The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

tuencies :Aid the favourites of the nation. (Cheers.) It can-
not be denied that whatever advantages have attended our
Parliamentary reforms, we have latterly by what we have
done narrowed the means of ingress to the House of Com-
mons. (Hear.) What chance would there be for any of the
six men I have mentioned, at the age of 21 or 22, under the
present system ? (Hear.) It is not too much to say that no
one of these mere laoys could have become a member of Par-
liament if it had not been for the means of access to the
House of Commons which then existed. (Hear, hear.)
You must recollect that they were nearly all chosen when
they were about 21 or 22. What is the case now ? I fully
grant that you have an answer as far as regards a very
limited class of persons indeed.. Take the heir to a duke-
dom or an earldom, or the son of a great territorial poten-
tate, and there will be ready access to Parliament for such
men ; nor, I trust, shall we ever see any measures adopted
which will exclude them. (Hear, hear.) I rejoice to see
that by so limited a class so much ability and so much pro-
mise is shown. If you look to the young men of this day
—and, after all, it is to them we must look to carry on the
business of the country in future years—the most distin •
guished persons in this house are the men who owe their
seats here to territorial influence. (Hear. hear.) But what
would have been Mr. Canning's chance had he been de-
pendent on that influence ? I do not know what would
have been the chances of Mr. Fox or Mr. Pitt or Sir It.
Peel at 21 or 22 if they had been dependent on territorial
influence. You cannot expect of large and populous con-
stituencies that they should return boys to Parliament ;
and yet if you want a succession of men trained to take
part in the Government of the country, you must have a
great proportion of them returned to this house while they
are boys. (Hear, hear.) The conclusion to which this
brings me is that the matter will be a more serious one if
you are prepared to part with your whole system of small
boroughs. I am not arguing this in the sense of one party
or another; far less am I arguing this in the sense adverse
to popular rights. For what, let me ask, have these men
whose names I have just mentioned been ? Have they
been the enemies of popular rights ? (Hear, hear.) Is it
not, upon the contrary, under Providence, in a great
degree to be attributed to a succession of those distin-
guished statesmen, introduced at an early age into
this house, and once made known in this house se-
curing to themselves the general favour of their
countrymen, that we enjoy our present extension of
popular liberty, and, above all, the durable form
which that liberty has assumed? (Cheers.) I am aware
that this has now become a rather antiquated subject.
(Hear, hear, from an hon. member on the Opposition side
of the house.) I thank the hon. gentleman for his concur-
rence in the sentiment to which I have given expression—
(laughter)and let me remind him that there are many
things which are old which are nevertheless good. (Cheers
and laughter.) But, sir, we are called upon in this discus-
sion to consider a subject which, as my noble friend the
member for London has so well stated, involves, not only
our own condition, but the condition of our children and of
our latest posterity. In dealing with it I wish to ask myself
the question how the benches of this house are to be filled ;
how all the diversities of powers and aptitudes which have
formed this great nation are to find their way within those
sacred precincts of the constitution after we shall have lost
the guiding influenceand authority of that race of statesmen
who were reared under our ancient system, particularly if
we should proceed by rash and unwise legislation to cut off
from our representative system that class of constuencies
through the medium of which alone, with the exception of the
case of the eldest sons and heirs of great families, the energy
and vigour of the nation can easily be introduced into the
House of Commons at an age at which they may become
available for the public service. (Cheers.) This question
in my opinion involves a reason, and no inconsiderable
reason, for our proceeding in committee, if possible, with
the bill uhder our notice. (Hear, hear.) It seems to
me that there is really very little to be said against the adop-
tion of that course when we come to the consideration of
what the practical advantage is which my noble friend
the member for London promises to himself from the
success of his resolution. (Hear, hear.) I for one confess
I am entirely at a loss—and I shall not dwell upon this part
of the subject, because of my total ignorance with respect to
it—to understand how the position of my noble friend will
be in any way improved, or how his views will be nearer
accomplishment, if on the morning on which the division
takes place he should learn from the triumphant cheers
of his supporters the announcement that his motion has
been successful. My noble friend holds certain opinions. He
thinks the county freeholders in boroughs ought not to be
disfranchised ; that the suffrage in boroughs ought to be
lowered, and that the bill ought not to be based upon the
principle of uniformity. Well, that being so, has he not,
let me ask, ascertained from what has occurred in the course
of this debate that he is perfectly certain to carry into effect,
if he pleases, his views upon every one of those points in
committee ? (Cheers.) The opinions of my noble friend are
embodied in his resolution, which if carried at all—and car-
ried I presume it will be—will only be carried by some small
majority. But if we go into committee on the bill, his propo-
sition with respect to the disfranchisement of the county
freeholders in boroughs will be supported by every member
on that, and by a large proportion of those who sit upon this
(the Ministerial) side of the house. (Hear, hear.) In like
manner his proposal for lowering the suffrage in boroughs
will, I imagine, receive almost unanimous support from
those hon. members who sit upon the benches behind him,
while no inconsiderable support will be extended to it by
those hon. gentlemen who sit here; so that, in point of fact,
the success of the resolution, instead of exhibiting truly
and fully the views of the House of Commons in favour of
the opinions put forth by my noble friend, will exhibit the
degree of favour in which those opinions-are entertained to
great disadvantage. (Loud cheers.) There are the very
men (pointing to Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley) who have
been the first champions—l may say the martyrs)—of those
opinions—(hear, hear)—and if I have rightly interpreted
the speech of my right hon. friend the member for the
University of Cambridge, who holds these sentiments in
conjunction with my noble friend opposite, he will feel
obliged to go into a different lobby from the noble lord
should this resolution be pressed to a division, and thus
appear to oppose him, while in reality he approves the
main propositions which he has laid down. (Cheers.)
But what is the reason assigned by my noble friend for
adopting the course which he has pursued ? He says
" I am asked why I do not, instead of proposing this reso-
lution, vote against the second reading of the Bill I My
answer is, that if I were to do so my conduct would be liable
to misinterpretation. It would be supposed, if I voted
against the Bill that I was opposed to the £lO occupation
franchise in counties." Well, but if the wish of my noble
friend was to escape unjust criticism and cavil, he has
surely not succeeded in the attainment of his object.
(Cheers and laughter.) On the contrary, he has failed ;
while I may be permitted to observe that the excuse which
he has offered, with, I have no doubt, is perfect bona fide, for
not voting against the second reading of the Bill, instead
of moving his amendment, is, I fear, exactly the description
of reason which will hereafter be assigned by those who may
make a point of perverting- the example of my noble friend
to the purposes of picking a hole in a measure which may
be presented by the Government, rather than subject them-
selves to risk of being represented throughout the country
as having voted against a measure which contained some
good provisions. (Hear, hear.) Well, but what, let me
ask, is to be the result of the division which we are about to
take on this bill ? The point is one on which we know
very little; but it appears to me, I confess, that if this re-
solution had not been moved those who are favourable to
the opinions which it enunciates would be in the position
of what our neighbours at the other side of the Channel
would call " masters of the situation ;" would be in the
majority, and would, in short, be overwhelming in giving
effect in committee to the principles of which they are the
advocates. (Cheers.) Now, permit me in passing to
make a single remark on a point which is not devoid of
importance. I understood the right hon. baronet the First
Ldrd of the Admiralty to say that the Government looked
upon the principle of uniformity of suffrage as a matter
which might be dealt with in committee- The omission
on that head which occurred in the speech of the Secretary
for the Colonies was supplied by the right hon. baronet.
That being so, it seems to me that if we should not pass
this resolution we should be sure to attain the objects
which it seeks to effect. But have we an equally good
assurance upon that score if the resolution is successful P
(Hear, hear.) If we pass the resolution it will not rest
with us to take the next step. The hon. member for Bir-
mingham indeed says something about digging a hole in
the floor of this house, burying the bill, and huddling up
this question. (A laugh.) My hon friend is no doubt a
great authority upon such points, for he, I venture to say,
knows more than any one else about digging holes and
burying bills. (Cheers and laughter.) But what, let me
ask, do the words "huddling up this question" really mean?
My hon. friend spoke somewhat cautiously the-other even-
ing—(" Hear, hear," and laughter)—his circumspection,
indeed, was such that it was impossible to tell what he was
aiming at. I listened to his speech, I confess, with great
pleasure, but I did not quite understand why it was that my
hon. friend was so much alarmed at the idea of this ques-
tion being " huddled up." We are not going to vote upon
it through the medium of the ballot. (Cheers and laughter.)
Such a process would, I admit, be something like "huddling
it up." (Hear, hear.) We have now arrived at the sixth
night of this debate. This is the eighth or ninth year in
which you have been engaged in the discussion of this sub-
ject. The speeches made upon it are reported by the yard
—I should, perhaps, be more accurate in saying by the
mile (a laugh)—and printed off by the million. We are
acting in the face of day, and in the presence of our coun-
trymen. There is no mystery about the matter. The idea
of " huddling up the question" is therefore absurd. (Hear,
hear.) There need be no alarm upon that score. The only
ground for fear in connection with the subject is that agita-
tion with respect to it might be prolonged. (Cheers.) I
cannot see, under all the circumstances of the case, that the
resolution of my noble friend is calculated to have any other
effect than to retard its settlement. (Cheers.) If we should
go into committee we must, I concur with the right hon.
gentleman the member for Stroud in thinking, deal with
this measure irrespective of the feelings of those by whom
it was introduced. The question we have to consider is
not whether we shall then pass the bill in its pre-
sent shape. I am free to admit that so fsr as regards those
poirlts in the bill to which exception is taken you are fully
justified in your opposition to them. It is consideration
for the public interest and apprehension of the conse-
quences which would be likely to follow an adverse vote
on this occasion that alone would withhold me from giving
effect to that opposition in the manner which you propose.
Let mo ask the noble lord the member for Tiverton what
are the views which he entertains—after what he has heard
since he addressed the house the other evening—with re-
spect to the result of the decision at which the House of
Commons may arrive ? I put the question to him perhaps
with the more confidence because I know that by the rules
of the house he is prevented from replying to me.
(Laughter.) He has, however, got around him an ad-
mirable staff as yet exhausted, and we shall, I dare say,
learn from some member of it what it is which the noble
lord contemplates as a consequence of the success of his
resolution. The noble lord distinctly said to us the other
evening, " Give your votes for the resolution, and I will
tell you what will folio iv—the progress of the bill under
the auspices of the very men by whom it was framed."
The noble viscount, in short, condemned the Government
to retain their places and their bill, thus following a great
historic precedent, consecrated by many ages, in accord-
ance with which, galley slaves are chained to their oars.
Since the speech of the noble lord was delivered, however,
we have been informed, on the part of the Government,
that the bill will not be proceeded with if the resolution
should be carried. (Hear.) I deem it my duty, therefore,
to consider what we have to apprehend in the event of this
resolution being successful, not in the interest of the Go-
verment, but of reform itself. (Hear.) With respect to
the former consideration I can only say it is of too small a
nature to be put for one moment in competition with that
more weighty ono which ought to rule our decision on the
present occasion. (Hear, hear.) I cannot hesitate to
agree with those who are of opinion that this question
of the fate of a Ministry has been pushed somewhat
too far. (Hear, hear.) I am of opinion, for instance, that the
language which was used by my right hon. friend the
member for the University of Cambridge with reference to
Lord Malmesbury, who, he seemed to say, had constituted
England the me liator of Europe, was somewhat too warm
in its colouring—(cheers and laughter)—and was the result
rather of friendship than of the dictates of a strictly judicial
mind. (Hear, hear.) I feel convinced—while I am grateful
to Lord Malmesbury for what he has done as well as for

what. he has not done—that soy Government which may be
formed at the present moment will be constructed with .a
due sense of the heavy responsibility which it must be pre-
pared to undertake, as well with respect to the question of
reform as in connection with the subject of foreign affairs.
(Hear, hear.) Lord Malmesbury, however, is not the only
man who must be presumed to feel a due anxiety for the
preservation of peace. That sentiment, on the contrary, has
taken possession of the country, and I trust that those who
labour in giving effect to it will feel, as I have no doubt
Lord Malmesbury does, that if we hope to establish a dur-
able peace we must attempt to do something to mitigate
those great evils which are the real source and fountain-head
of the present embarrassments, and which, so long as they
continue unmitigated, will inevitably produce the recurrence
of those embarrassments in an aggravated form from time to
time. It is not a question of the Government, but it is a ques-
tion of the bill and of reform. The bill is not to go forward in
the hands of the present Administration. Consider, then,
that you are to lose an engine by means of which, I must
confess it appears, to me, effect might be given to the ideas
of the house respecting Parliamentary Reform. (Hear.)
What else is to happen ? is Parliament to be dissolved ?
The noble viscount (Lord Palmerston) says, " No; I will
prevent that." But the doctrine of the noble viscount ap-
pears to me to trench upon uncertain ground—(hear, hear)
—and, if the case should arise, I am not at all sure that
prophecy would be fulfilled. Then, is there to be a resig-
nation ? The noble viscount says that is quite impossible ;
but, as one of his predictions as to the Government carrying
forward the bill has failed, I am not sure that he might not
be frustrated in this instance too. A dissolution would be
an evil, and I do not think a resignation of Ministers at this
moment—and many members in this house share that opi-
nion—would contribute to an early or an easy settlement
of this question. (Hear, hear.) There is another alterna-
tive which has not been alluded to in this debate, neither
dissolution nor resignation, but with reference to the state
of foreign affairs, or to the gravity of circumstances, we may
have a distant prospect of a dissolution, dropping this bill
now with a prospect of bringing in some other bill at some
future time._ But, come what may, although I can't forecast
. .

the future, I say the first step in determining it will not
then be with the majority of this house, but will be with the
j Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues ; but as you
' have now the matter in your own hands, I hope you will
keep it there instead of subjecting yourselves to the chances
and consequences that may follow upon any resolution which
the Government, considering their own interests, may think
fit to take. I think, also, whatever resolution may be come
to by the Government, whether to resign, to dissolve, or to
drop the bill, and wait for a hostile attack, we shall have to
regret a further postponement of this question. (Hear, hear.)
I used the words " hostile attack" upon the Government,
and we have recently had reason to expect that such an
attack would be made. I objected to the compliment paid by
my right hon. friend to Lord Malmesbury, but I must say,
of all the compliments that have been paid to the Govern-
ment in the course of the debate, none can compete with
that paid them by the hon. member for Beaumaris (Mr. 0.
Stanley). (Laughter and cheers.) That hon. member pro-
duced a motion, announcing that in a certain contingency,
which he expected might occur, he would move a vote of
want of confidence in the Government. He gave that notice
in one Parliamentary sitting, and he withdrew it the next.
(Cheers.) That certainly was a very short life for a proposi-
tion of so formidable a character.
" Ostendent terris hunc tantilam fata, nec ultra
Esse sinent
The writer from whom I quote says of his hero, that his
" enemies fled when they saw his burnished armour gleam-
ing in the shade." My hon. friend (and he is the gentle-
man who has accomplished the feat) fled when he saw his
own armour. (Cheers and laughter.) I only refer to the
subject to show the state of Parliamentary confusion into
which we are likely to fall. Admitting that there is no com-
bination—and it has been in the frankest manner denied
that there is any combination among those who form the•
majority upon this resolution—l think that majority can be
but a misfortune to us all according to our declared views,
except to the hon. member for Birmingham, who has told
us he does not wish this matter to be settled now. (Loud
cheers.) lam not sure that lam speaking the hon. mem-
ber's words, but I am certainly stating the inference I drew
from his speech—the metaphors of digging a hole and
" huddling up" give me that impression. (Hear, hear.) I
confess for my own part I am most anxious for a settlement
of this question. The concurrence of opinions, and the
manly declarations that have been made by my noble friend
(Lord J. Russell) not long ago, by my noble friend the
member for Tiverton on Friday night, and by others as to
this question of Reform, appear to me to hold out to us a
golden opportunity which is at present within our reach,
but of which, if we let it slip now, no man can predict the
return. (Hear, hear.) It is a misfortune to have this
question agitated from year to year. (Cheers.) After the
number of miscarriages—innocent miscarriages, no doubt,
but still miscarriages—that we have had upon this subject,
it is impossible but that the credit of Parliament must suffer
if every alternate year a promise of a Reform Bill is given,
and in every other year of the two we find a bill introduced
and broken down. It is bad for the nation that this
house, which has so much business to transact on the part
of this country and our vast empire, should be perpe-
tually engaged in constitutional and organic discussions.
(Hear, hear.) Granted all our strength—and I believe
no assembly in the world transacts business to the ex-
tent which this house does—granted all our strength and
earnestness, such is the vastness of our concerns, the accu-
mulation of ur territories, such the diversity of the inte-
rests of the subjects of the Queen in different portions
of the globe, that we cannot keep abreast of that mass
of business, it is continually falling into arrear. Constantly,
in one portion of the empire or another, in one department
of public business or another, we find there is such a failure
to discharge the full duties of legislation as is most unfor-
tunate and injurious, and which would be nothing less than
disgraceful were it not that the failure does not arise from
weakness or unwillingness on the part of this house, but
because the demands of the British empire surpass and
transcend the powers of any assembly. Do what you will
the wave of public business will overtake you. If you have
a laborious session one year, you have a more laborious one
next year. We cannot afford—as a mere matter of time—to
pass year after year, to fritter away the principal part of
each session in debating the question of Parliamentary Re-
form. I say, too, over and above the loss of time, it is a
dangerous habit for the country to fall into. (Hear.) It is an
unhealthy sign in the state of the public mind, or rather it
would be an unhealthy sign, if there was a desire in the
public mind to keep open such a question. No individual
can be constantly watching the state of his own health
without injuring it ; and a disposition to be continually agi-
tating a question of organic change has not only an un-
wholesome effect upon us, withdrawing our attention from
other important matters, lout it diminishes the stability of
our institutions, and tends to disqualify England for the
performance of those great duties which she has to dis-
charge both to herself and to the world. (Cheers.) 1,
thereore, am not willing to be governed upon the question
before us hy any other consideration than the simple one of
in which way shall I give my vote that will be most likely
to help on this great question to a settlement. I agree with
the hon. member for Birmingham that we should endeavour
to settle this question in a spirit of trust towards the people,
and we are getting all the proceedings of legislation more
and more upon that sound and satisfactory basis. lam
convinced such will be, the only principles upon which this
house will act whenever it conies to deal decisively and con-
clusively with the particulars of a measure of reform, but I
entreat the hon. member not to use his influence—to what-
ever other purpose he may apply it—to procure a postpone-
ment and a prolongation of these discussions. (Cheers.) For
my own part, I can most freely say that the vote which I
shall give will not be with any regard to the Government
nor to party, and I trust I have given no offence to any one
by the remarks which I have addressed to the house. (Hear.)
I accord fully to every other member that which I humbly
and respectfully claim for myself, after a perhaps too pro-
longed, but at the same time honest and free expression of
my sentiments, and I shall vote to negative the resolution
of my noble friend, because I am sure by that vote we shall
best discharge the great duty that is incumbent upon us as
chief among the guardians of the British constitution and
the welfare of the British dominions. (Loud cheers.)
Amidst the tumult caused by a very large number of
members leaving the house,
Mr. MONCREIFF said ho agreed with almost every
opinion that had been urged by the right hon. gentleman,
but he totally differed from his conclusion. The best justi-
fication of the noble lord's resolution was to be found in the
fact that those portions of the bill against which it was
directed were not mere isolated details, but formed the very
foundation of it, without which the bill could not exist.
There was not a single portion of the bill which the right
hon. gentleman would not alter in committee. (Hear.) The
bill, however, was not a mere framework, not a mere sheet
of paper on which to write their views; it had cohesion and
a principle. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the
Colonies said the people were apathetic, whilst the member
for Birmingham said there was great feeling on the subject.
In his opinion the truth lay between the two ; the people
might be apathetic, but they were not quiescent. If such
had been the opinion of the Government their conduct in
laying the bill on the table was totally indefensible. The
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when
he was in a position to give advice on this subject, instead of
receiving it, said a Government ought never to introduce
such a bill unless they were in a position to carry out their
pledge - such a question ought not to be treated with levity.
It would never do for a Government to fling on the table a
crude, undigested measure, and excuse themselves by say-
ing the people were apathetic. This question should never
be dealt with in a trembling, faltering manner. This bill
settled nothing, but unsettled everything. It was said that
if the franchise were not uniform there would always be
agitation. He had not the same dread of agitation that
many gentlemen seemed to have, believing that the healthy
working of the constitution depended partly upon agitation,
and that where the object was not reasonable in itself it was
not likely to be attained. But would agitation be avoided
by means of the proposed uniformity ? On the contrary, he
would promise the Government the most hearty opposition
to uniformity. If uniformity were enacted this year it would
have to be repealed next year. (Hear.) As regarded the
consequences of the approaching division, he did not know
that they (the Opposition) had anything to do with the
question of a change of Government. He entirely objected
to the tone which had been adopted on that subject—to the
attempt which had been made to evade the question before
the house, by insisting that before they came to a vote they
should shadow forth the political arrangements which might
arise from it. Much as the people desired Parliamentary
reform, there was another thing which they equally desired;
they wished to see the Government strong enough to carry-
' such measures as they believed to be required for the wel-
fare of the people ; they wished to see the responsibility of
business placed upon its proper constitutional basis ; and
whatever might be the result of that debate, he was fully
persuaded that far more hazardous and more revolutionary
than any extension of the franchise among the working
classes was the existence of a Government which had not
power to carry out what it considered best for the interest
of the people, and which surrendered its own responsibility
into the hands of others. (Cheers.)
Mr. R. PALMER, who spoke from the Ministerial side,
said if he supposed that a uniform £lO franchise would be
enacted in committee he certainly should not vote for the
second reading ; but as they had heard from the Secretary
to the Treasury (Sir S. Northcote), from the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and from the First Lord of the Admiralty,
that such questions would be open for reconsideration, he
should vote in favour of the second reading, (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WE STHEAD said he felt it to be his duty to give
his vote for the resolution of the noble lord the member for
London. What would be the result of the vote the house
might give he knew not. He for one should greatly regret
the circumstance if it were followed by the retirement of the
present Government. The existing Ministry had brought
forward many good measures ; they had fulfilled their duties
in that house with distinguished ability; and they had in
their private transaction of affairs given a satisfaction which
was felt throughout the country. (Hear, hear,)
Major EDWARDS thought the house was under a deep
obligation to the Government for having introduced the
measure under discussion, and, although he could not say
he entirely approved of the principle which it involved, he
nevertheless was of opinion that the good in it preponde-
rated over the evil. He should, under those circumstances,
vote in favour of the second reading of the bill, and against
the resolution of the noble lord the member for London. Ho
regarded the proposed enfranchisement of 300,000 or 400,000
electors as a great boon to the country, while he could not

help thinking that the identity of franchise in counties and
boroughs, of which so much had been said, ought to be
looked upon as an accidental result of the operation of the
bill rather than otherwise. But there were other conside-
rations altogether independent of the particular merits of
the proposal of the Government by which, in his opinion,
hon. members ought to be influenced with respect to the
vote which they should give on the present occasion. He
quite concurred with the hon. and learned member for
Sheffield in thinking that one of the greatest calamities
which could just now befal the country would be a change
of Ministry or a dissolution of Parliament, while he was
perfectly ready to maintain that the Government could not
as men of honour accept the resolution, as had been sug-
gested, and were bound, if it should be carried, to appeal to
the public voice. If they should be driven to take that
course, he, for one, would have no fears for the result ; for
it would be manifest to every disinterested person that a
dissoluticin of Parliament had been brought about by the
factious conduct of those who sat on the other side of the
house. (" Oh, oh I" and cheers.) The Conservative
party, in short, would, he believed, be gainers by a dissolu-
tion, while the line of conduct which would have rendered
it necessary would lead to the annihilation of the Whigs.
(Cheers and laughter.) But it must not be supposed that
in making these observations he looked upon the success of
the resolution before the house as by any means so certain
as the noble lord the member for Tiverton seemed to sup-
pose. The noble lord, indeed, appeared to be perfectly sure.
of his majority, and to take no small pleasure in the agree-
able anticipation. But he would remind the noble lord—
" That these violent delights have violent ends,
And in their triumph die; like fire and powder,
Which as they kiss consume."
For his own part, he believed that the result of the division
would be in favour of the party which now held the reins
of power, and that they were supported by the good opinion
of the great interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) With
respect to the apprehended creation of faggot voters he could
only say that the right hon. baronet the member for Halifax
had been returned to that house by their aid in 1847, when
he had been opposed by Mr. Miall and Mr. Ernest Jones,
and that he had shown his gratitude for the support which
he had received by bringing forward as a candidate for
the suffrages of the electors of Halifax a committeeman of
the last-mentioned gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLLIER said that the right hon. member for
the University of Oxford had made a powerful speech in
favour of the resolution of the noble lord the member for
London, and had concluded it according to his usnal prac-
tice by declaring his intention to vote against it. The right
hon. gentleman seemed to think that Gatton and Old Sarum
ought to be restored, because without Gatton we could not
have had Pitt ; and then the right hon. gentleman would
vote for the bill of the Government because it restored
neither Gatton nor Old Sarum. It appeared to him (Mr.
Collier) that the principle of the noble lord's resolution had
been acknowledged on both sides of the house. The people
had hitherto been not apathetic, but tranquil, because they
believed the promise made that a Reform Bill should be in-
troduced. They believed now that it had not been intro-
duced ; but, although there had been a good deal of agita-
tion in the country, they had been on the whole calm,
because they believed that the House of Commons would
reject the Government bill and give them a proper measure
of reform. The bill had been called a sham and a delusion,
but if he were inclined to borrow the slang of St. Giles's,
with which the learned Solictor-General seemed to be so
familiar—(oh, oh)—yes, it was the hon. and learned gentle-
man who had introduced the slang when he called the reso-
lution a "dodge." He (Mr. Collier) called the Government
bill a dodge brought forward to support a certain party, and
not to amend the representation of the people. He should
support the resolution because it negatived the bill, and
stated a reason for its negative action, and he had no fear
of an appeal to the country when the overnment and their
bill had already been tried and condemned. (Hear.)
• Sir J. WALSH said Lord Palmerston had expressed his
sincere desire to see the question settled; but the manifest
effect of the resolution being carried would be to force the
Government to abandon the bill. No Ministry with any
spirit could accept such a resolution. Were the resolution
out of the way, and the bill in committee, the Government
would do all they could to conciliate and meet the views of
the gentlemen opposite.
Mr. 0. STANLEY rose along with about twelve other
members on the Opposition side, which occasioned much
merriment. He wished to explain why he had given notice
of a vote of censure and withdrawn it immediately. Lord
Stanley had clearly intimated what the intentions of the
Government were ; but the succeeding speakers on the
Treasury bench had endeavoured to obliterate that impres-
sion. This being so, he anticipated a repetition of the
course pursued on the Tndia Bill ; and for the sake of pre-
venting this, and upholding the character of public men—
(a laugh)—he had given notice of his resolution. It was a
most dangerous state of things when a Government was not
able to carry its own measures. (Hear, hear.) Soon after
he had placed his name on the paper, Mr. Whiteside,
goaded thereto by the speech of Lord Palmerston, had de-
clared that the fate of the Government and of the bill
would depend on the vote of the house on the resolution.
This being so, the vote on the resolution would be one on
the question whether the house had confidence in the Mini-
stry. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, it would
have been absurd for him to continue his notice on the
paper. As representative of Chester, comprising upwards
of 1,500 freemen, and having seen how well they exercised
the franchise, he had no fear of extending the suffrage to
working men, both in the towns and counties. The proposed
system of voting papers would increase the demand for the
ballot, and he hoped that the ballot would form a part of
any measure of reform that might be carried. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACAULAY said he approved the policy of the
bill, and condemned that of the resolution on every ground.
It had been said by Mr. Cardwell that they were now in
a position to enter into a calm and scientific examina-
tion of the subject, but how could they do so if the
resolution were carried ? He thought it evident from the
course of the debate that there was not much cohesion
amongst hon. gentlemen opposite on any subject, and per-
haps less on this subject than on any other. What right,
then, he should like to know, had hon. gentlemen opposite
to taunt the Government in the manner they had done
with being in a minority in that house ? (Hear, hear.)
Motives had been talked about ; and there must, no doubt,
be some motive for the extraordinary demeanour of the hon.
gentleman the member for Birmingham towards the noble
viscount. The hon. gentleman thanked the noble viscount
for his "courtesy,;" but surely it must have been in the
spirit of a well-known passage—
" Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last;
You spurned me such a day ; another time
You called me dog ; and for these courtesies
I'll lend you this much money."
(Laughter, and cries of Oh, oh.) At all events, till ex-
plained, the conduct of the hon. gentleman to thenoble lord
must remain a mystery. (Hear, hear.) Ho was apparently
in equal accord with the noble lord the member for the City.
Now, the house knew from the avowals, the conduct, and the
published proposals of the hon. gentleman that neither the
bill shadowed forth by the noble viscount, nor even the more
advanced liberal measure shadowed forth by the noble lord
would be regarded by the hon. gentleman and those around
him as a settlement of the question. Nay, those gentlemen
had plainly declared, not only that they would not regard
either proposition as a settlement, but that they would
reject it as a contumely and an insult on the people of Eng..
land. (Loud cheers.) They had avowed that no six pound
extension of the borough suffrage would be looked on by
them as satisfactory without the ballot and a large re-dis-
tribution of seats. (Hear, hear.) It followed, therefore,
that a large party of Liberal members were going to vote for
the resolution on different grounds from those put forward
by the noble lords ; but the house might of course rest satis-
fied that those members would take the step in question be-
cause they thought it would tend to the furtherance of
their own views. He (Mr. Macaulay) should certainly
oppose the resolution, and in doing so he should have this
advantage over hon. gentlemen opposite. He should know
what he was going to vote against ; whereas those hon.
gentlemen certainly did not know what they were going to
vote for. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. MELLOR said the Government had given them no
definite, positive, absolute pledge that they would be ready
to adopt the views of the house with regard to the different
portions of the bill, and, therefore, he had no other course
than to support the resolution.
Mr. G. HARDY believed there never was an occasion or
opportunity when, if the house had been so disposed, they
could have approached the consideration of this great subject
with a clearer sanction of the country, or with freer minds.
On any measure of reform, however small it might be, there
must of necessity be a diftbrence of opinion, and he had then,
for the first time, learned that a party was not in unison
because they were not agreed on every word of the bill ;
that did not occur even with the most ordinary measure.
When this bill was laid on the table the noble lord the mem-
ber for London, with that skill in party tactics which always
distinguishes him, gave a nickname to a portion of it, and
spoke of the disfranchisement it would effect. The noble lord
might have a vested right and interest in the subject, but
the right attached to him when he sat there, and if
he had offered to give the aid of his wisdom, counsel,
and discretion to prepare the bill, he would have
found no indisposition on the part of the Govern-
ment to listen to any suggestion coming from him.
(Hear, hear.) Instead of doing that, however he puts
forward a resolution, so as to offer no principle for discus-
sion, and to oblige them to look to his speech for an explana-
tion of his intention. (Hear.) It was always said that
those who came into court should do so with clean hands.
When the noble lord spoke of disfranchisement, he ought
to recollect that those who now brought forward this bill
represent the party which in 1832 had fought for the pre-
servation of such boroughs as Pontefract, and had set their
face against the disfranchisement of the scot and lot voters,
and the same party was still ready to preserve the rights of
the working classes in all their integrity. It was with the
assent of the noble lord that 250,000 freeholders were disfran
chised in Ireland. Again, in 1854, the noble lord proposed to
deprive the voters in all counties containing three members
of one-third of their vested right. He was not going to dis-
cuss the principle of representati bn of the minority; but what
would the noble lord have said if his bill had then been me'‘
by a resolution to the effect that his proposal was a trick rand
an unworthy artifice ? There was great difficulty in tke:way
of any Government bringing forward a Reform 11111, from
the difficulty of getting rid of the party feeling which it
aroused. In 1857 the noble lord said that ate line of objec-
tion adopted to his bill of 1854 by the h,m, member for Bir-
mingham would be fatal to any bill ;
out he was now him-
self adopting exactly the same cowese. The resolution set out certain principles of the bill to which objection was
entertained, but it did not, state the basis on which it was
proposed to extend the franchise. The hon gentleman con-
demned the bill as retrograde, whilst the right hon. baronet
the member for Carlisle considered it so democratic that he
would even prefer a rating suffrage to the dangerous re-
duction it proposed, With regard ;to the question of the
£lO franchise in counties, he approached the subject with
some degree of hesitation, as it had led to the withdrawal
from the Government of the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Cambridge, with whom it had been his privilege to
have been in close official intercourse for the last twelve
months. It was with great regret he felt himself unable to
arrive at the same conclusion as his right hon. friend, but
he could not see how it was possible to preserve the dis-
tinction between the franchises. The reduction of the
county franchise to £2O would admit a totally different
class of voters from the present, and having once aban
doned the principle, any further reduction was a mere
matter of detail. His right hon. friend took £2O, as it was
the limit of the house-tax ; but if that was a good standard
in counties, why not apply it also to boroughs ? With re-
gard to the question of uniformity, it seemed impossible to
him to establish a real uniformity; although the nominal
limit might be the same everywhere, the circumstance% of
places varied so much, from trade, population, and, Other
causes, that in practice the same amount of value admitted
very different classes in different places. The arg-,went was
urged by the noble lord on a previous occasion, in the dis-
cussion of the motion of the hon, member for West Surrey.
The next question was that of electoral district& The noble
lard the member for Tiverton said this bill, int fact, estab-
lished electoral districts. If by electoral districts he meant
places for which persons were elected, of course it did ; but
if by electoral districts he meant the parcelling out of the
associations,on gasvtoti
them
thatindute,errifeerence with local in
country into equal divisions, the bill did nothing of the kind.
oI forestsft
boroughsmost
eGdmanyltdeprived
ereertpraesnenutunied)beorf
the second member, but that was done to obtain means of

supplying the wants of the unrepresented towns ' • and if the
bill passed, no town with 20,000 inhabitants would be un •
represented. The second part of the resolution referred to
the further extension of the franchise. The noble lord
would not commit himself by using the words, " lowering
the franchise" but from his speech that appeared to be the
meaning of his resolution. The effect of the proposed re-
duction to £5 would be very small in the metropolis; at
present the £lO houses were 80 per cent. of the whole. In
Marylebone the change would only add 1 per cent. to the
constituency. In Westminster the proportion of houses at
£lO value was 90 per cent. ' • in Finsbury, 88 ; in Lambeth,
75 ; in Southwark and the Tower Hamlets it was smaller,
being respectively only 59 and 52 ; but these were poor dis-
tricts. A good many meetings had been held in the metro-
polis, and a good many petitions presented from them. In
every case the meetings went for manhood suffrage, and he
thought it was much to be regretted that, with the single
exception of the hon. and gallant admiral the member for
Southwark, not one of the members attending
them had the manliness to stand up and protest against the
notion that they sanctioned such doctrines. In 1832 Mr.
Hunt opposed the bill because it would not admit the work-
ing classes to the franchise, upon which the Lord Chancel-
lor said these friends of the poor reminded him of a cele-
brated friend to the poor who asked why the ointment was
not sold for 300 pence, and given to the poor, not because
he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief. That
was the way in which the then Lord Chancellor treated the
ridiculous objections. He told them that it was a mere
pretence, and he (Mr. Hardy) said that the regard for the
poor professed so much now was a mere pretence. He was
sorry that anything should have interposed to have pre-
vented their coming to a settlement on this question. The
Government had determined to settle it in a certain way.
They proposed to admit to the franchise those who by their
frugality and their intelligence were worthy of it. He had
shown that they could not admit them all by household suf-
frage. One means by which they had provided for it was
by the lodger franchise. But Sir J. Graham said he objected
to that. They had tried it by the savings bank franchise,
and Sir J, Graham said they had no more right to inquire
into a man's balance at the savings bank than they had to
inquire into the balance of a member of that house at his
banker's. Savings banks, howe'ver, were Government in-
stitutions, and he thought they had a perfect right to in-
quire into the circumstances of the depositors. Mr. S. Her-
bert told them that there was in that house a large number
of persons who were inclined to a moderate measure of re-
form. In private conversations with hon. members he found
a tone of moderation but he was sorry to say that he did
not find it in public. Honourable members who had
pledged themselves to their constituents to vote for an ex-
tension of the franchise dare not face their constituents if
they voted against this resolution. Well, it extricated them
from a present difficulty, but did it extricate them from a
future difficulty ? He did not say that there was a com-
pact between Lord John Russell, Lord.; Palmerston, and
Mr. Bright, but he did say that the supporters of the
motion brought forward by the noble herd, supported
as it was by the honourable member for Birmingham,
had different objects in view. The hon. member for Bir-
mingham said the aristocracy of this country divided
£70,000,000 a year among them, but there was not a member
in that house who did not know that that statement could
not be supported. The hon. member for Birmingham op.
posed this bill on tangible grounds ; he wished to bide his
time. He had found abundance of auditors, but few ad-
herents. The hon. member's speech ought to be a warning
to the house, because when the hon. member was moderate
it was for some deep and earnest purpose. The hon. mem-
ber said five years hence they might be able to get a better
measure. Who knew what convulsions might take place
in five years ? The hon. member looked forward to a time
of distress, when he could agitate the country, and get up
an excitement in favour of such a bill as he recommended.
But to revert to the franchise. The right hon. member for
Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), in a sensible speech which he
made in the recess to his constituents, told them that, how-
ever desirous he might be to admit the working classes to
the franchise, he saw no way by which he could do it. But
he was going by his vote to support the resolution. The
noble lord said he proposed the resolution with a view of ad-
mitting working men to the franchise, but he would not ad-
mit them to vote for boroughs in respect of freeholds. They
cared much more for votes in boroughs than in counties.
With regard to leasehold, which were reduced from £lo to
but little had been said, but he believed they would make*
very large addition to the constituency. An objection was
made to uniformity of franchise in boroughs and counties,
but they had no right to say that was wrong in England.
which they had established in Ireland, and which had long
existed in Scotland. His learned friend the Solicitor-
General had been much attacked for having attributed mo-
tives to the noble lord the member for the city of London.
Now the noble lord had been at the head of a great party,
but from circumstances on which he need not dwell he had
become isolated, and now with a laudable ambition he was
trying to recover the position that he had formerly held,
and become once more the leader of a great and united
party. It was only in that spirit that his hon. and learned
friend made the observations he did on that occasion, not
that he charged the noble lord that he was actuated by a
love of pelf, but simply that as a man of ambition he was
making use of those party weapons which had been used
by members on both sides of the house. The noble lord
must be gratified that though he had been attacked he had
been defended, that if he had had the spear on the one side,
he had had the shield of disinterested patriotism hold over
him by the hon. and learned member for Marylebone on the
other. (Cheers and laughter.) That hon. and learned
member said that whatever company he might go into, if
he heard the character and intellect of the noble lord im-
pugned he always stood forward to defend him. (Laughter.)
He (Mr. Hardy) did not know into what company the hon.
and learned member went—(laughter)—but it appeared
that when he went into the society of his Radical friends
in Marylebone, they did not speak with great respect of the
noble lord. Wherever he went he had to defend him.
Like James Fitz James in the romance, the hon. and learned
gentleman said—

" Come one, come all, this rock will fly
From its irm base as soon as I."
(Laughter.) Perhaps when the noble lord had collected the
scattered fragments of his party, the hon. and learned gen-
tleman would continue to support him with his learning and
ability. (Laughter.) It had been assumed that the result
of that discussion would be that the Government would be
placed in a minority. Be that as it might, they had tried
to settle this great question, and it would be seen that they
would not accept a resolution which was as unjust to them
as it was unsatisfactory to thecountry. The right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle said he would not disguise
from the house that he had ahand in framing the resolution.
He must say he recognised the subtlety of the hand in tbo
resolution—(cheers and laughter)—and much as he re-
spected the candour of the disclosure, it was unnecessary.
(Laughter.) He trusted that the pail), to which the right
hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert)
belonged would consider carefully what they were about to
do. He hoped they would consider that if this bill were
rejected the house would hereafter have to consider another
bill having other authors, proposed under pressure, after ex-
citing seppeals had been made to the passions of the people.
(Heclr.) It might, perhaps, be said that hon. members on that
Side of the house would by the introduction of this bill have
committed themselves to the support of a future one; but,
although they had shown a disposition to sacrifice as far as
possible their individual opinions, it did not follow from that
that they would be prepared to support the rating-suffrage
measure of the hon. member for Birmingham, or vote by
ballot when proposed by the hon, member for Finsbury.
The hen- and learned member for Yarmouth (Mr. Mellor)
taunted hon. gentlemen opposite with inconsistency in hay..
ing voted for the resolution proposed at the time of the in-
troduction of the Conspiracy Bill last year, now objecting to
the resolution of the noble lord. The former resolution had
nothing to do with the bill; it was a resolution of cen-
sure ; as such they voted for it, and he would add that he,
for one, was prepared to consider the law relating to con-
spiracy whenever the subject might be properly brought
forward. The carrying of this resolution would be a pre-
cedent which might be followed on other occasions of a
similar nature; and let that section of the house to which the
right hon. member for Wilts alluded recollect that by aiding
in it they would put a stop to one of the greatest enfran-
chisements ever offered to the country, and that the result
would probably be to drive them hereafter to take shelter
under the wings of those who now sat on the Treasury
bench, who would then be called upon to protect them from
the rocks and avalanches which were being hurled down
upon them by the radicals of that house. (Ministerial
cheers.)
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said if the Government were
not prepared to extend the franchise in boroughs, he was
prepared to vote for the resolution, even although the con-
sequence might be the defeat of the bill. But if the reso-
lution should be carried he did not see the necessity of an
absolute defeat of the measure, and thought there would
be no difficulty in voting for a new bill containing the
proposition in the resolution,' or going into committee
to make the necessary alterations in the present bill. If the
Government were determined to oppose the propositions
embodied in the resolution, he should consider it his duty to
vote against the bill. (Hear, hear.) There was one point
on which he trusted the Government would give some infor-
mation before the close of the debate, and that was as to
their intention with regard to the Reform Bill for Ireland.
(Cheers.) He should like to ask, first, whether they were to
have a Reform Bill at all ; and if so, was the occupation
county franchise to be reduced? He also desired to be in-
formed whether there was to he any alteration in the occu-
pation franchise in towns ? Ile did not press these questions
from any bitterness of feeling, but because without more de-
finite information on these points he did not see how hon.
members could come to any definite conclusion on the
course which they shoilld pursue.
Mr. DU CANE moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir D. IN ORREYS thought that the debate might be
continual to-morrow. (Cries of No, Go on, and Adjourn.)
itealir, if this were not done, he did not see bow
Ur, debate was to close on Thursday.
Mr. LINDSAY said that there were many plain men like
himself who desired to speak. He thought that the debate
ought not to close on Thursday.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that it would not be conve-
nient to adjourn the debate to Wednesday. In the absence
of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he could not give any understanding to bind his right hon.
friend. The house would do his right hon. friend the jus-
tice to admit that he had shown no disposition unduly to
cut short the debate. (Hear.) If on Thursday it appeared
that there were still many hon. members to speak, he had
no doubt his right hon. friend would endeavour, as he had
done, to meet the wishes of the house. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had showed a fair desire to meet the wishes of
the house. (Cheers.) When the right hon. gentleman
spoke of
arrangement to conclude on Thursday, there
seeraedtoanbe a general impression in favour of that arrange-
ment. But on Thursday there would be an opportunity of
judging as to the number of hon. members still desirous to
speak on this subject. It was, no doubt, an important one,
and one on which hon. members might naturally desire to
address the house. He thought that the matter might be
safely left in the hands bf the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(Cheers.)
After a few wo•rds from Mr. P. O'Brien, Mr. Cox, and
Mr. GritHth, tbt debate was adjourned to Thursday.
The Patents for Inventions (Munitions of War) Bill and
the Contnrm Rights (War Department) Bill were read a
third tirn.e and passed.
The house adjourned at a quarter before 1 o'clock.

Mr. J. Norbury, senior, of the firm of Jas. Capel
and Co., has been elected chairman of the Stock Exchange,
and Mr. F. L. Slous deputy-chairman.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (MUNITIONS OF WAR).
—A bill, under the care of the present Attorney and Soh-
citor-Generals and General Peel, the present Secretary of
War, allows any inventor of any improvement in instru-
ments or munitions of war to assign the benefit of such in-
vention to the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary
may certify to the Commissioners of Patents tb.at the in-
vention be kept secret.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the coup,ty 0
Niddlosex, Wednesday, March 30, 1859.