The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-22 00:00:00

4

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1859.

I MPER EAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

The Marqnis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from Bath, in favour of allowing Protestant Dissenters to
administer trust funds of endowe grammar schools.
Viscount DUNGANNON presented several petitions
against the Marriage Law Amendment Bill.
Lord OVERSTONE presented several petitions in
favour of legalising the marriage with a deceased wife's
sister. The noble lord said he had already presented seve-
ral petitions from the City of London, signed by the mem-
bers of the corporation, bankers, merchants, and other in-
fluential persons, to a similar effect ; and now the petition
he held in his hand was from the united body of Protestant
Dissenters of the three denominations.
The Bishop of RIPON presented petitions against the
unconditional repeal of church rates.

fordshire, Wolverhampton, 2,333; in Warwickshire, Bir-
mingham, 1,910; in Yorkshire, Bradford, 2,194; Leeds,
3,089 2 • Sheffield, 7 1 991."

It appears to me to be a great public injury to take these
men away from the counties, thus to deprive the counties of
that liberal and commercial character which they would
otherwise have, and to change their social and, perhaps;
political bias. Such is the first consequence of the present
bill, yet there is another of still greater importance,--viz.,
you thereby enable persons of landed property to obtain a
power by which the small boroughs may be flooded with
fagot votes. (Hear, hear.) Let me here notice the
change which was made in 1832. In many of the small
boroughs previous to that time the right of voting was
by burgage tenure or freeholds, and those freeholds were
entirely dependent upon, or, at all events, attached to,
the patrons of the boroughs. By such means grew up
that state of things which existed before the Reform Bill,
when there were so many boroughs properly called nomi-
nation. What has been the character of many of those
boroughs since 1833 P In some of them there has'been great
influence exercised, and the landowners have had much to
say In the election of members ; but, at the same time, the
right of voting being in £lO occupiers has been everywhere
a check to the former power of the great proprietors, and the
electors have given their votes with a certain degree of
regard, no doubt, to those who recommended candidates to
them, but also with a determination to know what the
opinions of those candidates were. (Hear, hear.) The
gallant general the Minister for War told us the other
day that in Huntingdon he was quite sure an hon. friend
of mine (the member for Finsbury) would have no chance
of being elected. There are many other boroughs in the
country where the gallant general himself would have no
chance of being clected—(a laugh)—beeause his politics are
not the politics of the inhabitants of those places ; but im-
mediately you say that 40s. freeholds may be formed to any
extent in small boroughs you at once destroy what re-
mains of their independence, and you restore to them
their old character of nomination boroughs. (Hear,
hear.) You would not only have that which prevailed before
the Reform Bill, when in many instances the entire com-
mand of the boroughs belonged to the landowners, but you
would have those contests which used to go on in many
places, when two great proprietors—peers, perhaps—fought
for Parliamentary influence, when one made 100 fagot votes
and the other 120, and so the battle was continued until the
fate of the borough was decided. I think, therefore, that
the first proposition of the bill is to a great extent a repeal
of the Reform Act. (Cheers.) It provides for the revival
of abuses which the Reform Act was intended to extin-
guish. (Hear, hear.) But it is not true that the whole of
the smaller boroughs are under the influence of persons

like Lord Sandwich and others, who happen to ha-vo pro-
perty in the neighbourhood. Many of them are entirely in-
dependent. I might name as one the borough of Liskeard.
It is a very small borough. It was formerly under the in •
fluence of a noble family ; but it has returned since the
Reform Act Mr. Charles Buller, one of the most distin-
guished members of the house. (Hear, hear.) He was re-
turnnd by the free voice of the electors. and I believe the
present member was also returned by the free election of
the constituency. But immediately you pass the present
bill—which I hope will never be the case--(cheers)—you
will enable the gentlemen who have land in that neighbour-
hood to create a number of freehold votes, and thereby en-
tirely extinguish the free choice of the comparatively small
number of independent electors. I believe the borough is
seven miles in length, and therefore there would be ample
room and opportunity to create freeholds of that kind.
(Hear, hear) Hence, I say, the first proposition of the bill
is a great injustice. It is not an extension of the suffrage.
It is an act of violence by which you deprive men of votes
which they and their family have held, perhaps, for hun-
dreds of years—rights which they have exercised since the
reign of Henry VI., except during the short period of the
usurpation of Cromwell—for I believe that in modern times
no Parliament has sat to which members have not been re-
turned by the 40s. freeholders in counties. Such being the
case, you are now asked to do that which is unjust in itself,
which is very impolitic, in itself, by attempting in these
days to revive those nomination boroughs that have been
changed in character by the Reform Act. But I shall be
told that Parliament will interfere with the revival of these
unjust and predominating influences. I believe that is quite
true but then it is only a step to a further change. What
will that change be ? It will clearly be one to electoral dis-
tricts, for you will have already taken away that which is
the great impediment to a division of the country into elec-
toral districts, the differencebetween counties and boroughs.
(Hear, hear.) You will have small boroughs of 5,000 or
6,000 inhabitants returning members entirely at the beck of
the landed proprietors, the creators of borough freeholds,
and you will have, on the other hand, divisions of counties
with a population of 95,000. The boroughs will be called
nomination and corrupt, and it will be said " Let us join
5,000 to the 95,000, and divide the whole into two districts
of 59,000 each, and• thus obtain a fair and equitable division
of electoral power." (Hear, hear.) lam not going, to
argue for electoral divisions—l own I love the old
divisions of counties, cities, and boroughs. (Hear,
hear.) s For my part I have no wish that places like
Winchester, Salisbury, Guildford, and Chichester should
only be made parts of counties, instead of towns returning
representatives. (Hear, hear.) But I say, if that is your
wish—if the present Conservative Government wish to have
electoral divisions, which the hon. member for Birmingham
denied that it was his object to have, being afraid of being
thought too great an innovator if he proposed such a thing
—(laughter)—but if such is the object of the Government,
then let us arrive at that end at once ; and do not, in re-
speet to these small boroughs, let us go through this pro-
cess of nomination, corruption, and degradation, which must
excite complaint and agitation in the country some eight or
ten years hence, only to end in some violent process, or by
then making electoral districts. (Hear, hear.) Let us, I
repeat, rather have them proposed at once, and to give to
London 50 or GO members, to which the metropolis would be
entitled under such a system. (Hear, and laughter.) Do
not leave us to arrive at that end by a process which must
create general agitation and discontent. (Cheers.) In
stating this argument, which appears to me decisive against
the proposal now before the house, and having adverted to
the process, which I think is sure to happen, if such a bill
as the present be carried, I cannot but strengthen my argu-
ment by a very high an:sority, the same as was quoted the
other evening by the right hon. gentleman the member for
the University of Cambridge. Some five years ago the
Government of that day proposed to introduce a bill to
refornalie repitSititatiou of the pee-LAIN-The Berl of Derby
immediately took the alarm ; he thought that some dreadful
project was in contemplation—something dangerous to the
institutions of the country, and I will venture to read to the
house what was stated by that noble lord, as the authority
is so high, the expression so clear, and the argument, as _
think, so conclusive. Lord Derby said :
" I beg that your lordships will not lose sight of this, that
from the earliest periods of the Parliamentary history of
this country there have been two great divisions of consti-
tuencies, and it is upon due weight being given to each of
these two that the whole balance of the constitution in the
House of Commons depends."
Then, after stating the distinction, he says :--
"That distinction is as old as the earliest period of our
history. It is not a new distinction introduced at the time
of the Reform Bill ; but it is a distinction which at the
time of the Reform Lill in 1831 and 1832 was recognised,
and to a certain extent was even extended ; because one of
the main alterations with regard to the franchise, in addi-
tion to extending it beyond the corporations, which had in
some boroughs usurped the place of the inhabitants at
large, was, that it was given to a great mass of rated house-
holders ; and, at the same time, in order to draw more
clearly the distinction between the two classes of represen-
tation, the non-resident freemen were disfranchised in re-
gard to boroughs; while residence was not considered ne-
cessary with regard to the county franchise. Property was
then made the basis of representation, number and resi-
dence were the basis of representation with regard to
boroughs. • . . Ido trust that the Government in the
measures they are about to introduce will not attempt to
break down this old, well-founded, and most important dis-
tinction. If they do so for the purpose of removing any
apparent anomaly, and diminishing the inequality of num-
bers, or of introducing any fanciful regularity, they will
entail much more serious consequences in the total altera-
tion and subversion of the principles of the representation
of , this country, and the alteration of the distribution of
powers, and they will derive no advantage from any pos-
sible establishment of a system apparently more symme-
trical, but not containing the elements of real power and
real convenience which are comprised in the present system,
and which form one of the main balances of the consti-
tution."
(Hear, hear.) I ask, then, how it is, Lord Derby being
now in office and hiving to introduce a Reform Bill, that
one of the first things he does is to frame his bill on the
entire destruction of that distinction which he said was
necessary for the balance of the constitution ? (Cheers.)
How is it that he tells us now, through his organs in this
house, that while professing to improve our representative
system, he intends to subvert that which he thought neces-
sary for the constitution in 1854 ? (Hear, hear.) It is
quite obvious, as the right hon. member for Cambridge
University said in his letter to Lord Derby, that if I or the
noble lord the member for Tiverton had introduced such a
plan no man would have been steadier in his opposition to
it than the Earl of Derby, who would have told you that it
was an utter subversion of the institutions of the country.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore I think that the first clause of
the bill contains that which will be injurious, and not an
improvement to our institutions. I think it contains that
which will lead, in the first place, to great discontent on
the part of the inhabitants of towns now being freeholders,
but tvho, according to the bill, are to be transferred from
the counties to the boroughs. In the next place, I think it
will lead to the creation of a great power of nomination in
many of the boroughs-which it is proposed to preserve, and
in which no such power absolutely exists at present ; and,
in the third place, it will, in my opinion, lead to such dis-
content that the only remedy for the evils you have inflicted
—the only resource from the mischief you have done—will
be to resort to electoral districts, which no man is now pre-
pared to propose, and which I consider a total subversion
of the existing representative system. (Hear, hear.) Ido
not wish to detain the house longer than necessary, and I
come now to the second part of the amendment which I
have taken the liberty to place on the notice paper. While
there is a total alteration in the basis of our representative
system, such as no one ever proposed, and such as Lord
Grey and his colleagues were praised for not attempting in
1831, no change is made in regard to that which, I own,
appears to me to be a necessary provision in any reform
bill. (Hear, hear.) You destroy what is ancient, but you
do not make provision for what is new. By no means.
Every man will admit that since the Reform Bill, which,
with great and not overdue caution, placed the franchise
for boroughs and 'cities in the occupants of £lO houses,
great progress in knowledge and. capacity has been
made by the working classes. (Hear, hear,) Let us con-
sider a little what it is that is the real basis on;which you
should rest the representation of the cities and boroughs.
It is the custom in this country, different from that of some
ancient States—and I think a very wise usage—to place
power in hands which are thought fitted to hold it. You do
not say that every man that might come into a room whsre
a trial is rgoing on should have a vote on the question
whether the persons under trial should be condemned or
not. On the contrary, you say that there are certain per-
sons occupying houses of a certain value, who will be fitted
as a jury to condemn or acquit their countrymen. You do
not allow a man brought up for trial, perhaps for his life,
to say, " I require to be tried by my fellows and equals,
and these men are above my fortune." On the contrary,
yen say that you must have persons fitted for the duty,
with espacity to understand what the case ig, and, after
hearing the evidence and charge of the judge, to give a fair
verdict. So with regard to flee judge himself and almost
every functionary in this country, you sieeicle what are the
.conditions and qualifications which make men fitted for
eprtain functions. For this reason, and in conformity with
this spirit of our institutions, I have always opposed any
propositfeat for ltniversal or, as it is now called, manhood
suffrage, With I'POPPI; fil a 't*P4t Portion ofd he working
people, though wily PM WO- OttPd to 'Nip pa in the polis
tical questions of the day, they are liable to he niisled by
delusions, and if they should be . totally indifferent, that
circumstance would give rise to great Venality In our elec-
tions. There are men among that body, perhaps, who
would consider it not of much importance to themselves
ssisaktor there existed protection or free trade, religious
liber4 or PCWAlltion, and they would give their votes ac-
cording
to' ;r 4is isrimpdiate interests. Therefore it is
. a a/ell-0:40S ilnDortW 0 trb P'Plt.. that veil should find
. f .. ... . , . .
• hr>. ttf .

men fitted by their station and capacity to give their votes
for members of Parliament, for in the right choice of the
members "of this house depends the right conduct of
affairs. (Hear, hear.) But when you say this, can you
say that since the period of the Reform Act, there
are not! persons below the class of £lO householders
thoroughly fitted for the suffrage? (Cheers.) Are there
not nuilibers of persons who are perfectly capable of judging
and in circumstances sufficiently independent to qualify
them to vote at elections ? For my own part I have no
hesitation in answering that question in the affirmative ;
and I confess it has appeared to me for some years that such
is the growth of intelligence, such the improvement of the
people, that you ought not to confine yourselves to the limit
of £lO. (Hear, hear.) A right hon. gentleman in address-
ing his constituents, I believe, told them that in 1851, find-
ing the Administration of which I was the head not so
popular as it had been, I bethought myself of extending the
franchise by way of acquiring a little popularity. (Hear,
and laughter.) A very kind suggestion this 1 (A. laugh.)
But explain to the house what were my real views on
that occasion. I considered that there were thousands of
persons who were every year becoming fit to exercise the
franchise, and that if they were not admitted to that fran-
chise discontent would arise among them. (Hear, hear.)
I had seen two questions settled by Governments, but
settled, as I thought, under untoward circumstances. The
Roman Catholics of Ireland had been barred out from their
rights until their discontent came to the verge of civil war,
and then their petitionwas granted. (Cheers.) The agita-
tion against the corn laws went on, and the petitions of the
people were entirely refused, until at last, in a year almost
of famine—in a year of great scarcity—the meetings in
favour of the repeal of those laws became much more
numerous, the discontent became much more loud, and then
that which had been previously refused was granted. These
I consider were bad things, for the authority of Government
and of Parliament is sure to suffer if, when questions are
discussed year by year with calmness and patience on the
part of those who are petitioning for the removal of any
grievance, you always end with a refusal of their petition,
while when instead of fresh reasons you have noise, and
clamour, and agitation, and even threats of force and
resistance, you grant the demands which are made.
(Cheers.) It struck me, I must own, that although there
was no great cry, no vehement demand, for admission
to the elective franchise, yet that there were many persons
who wished to possess it, that those numbers would increase,
and that if you went on refusing their request until at last
they made their demands in a loud tone, and you then
granted them, instead of increasing the peace, the quiet,
and the contentment of the country, you would only teach
the great masses to rely upon force and not upon reason.
These were the grounds upon which in 1851 I proposed an
extension of the suffrage. In 1851 I proposed a certain
franchise ; in 1851 I proposed a modification of that fran-
chise. I will not say now what that franchise ought to be
at the present day. (Laughter and loud cheering from the
Ministerial benches.) I hold that it is for the Government
of the day to propose the franchise they may think right.
(Loud cheers.) When I sat on the bench on which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer now sits I did not hesitate to
propose what I thought right—(hear, hear)—and I was
ready to discuss the question in this house. Orr the first
occasion to which I have referred the dissolution of the
Government, and on the second, the eminence of war pre-
vented my proposals from being discussed ; but I held then,
as I hold now, that it is the business of the Government to
make such propositions— (cheers)—and let us amend these
propositions if we think fit. It is, however, for the Govern-
ment to take the initiative, and the question now to be con-
sidered is simply this, whether her Majesty's Government
are right in refusing any reduction whatever of the franchise
in towns so far as the occupation franchise, by value or
rating; is concerned. I will say this much, that I doubt
whether the propositions I formerly made, founded upon
rating, were based upon a very sound foundation, for I have
certainly found that rating varies very much (hear, hear)—
that although the Poor Law Board say that £6 of gross
rental may be always taken as £5 of poor-law rating, yet
that rule does not hold constantly ; and, therefore, I blieve
that any change you rea':e in the £lO franchise should be of
the same nature as the franchise established by the Reform
Act—viz., based upon annual value. (Cheers.) The Govern-
ment refuse any change of that kind, and the right hon.mem-
ber for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) told us he was afraid if
you established an uniform franchise, whatever it might be,
and if you had no variety-in the franchise, that one day or
other there would be an ugly rush in order to get over the
line. Well, sir, I believe that to be the case, and therefore
I ask the house to declare that so far as the borough fran-
chise is concerned some further extension is required.

(Hear, hear.) I have now dealt with the two points to
which the amendment I have to propose refers, but while
hardly anybody stands up to say that it is right to merge
the freeholders in the boroughs and to make one uniform
franchise, or to refuse any reduction of the occupation fran-
chise in boroughs, various modes of evading the argument
rather than of answering it are resorted to, by which it is
sought to avoid the conclusion at which I have arrived in
the amendment lam submitting to the house. Some poi.-
sons say that it is irregular to prefer such an amendment as
this on the second reading of the bill. Now, I think this
objection can hardly be entertained by those hon. gentlernel
who last 3-ear supported the resolution of my right hon.
friend the member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Air. M. Gib-
son), because they then voted not only for a resolution
that was an amendment to a bill, but a resolution
which had verylittle reference to that bill, and a resolution
likewise, which was put in the place of a bill which they
approved. (Cheers.) Everybody will recollect how very
highly they approved the Conspiracy Bill—(laughter and
cheers)—how much they applauded it on its first introduc-
tion, and how strongly the Government of my noble friend
was urged in another place to introduce a bill of that kind.
Yet, instead of reading that bill a second time, they sup-
ported a resolution which was interposed between the bill
and the proceedings of the house. My right hon. friend the
member for Ashton-under-Lyne said to me on that occasion,
" If you dislike the bill, you may depend upon it that if
my resolution is carried you will hear very little more of the
bill." That was to me a good reason for supporting the re-
solution. What reason the right hon. gentlemen opposite
had for voting for that resolutioni I don't know, but at all
events their conduct was not actuated by dislike of the bill.
(Cheers.) Now, I say at once with regard to the bill before
the house, that I consider it to be a measure of a most noxious,
injurious, and dangerous character. (Prolonged cheering.)
I may be asked then why, instead of moving the amendment
I have proposed, I did not move that the bill be read a
second time this day six months ? Well, sir, I will explain
the reason why I did not take that course. This bill con-
tains, no doubt, some proposals which are to be approved
and supported. (Cheers.) For instance, it admits £lO oc-
cupiers to the franchise in counties. It may not do so in the
most convenient form, because instead of the proposition
with respect to a £lO franchise made by Lord Aberdeen's
Government in 1854, it provides that the qualification shall
be lands and tenements. [An hon. member—" Or tene-
reents."] Well, I will speak as that part of the question
presently. It is obvious, however, that if lor any one else,
instead of opposing such a resolution as I am submitting to
the house, had moved that the second reading of the bill
should be rejected, it would have been said directly in this
house, but much more out of doors, " You have rejected a
bill, the chief feature of which is the admission to the fran-
chise of the £lO occupiers in counties, who you were last
year so anxious to enfranchise." Now, that is not the chief
feature of the bill, and I wish to mark by this resolution
what is Coe principle of upon which the bill stands. It rests
upon the'; first clause which I have read, and therefore I
think it necessary that, before proceeding to the second
reading, this house should take care to express its opinion
with regard to the character of that provision, which, as I
have said, is the chief principle of the bill. What course the
Government would take if this amendment were carried it
is not for me to say. Undoubtedly they might change
the whole character of the bill. It would be impossible
for me or any one else to do so in committee, because I
have shown you that the first clause of the bill con-
tains the whole principle of the measure, and if we were
to negative that first clause, in committee after having agreed
to the second reading of the bill, I think the Government
might justly say to us, "You have agreed to the second
reading of a bill the chief—the great—principle of which is
the uniformity of the franchise, and now you strike out in
committee the clause by which that uniformity is estab-
lished." I hold that the proper course to pursue is that this
house should record its opinion first with regard to the pro-
posed mode of treatment of the county freeholders whose
property may be situated in boroughs, and secondly, with
retard to the occupation franchise in boroughs. It is said

that in committee-Land the right hon. geritleman himself
seemed rather to invite this course—all sorts of opinions may
be expressed, and all kinds of clauses may be proposed ; but,
considering what this question is, what is its gravity and
importance, and how much the right hon. gentleman dwelt
upon that gravity and importance, the proposal of throwing
the whole representation of the country into hotch-potch as
it were, inviting every one to make his amendment and to
bring forward his clauses, is a proposal unworthy of a Go-
verninent, degrading to the character of this house, and
likely in the end to produce a bill which will not be condu •
cive to the public interest. (Cheers.) I remember very well
what were our proceedings on the Reform Bill, and 1 know

that it was the entire confidence which a great majority of
the house reposed in Lord Althorp, it was the steadfastness
and firmness with which they supported any proposition of
his, which alone enabled the house to deal with subjects of
such vast weight and importance. But if we are to go from
the first clause down to the last, amending every word, ex-
cludinfr the boroughs from the first clause, and waiting until
the end of the committee in order to bring up a clause
which will suit the boroughs,—if we are to be chau-

CI 7
gin..' and chopping upon every clause —I am sure that
the house cannot hope successfully to get through a bill of
this kind. And, then, recollect the manner in which a bill is
often treated in committee. At a certain hour in the even-
ing three-fourths of the house go away, and then perhaps
members will come back and say, " I did not know the
committee was going to divide so soon ; you have disfran-
chised all these freeholders without allowing me an oppor-
tunity of recording my vote or of expressing my opinion on
the subject." Our only security against theseinconve-
niences is, that there should be before the house some great
question which can be properly debated, and upon which
the house can come to a solemn decision. Now, Iwill ven-

ture to read to you what is the character of the phrase
" lands and tenements." As I have said, the authors of
the Reform Bill took very great care on all these subjects,
and when they provided for the franchise of boroughs they
made use of the words " house, shop, office, warehouse, or
other buildings," and so with regard to other details. Here,
however, in the very beginning of this bill, we have "qua-
lifications arising out of lands or tenements," and then any
person " who shall be beneficially entitled . . . . to an
estate of inheritance in lands or tenements of freehold

tenuro" of not less than 40s. clear annual value is to have a
vote in boroughs. Now, I have looked into an authority
to whom unlearned people go to find their law—l mean
" Blackstone's Commentaries"—where the phrase is thus
explained :
' Land comprehends all things of a permanent, sub-
stantial nature, being a word of a very extensive significa-
tion, as will presently appear more at large. Tenement'
is a word of still greater extent, and though in its vulgar
acceptation it is only applied to houses and other buildings,
yet in its original, proper, and legal sense it signifies every-
thing that may be holden, provided it be of a permanent
nature, whether it be of a substantial and sensible or of an
unsubstantial, ideal kind. Thus liberuna tenentoitunt, frank
tenement of freehold, is applicable not only to land and
other solid objects, but also to offices, rents, commons, and
the like ; and, as lands and houses are tenements, so is an
advowson a tenement ; and a franchise, an office, a right of
common, a peerage, or other property of the like unsubstan-
tial kind are all of them, legally speaking, tenements."
So, when they say that "land or tenements is to give a
vote in boroughs, you see how wide a door is open to every
kind of abuse, to every kind of fictitious vote which may be
created not by the possession of laud, and what is usually
understood as a tenement, but by anything which will boar
this construction. Now, in law, I hold, for my part, that it
is useless to go into a bill which in its first page and in its
main provision contains so disastrous a change in the law
and constitution of this country— (hear, hear)—and I con-
fess / am not deterred from taking the course which I pro-
pose by the observations made the other evening, by an hon
friend near me (Mr, Roebuck), that if we should venture to
interfere with the course of the Government bill we may
have a dissolution of Parliament. I hold that it would be
quite unworthy of us to pause on a question which is to
affect ourselves and our descendants through fear either of
a dissolution or of some threatened danger to our foreign

relations. (Hear, hear.) It is for the Ministers of the Crown
if we come to a vote adverse to
_their measure, to take the
course which theymaythink most advisable. If they should
think proper to recommend the Crown to disselve Parlia-
ment, in order to submit this question to the people at large,
I for one should not be afraid of that appeal. (Cheers.) Let
them hold this bill up on every hustings in England, and
await the response which will be made. (Hear, hear.) But
if agitation should thereby be increased—if a general elec-
tion should give rise to demands which now have not been
thought of by popular bodies, upon the Government and
not upon us will rest theresponsibility. (Cheers.) As to the
danger of a foreign wor, I see with surprise in print and
elsewhere that the presence of Lord Malmesbury at the Fo-
reign-office is a security for peace. (Laughter.) Now, I
have never behaved unfairly towards Lord Malmesbury,
and when he took office last year, and on a former occasion,
I was disposed to look with favour on many of his proceed-
ings. I have differed as to his conduct recently respecting
Portugal ; still, making no charge against Lord Malmes-
bury, when I hear that his presence at the Foreign-office is
a security for peace I wonder who will be the dupes of any
such assertion. (Hear, and a laugh.) Well, then, when
no arguments can be advanced to overthrow the reasons
given by the two right hon. gentlemen who have seceded
from office, and the reasons given over and over again at
public meetings against the proposals in this bill, it is said
as a last resource that I must have some party or personal
object in view—(Ministerial cries of "Hear," and counter
cheers)—and that accusation comes amongst others from a
person from whom I should have expected more charity, if
not more candour. (Hear, hear.) Bat, Sir, it is my duty
not to attend to such charges, but to pursue the course
which I think best adapted for the welfare of the country.
(Hear, hear.) It cannot be denied that for many years I
have taken a deep interest in this question. (Hear, hear.)
Very long ago—so long ago, lam sorry to say, as the year
1819—I was occupied in this house in a laborious and irk-
some investigation into the bribery and corruption which
prevailed in the borough of Grampound, with the view of
disfranchising. that borough and of conferring members on
Leeds, which at that time had no representation, and I ven-
tured even to propose that the £lO householders of Leeds
should be entitled to votes, a proposition which, as my hon.
friend the member for Birmingham reminds me, excited
great alarm at that time, as much alarm as is now created
by the proposal to give the franchise to householders below
£lO. From that time to the present I have constantly taken
the deepest interest in this question, and have promoted all
measures which I thought tended to the free, fair, and pure
representation of the people in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I
am bound to take that course—I may be allowed, I may be
privileged to do so by my deep convictions on the subject. I
have the satisfaction of knowing that the act in the passing
of which I took part in 1831 and 1832 has been productive,
not of those calamitous consequences -which were predicted
by our opponents, but of great benefits—benefits obtained.
not through bloodshed, not through civil war, but by peace-
able and tranquil discussion, aud by the legitimate influence
of public opinion. (Hear.) Since that time slavery has
been abolished; we have had the question of tithes, N.Yliich
was a vexatious question bet Ween the clergy and their pa-
rishioners, amicably arranged ; we have had free munici-
pal corporations established; there has been a great reduc-
tion in the duties on Customs and in those Excise duties
which pressed heavily on the masses ; Protection has been
given up, and Free Trade sanctioned by Parliament. These
and many other benefits have flowed from the reformed
Parliament, which we were told would be so fruitful in
calamity and disaster, and which was to take the crown off
the King's head and shake the balance of the State. (Hear,
bear.) Sir, entertaining these convictions, seeing what has
been done, I cannot view without alarm the proposition
which is now before the house. I have endeavoured to call
the attention of the house to two of the main demerits of
this bill. If it should continue on the table of the house,
the measure ought to be discussed in every shape until at
length, if not immediately, it is totally rejected. (Hear,
hear.) I shall take this course, careless of any imputations
which may be cast upon me. (Cheers.) With regard to
this great question of reform, I may ray that I defended it
when I was young, and I will not desert it now that I am
old. (Loud cheers.)

Lord STANLEY, who was loudly cheered on rising,
said—ln the month of April, 1835, a resolution was moved
by a noble lord, then and now a distinguished member of
this house, to the effect " That no settlement of the Irish

tithe question would be satisfactory that did not appropriate
to the purposes of general education any surplus which may
remain after providing for the wants of the Irish church."
(Cheers.) That resolution was brought forward with the
view of defeating a measure about to be introduced by the
Government of the day. It succeeded in its object. It
drove the Government from office. It placed the mover
and his political friends in the possession of power,
and, having served that purpose, the principle which
had been so triumphantly asserted by a majority of the
House of Commons was suffered at once to fall into abey-
ance. (Cheers, and cries of " No, no.") It never was
affirmed, and althosigh nearly a quarte'r of a century has
since elapsed no practical action whatsoever has followed
upon its adoption. .(Cheers.) Now, sir, I do not allude
to this historic incident of which the noble lord 'the member
for the City of London was the hero—(hear, hear)—with the
view of throwing any discredit upon him. He ' acted, I
have no doubt—as statesmen in this country generally
act—in conformity with the political exigencies of
the day, and I refer to the circumstance which I
have just mentioned, because I am desirous of cautioning
the members of this house—and, above all, the liberal
members—that to reject a moderate measure of reform does
not necessarily insure the passing of one of a more ex-
tended character. (Cheers.) It is well to remember that in
politics a lost opportunity does not always recur—(cheers)
—and although those whose sole object is the triumph of a
party may be anxious to see this bill thrown out, without
even considering what the result, so far as reform is con-
cerned, may be, yet independent and moderate men, in
whatever part of the house they may sit, will, I feel per-
suaded, think twice before they reject an opportunity of
dealing with this great question, more favourable in many
respects than any which hereafter is likely to be afforded.
(Cheers.) There has, I believe, never been a time w hen
within the House of Commons great public questions were
discussed with less acrimony, and with less regard to per-
sonal and party interests than has for the last few
years been the case. (Hear, hear.) There never was a
period when the extreme views of political parties were
more strongly discountenanced than at present. Europe
is at peace. No other great question besides that of reform
forces itself upon the attention of Parliament. There is
little distress in the country, and no discontent. These are
all circumstances which, in my opinion, this house would
do well seriously to consider before it decides upon sanc-
tioning a resolution which, if carried, will lead to thisprac-
tical result, that no legislation on the subject of reform
can take place during the present session. (Hear, hear.)
In saying this, I am well aware that there may be those
who do not desire to see this question settled, who think
the time is not ripe for large changes, and who despise
all changes which are not large. They know that in
the present temper of Parliament and of the country whit
is called a large measure of reform could not pass, and they
are not inclined to accept any measure which does not
meet their views in that respect. [At this point in the
noble lord's speech some interruption was caused and some
laughter excited by the circumstance that the cry of
a child (understood to be Lord John's son) was heard
to proceed from the ladies' gallery. The interruption
lasted, however, but for a few moments, and the noble
lord continued.] To such politicians as those to whom I
was alluding there is nothing more distasteful than the
fact that every political party stands pledged to reform.
They know that popular passions can be roused only by
decided opposition to popular demands, and they do not like
concession, because in it they see security against agitation.
(Hear.) That, howevsr, is not a Conservative policy—
(cheers)—nor do I believe it can be described as a liberal
policy in the true sense of that word, while it is likely to
prove, if successful, fraught with danger to the public
peace. If it fails—as, in the present temper of public
opinion, will probably be the case—it can only lead to an
indefinite postponement of an important question of politi-
cal improvement, and to a waste of the public time. (Hear,
hear.) I cannot, under these circumstances, think the prin-.
ciple which it involves is one to which this house is
likely to give its assent. I assume, indeed, that it is
the general feeling and wish of the house that some
measure of reform should, during the present session, be
passed into a law. The noble lord who has 'just spoken, it
is true, has asked—although I must say he merely adverted
to the subject in passincs—whatbusiness the present Ministry
have to bring in a Reform Bill. The answer to that ques-
tion is the plain and:the obvious one that if it be a political
necessity that such a measure should bo passed—if it be for
the interests of the country that it should be no longer
postponed—then it becomes the duty of those who happen
for the time being to be charged with the conduct of the
Administration not to shrink from introducing and doing
their utmost to pass such a measure. (Hear.) And, apart
from that consideration, I say that if we find any class which
is excluded from the franchise, which is in consequence dis-
satisfied, and which we think may wisely and safely be en-
trusted with it, the admission of such a class to its exercise is
not only a wise but a Conservative policy in the best and truest
sense of the word. (Cheers.) But we are asked if it be pos-
sible that those who are now charged with the duty of con-
ducting the Government of the country are sincere in their
endeavours to effect a settlement of this question? My reply
is, that I know of nothing in their antecedents which could
justifythe impression that the contraryis the case. (Cheers.)
I appeal in support of that view not to professions, but to
acts. Eight years have elapsed since this subject was
brought under the notice of Parliament subsequent to 1832.
In the year 1851 a reform bill was framed. In 1852 it was
brought into this house, and immediately afterwards disap-
peared altogether. (Hear, hear.) In 1854 the same course
was adopted, and with the same result. It is only under the
auspices of the present Government, therefore, after eight
years of promises premeditately made and evaded that an
issue upon this great question is about to be taken, and that
you are asked to give a vote on the second reading of a Re •
form Bill. (Cheers.) Ido not think it necessary to deal
with the charges of inconsistency and insincerity by which
our efforts in this direction are assailed. rLord J. Russell
was understood to intimate that he had made no such
charges.] I have heard them from other quarters, and it is
difficult, in dealing with topics of this nature, to refrain
from alluding to objections which have'been urged against
the passing of the present measure, although they may not
have been put forward in the speech to which we have just
listened. But what the noble lord did say was, that the Go-
vernment were in a minority in this house, and were there-
fore not in a position to deal with a question of this import-
ance. (Hear, hear.) Now, it seems to me to be a very difficult
thing indeed to know what at the present day is meant by
saying that a Government has not a majority in this house.
(Cheers.) The state of things which has prevailed during the
last few years has tended—and I do not complain that it is so—
to cause Government in this countryto rely less and less upon
pledged and unqualified supporters, and more and more
upon the character of the measures which they bring for-
ward. (Cheers.) The political features of our day, there-
fore, satisfactorily dispose, in my opinion, of the doctrine
that the present Ministry have no right to deal with this
question of reform. (Hear, hear.) Well, that being so,
what, let me ask, are the objections which the noble lord
and others urge against the bill? The principal objections
urged against the bill are that it excludes the working
classes from its operation, inasmuch as it retains the
borough franchise at £lO ; that it does not deal compre-
hensively with the case of the small boroughs, that it re-
stores outvoters in boroughs, by doing away with the obli-
gation to reside ; and that it establishes identity of fran-
chise
in town and country by transferring prospectively the,
freeholders in boroughs to the borough from the county.
But before entering on these questions I must remark on
the manner in which the opposition of the noble lord to
this hill is conducted. The object of the resolution is ob-
Tioltsly to prevent the house from expressing an opinion as