The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-25 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING,I MARCh 25, 1859.

stances under which we acceded to that bill would
certainly not have been introduced. (Cheers.)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. BILL.—
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. M. GIBSON—The right hon. gentleman said he
was desirous of making a few observations to the house upon
the measure which had been submitted to its judgment by
her Majesty's Guinn: anent, and also upon the course which
they were invited to pursue by the noble lord the member for
London. They had had three speeches in support of the
measure by members of the Cabinet ; and he had been,
though admitting the great ability and eloquence of those
speeches, somewhat disappointed at finding them deficient
in one important particular, namely—supposing Parliament
to adopt the change in the representative system recom-
mended to them by the Government, what ad vantage was
it predicted would be conferred upon the country, and what
improvement would be produced in the existing consti-
tuencies of England and Wales ? (Hear.) He found in
the speech of the noble lord the Secretary for India a great
deal of close reasoning in a somewhat narrow field ; but in
no part of that speech did the noble lord tell them what was
to be the probable result of a general election in reference to
the advantages to be produced, supposing the project of law
submitted to them was carried out. The right hon. baronet
the Secretary for the Colonies went at great length into the
Government project with eloquence and ability ; but he
(Mr. Gibson) must say he thought the latter portion of his
speech would have led a stranger to suppose there was some
such question before the house as was formerly introduced
by the Duke of Richmond for universal suffrage, equal elec-
toral districts, and annual parliaments ; he displayed before
them a phantom of democracy, by which he endeavoured to
show that the party of democracy were to rule education and
property. But that appeared to him (Mr. Gibson) a somewhat
artful diversion, intended to alarm them, and to withdraw
their attention from the question before the house, namely,
what was the character of the particular measure submitted
to their notice, and what would be the effects of the changes
proposed to be made in the constituencies of England and
Wales. (Hoar, hear.) He (Mr. Gibson) had confined his
meditations upon this subject within a very limited area ;
and in the observations which he should make to the house
he wished to confine himself to the only question before
them, namely, the bill of the Government, of course, accom-
panied by the amendment of the noble lord the member for
London. The right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colo-
nies told them there were two preliminary considerations
whichought to be present to their minds before entering on
the merits of this measure of reform. The first consideration,
if he understood him, was, that they must consider that
this was a measure brought forward by a Conservative Go-
vernment, and it could not be expected that a Conservative
Government would bring forward a measure of reform

wholly at variance with the principles of the. Conservative
party. The right hon. gentleman told them further, that
there was an instinct of party honour which should induce
the house to examine a measure of reform coming from a
Conservative Minister in an indulgent spirit. He (Mr. Gib-
son) admitted there was force in that appeal as far asrelated
to the circumstances under which the Government were
placed ; but, as a member of Parliament, he must consider,
as paramount to all other matters in so grave a question as
Parliamentary reform, what would bo the effects on the
country of the measure they were about to pass. (Hear,
hear.) He should view the question of a Reform Bill
brought in by the present Ministers without any prejudice
whatever, for he had seen them inclined to adapt them-
selves as far as possible to the circumstances and require-
ments of the day. (Hear, hear.) He did not know that
county members were to be assumed as alone capable of
supporting an anti-reform Administration, because he recol-
lected that in 1832 the main or a very considerable portion
of the strength of the Minister of that day for carrying the
measure of 1832 was obtained from the county members ;
therefore he did not hold that county members were opposed
to the principle of fair and free representation. (Hear.)
Another point which her Majesty's Government thought
they should take into consideration was that of time. They
said that the reformers would lose the opportunity of get-
ting their bill passed this year—that they (the Government)
presented them that opportunity, so that, by agreeing to the
present bill, they would gain in time what they might lose
in quantity. (Hear, hear.) In reply to that argument he
would state that he for one did not feel so particularly eager
upon the point that, for the sake of saving time, he would
concur in the passing of a measur,e which was in itself ob-
jectionable. (Hear, hear.) A great deal was said about
settling the reform question, but if that meant settling it
without reform—(hear)—that was tt settlement which would
not go beyond the .walls of Parliament, and the country,
when the word settlement was made use of, expected a ra-
tional, sound, well-considered measure, that would extend
political rights to an increased number of British subjects.
That was what they understood by the settlement of reform ;
and, with regard to the apathy ho had heard spoken of, he
for one did not believe in it. There had been for a long time
back a settled conviction in men's minds that Parliamentary
reform was approaching, besides which public matters were
now discussed with greater quiet than used hitherto to be
the case, and that may have induced many to think that in
tranquillity they beheld apathy—(hear, hear)—but the
petitions which crowded the table of the house, and the
spontaneous meetings which took place throughout the
country when the vernment proposed their bill, was a
convincing proof that the apathy was only apparent, and
that there was an earnest desire among the intelligent por-
tion of the community to see the question placed on a firm
and secure basis. Having disposed of these two points put
forward in defence of the bill—namely, its being the mea-
sure of a Conservative Government, and the necessity of
using the present opportunity—he should now proceed to
consider what it was Government proposed to effect. The
bill before them he could not call a Reform Bill. (Cheers.)
He would call it a measure for the purpose of operating in
a peculiar and novel manner on the county and borough
constituencies, making little or no change in the extension
of political rights to the persons at present excluded from
them, but transferring voters from one to another electoral
area, and making little or no difference in the whole elec-
toral body of the United Kingdom. Now, he wanted Go-
vernment to tell the house what good was to come to the
country from the peculiar operation they advised. (Hear,
hear.) He might put the question in another way that
would lead to the consideration of the noble lord's amend-
ment. The Government proposed te extend the £lO occu-
pation franchise to counties, but on two conditions. The
first was, that there should be a withdrawal of a portion of
the freeholders from the counties, and that there should be
no reduction in the occupation franchise in boroughs.
(Hear hear.) The noble lord was, as he (Mr. M. Gibson)
had been told, favourable to the £lO franchise in counties ;
but he said that Government made it contingent on two
conditions, and, until those two conditions were disposed ef,
it would be a waste of time to discuss the bill. (Hear.)
If the house was adverse to those conditions it would be
useless to go into the provisions of the measure, for it all
hinged on that proposal and these conditions. He did not
profess to be very familiar with the rules of Parliament—
(a laugh)—but he had read the able work of Mr. May, and
he had come to the conclusion that abstract resolutions as
amendments to the second reading of a bill were frequently
very objectionable. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But there
were special, cases in which that mode of dealing with the
question was not only proper and Parliamentary, but was
the only effective way of doing so, and the present was an
occasion where it was strictly proper and Parliamentary.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the freeholders it was pro-
posed to withdraw them from the county and hand them
over to the borough constituencies by way of counterpoise, as
had been said by the noble lord the member for Stamford. But

if it was advantageous to add the Lliiiouseiiiiders to the
county constituencies, why should the gain be counteracted
by a counterpoise like that proposed ? He for one did not
understand that mode of dealing with the question. With
Mr. Fox, he held that the greatest perfection of a consti-
tuency was its being able to bring into activity at elections
the greatest possible number of independent voters. The
present Prime Minister once stated publicly that if he was
to be told the names and politics of the principal families
in a county, he could tell the politics of the county
members. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gibson) thought that
statement too sweeping; but if it was to any extent true
that the principal families could make the county represen-
tation nomination seats, then what a proposition was that
before the house, neutralising and counterpoising the in-
fusion of independence ! (Hear, hear.) With regard to his
hon. friend tho member for East. Surrey, Government had
not, he thought, dealt handsomely with him. They had
adopted two of his proposals in the abolition of the pro-
perty qualification and the £lO occupation franchise in
counties, but what did they do with -East Surrey itself?
They submitted it to what his noble friend the member for
Sandwich would call a surgical operation of a very curious
kind. They had proposed to make Croydon, with new
boundaries to be settled by the Enclosure Commissioners,
a borough ; so that all the 40s. freeholders resident there,
as well as those resident on the outskirts of Lambeth
and Southwark, would no longer be able to vote for
his hon. friend, but would have to vote for the
new borough member. On the whole, he thought
what they now proposed to do to the county constitu-
encies would be injurious to them, and, as the matter now
stood, he for one should be no party to it. Now, as re-
garded the boroughs, it might be an old •fashioned opinion,
but he thought that the maintenance of the distinctive
character of the borough constituencies was an important
element in the constitution. He knew that in the abstract
a great deal might be said in favour of electoral districts,
but if the boroughs were once merged into the counties, and
had their distinctive 'character broken down, a valuable
portion of our representative system would be lost. There
was something in a community residing together acting
together, and administering local self-government, which
turned their attention to the consideration of public affairs,
so that they became likely to return a valuable class of men
to the house—a more valuable class than could possibly
come from electoral districts. He would therefore main-
tain the distinctive character of the borough constituencies.
Ho did not like the idea of the creation of a set of non-re-
sidant voters for the boroughs. (Hear.) They were told
that they had got a clause in the bill that resembled the old
splitting act, and that that would prevent the creation of
fictitious votes. But he remembered being on a committee
of that house which sat in the year 1846, and they had oc-
casion to ga into the whole question of creation of fictitious
votes. A legal gentleman of great experience then told
them that it was quite impossible to prevent the creation of
these votes by any law that they might pass ; that the old
splitting act had been a delusion, and that it had been easily
evaded ; and one solicitor said that he would defy them to
pass a law which the dexterity of conveyancers could not
be able to evade in the creation of faggot votes. (Hear.)
This was an alarming proposition. The Carlton or Reform
Club, or any of these wealthy or powerful bodies, would be
able to create non-resident voters in boroughs, and thus
counteract the voice of the resident voters. (Cheers.) Were
they to be parties to such a measure as this, and that for
the sake of settling reform ? (Cheers.) This would net
settle reform ; it would produce universal dissatisfaction—
(cheers)—and ho agreed with his hon. friend the member
for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) when he said, in one of his
speeches on reform, that there was no bill so revolutionary
as a bad bill. (Loud cheers.) Therefore it behoved them
to hesitate before they gave their assent to this proposi-
tion. He would ask what was the doctrine of the right
honourable gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir
E. B. Lytton), when he claimed for himself and his friends
that they were the special guardians of the middle
classes? (Laughter and cheers.) Friends of the middle
classes Not friends of the farmers, as they recollected
in old times. (Laughter and cheers.) Their cry now
was, " friends of the middle classes." Could they devise a
cry more dangerous than that there was a party in the
State basing itself upon the exclusion of the great mass of
the working classes ? (Cheers.) He for one disliked the
doctrine of being the friend of any class. (Hear, hear.) He
wished to see a full and fair representation of the people—
hear, hear—and he believed that unless .they-NCere prepared

to reduce the borough franchise, they could not admit
within the electoral pale any considerable portion of the
Wat.V.hr, classes of this country. (Hear, hear.) If it be
not right id ehttlit the working classes to any share of poli-
tical power, let theiii say so ; but do not mock them with
the delusion of £6O in a Wings-bank. (Cheers.) Tell
them that they were not fitted foe the franchise—that the
time had not come for their admission ; iftft if that were not
their opinion, he knew of no other mode at present for ad-
mitting in any considerable number the industrious classes
in this country to the exercise of the electoral franchise than
by a reduction of the franchise in boroughs and cities.
(Cheers.) Well, then, with these options, how ought a
member to vote ? The bill was called a Reform Bill, and it
was said that they might amend it in committee. But it was
not said that when the material and essential amendments
were made the Government would adopt them. When the
ship was filled with valuable cargo, which his right hon.
friend the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) would put into
it, then the captain and the crew would abandon it. (Laugh-
ter and cheers.) Where, then, was the use of trusting. to
these amendments in committee ? If the matter stood in a
different position, he should be the last man to argue in
favour of any extreme course, and because the bill did not
contain everything that he approved, therefore it must be
rejected on the second reading. But this was a totally dif-
ferent question. A Reform Bill must be viewed as a whole
—(cheers).:---as a scheme, a well-considered scheme, brought
in by a Government. They could not deal with a question
of that kind, affecting the interests of the whole nation, as
they would with a turnpike bill into which they were to
introduce amendments upon every clause. (Hear, hear.)
Besides, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herman) would,
after all, destroy this bill by slow torture, while they would
save the time of the house by disposing of this essential
preliminary question by a division upon the resolution Gf
the noble lord. (Cheers.) This was the fairest course to
the Government. (Hear, hear.) This was the fairest to
the houso. They would not then be placed under any mis-
apprehension. They knew what they had before them, and
what they were to do. If, on the other hand, they went
into committee, as had been recommended I o them, without
understanding what course was to be adopted by the Go-
vernment and carried through Parliament, then he main-
tained they would be taking the most unparliamentary and
puerile course that was ever suggested upon any great
public measure. (Cheers.) It was not for him to answer
those invitations which had been made to them to submit
other schemes if reform, in order that new issues might be
raised, and their attention be drawn off from the subject
before them. (Cheers.) He had confined his observations
simply to the bill and the amendment. He would not travel
from the question. He would not shadow forth schemes of
reform that in his opinion might be desirable, nor would he
allude to other schemes of reform that other hon. members
had thought proper to put forward. Parliamentary reform
was essentially a question that must be dealt with by the
Ministers of the Crown. (Cheers.) Parliamentary reform
must be carried by a Government, if ever it was carried,
that had the confidence of Parliament—(cheers)--and his
desire was that they should live to see the day when, having
a good measure of Parliamentary reform, they should have
Governments which enjoyed the confidence of the House of
Commons, and a House of Commons that enjoyed the con-
fidence of the country. (Cheers.)
Mr. ADDERLEY was sure they all felt a personal grafi'
fication that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat
down had at last expressed his sentiments on Parliamen-
tary Reform. For the last ten years the right hon. gen-
tleman kept a perfect silence on the subject, and a short
time ago, when at Manchester, he referred, with great dis-
cretion, his audience to the hon. member for Birmingham,
rather than express his own opinions. The right hon. gen-
tleman was a true exponent of the Manchester views, and
it was therefore important he should be placed before us,

that issue might be joined between them. The right hon.
gentleman in his address to the house criticised the various
features, or, as he called them, " the conditions of the bill."
The noble lord the member for the City of London called
them "principles," in contradistinction to "conditions."
The right hon, gentleman said the people were misled by
the measure brought forward by the Governinentt, and
that he expected no good result from it. Now he (Mr.
Adderley) would leave it to the house whether, on any ques-
tion of electoral reform, so far, at least, as the extension of
the suffrage was concerned, there could be any principle at
issue except those two—first, that of extending the fran-
chise on the basis of property, and the other and antago-
nistic principle, which it is alleged is a matter of right—the '
extension of it to numbers. The noble lord in his amend-
ment, and the observations which accompanied it, modified
his views between the two ; but he (Mr. Adderley) con-
tended that, for consistency, he was bound to adopt the
whole principle. The question, in point of fact, was an old
one—it was that of numbers against property—the struggle
carried on between the patricians and plebeians of ancient
Rome. (Hear, hear.) There was, as he said, nothing new
in it. The bill before the house was based on both. The
right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton-under-Lyne
adopted the principle of numbers ; while the noble lord the
member for the City of London did not, in point of fact,
take any of them. The noble lord, however, must rest his
case on either one or the other. If he adopted that of
numbers, let him not deceive the house or himself, be-
cause he must go to its extreme length. (Cries of " No.")
He may believe that resident suffrage would be the best,
but he must go the full length of universal suffrage, and
with it, as a concomitant, propose the Ballot likewise.
(Cries of "No, no.") He (Mr. .Adderley) contended that
the noble lord opposed the bill of the Government on false
principles, and was deceiving hon. gentlemen who sur-
rounded him. At one moment he made them believe he was
going with them; that, to use a phrase which occurred
during the debate, he was "in the same boat with them,"
but in his speech lie stated clearly and distinctly that in his
opinion the lower classes could not be trusted with the
franchise. The noble lord said "he defended Reform when
he was young, and would not desert it when he was old."
Did that mean that because he defended it when young, he,
and no one else, should defend it when he was old ? In his
(Mr. Adderley's) opinion he should have rather said, " I
defended Reform when I was young, and I defeated it when
I was old." What the noble lord meant by the sentiment
he thus expressed may be easily understood, for no sooner
was the bill of the Government introduced than he expressed
his dislike to it, and in a manner which seemed to say,
what have you to do with Reform ? as if it were a mono-
poly with him and his friends. (Hear.) The noble lord in
his amendment proposed that one portion of the borough
franchise—namely, that of occupation—should be £6 instead
of £lO. There was no difference, therefore, in principle, but
simply that between £0 and £lO ; but the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Ashton went farther, and would
probably adopt a rating, or an entirely universal suffrage
fhe question, as he said, between the Government and the
noble lord Was only one of degree—the difference between
£6 and £lO, whereas the right hon. genleman, concealing
his real sentiments, was formiiversal suffrage, and yet both
combine to resist the bill. Suppme they were in committee,
as they ought to be—(a laugh)—he for one would prefer a
£lO franchise, andhe would tell them why, Suppose all the
other franchises in the bill were conceded, he would ask,
what man of Industry and intelligence would be excluded ?
(Hear.) It would possibly amount to universal suffrage un-
der the mildest possible cheek of industry and intelligence.
No one would be excluded but those who wanted industry
and intelligence. (Hear.) Hon gentleaveu opposite assumed
that the working classes desired this greet extension of
the suffrage,, but that ho totally denied. Meer, hear,
from the Ministerial benches.) Even as matters now stood
there was a large number of them who might be pieced on
the register, and did not choose to do so, and a number,
equally as numerous, who, though on the register, did not
take the trouble of voting. (Hear.) The hon. member for
Birmingham, in a speech which ho recently made to his
constituents at Birmingham, described a Wong-minded
man as laying by a few pounds, and afterwards, through
the sickness of a child, or want of employment in a com-
mercial place was reduced to destitution, and he added that
it would be isetter to give him bread than the suffrage.
(Hear.) But did not the hon. gentleman in his scheme pro-
pose to extend it to that Mess altogether ? He (Mr. Ad-
derley) would rather encourage en industrious man to rise
to the suffrage, and obtain it by hie own industry end intel-
ligence, instead of urging him on to demand it as right
when he cared nothing for it. A great deal had been said
of the good conduct of the working classes. Now, it so
happened that he had a knowledge of and knew more about
them than even the hon. member for Birmingham, and he
should be glad to see such men as the artisans of Birming-
ham, for example, in possession of the franchise. Most of
them would possess it under the Mil, and he cordially con-
curred in what fell from Lord Brougliem last year, that
they were the most independent class of r eters in the
kingdoia. He was aware that they discussed the crestion
of Parliamentary Reform, and in Birmingham they hael a
debating club, whore all the great questions of the day were
criticised and commented on. Indeed, not long ago the
question was, " Did the hon. gentleman properly represent
them or not ?" and on a division he was informed that the
numbers for and against were equal. (A laugh,) In jus-
tice, however, to the hon. gentleman ho was bound to say,
that from information ho subsequently received he had a
majority of one. (Laughter.) The quest ion was not whether
they should deprive the working classes of the franchise, but
whether they should, by making them bands of dema-
gogues, practically disfranchise all other classes in the com-
munity. The noble lord's first objection was, that the bill
disfranchised 45,000 voters, and that they violated in the
first place prescriptive right. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord (Lord John Russell) had quoted Blackstone to show
that the 40s. freeholders had a right to the county suffrage.
But that was the limit below which the suffrage was not to
descend, but the noble lord broke through that limit in
1832. It had been said by the right hon. Mr. Milner Gib-
son, that the bill would not add one vote to the country.
Now he (Mr. Adderley) would say that it would acid
400,000 electors, or about 50 per cent. to the constituency
of England.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON, as we understood him (for he
spoke in a very low tone of voice) said that, what he said
was, it would add to some extent.

Mr. ADDERLEY—That some extent was something.
Although it had been argued that there were many counties
under the influence of the landlords, there was not any
county entirely suburban in character. The neblelord had
shown himself very particular about the boroughs, but ho
had not a word to say about the counties. Now, the same
thing that would swamp Rutland would not swamp Man-
chester. That was a game which, however, could be
played on both sides, and that would be played too. There
were modes of playing tricks under any system that had
been proposed, and it was idle to say that persons under the '
£5 franchise would not be as open to trickery as the 40s.
freeholders. He knew Birmingham very well, and he
thought the game could be played there. The right hon
gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) complained that uniformity of
suffrage would lead to electoral districts. He argued, that
when all were placed on the same level the inevitable result
would be their having electoral districts. Now, the noble
lord proposed an inequality of suffrage, which would be far
more intolerable than the one complained of. One.-half of
the town of Birmingham was not in the borough, and by
the noble lord's proposal, one-half of the population of that
important town would have the .E 5 franchise, while the
other half would have the £lO franchise. As far as land-
lord influence was concerned he would take his own case.
He had a considerable property in Birmingham, and he
had a great respect for his representative, the hon. rreinber
(Mr. Bright), but he (Mr. Adderley) had no influence
there whatever. If the Whig party were on the present
occasion going to support the Radical party, let them re- '
collect that this was perhaps the last opportunity of stand-
ing on oue of two principles—the one a safe principle, the
other entirely antagonistic, from which it was now in their
power to save the country. If the Whigs who had for-
merly taken the lead in reform legislation were about to
take the course imputed to them, they would be handing
over the country to wild and dangerous legislation, and
there would be great agitation if this bill were thrown out.
(Ministerial cheers,) In 1831-32 what got up the steam ?
Not the desire for the possession of the franchise, but the
agitation was the result of the efforts of wild and dan-
gerous men who got up that agitation for their own pur-
poses. (Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear.") He hoped
never to see such an agitation again ; but the same men
could get up a similar agitation when any discontent pre-
vailed throughout the country, and let him warn the house
what the consequence would be when they had arrived in
this country at universal suffrage. Let them r,coollect

what consequences it had produced in Rome--it had dis-
solved the commonwealth, and made. way for absolute
power. This country under universal suffrage would not
produce so good a result as it did in America, the old insti-
tutions in this country being so totally dissimilar to the in-
stitutions of America, and so unfitted for the introduction
of universal suffrage. It would have the effect of making
way for a vulgar party, and for strong ambition, by break-
ing down the barrier of the middle classes, and making way
for breaking down also the beneficial power of this popular
assembly. (Loud Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. HEADLAM rose, amid loud cries for Mr. Bernal
Osborne, and said they were beginning at last to see their
way in this question. He would have been better satisfied
if the right hon. gentleman who had last addressed them
had explained the object of the G-overnment bill, instead
of discussing the value of the Z 5, or of the county franchise.
The Government had introduced a Reform Bill fettered
with conditions which the House of Commons could not
accept, and it had also to be recollected that these condi-
tions were so loathsome to the nation that the table of the
house had been covered with petitions against it. (Hear,
hear.) Strange to say, that, during all the agitation on the
subject, not one petition had been sent up in favour of the
proposed change in boroughs and counties, nor had one
newspaper spoken in its favour. The present bill could not
be accepted, and he must say the Government had not
carried out the pledge they had given. The right way
would be to drop the present bill and bring in another, and
if they would strike out the objectionable portions he would
give it his support. (Hear, hear.) He could not, with any
respect for his constituents, consent to the second reading
of this bill until he had a clear understanding of its prin-
ciples. (Hear, hear.) He was perfectly satisfied of the wis-
dom and propriety of the resolution. It had the effect of a
motion that the bill be read a second time this day six
months, and it also gave a reason why it should not be read
a second time at all. He thought the course pursued by
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was fair and manly, and
deserving of the approbation of the house. Ho (Mr. Head-
lam) objected strongly to the principle of identity of suf-
frage. If many cases were known in which commercial men
attempted to snatch the representation from the rural dis-
tricts, that would justify a change. But there was Ito evi-
dence of anything of the kind. He thought that an increase
of the borough influence would tend to enlarge the sympa-
thies and widen the objects of the county members. He
objected to the bill because it also preserved the influence
of the small nomination boroughs, because it gave the
power of voting to persons at a distance, and enabled non-
resident proprietors to vote in the borough. He regretted
that the bill had been placed on the table of the house, bi-
cause it placed the great country party in a false position,
and because the people at lsrge would consider that the
measure was not introduced to promote Refoi m' but
to servo the purposes of a party. (Opposition cheers.) He
thought the discord between town and country should be
forgotten. The interests of the manufacturer and the terri-
torial proprietor were bound up together, and nothing
should be done to sever them. (Hear, hoar.) The bill had
a tendency to set one party against another, and therefore
he would give it his decided opposition. (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.)
Mr. BENTINCK said his right hon. friend (Mr. M.
Gibson) had spoken for half-an-hour, and told the house
nothing. (Hear, hear.) He talked of the numerous spon-
taneous meetings which had taken place throughout the
country in favour of reform, and alleged that those
meetings were attended by men of education and intelli-
gence. Now, it just happened that the majority of those
meetings passed resolutions in favour of annual Parlia-
ments, vote by ballot, and universal suffrage. (No, no,
from the Opposition benches.) He would repeat that
this was the fact. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.)
He was, therefore, justified in assuming that the views of
the right hon. gentleman, and those who politically acted
with him, were in consonance with the decisions of

those meetings, and that those gentlemen would en-
deavour to give effect to those views whenever they
had the direction of political affairs. The discussion
of the Government Reform Bill at such a moment
would be really irrelevant to the question before them,
and it could not be discussed without the greatest of
all inconveniences—the consideration of two things at
once. The Reform Bill of 1832 was, in his judgment,
framed in a spirit of party, and not of justice, and he had
always been opposed to it, and to the hardships and ano-
malies it established. He was not prepared to say that
he was opposed to all reform therefore, nor could any
one say so who was an avowed supporter of the bill before
the house. He could also say, though he objected to many
of its details, that he could see in those objections nothing
to justify him in opposing the second reading of the bill.
(Conservative cheers.) His chief objection to it was that
it did not grapple with the existing injustice in the
county representation ; for no man would venture to deny,
unless he was prepared to contend against facts and figures,
that the rural districts in counties were not fairly repre-
sented. It appeared to him, however, that the time had
not yet come for dealing with that question. But as re-
garded that and other points connected with the general
subject, the. noble lord the member for London interposed a
resolution which now called upon the house to discuss the
question, not of reform, but whether he and his political
friends were to be translated from their present places to the
Treasury benches. (Conservative cheers.) For that was
really the colour which the question had assumed. He con-
fessed he was much struck with the speech of the right hon.
gentleman the member for Stroud, which was conceived in
a manly and straightforward spirit, and was remarkable for
that which was too commonly deficient in that house, the
character of really conveying the thoughts of the speaker.
The point on which the right hon. gentleman chiefly dwelt
and in which he (Mr. Bentinck) quite concurred, was, that
it was the duty of the house and of the country to see that
no impediment was thrown in the way of dealing with the
question of reform ; for no one could say in what temper
they might be called on hereafter to deal with the question.
But the right hon. gentleman pointed out, also, what would
be the position of hon. gentlemen opposite if the noble lord
succeeded by his resolution in ejecting the Government
from office. It was not often that he (Mr. Bentinck) agreed
with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, but he was
bound to say that he concurred in all that fell from the
lion. and learned gentleman on a. recent occasion, when he
deprecated that the question of reform should be made a
battle-field of faction at a moment when the action of this
country in the political aft tirs of Europe was most desir-
able, and when an unhappy turn in the course of the ques-
tion in Parliament would deprive the country of the influ-
ence abroad which it might otherwise possess. If anything
could confirm the justness of that remark, it was the very
ominous fact which he saw stated in the papers of that
day, that some Austrian cavalry had crossed the river
which separated Austria from Piedmont, thereby commit-
ting an act of aggression on the Sardinian territory. The
hon. member for Stamford, in an able speech, truly said
that the question was not whether they would consent to
extend the franchise te the working classes, but whether
they were prepared to transfer the whole representative
power of the country to one particular class from all the
othern? That was the real question at issue, and no bril-
liancy of oratory or ingenuity of sophistry could alter its
complexion. They had been told that the noble lord and the
lion. member for Birmingham would be found rowing in
the same boat, and the meaning of that had been explained
to them by the hon. member for Walsall to mean, that the
noble lord and the hon. gentleman would be found voting
in the same lobby. He thought, however, that the noble
lord would find himself not a little puzzled if his resolution
passed. The noble lord's boat was constructed on principles
different from those of the boat inwhich he generally rowed,
and he apprehended that the race would be finished by the
noble lord catching a crab, and finding himself ifi the bot-
tom of the boat. (Great laughter.) Judging from the
character of the noble lord's crew, too, he felt sure that
when once down they would not let him get up again.
(Renewed laughter.) But to pass on to realities, they ought
to know from the noble lord something more than he had
as yet communicated. They ought to be told who was to be
the coxswain of the boats—the noble lord himself, or the hon.
member for Birmingham; who was to steer her, and in
What direction; and if down stream, at what rate she was
to be propelled. (Cheers front the Couservatives.) That
point had been very skilfully touched upon by the hon. and
learned 'gentlemen the Solicitor-General; and the house
had a right to knew who, in that new coalition, were to be
the leading men ; fcr they had it on the veracity of the hon.
member for Walsall, that the hon. member for Birmingham
and the noble lord were politically associated, and that was
not denied either by the noble lord or by the hon. member.
Lord J. RUSSELL—No.
Mr. BENTINCK was glad to hear the assertion contra-
dieted, but he felt assured that the coalition had been
formed, and had existed almost up to that moment, and he
hoped that when the hon. member for !Birmingham ad-
dressed the house with his commanding eloquence he would
tell them the same thing. Until the noble lord had fully
disclosed to the house what his intentions were on the sub-
ject of Reform, he had ne right to throw an obstruction in
the way of a Reform Bill emanating from the Government,
though otherwise his right would be undisputed.
Mr, W. H. DENISON, who rose with about 12 other
members, receiving the call of the home, said ho thought
that this was a question which, if undertaken et all, ought
to be settled. But was the measure before the house cal-
culated to accomelish that object P Was it likely the
effect of the bill would be to pnt down agitation ? He
thought it would not. (Hear, hear.) The authors of the
bill had not spoken se much in favour of the bill as they
had apologised for it. (Hear.) If the bill was favourably
received by the country, where were the petitions in its
favour ? "Where were the public meetings in its favour?
How otherwise were they to know whether the country
was favourable to the bill? The truth was, the coun-
try was not in favour of the bill. It was said it
might be amended ; but to do that, it was necessary
to strike out the inside of the bill, and leave little else than
the preamble. :That would be a discreditable mode of legis-
lation, and he should therefore support the resolution, and
oppose the second reading of the
Mr. L. KING said that after the great concessions which
had been made by the Government to the principle for
which he had contended for some years—that of extending
the county franchise to £lO occupiers, he must admit they
might almost have expected him to vote in favour of the
bill. 'They had, however, so spoilt and mutilated the mea-
sure he had proposed—(hear, hear)—having deprived it of
that he found it impossible to do so.
its very life and spirit,
His,bill Was of a very simple nature, and merely proposed
to extend the franchise to a very deserving and intelligent
class of persons in counties, who did not now possess it.
His measure did not propose to disfranchise a single per-
son; nor did it profess to be in any respect a Reform Bill
The Government measure was called a Reform Bill, and
one of its most objectionable features was that it proposed to
disfranchise, without their consent, a class of persons who
now possessed the franchise in counties. if they took the
amended clauses of the bill, it proposed that these persons
should not be disfranchised if they were at the trouble of
re-registering their votes, but it provided that their suoces-
sorS, heirs, and assigns, and all future purchasers of free-
holds in borouishs should be disqualified from voting
for counties. In the course of the debate some refe-
rence had been made to the measure which lie had for seve-
ral years past submitted to the house, and the right hon.
member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), in his eloquent
speech the other night, had given what he was pleased to
call a history of that bill ; but as the right hon. gentleman's
account was not quite correct, ho (Mr. L. King) might he
allowed testate what the facts really wore. lie first intro-
duced the County Franchise Bill in 1850, not in 1851, in
consequence of a speech made by the noble member for
the cit. y of London, on a motion which was brought
forward annually by the late Mr. Hume, for the exten-
sion of the franchise. In opposing Mr. Hume's mo-
tion the noble lord said he would not oppose all measures of
reform ; but that the Government would be ready to consi-
der any reasonable proposition which was submitted to the
house. It was then late in the session ; but he (Mr. L. King)
took the first opportunity of proposing the measure, which,
if it had any fault was to• moderate. 'That motion was made

on the 9th July, 1850:_and was rejected, principally on the
ground of the-Tete -orthe-sessioh, by 159 to 100. On
the 20th of February, 1851, he again brought forward-hie
motion, when the ayes were 100 and the noes 50. That had
been described—but he thought improperly—as a "snatch"
division, for he believed that a great number of hon. mem-
bers purposely stayed away from the house in order that the
motion might be carried. In the following year the Govern-
ment of Lord Derby was in power; and, on the 27th April,
he brought forward his motion, which was supported by
many hon. gentlemen who had previously voted against it.
On that occasion the ayes were 149 and the noes 202. He re-
peated his motion in 18.53, but withdrew it in consequence of
a promise made by the noble member for the city. The noble
lord fulfilled that promise in 1854, his bill embracing the
Principle for which he (Mr. L. King) had contended. He did
of renew his motion in 18.5.5 and 18.56, on account of the
ar, but he again brought it forward on the 19th of February,
1857, when the ayes were 170 and the noes 192. Lest year
he obtained leave to bring in the bill without a division,
but on the 10th of June a division took place on the second
reading, when the ayes were 226 and the noes 168. His
right hon. friend the memberfor South Wilts said he alluded
to these circumstances because he wished to ascertain why
it was that the Government had assented to the adoption
of a £lO franchise. He (Mr. L. King) thought that, in
deference to the will of the house, considering that the
" ayes" in favour of his motion had never been below 100,
and that they had gradually increased to 149, 179, and 226. it
was quite impossible for the Government to do otherwise
than incorporate his proposition in their Reform Bill. The
principle he had advocated had made rapid progress in
public favour, although he had never resorted to out of
door agitation to obtain its adoption, and had not even al-
luded to it on the hustings at his own election. The right
hon. gentleman had complained that the title of his bill lied
been changed. He would tell the right hon. gentleman why
that change had taken place. The right hon. member fur
Carlisle proposed that part of the occupation should consist
of a dwelling-house, and a changein the title was therefore
necessary, but the principle of the bill—that of a £lO fran-
chise—remained the same. The sum was put in italics be-
cause that WAS the usual course, unless it was included in
the title of the bill. It had been said that he had not pressed
this hill last year, because, being a keen observer, he knew
the general feeling was against the measure. No such thing.
It could not be said, after such a division as had taken place,
that the feeling of the house was against his bill, but notice
was given of so many amendments on going into commit-
tee that he felt it would have been impossible to press the
measure last year. To one of the amendments which stood
in tne name of Mr. Bentinck he should not have objected.
It was—" That it be an instruction to the committee
to make provisions for the disfranchisement of small
boroughs." (Hear.) Ho was extremely sorry that he could
not give his support to the bill. He felt grateful to lion.
gentlemen opposite for undertaking the thankless task of
forming a Government when they were in a minority, and
on that side there was a powerful majority, happily for
them, disunited, but ready to eject them from power N%:lien-
ever they could agree upon any question. (Ministerial
cheers.) His noble friend had said that it was the duty of
the Government to propose a Reform Bill. He disagreed
from him. He did not think it the duty of a provisional
Government to propose any bill of the kind, still less of a
Tory Government, for the Liberal members felt that they
were touching the question with very unhallowed hands.
They felt a natural jealousy of a Tory Government med-
dling with it in any way. They felt that it was their pro-
vince, and regarded with suspicion anything which
proceeded from their opponents. He must say that
these suspicions were not ill-founded, and that this bill,
which purported to be a Reform Bill, was admirably framed
for keeping the present Government in office almost in per-
petuity. (Hear.) He could hardly expect much to be done
by gentlemen placed in their circumstances ; but he did
expect that any Government which thought it right to
propose a Reform Bill would have deemed it necessary nt
all events to adopt some of the principles which were in the
Bill of 1832. He did expect that such indefensible absurdi-
ties as Calne and Arundel would be consigned to the same
tomb as Gatton and Sarum, and that boroughs, the names
of which would hardly be known if they did not send mem-
bers to Parliament, would not be preserved. In all the
elements of further reform the bill was wholly wanting. If
it passed it would settle nothing. There would be the same
grounds for agitation, and there would be annual motions
for further measures of reform. In 1832 the noble lord the
member for the City of London said, that Schedule A and
the £lO borough franchise were the pillars of the Reform
Bill. He believed that an extension of the franchise in
boroughs and counties must be the pillars of a Reform Bill
now. (Hear, hear.) They could not expect from the descen-
dants of the:men who refused to give a member to Man-
chester and Sheffield that they would sweep away those
small boroughs which they, too, had found useful to them-
selves ; but when they gave the £lO county franchise they
should not,

" Startled at the sound themselves had made,"
have, at one fell swoop, detached from the county constitu-
encies the most liberal and independent portion of them.
(Hear, hoar.) He was afraid there was some lurking feel-
ing of revenge in all this, as it was through the exertions of ,
those very freeholders the question of free-trade had won •
its way into that house. He himself felt deeply grateful to
them, for it was they who secured his return for the county
he had the honour to represent. He thought, too, he sa w
in the proposal the revival of a spirit of landlordism. This
shuffling of the cards, however, was not the proper way of
dealing with the question. The proper waywas to find out
those boroughs in which a political capacity existed,
and disfranchise all the others • for now, as in 1839, the
Reform. Bill must rest on the pillars of schedule A, and a
lowered qualification to the privilere of the franChiss.
There were four things to be considered—the disfrenchise-
ment of some boroughs, the enfranchisement of others, the
extension of the suffrage in boroughs, and the extension of
the franchise in counties ; and it was because the bill before
the house was defective in all four that he supported the
resolution. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUTTON said, he should vote against the amend-
ment of the nobe lord, not because he objected to the
principles of the resolution, for in those principles ho en-
tirely agreed, but because he believed the proper time to
consider them-was when the bill was in committee, (Hear.)
Mr. W. J. FOX said, thatthe hon. member who had just
sat down agreed with the amendment, and yet announced
his determination to vote against it. He dissented from the
principle of the bill, which was uniformity of suffrage, yet
he declared he should vote for the second reading. Hoer
the hon. member reconciled these views and intentions it •
was the hon. member's business to solve. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member said he would put his amendments into
the bill after the second reading. But these amendments
went to the very heart and principle of the bill. The
Opposition offered the Government the opportunity of re-
moulding the bill, but they declared that if it were not done
they would reject it. He had listened very anxiously
throughout this debate to learn what were the great accusa-
tions against the working classes and these accusations
certainly ought to have been brought into greater promi-
nence. (Hear, hear.). They had heard strong liiisaassons
of the middle classes. They were told that they really
governed the country, and they were praised for having
obtained the repeal of the corn laws, and the other great
and excellent measures passed since the Reform Act. Ile
had nothing to say against these praises, since he had been
in sympathy with the middle classes in supporting there
measures, but they cruse) very oddly from the very party
by which all these measures had been opposed. (Cheers.)
For a quarter of a century the middle classes had struggled
for certain principles, and now, lien. gentlemen oppo-
site, who had fought tooth and nail against them,
were smitten with the deepest admiration of the
middle classes. (Hear.) He wished to remind these
hon. gentlemen that the middle classes had at this moment
many objects Mill at heart. They were opposed to church
rates, yet hon. gentlemen opposite resisted the abolition of
church rates. The middle classes were friendly to the bal-
lot. (" No, no," and " Hear, hear.") The middle classes •
were solicitous that the working classes should be admitted
to the franchise, while hon. gentlemen, opposite objected to
their admission. What then became of these magnifloent
laudations of the middle classes as the ruling power of the
country? (Hear.) The great objection to the admission
of the working classes was, that they were so numerous
that they would swamp the classes above them, and hon.
members opposite declared that the worst thing that could
happen to this country was, that it should be governed by
one great class. (Hear.) Well, but who were the middle
classes? They were more numerous than the classes above
them. If the argument was worth anything, that the legis-
lation of the country ought not to be in the hands of a single
class, it applied as strongly to the present Government by the
middle class as to the Government by the working dame, which
was morenumerous still, and resembled the middle class in
being alike diversified in opinions and views. (Hear, hear.)
It appeared to him that the disapprobation of the bill
deepened as the debate proceeded. The people required a
Reform Bill for the emancipation of the working classes, It
was the great object to be accomplished. The working claim
and the middle class carried the Reform Bill of 1832 by
their union and energy, with the distinct understanding
that as the working classes then with'great magnanimity
forewent their •wn admission, and yet assisted in the agi-
tation, they were in their turn to be helped by the middle class.
1 For this they had waited year after year, and now a bribe wa s
il hold out to the middle classes, who were praised; exalted,
1 petted, and rewarded, in order to reconcile them -to et mea-
surepe ,
that excluded the working classes, and thus Sought to
make the middle classes false and treacherous tolheir oun
implied contract.. (Hear.) He, for one, did not wish th
enfranchise the working classes by driblets. Parliament did. -
not so act in the emancipation of the negroes. It was pro-
claimed that they were all freed at once, and the effect ,
upon Europe.and the world was much more propitious, to
the cause of truth, justice, liberty, and freedom. than any
gradual emancipation. The effect of the emancipation of
the working classes would be analogous, for they were, in
fact, a slave class. They had nothing to do with the laws
'
but to obey them. They paid taxes, but they had tio share
in the power that voted them. He knew how they felt at
this exclusion, for it was not till he was 40 years old that he
himself had a vote, and he knew the sense of wrong and
even of bitterness engendered by the exclusion. Hon. gen-
tlemen talked of the qualifications that a voter ought to
possess. According to them he must be acquainted with
home politics, with foreign politics, with political history,
with this, that, and the other, with so much in short that if
as many qualifications were required of a member of that
house it would be a marvel if a great portion of them got
through their examination. (A laugh, and hear, hear.)
Candidates upon the hustings were of two classes. The first
were men who had made politics a life-long study, who by
their speeches, writings, and deeds belonged to te centry,
and who might properly be entrusted with its destiny. The
second class were men of high local standing, such as mer-
chants, manufacturers, and great landowners, who were
looked up to in their localities, and who were returned as
representatives of the several interests with which they
were connected. Now, the working classes were judges of
both these classes, although they did not belong either to
one or the other. Now that newspapers were so common
and public men lived in houses of glass, men of national
reputation were as well known to the inhabitants of any-
particular district as people who had passed all their daySl
among them. Both in this case and m the
.case of local
men, the working classes might be fairly intrusted with
pewees
economists ; bit who ''
the work, not of le:reaislattipongl- but of selectingitieal
who were fitted to govern the country, it iwas3 , raid'
go on this point was not so
that
ytheAy
eewlelreratenoticnowl(o
common that the working classes need be reflected upon
for wanting it. They were described as having very touch
impeded the operations of the Anti-Corn Law League ; but
as fhr back as 1815 working men had protested against the
corn laws, and in this way had shown that they were better
political economists than even the great merchants of Man-
chester. Again, in 1832, it was they who generally andel•
tested that the reformed Parliament would abolish the corn
laws. True, they held aloof from the League, but they had
reasons for doing so, one of which was that they thought
Free Trade ought to be preceded by Parliamentary Reform.
But they only kept aloof for a time, and, if the Working '
glasses made a mistake for a few years, he asked did not the
landowners and others make a still greater mistake, and
ding to protection still more closely? (Hear, hea7.l Then
iworkingt was said that if the classes had possessed power
lin this house at the time the Ten Hours Bill passed, the
limitation of adult labour would have been included in the
. .