-
servative party in 1835, by taunts and reproaches as to their
insincerity in professing to be bound by the Act of 1832. I
said that by that Conservative compact, which was made by
those who then represented the Conservative party in this
house, we were ready to stand ; but that if those who them-
selves made the settlement questioned its propriety and pro-
posed to amend it, we should offer no opposition, but would
give to those proposed amendments our candid consideration,
making every effort on our part to improve the representation

of the people. (Cheers.) Therefore I cannot understand the
justness of the taunts which have been so freely used against
our undertaking a task which, in my mind, no one who occu-
pies these benches can av oid or ought to shrink from. (Cheers.)
Sir, it is in the pursuance of the pledge which we gave when

Iwe acceded to office that, on the part of the Government of
Lord Derby, I am, with your permission, to-night to call
your attention to the measure which we now think it
politic that this house should adopt. Now, Sir, it ap-
pears to me that those who are called Parliamentary
Reformers may be divided into two classes. The first
are those whose object I will attempt to describe in a
sentence. They are those who would adapt the settlement
of 1832 to the England of 1859, and would act in the spirit
and according to the genius of the existing constitution.
Among these Reformers I may be permitted to observe may
be classed her Majesty's Ministers. (Hear, hear.) But,
Sir, it would not be candid, and it would be impolitic in
me not to acknowledge that there is another school of Re-
formers having objects very different from those which I
have named. The new school, if I may so describe them,
would avowedly effect a Parliamentary Reform on prin-
ciples different from those which have hitherto been acknow-
ledged as forming the proper foundations for this house.
The now school of Reformers are of opinion that the chief,
if not the solo object of representation is to realise the opinion
of the numerical majority of the country. Their standard is
population; and I admit that their views have been clearly
and efficiently placed before the country. (Hear.) Now, Sir,
there is no doubt population is, and must always be, one of
the elements of our representative system. (Hear, hear.)
There is also such a thing as property, and that, too, must
be considered. (Cheers.) lam ready to admit that the ne*
school have not on any occasion limited the elements of
their representative system solely to population. (Hear,
hear.) They have, with a murmur, admitted that property
has an equal claim to consideration ; but, then, they have
said that property and population go together. (Hear,
hear.) Well, Sir, population and property do go together
—in statistics, but in nothing else. (A laugh.) Popula-
tion and property do not go together in politics and
practice. I cannot agree with the principles of the
new school, either if population or property is their
sole, or if both together constitute a double, standard. I
think the function of this house is something more
than merely to represent the population and property
of the country. This house, in my opinion, ought to
represent all the interests of the country. • (Cheers.) Now,
those interests are sometimes antagonistic, they are compet-
ing, they are always independent and jealous; yet they all
demand a distinctive representation in this house, and
how can that be effected, under such circumstances, by the
simple representation of the voice of the majority, or even
of the preponderance of property ? If the function of this
house is to represent all the interests of the country, you
must of course have a representation scattered over the
country, because interests are necessarily local. An illustra-

tion is always worth two arguments ; permit me, therefore,
so to explain my meaning, if it requires explanation. Let
me take the two cases of the metropolis and of that kingdom
of Scotland to the representation of which the hon. gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Baxter) is so much afraid that I should
not do justice. The population of the metropolis and that
of the kingdom of Scotland are, at this time, about equal.
The wealth of the metropolis and the wealth of the king-
dom of Scotland are very unequal. The wealth of the
metropolis yields a yearly income of £44,000,000, upon
which the assessment under the great schedules of
the income-tax is levied ; while the amount upon
which assessment is levied under those schedules in Scotland
is only £30,060,000. (Hear.) There is, therefore, the differ-
ence between £44,000,000 and £30,000,000 ; yet, who would
for a moment pretend that the various classes and
interests of that country could be adequately represented
by the same number of members as represent the metropo-
lis? (Loud cheers.) So much for the population test; let
us now take the property test. Let us take one portion of
that very metropolis to which I have this moment referred.
This is an age of statistics ; I do not place more value upon
them than they deserve, but this is, I believe, at least an
accurate memorandum. Let us look to the wealth of the
city of London. The wealth of the city of London is more
than equivalent to that of 25 English and Welsh counties,
returning 40 members, and of 140 boroughs, returning 232
members. The city of London—the city proper—is richer
than Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham put together.
(Cheers and a laugh.) Or take another and even more
pregnant formula. The city of London is richer than Bris-
tol, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, Hull, Wolverhampton,
Bradford, Brighton, Stoke-upon-Trent, Nottingham,

Greenwich, Preston, East Retford, Sunderland, York, and
Salford combined, towns which return among them no less
than 31 members. (Hear, hear.) The City of London has
not asked me to insert it in the bill which I am asking
leave to introduce for 31 members. I have heard that there
is another measure of reform in hands, probably more able
to deal with the subject than myself, and in hands which,
perhaps, are much interested in ascertaining the claims of
the City of London. Whether the noble lord has made his
arrangements accordiig to the statistical return we shall
probably know some day or other; but the citizens of Lon-
don have anted with great modesty and propriety. They
seem to be satisfied with their representation, and to cor.-
sider that, probably, no place requires a greater number of
members than the City of London at present possesses.
Perhaps they have some suspicion that, if they had more
members, they would find some difficulty in obtaining
men who were competent to discharge that office. So
much for the population test, and so much for the property
test, if you are to reconstruct the house on either of those
principles; but the truth is that men are sent to this house
to represent the opinions of a place, and not its power.
(Hear, hear.) We know very well what takes place at a
Parliamentary election in this country. The man of prineely
fortune has, when he comes to the poll, no more votes than
the humble dweller in a £lO house, because we know very
well that his wealth, his station, and his character will give
him the influence which will adequately represent big pro-
perty, and the constitution shrinks from a plurality of votes
in such a case. The constitution also shrinks from the en-
joyment of a plurality of votes by large towns by means of
seats in this house. (Cheers.) It wants the large towns
and cities of England to be completely represented. It
wishes to see the members for Liverpool, MancheAer, and
Birmingham, iu their places, ready to express the views of
those powerful and influential communities, and it recog-
nises them as the representatives of the opinions of those
places, but not as the representatives of their power and in-
fluence. (Hear, hear.) Because what happens to the rich
man at a contested election will happen to those places.
Why, sir, the power of the City of London or that of the
city of Manchester in this house is not to be measured by
the honour able and respectable individuals whom they send
here to represent their opinions. I will be bound to say
that there is a score—nay, that there are three score—
members
in this house who are as much and more inte-
rested, perhaps, in the city of Manchester than those who
are in this house its authoritative and authentic represen-
tatives ; and when a question arises in which the interests
of Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham are concerned,
the influence of those places is shown by the votes of per-
sons so interested in their welfare as well as by those of
the respectable and respected individuals who are sent
here to represent them. Look at the metropolis itself, not
speaking merely of the City of London. Is the influence
of the metropolis in this house to be measured by the
16 members who represent it—ca laugh)—and who re-
present it, I have no doubt, in a manner perfectly satis-
factory to their constituents, or they would not be here ?
No I we all of us live in the metropolis ; some of the
members of this house have property, a few of them im-
mense property, in it ; and, therefore, the indirect influence
of the metropolis in this house is not to be measured merely
by the number of members which it returns to Parliament.
So much for that principle of population, or that principle
of property, which has been adopted by some, or that prin-
ciple of population and property combined, which seems to
be the more favoured form. It appears to me that the prin-
ciple, as one upon which the representation of the people in
this house ought to be founded, is fallacious and erroneous.
(Hear.) There is one remarkable circumstance connected
with the new school who would build up our representation
on the basis of a numerical majority, and who take popula-
tion as their standard. It is this, that none of their prin-
ciples apply except in cases where population is concen-
trated. (Hear.) The principle of population is, although
I cannot say a favourite doctrine, because I do not think it
is so, a very notorious doctrine at the present moment, but
it is not novel, although introduced at a comparatively re-
cent period into our politics. It was broached in the dis-
cussions which took place when the former Reform Bills
were brought in by preceding Governments. It was the
favourite argument of the late Mr. Hume. His argument
for Parliamentary Reform—a subject which he frequently
brought before the house—was generally this :—He took
some unfortunate borough in the west of England ; he de-
scribed it as borough with a very small population and with
very little business, and he said, " This borough returns
two members to Parliament, while the great city of Man-
chester, with its population of hundreds of thousands and
with half the business of the world concentrated in its
circle, only returns the same number. Can anything be
more monstrous ? Disfranchise the small borough, and
give its members to the city of Manchester." Such was the
argument which for several years passed in this house un-
challenged. Mr. Hume brought forward his motion for Par-
liamentary Reform in 1852, when, by a somewhat curious co-
indence, I was occupying the same seat I now fill, and it fell
to my lot to make a reply to him. I stated then what I
had long felt, that although I entirely rejected the principle
of population, still, admitting it for the sake of argument to
be a right principle, we must arrive at conclusions exactly
the reverse of those which Mr. Hume and the school which
he founded were perpetually impressing upon the public
mind. The principle, in my opinion, is false, and would
produce results dangerous to the country and fatal to the
House of Commons. But if it be true—if it be our duty to
form the representation upon it—then I say you must
arrive at conclusions entirely different from those which the
new school has adopted. If population is to be the standard,
and you choose to disfranchise small boroughs and small
constituencies, it is not to the great towns you can, accord-
ing to your own principle, transfer their members. (Hear.)
Perhaps the house will allow me to refer to a note of some
returns which I quoted in 1852, because they aro perfectly
germane to the argument which I am now offering to the
house. When Mr. Hume used the illustrations a sample of
which I have just cited, I asked him to look to the case of
North Cheshire, a county with a population 249,000, with
two great towns—Macclesfleld and Stockport—together
possessing a population of 93,000, and returning four mem-
bers to Parliament ; while the residue of the county popu-
lation (156,000) returned only two members. (Hear.) I
asked him to look to the case of South Cheshire, a county
with 206,000 inhabitants, with one town of 28,000, return-
ing two members to Parliament, but with the rest of the
county population (178,000) returning only the same num-
ber, I brought before him the remarkable case of South

Derbyshire. The population of that county was 166,000 ;
it had only got one town—Derby itself—with 40,000 inha,
bitants, who returned two members to Parliament, whil.e
the residue of the county population (126,000) had only two
members. (Hear.) I called his attention to the case of
North Durham, with a population of 272,000. There are
four great towns—Durham, Gateshead, South Shields, and
Sunderland—with a conjoint population of 136,000, return-
ing six members to Parliament, while the county popula-
tion of identically the same number (136,000) return only two
members. (Hear.) I referred him to the case of West Kent.
That county has a population of 400,000. There are four
great towns—Maidstone, Chatham, Rochester, and Green-
wich—with a joint population of 172,000, returning seven
members, while the remaining inhabitants (228,000) return
only two. (Hear.) I likewise cited the case of East Norfolk,
with a population of 250,000. Two towns—Norwich and
Yarmouth—with a population of 100,000, return four mem-
bers ; but the county residue of 150,000 only two. I asked
him to take the case of the East Riding with a population
of 220,000. Hull and another town return four members;
the residue of the county population (126,000) return only
two. I told him to look at the West Riding, with its popu-
lation of 1,300,000, reduced by nine considerable towns to
800,000. Those 800,000 return only two members ; whereas
the nine considerable towns, representing a population of
500,000, return 16 members. (Hear, hear.) Finally, I re-
ferred him to the case of South Lancashire, with a popula-
tion of 1,500,000. Ten great towns in South Lancashire,
with a joint population of 1,000,000, return 15 members to
Parliament, but the county residue of 500,000 return only
two. (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, it is notorious that, if you
come to population in round numbers, 10,500,000 of the
people of England return only 150 or 160 county members,
while the boroughs, representing 7,500,000, return more
than 330 members. (Cheers.) Admitting, then, the prin-
ciple of populain which is the principle of the new school,
I say you musr aisfranchise your boroughs and give their
members to the counties. (Cheers, and a laugh.) Sir, I
never heard an answer to this argument. (Cheers.) It
cannot have been misunderstood, because it was not offered
in a corner, but in this house, and I repeat that although
seven years have elapsed since it was advanced in 1852, I
never heard an answer given to it. I have watched the re-
cent agitation, when I was told that a new English consti-
tution was to be created on the principle of population, to
see if that argument was answered. It has, indeed, been
said that through a great many of the boroughs the landed
interests are represented in this house. (Hear, hear, from
Mr. White, followed by a general laugh.) That may or
may not be a sufficient answer to the demand of the landed

interests to be more represented in this house, but it is no
answer to the inhabitants of the counties. (Cheers.) What
proves that my argument is sound, and enters into the
public mind, and is accepted as authentic, is that the noble
lord the member for the city in 1854 acknowledged, with
generous candour, that it had influenced him in the ar-
rangements which he had made, and a large proportion of
the seats—certainly two-thirds--which formerly belonged
to the small constituencies that he proposed to disfran-
chise he transferred to the county representation. (Hear,
hear.) Let us now see, sir, what will be the conse-
quence if the population principle is adopted. You would
have a house, generally .speaking, formed partly of great
landowners and partly of manufacturers. I have no doubt
that, whether we look to their property or to their character,
there would be no country in the world which could rival
in respectability such an assembly. (A laugh.) But would
it be a House of C'ommons—would it represent the country
—would it represent the various interests of England ?
(Cheers.) Why, sir, after all, the suffrage and the seat re-
specting which there is so much controversy and contest
are only means to an end. They are means by which you
may create a representative assembly that is a mirror of the
mind as well as the interests of England, (Cheers.) You
want in this house every element that obtains the respect
and engages the interest of the country. You must have
lineage and great territorial property ; you must have ma-
nufacturing enterprise of the highest character and com-
mercial weight ; you must have professional ability in all
its forms ; but you want something more—you want a body
of mon not too intimatelyconnected either with agriculture or
with manufactures, or with commerce—not too much wedded
to professional thought and professional habits—you want a
body of men representing the vast variety of the English
character—men who would arbitrate between the claims of
those great predominant interests—men who would temper
the acerbity of those huge conflicting interests. (Cheers.)
You want a body of men to represent that immense portion
of the community who cannot be ranked under any of those
striking and powerful classes to which I have referred, but
who are in their aggregate equally important and valuable,
and perhaps as numerous. (Cheers.) Hitherto you have
been able to effect this object. You have effected it by the
existing borough system, which has given you a number of
constituencies of various dimensions distributed over the

country. No one for a moment pretends that the borough
system of representation in England was originally framed
that it should represent all the classes and interests of the
country ; but it has been kept and cherished besause the
people found that, although not directly intended for such
a purpose, yet indirectly it has accomplished that object;
and hence I lay it down as a principle which ought to be
adopted, that if you subvert that system you are bound to
substitute for it machinery equally effective. (Cheers.)
That is all I ask. I am not wedded to arrangements merely
because they are arrangements ; but what I hope this
house will not sanction is that we should remove a ma-
chinery which performs the office we desire unless we are
certain that we can substitute for it a machinery equally
effective. (Cheers.) Now, there is one remarkable feature
in the agitation of the new school ; it is, not that they offer
for the system they would subvert a substitute ; it is, not
that they offer us a new machinery for the old machinery
they would abrogate; but it is a remarkable circumstance
that they oiler no substitute whatever. (Hear.) They lay
down their inexorable principle ; they carry it to its logical
consequences, and the logical consequences would be that
to this house in the present state of the population, no
doubt, you would have men returned by large constituen-
cies, who would in most instances represent great wealth.
I will make that concession,—but when this house is as-

sembled, how will it perforni the duties of a House of Com-
mons? (Hear, hear.) I will tell you what must be the
natural consequence of such a state of things :—The house
would lose, as a matter of course, its hold on the executive.
The house will assemble ; it will have men sent to it, no
doubt, of character and wealth ; the great majority of them
matured and advanced in life ; and having met here, they
will be unable to carry on the executive of the count*.
[An Hon. Member—" Why ?"] Why P asks an hon. mem-
ber. Because the experiment has been tried in every coun-
try, and the same result has occurred ; because it is not in
the power of one or two classes to give that variety of cha-
racter and acquirement by which the administration ofthis
country can be carried on. (Cheers.) Well then, if this
house loses its hold over the executive of the country, what
happens ? We fall back on a bureaucratic system, and we
should find ourselves, after all our struggles, even in the
same position which in 1640 we had to extricate ourselves
from. Your administration would be carried on by a
Minister, a Court favourite. It might not be in these
times, but in some future time. The result of that system
would be to create an assembly where the members of Par-
liament, though chosen by great constituencies, would be
chosen from limited classes, and perhaps only one class
of the community. (Cheers.) There is a new school
of philosophers, who are of oppinion that there is no
such thing as progress; that nations move in a cycle,
and that after a certain cycle they arrive at exactly
the same place, and stand in precisely the same circum-
stances which they quitted two or three centuries before ;
and I am quite sure that if this house were reformed and
reconstructed on the new principle of population that will
occur. I have no time now to solve a problem of that
depth. Such metaphysical subjects require the study and
retirement of the Opposition benches. (Laughter.) But
if the new system were adopted I feel quite persuaded that
the House of Commons, after all its reform and reconstruc-
tion, would find itself in the same comparatively ignomi-
nious position from which the spirit and energy of the old
English gentry emancinated it more than two centuries
ago. (Hear, hear.) Tlierefore, I need not informthe house
that it is no part of my duty to recommend it to adopt that
new system. We cannot acknowledge the validity of those
principles to which I have adverted, and which would make
population, or property: or even property and population
I joined together, the principle on which the legislative sys-
tem should be constructed. (Hear.) But before I refer to
that part of the subject, there appears to mete be one branch
of the utmost interest, and which it is my duty rather to
touch on before I advert to any other ; and that is the state
of the franchise. (Hear,lear.) If there be one subject
connected with this general topic more than another, on
which public feeling has been most shown, it has been in
the desire to exercise the suffrage. That was the first claim
that was made when the settlement of 1832 began to engage
the critical spirit of the nation; and as the prosperity of
this country increased, and as its wealth, population, and
intelligence increased—as new interests arose, and as new
classes were, as it were, called into social existence, that
desire became stronger ; and it is, I think, hardly necessary
to declare that it was founded on a natural feeling, and one
which we should by no means infer is entertained by those
only who arc disaffected to the institutions of the country.
On the contrary, in most instances that desire arises, no
doubt from a desire to participate in benefits which are ap-
preciated. In considering this question, I Would make first
of all one general observation, as to the object which the
Ministry have had in view in preparing their measure of
reform. We have never in any of the arrangements
which we shall propose to Parliament to adopt, con-
sidered for a moment whether they would increase or
whether they would diminish the constituent body.
Our sole object has been to confer the franchise on all
of those to whom we thought that . privilege might be
safely intrusted, and who would exercise it for the general
welfare of the country. (Cheers.) I will, with the permis-
sion of the house, address myself first to the borough fran-
chise. The Reform Act of 1832, acknowledging to a certain
degree some of the old franchises of the boroughs, which exist
but to a very limited extent at present, established the
franchise in boroughs en the occupation of a house of £lO
value. There is a wish—l would once have said a very general
wish—that instead of the household suffrage being founded
on that value, it shoud be founded by preference on rating.
(Hear, hear.) lam not at all surprised that more than one
gentleman has received this observation with marks of assent
and sympathy. I confess myself that I was always much
biassed in favour of that idea. It appears to me that if you
could make—to use a common phrase—the rate-book the
register, you very much simplify the business of election—
(hear)—but, when you come to examine this matter in
detail in order to see how it will act, you will find that it is
involved in difficulties—great, all acknowledge—and I am
sorry to be obliged to confess, to my mind insurmountable.
For the purpose of securing the advantage of having the
rate-book for the register, you must, of course, leave perfect
discretion to the overseer. The overseer has an interest in
raising rates, people may say ; or he may be a very hot poli-
tical partisan. Are you prepared to leave to the overseer
the absolute discretion of appointing those who are to exer-
cise the suffrage ? Some will say we must have some check.
But what is a check but an appeal? And, if you appeal,
you cannot do better than appeal to the revising barrister.
If you have an appeal to some other parochial officer, you
appeal to an inferior tribunal ; and, indeed,
unless you per-
mitted the overseer to be unchallenged you could not make
the rate-book the register. But even beyond this theic are
other difficulties which you will find most perplexing. Not-
withstanding the Parochial Assessment Act, the rating of
this country is most unequal, and it is only those whose
business it has been to examine into this subject in its very
minute details .who can be aware of the preposterous conse-
quences which would arise from adopting a rating instead
of a value qualification. Take the present qualification
instance of Boston,
represented by my hon. and learned friend behind me (Mr.n £8 rating,
nce
of £lO value, which it is very generally and popularly
supposed might be supplied by an £8 rating. Now,
let us see what would be the consequence upon
itnliseteapdreosf a ent£lcoovnasltuit:. I constituency of
take f
the in
adopting
Adams.) The borough of Boston consists of two parishes;
the rating of one of them is upon one-half the value, and of
the other upon two-thirds of the value. The practical con-
sequence of having an £8 rating in Boston would be to dis-
franchise 400 of the electors of that borough, who may or
may not be supporters of my hon. friend. (" Hear," and a
laugh.) Then, taking the case of another borough—Dover
—if you had in that borough a franchise based upon £8
rating, instead of £lO value, you would exactly double the
constituency. (Hear, hear.) I have taken these two in-
rtances from a great number of others, and the house will
see that the idea spf establishing a frauchise based upon rating,