The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-20 00:00:00

which had been made by his hen. friend ; and he should I
therefore support his motion.
Mr. DRUMMOND said that he was always an advo•
cats for the extension of the franchise. In the first place,
always disliking the Reform Bill from top to toe, there
was one thing he never could understand, and that was
the reason why there should be such a high qualification
for voters, when you would have done away with the
qualification for seats in that house. He never could
understand for what reason you fixed the value of a right
to vote at 101.—why not at 91., or 81., or any other sum?
The same objections were always made to this bill. He
wished to see the franchise extended tojthe lowest classes,
in order that they might be able to protect themselves
against the tyranny of those above them, exercised as we
saw it was every day. But let the house be content ;
they would never have a reform bill until the gentlemen
on that (the Ministerial) side of the house got on the
other side and wanted to get back again. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the proposal of the hon.
gentleman the member for East Surrey had been met by
his noble friend at the head of the Government with two
objections. First, on the ground of the business of the
sessioe, which did not admit of the discussion of such a
bill this year ; and, secondly, he founded his objection
on the constitutional principle involved. As regarded
the first objection, he did not think that the Government
ought to allege that there would not be time for the busi-
ness of this bill. Looking to the various subjects of
business before the house, he could see that there must
be considerable discussion on the budget ; but the pro-
posals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in them-
selves simple, and did not involve a complicated series
of measures ; and therefore when the house had decided
one or two questions it might be said that they had de-
cided the whole principle of the budget. With regard to
the measures of the Government, he must say that the
Government seemed to him carefully to avoid undertak-
ing any measures of importance. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Home
Department was asked a short time since whether
it was the intention of the Government to intro-
duce any measure on the subject of Church rates,
and he replied that it was not their intention to
do so. The right hon. gentleman the member for Droit-
wich had brought forward a proposition of great import-
ance, and which had created considerable interest
throughout the country, namely, the subject of educa-
tion ; but there had been no hint given by the Govern-
ment that they bad any measure in preparation on that
subject, or that they proposed to interfere in the course
taken by the right hon. gentleman. Only to-night a ques-
tion had been pat to the Government on a subject which
had excited some agitation, somewhat unnecessarily, as
he thought, namely, that of agricultural statistics ; and
it appeared that even on that subject the Government
was not prepared with a measure, and they still refrained
from disturbing the placid course they seemed to have
laid down for themselves. If this was the case, so far as
the state of public business was concerned, there was
simple time for consideration of a measure so simple as
that proposed by the hon. gentleman the member for
East Surrey. He (Lord J. Russell) now came to the
question itself, and he would say that the hon. gentle-
man had truly alleged that he (Lord J. Russell) had for-
merly entertained objections to measures of this kind,
but the hon. gentleman did not mention that in the last
Reform Bill he (Lord J. Russell) had brought forward,
he had introduced the very county franchise which the
hon. gentleman had proposed. (Hear.) The objection he
heard made to this measure would be a sound one if it
could be now maintained that, constitutionally speaking,
the right to the franchise in counties was by tenure, and
that in boroughs by occupation. But that ground had
been taken away by an amendment on the Reform Bill,
which had been carried by the present Duke of Buck-
ingham, which gave the franchise by occupation to
county voters. He (Lord J. Russell) was afraid of the
effect of that amendment, which was likely to add to the
number of dependent voters, and he was opposed to it, and
yielded it only to the wishes of Lord Alth' rp and his col-
leagues, who were joined with him in bringing on that
measure. He found that so far from adding to that class
of voters, the 201. and 101. occupiers were the most inde-
pendent voters, and that the extension of that class of
voters would be an improvement to the franchise instead of
its adding to the number of dependent voters. Having
twice, once in 1852 and again in 1854, introduced mea-
sures which he conceived grew naturally out of the Re-
form Act, and were in conformity with its spirit, and
which contemplated changes in the franchise, he would
say that it must be admitted that there was re great
pressure on the public mind, nor any national urgency
for a great and comprehensive measure of reform. He
thought it would be imprudent in his hon. friend if he
was to say that lie would rely on any intention of the
Government to disturb our existing legislation by any
large and comprehensive measure of reform ; but he
would admit that in such cases he (Lord J. Russell)
would resume the argument he had used towards his hon.
friend on former occasions,that it would be better to enter
on the consideration of the whole question. Now,however,
on the contrary, as one desirous of refotm, he thought
it best to adopt measures of improvement in our repre-
sentative system when they were safely attainable. He
thought that the measure of his hon. friend was a safe
measure. He thought that no one who would allow
the franchise to 101. occupiers in boroughs could object
to allowing it to 101. occupiers in counties ; for that
class of persons occupied houses of a better description,
and many of them were persons of greater intelligence
and of larger property than the 101. occupiers in- bo-
roughs. There were often persons in ltrge towns who
Lad no vote, and who occupied 101. houses, who, if
they came toLondon or any of our large provincial cities,
would find that 151. or 20/. a year would not obtain for
them houses like those they had previously occupied. As
it was not likely that any large and comprehensive mea-
sure of reform would be introduced, he thougbt the mea-
sure now proposed would tend to satisfy a large body of
persons who now had cause to complain of being de.
prised of the franchise, although they were occupiers of
101. or 291. houses, like their neighbours in boroughs.
Again, it was (Item the case that a town which had
grown up into importance, and which contained a popu-
lation of 10,000 or 14,000 persons, did not send mem-
bers to Parliament, while another town, five miles off,
with 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants, did send representatives
to Parliament. That was an unfair state of things, if

you were not going to alter and reconstruct the sy-stem
of obtaining votes in that house ; but if you gave those
persons the right to vote in counties the grievance would
he diminished, and a greater approach made to equality
in the rights of voting, and he thought that such a course
would tend to inerreve and censoiidate oxr representa-
tive iostitntione. Taking this view of the subject, he
should vote for the introduction of the bill—(heary—and
if the hon. gentleman succeeded in obtaining leave to
bring it in he should support the second reading. He
thought the time a favourable one for removing any im-
perfections which existed in our representative system.
We might have this year or next a general election, ae.d
it would tend greatly to improve our representative sys-
tem if we could have three or four thousand men of pro-
perty and intelligence added to those who enjoy the
franchise. He did not know whether there was any in-
tention of dealing with the franchise in Scotland and Ire-
land, but as the bill stood it should receive his cordial
support. (Hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK congratulated the hon. member for
West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) on the speedy fulfilment
of his prophecy. The noble lord the member for London
was certainly not sitting on that (the opposition) side of
the house, but he was evidently uncomfortable in the
place he now occupied. (Hear, and laughter.) When he
heard the noble lord taunt the Government with not
bringing forward useful measures, he could not help ask-
ing the noble lord to favour him with a list of useful mea
sures which he brought forward when he was at the head
of the Government. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) He believed
the country was thoroughly sick of the word reform.
(Hear and laughter.) It was quite true, as the hon.
member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had said, that
it was only a clap-trap used for'stirring up the bad pae-
sions of tlos ignorant when certain persons were out of
office. (Hear.) So far as the general question was con-
cerned, after what had passed in the last few years, and
when the noble lord had been always urei,4- the ne-
cessity of a large and comprehensive measure of re-
form, and never availing himself of any opportunity for
bringing in any such measure—(oh, ob)—it would be
difficult to persuade the country that there was anything
but a party object in these attempts at reform.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot at this moment answer
the challenge of the right hon. gentleman, as he well
knows ; but I shall be happy on a future occasion to
state to him the measures which I have brought in.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the lion. gentleman was
most unjust to the noble lord ; and he (Mr. Duncombe)
should have been much surprised to find the noble lord
take any other course than that be had pursued now.
In 1854 the noble lord laid on the table a Reform Bill
which be parted with on account of the war with great
regret, which contained the very proposition now male
by the hon. member for East Surrey. What would they
have the noble lord to do ? His (Mr. Dancombe'e)
astonishment was that any member of Lord
Aberdeen's Government should vote aga!nst the
motion of the honourable gentleman. There was
no doubt some apathy in the country on this sub-
ject, but that was because the house was not equal to the
emergency. If Lord Derby's party' should again come
into power, let therneatten to bring the operatives
within the pale of the constitution, and they would have
agitation and support
their heart's content. But
there would be no aeitatci),
would the people ask
for reform, if a small mepapsounrr'tenti.ree the present should be
rejected. He would au
and oLly regretted that it did not
e measure as he had done
on former occasions,
go further. There were at present four vacant seats, and
i
when Lord Derby's government Was
nexistence the
house was told that it was of vital importanceand
toa theil
constitution that these seats should be filled
was introduced, the object of which was to give two of
them to Lancashire and the other two to Yorkshire.
But nothing was heard of that proposition last year, He
€""
wanted. to know why ,uch places as Chelsea, Hammer-
smith, Kensington, and Brompton were not to be re.
presented ? There were hundreds of occupiers of 401.
or 501. houses in these places who could not
vote for either a borough or a county. A Marl
living on one side of a street in Chelsea, occupying a 401.
house, had no vote whilst another occupying a 151.
house was entitled toga vote for Westminster. He con-
sidered the present system most unjust, and should bo
surprised if the house refused to ascent to a proposition
so rational as that which had been submitted to it by the
hon. member for East Surrey. (Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM expressed his regret that the hon,
member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) and the hon.
member for East Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) should have
thought it expedient thus early in the discussion to im-
port into it imputations of personal motives. (Hoor.)
The place which he (Sir J. Graham) occupied was one of
his own choice, and he was perfectly content to remain
in that position. The hon. member for East Norfolk had
stated that his noble friers' (Lord 3. Russell) had not
within his memory introduced any important measure
advantageous to the country. The Lon. namber had no

•
sat long in the house. He (Sir J. Graham) had sat in the
house along with his noble friend for more than 30 years,
and he had not forgotten that to him was due the repeal.
of the Test and Corporation Acts—(hear)—to him the
country was mainly indebted for the Reform Bill of 1832.
To him the country was indebted for the introduction of
the poor-law into Ireland ;to him was due the commu-
tation of tithes. But he would not weary the house by
an enumeration of all the measures which had been car-
ried in consequence of the zeal and ability of his noble
friend. (Hear, hear.) If he (Sir J. Graham) could
have reconciled it to his sense of duty to give a silent
vote on the present occasion, he might well have rested
that vote on the speech of his noble friend. But baying
on all former occasions abstained from discussing the
precise proposition now before the house, he would
state very shortly why he now intended to give it his
support. (Cheers.) If the house would bear with
him for a few minutes he would state what had in-
fluenced his conduct up to the present moment in
dealing with measures of reform. Having announced
in 1832, when the Reform Bill was introduced, his
opinion that it was to be regarded as a final settle-
ment of the question, he had felt bound to resist a
further change on the ground of finality. But it had
been his fortune to live long enough to ascertain that
that ground was not tenable. Finality, applied to the
work of man, was a solecism in terms, and that doctrine
must in the long run be found very absurd. Then again
he was of opinion that if other changes were to be intro-
duced, that which had become a bye-word—" a large
and comprehensive measure"—was expedient. Partly
from the apathy of the country, and still more from the
difficulty of introducing another large measure, no mea-
sure of a comprehensive character had been successful,
and it was not likely that such a measure would very
soon be successful. He therefore thought that such a
ground was no longer tenable. But he could not forget
that one of the measures which formed the basis of Lord
Aberdeen's administration was a measure of reform en-
larging the franchise. (Cheers.) That declaration was
made on the formation of Lord Aberdeen's government.
In the year 1854, in the speech from the Throne, a
measure of reform was recommended, the object of
which was to enlarge the franchise, and give additional
stability to the institutions of the country, and such a
measure was prepared with very great care. It was in-
troduced by his noble friend (Lord John Russell) on
behalf of the Cabinet, and was withdrawn on account of
the peculiar circumstance of the pressure of the war,
and of the measures consequent upon that war. That
measure, amongst many other provisions, included the
precise proposition of the hoe, member for East Surrey.
(Hear, hear.) He admitted that the measure introduced
by the noble lord contained many other provisions,
which might be held to counterbalance the particular
effect of the proposition then under the consideration
of the house ; but if there were countervailing pro-
visions as bearing on the county franchise, it ought not
to be forgotten that that measure lowered in towns the
franchise of the citizen. (Hear, hear.) It proposed to
reduce the franchise from a 101. rating to a Cl. qualifica-
tion with a residence of two years and a half. There
were other provisions to which he might briefly refer.
There was a provision giving effect to a limited extent, to
the votes of the minority, and several new franchises were
created. It had been truly stated, that while the county
franchise rested upon tenure there would have been a
grave objection to the introduction of such a measure as
the present. But the Chandos clause introduced into
the Reform Act for the first time, as bearing on the
county franchise, the addition of occupation of the
amount of 501. a year. Although the circumstances of
Ireland had been very peculiar, the necessity of assimi-
lating in all its great principles the law of the United
Kingdom became every day more apparent, and in the
year 1850 the house fixed the representation of counties
in Ireland not on tenure in the main, but on occupation,
and the right of voting was placed on an occupation
tenure of 121. He should feel the gravest objection to
this measure if he believed it would introduce into the
counties of England any right of voting which would
subject to undue influence any greater proportion of
voters than now existed. (Hear.) He quite agreed
with the principle laid down by Mr. Fox, and which
had been quoted more than once by his noble friend,
that that is the best system of electing members of a
representative Government which includes the largest
number of independent voters, and excludes those who
from their circumstances and position are incapable of
independent de liberation. The test to apply to such a
proposition was this—would it introduce into the coun-
ties men of independent station who were now excluded,
or would it extend it to those who were incapable of in-
dependent deliberation ? Now his firm belief was that
this proposition would extend the franchise in a manner
that was perfectly safe. (Cheers.) He did not feel the
objection entertained by the noble lord at the head of
the Government, that the adoption of such a measure
would lead to the danger of electoral districts and only
one right of voting in the country. If he entertained
that opinion he should arrive at the same conclusion as
the noble lord. But there would always remain a broad
distinction between counties and cities in England.
The right of voting in cities was confined to occupation
to the limited extent of 101., whereas even if the present
measure should pass, there would bs other tenures,
including the leasehold tenure, which were unknown in
cities and boroughs. (Hear, hear.) Now, if large and
comprehensive measures were no longer possible, consi-
dering the growing population, the growing wealth, and
the growing intelligence of the people of this country,
there was every reason to extend the franchise in some
other manner. If every extension of the franchiss was
to be resisted—if the people were to be driven to what
was called "bit-by-bit" reform—if they were driven to
the necessity of t iking fragments of reform—the best
course was to take the saf?it, and that which in its ope-
rating would have the greate,t effect. Looking at the
qnestion in that light he was decidedly of opinion that
this was the prtion of the measure of 1854 which might
be most safely introduced, and for which he was ready to
give his vote. The effect of this measure in the Eiglish
counties would be to give the right of voting to many
persons who did not now possess it, but who were entitled
to it. It would include many of the working clergy, as
they were called—the curates—who were no w excluded.
The dissenting ministers would to a great extent be ad-
mitted to the franchise. It would also include the half-
pay officers of both services, many retired tradesmen,
and clerks either in public offices or/great mercantile firms
who might have retired on peasions or superannuation.
Under such a franchise these classes would generally be
admitted. Then there would be the shopkeepers in
towns which had not the right to return members, such
as Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, and other places
similarly situated. (Hear, hear.) He might go further,
and say that the farmers of England were rising rapidly
to increased intelligeuce and great trustworthiness ; and
he knew not why some of the smaller farmers should not
in England, as in Ireland, have a share in the represen-
tation. (Hear, hear.) He thought he had said enough
to justify himself for the vote which for the first time he
was about to give in favour of this measure. (Cheers.)
He had the greatest regard for the hon. members for
West Surrey and East Norfolk. He might be exposed
to taunts for the vote he was about to give. But feeling
that his motives were pure, and that his conscience was
not touched by the slightest remorse, he should not
hesitate to give his support to the measure. (Cheers.)
In its progress through the house it would be necessary
to guard it against the abuse of making faggot votes,
and he would recommend the hon. member for East
Surrey to look at the precautions in that respect con-
tained in the bill of 1854. That bill contained provi- '
sions with regard to joint tenancies, and to laud con-
nected with houses and hovels of no worth, which would
give facilities to faggot voting which would not confer
the franchise unless coupled with the occupation of a
house of the value of 51. Feeling satisfied that the mea-
sure was a salutary and good one, he had no hesitation
in giving it his support. (Cheere.)
Mr. BENTINCK eep/aiued. He never said that the
noble lord had brought for ward no good measures while
in office, but that during the number of years the noble
lord was at the head cf the Government, when he had
ample means of bringing forward a great measure of re-
form with the certainty of carrying it, he had never in-
roduced such a measure.

Mr. L. KING- said that if the noble lord at the head
of the Government would consent to the introduction of
the bill, he (Mr. King) would make the best use of the
time allowed him for the purpose of passing it. If the
house should prefer a 201. qualification to that now pro-
posed, the proposition might be considered in committee.
(Hear.) If the noble lord the leader of the liberal party
should press the house to a division, he would find the
liberal members voting against him, and must rely on
the support of the other side of the house. (Bear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT, having given the subject the
deepest consideration, felt perfectly satisfied as to the
propriety of the course which he was about to take.
He had,two distinct grounds for not giving his support to
the motion—one which he derived from the state of par-
ties in the house,'and the position of the Government ,
the other, in the nature of the question itself, and the.
peculiar form in which it had been submitted to the house.
It was quite true that theidentical proposal was contained
in the bill introduced by his noble friend (Lord J. Rus-
sell) as leader of the House of Commons, and that he
(:11r. S. Herbert), being the colleague of the noble lord,
gave his concurrence in that measure. But it should be
rememb:red that the measure was brought forward 11,4
only by the leader of the then Government, but by the
man who, of all others, was best entitled to introduce
such a measure. (Hear.) Again, it was brought forward
with all the weight and authority of the Government. '
And it should be recollected that the proposition now
before the house was coupled with many other provisions
which tended in a great degree to neutralise its effects—.
not in the way of diminishing its value and efficiency,
but with a view of extending its value as a portion of
a great measure of reform. He belieyed it was admitted
by the promoters of the original Reform Bill that its
great error was the uniformity of the franchise. No
doubt it was difficult to avoid uniformity. But it was
an error, because society was not uniform, and could not
be fairly represented by uniformity. The object of the
proposition before the house was to give an uniform
franchise to counties and boroughs. Was that done in the
b of 1854? On the contrary, the proposition then was
to bring the county franchise down to 10/., and the bo-
rough
rufranchise to 6/. If the franchise was to be made
sy)tewinhabte wdeofu„lnddebde tihne logical deduction ? If the
101. franchise was to he the only one, how could the pre-
senttown with 50,000 inhabitants,
of
Theremembers w allowingwhil
st twona
largerm e m
numberrsto a
wereas other
ro a district containing half a mil-
lionu franchises
theintroduced r s
iinto
s, the
l
bill of 1854. All the
persons deriving an incomegraduates
jug 401. in the shape of assessed taxes, licences, persons having 50/. in the savings all persons pay-
101.13 from the funds, all
or income
tax, were admitted to the franehiae uniedeenretelsieefbsilhl. He
)f
had mentioned these facts for the purpose
what a different position a question of this kind assumedosving
when introduced as a solitary measure from that which
it occupied when it was a portion of a larger scheme.
With regard to the position of parties and the Govern.
went, he spoke plainly of what was visible to all, whoa ,

he said that, in his opinion, the Government were exer
cising a wise discretion in not bringing forward measures
which it would be difficult for them to carry to a success-
ful issue. (Laughter.) The Government were in a state
of great difficulty with regard to the finances of the coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) The position of the Government
weighed very considerably with him. He did not wish
to place them in greater difficulties. (Laughter.) He had
no wish, by an accumulation of difficultiog, to see their
hands weakened when they were about to grapple with
questions of great difficulty, to the termination of which
ro man could clearly see his way. (Hear, hear.) Guard-
ing himself as to the opinion which he entertained—.hav-
ing abated not a jot the confidence which be had in the
people of this country, in their growing intelligence and
independence, which must entitle them to an extension
of the franchise from some Government or other—but
objecting to the measure in the shape in which it had
been produced, and on the grounds which he had stated,
he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. (Hear )
Mr. ROEBUCK said he was sorry to trespass on
the attention of the house, but he must express his per-
fect "astonishment" at the speech of the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr. S. Herbert). The right hon. gentleman said
he opposed the motion on two grounds. The first was,
that it tended to uniformity. The right hon. gentleman
supported the bill of the noble lord in 1854, but he said,
although that bill contained this precise measure, it con-
tained something else which took away uniformity.
What did it contain! It lowered the borough franchise.
Therefore, if the proposition of the hon. member for East
Surrey had also been to lower the borough franchise, the
uniformity would have been done away, and the right
hon. gentleman would have supported it. The anomalies
of our representation were so numerous that anybody
who chose to dwell upon them might make a case
against any system of franchise, but the fact remained
that there were a body of men of intelligence, probity,
and wealth in this country who were not represented.
The hon. member for East Surrey proposed to give them
the franchise. They were an instructed race ; they were
a race endued with probity • and they possessed wealth.
He wanted to know whether those three qualifications
in constituents would endanger the character of the
house. But the right hon. gentleman had another reason.
He objected to weaken the Administration. The house
might anticipate that the right hon. gentleman would
to-morrow vote with the Government and against the
motion of his right hon. colleague the member for the
University of Oxford. If the Government were wrong,
then he said to the right hon. gentleman " Vote against
them." If they were right, " Vote with them." Were
they right on the present proposition 7 (An Hon. Mem-
ber, "No !") An hon. member answered " No," and
he said the argument of the right hon. gentleman did
not prove the Government to be right, because he said
distinctly he had such faith in the. intelligence and
probity of his fellow-countrymen theta some Govern-
ment or other, some day or other, must bring in a Re-
form Bill. They might suppose that if the right hon.
gentleman were a member of that Govtivirnent he would
support another Reform Bill, as he supported the Re-
form Bill of 1854. The right hon. gentleman seemed
determined to falsify the statement of the hon. member
for West Norfolk, that gentlemen out of office voted
sometimes for clap-trap motions. The right hon. gen-
tleman would show that he did not vote for clap-trap
motions—that he was determined to vote for the non-
enfranchisement of the people of England, because it
would really render the franchise equal to all, and be-
cause it would weaken the Government. (Cheers.)
The house divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —l3
Leave to introduce the bill was therefore refused.
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheering.
MINISTERS' MONEY; (IRELAND).
Mr. FAGAN moved for leave to bring in a bill to
abolish the ministers' money now imposed on eight
corporate towns in Ireland.
Mr. HORSMAN said when his hon. friend last year
asked leave to bring in his bill, he, on the part of the
Government, assented to the motion, but he did not, as
the hon. member said,
_express an opinion that the tax
ought to be abolished, or intimate such an opinion on
the part of the Government, but he stated distinctly
that the present act was acknowledged to be defective.
After a short discussion, leave was then given to
bring in the bill.