The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-19 00:00:00

MR. COBDEN AT _ROCHDALE.

MANCHESTER, TIITJRSDAY NIGHT.

To-night Mr. Cobden again addressed a large
concourse of electors and non-electors of Rochdale
on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. The meet-
ing was held in the pavilion in which the soiree
took place place on the previous evening, and
there could not have been fewer than between
3,000 and 4,000 persons present. The Mayor of
Rochdale again occupied the chair. Mr. Cobden
and. Mr. Bright on entering were received with vo-
ciferous cheering.
The CHAIRMAN having introduced the business,

Mr. COBDEN stood forward to address the assem-
blage. He said,—Gentlemen, I am more distressed
and disappointed than I can express to find myself
hoarse to-night from the effects of our last night's
meeting, so that I am almost afraid I shall not be
able to make myself heard by you ; but I will, at all
events, reserve so much of my voice that if there
should be any point on which any one here, whether
he be elector or non-elector, desires to put a question
to me I may be able to answer him. I consider my-
self as now occupying the position in which I should
have stood if I had been present when you so gene-
rously elected me without having an opportunity
of questioning me, and, therefore, if there is any
topic on which any person present is desirous of
eliciting information I shall be glad to impart to
him all the knowledge in my power. I understand
this has been announced as more of a non-electors'
than an electors' meeting, although I believe it
comprises men of both those denominations. You
are happy in this borough in having less of that
jealousy and distrust between different classes than,
unfortunately, prevails in other places. The very
fact that we are now presided over by your worthy
Mayor shows that in the eyes of the first magis-
trate of your borough the non-electors hold the
same rank in the social scale, and also in political
capacity, as any other class of the community. I
think I have a fair right to consider myself at home
in addressing an assembly of non-electors, for I can
conscientiously say, not by way of boast, because
there are many politicians just as sincere as myself in
that respect, that I have never entertained a political
view or cherished a political principle which has
not embraced the well-being of the great mass of
the people as its fundamental rule and axiom. I
need not hesitate to tell you that in this I have not
been guided by an exclusive regard for any parti-
cular class of the community, but because I hold it
impossible to promote the permanent welfare and
prosperity of any section unless I carry with you
in the career of advancement the great mass who
form your working classes. (Cheers.) Indeed, any
policy that has for its effect the promotion of the
prosperity of the great body of the people cannot
fail in the end also to benefit all above them in the
social scale. We have promised to discuss on this
occasion that question which I believe is of most

interest to the non-electors of this borough—
namely, Parliamentary Reform. It is a good sign
to find so many of the working classes and non-
electors now taking an interest in that subject, for
I should despair of my country and think there
was little chance of our preserving the institu-
tions on which we pride ourselves unless the great
body of those now unhappily deprived of the
elective franchise were pressing forward and anxi-
ous to elevate themselves to the dignity of free
citizens. I will begin with a few words on that
which lies at the foundation of all questions of
organic change—the suffrage. I am inclined to
think that we Reformers have erred in times past
in dealing with reform rather as a compound than
as a simple question. We have always " lumped"

three or four things together and advocated them al
in one measure. I believe it would be wiser to deal

with them separately, commencing with the fran-
chise, which must carry with it as a consequence
the establishment of the other points of our Reform
Bill. I once heard Mr. O'Connell in his humorous
way illustrate the erroneous policy we have fol-
lowed. He said, "If you want to get through a gate-
way with a waggon where there is hardly room for
one horse to go, it is not wise to put on four horses
abreast, because it will only be still more difficult
for them to pass." (Laughter.) In any future at-
tempts at reform you should have one bill for the
extension of the franchise, then another for the
ballot, another for the shortening of Parliament,
and another for the redistribution of seats. My

opinion is that the franchise being the one on which
all the rest depends ought to be disposed of first.
My views on the franchise have been pretty fre-
quently given during the last 20 years. I don't
think I have gone so far as somebody in this as-

sembly. (A laugh.) I have, however, gone much

further than many of those with whom I find myself
acting in the House of Commons. I have always
voted for household suffrage. You have many ad-
vocates of that species of franchise, and also of man-
hood suffrage in your borough. Now my idea is,
that whether you get manhood suffrage or house-
hold suffrage, or even something less than either—
as is very like to be the case in the first instance—
some step in advance as regards the franchise will at
all events render future progress in the same direction
and also towards the attainment of other branches

of reform, muck more easy than it would otherwise
be. We have got to a deadlock now on the ques-
tion of the franchise, it must be dealt with, for all
parties in the House of Commons have come to this
—that while the whole of them have agreed to
some measure of reform, there seems to be hardly
power on the part of either side to carry any
sufficient bill. Therefore, in the interest even of
Parliamentary government, as well as for the bene-
fit of the people at large, it is most important that
the subject of the suffrage should be grappled with
especially, and as I hope also generously. But I
won't disguise from you who are non-electors that
in dealing with this question we have to argue it
before a tribunal which already possesses the fran-
chise, and it -would not be human nature if we did
not find those who are the present depositories of
political power, a little bit jealous and reluctant to
diffuse their privilege over a greater number of
voters, thereby lessening, as they imagine, the in-
trinsic value of the suffrage itself. (Cheers and a
laugh.) It would be very much like somehedy who
has a pretty strong glass of wine allowing some-
body else to come and water it. (Laughter.) There
is no doubt that the extension of the franchise to a
large body of the working clssses would be re-
garded by the present constituencies as in some
degree weakening their power and endangering,
their interests. Now, I have always been a prac-
tical man, and even in advocating the repeal of the
corn laws I found that no progress was to be made
till I took up the landlords an the farmers' views
of the question, and tried to reconcile them to the
change by showing them that they would not suffer
any harm from it. So, in urging an extension of
the suffrage, I should always present myself before
the existing electoral body with such arguments as I
could discover to prove to them that they would not
sustain any injury from the introduction of a large
portion of those who are now outside the pale of
the constitution ; my first question to the present
constituent body would be this—" What interest
have you, the middle class, which the working
classes have not equally with yourselves P" You
cannot separate the interest of one from the interest
Of the other. The question then is, "Are we sure
that if we let in
a large infusion from another class
they will see their own interest in the same way as
we see ours ?" People are generally quick-sighted
as to their own
interests, and fortunately there is
this in the constitution
earthly things, that if a of human society, and all
man doesn't pursue his own
interest, but does wrong, he is soon reminded of it
by the damage he inflicts on himself and on others.
(Cheers.) I don't think there is much danger likely
to arise from a large enfranchisement
of working
men, owing to the probability of
their following
their own instincts and taking an
unwise view of
their own interest. But I would
ask the middle
classes now enjoying the franchise whether the
may not involve themselves in some difficulty and
danger if they.keep shut out from the electoral pale
that vast majority of the community which has
now no share in the suffrage. The working classes
and those who are not allowed to vote amount to
from four to five millions of persons. Well, I say
to those who have the franchise, take into partner-
ship a portion of those now excluded from that
right, and do so, if from no other motive but the
selfish one of being secured in the possession of the
power you hold. Your electoral system is now
standing on so narrow a foundation that it is hardly
safe to reckon it standing at all in the event of cer-
tain contingencies which may one day arise. What
have we seen abroad, when Louis Philippe, the
last King of France, was strongly urged by the
reformers of that country to double its electoral
body, which only included some 250,000 voters.
He refused- to comply. He continued to govern