The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-13 00:00:00

NcethErn states could legally seize Mr. Slidell and
Mr. Mason the Austrian government might legally
seize Kossuth, and the French governinenis at the
tittle of the conspiracy, might equally legslly have
seized M. Bernard. (No, no.) I am static ; the opis
nions of great lawyers, but of course I must deter
to the opinion of any greater lawyer that may be
in this room. (Cheers.) I have lived long enough
to, know that with regard to strictly legal constitu-
tional questions it is right to defer to the opinions
of men who are wiser in these matters than our-
selves. And I will say that we must not get rid of
an immediate difficulty by incurring a future danger.
(Cheers.) We have great interests to contend for.
The international question has been pronounced to
be so plain that it is impossible for the Americans
not to know that they are wrong, and I do not see
how it is possible for any sane man to hesitate as to
the course they ought to adopt. (Cheers.) In the
event of a war the Americans know they have not
the smallest chance of success. They know that
all Europe has pronounced them to be in the wrong,
and I cannot believe that they are so blind or be-
sotted as to persist in what they know to be
wrong. (Cheers.) After contrasting the operative
classes of America with those of England, the
right hon. gentlean concluded by expressing a
hope that the troubles which had arisen:would con-
vince the Americans that the greatest happiness of the
greatest number was involved in the principle that
those who have intelligence and education are en-
titled to govern a country, and that the worst of all
Governments is that in which the whole of the ad-
ministration of a country is placed in one class who,
not having the leisure for education, must of ne-
cessity be the least educated. If there was any
point on which further information was required
he should be most happy to afford it. (Loud
cheers.)
Mr. PETER WooD, who was received with
mingled cheers and laughter, then rose and said—
Mr. Horsman intimated yesterday that people at a
distance look to his annual visits to Stroud as one
of the gaieties of the season. (Laughter.) And
that must be the case when we consider his various
changes of opinion since he had the first opportu-
nity of appearing on these boards. (Laughter.) A
few years ago he eulogised Lord Palmerston to the
skies. There was no man in England capable of
taking the reins of Government, and doing as Lord
Palmerston did. In the course of a short time he
appeared as an obstructive to every measure for the
advancement of the Liberal party and giving poli-
tical liberty to the masses. (Hear, hear.) Yester-
day he was eulogising Lord Palmerston's Govern-
ment, and was prepared to support Lord Palmer-
ston's measures. (Cheers and laughter.) If that
conduct is not enough to make the people of
Eugland laugh I do not know what is. (Laughter.)
When Mr. Horsman can vary so much in such
a short space of time, I hope he will go away from
this room and do better for the future, and be a
little more consistent in his dealings with a Liberal
Government. (Hear.) I concur with him in thinking
that the English people are not like the Americans;
but the main gist of his argument was this—that the
English people are not fit to exercise the franchise,
because if they possessed it they would exercise it
in the same manner as the Americans. (Hear.)
Same people are foolish enough to suppose that I
have the ambition of appearing on the hustings.
(Laughter.) Now I can assure you that I have no
such ambition. (Roars of laughter.) If some people
would drink more water and less beer, they would
have more sense in their heads and more money in
their pockets. (Continued laughter.) I say 1 have
no ambition to appear on the hustings, but I want
the working classes to have a fair share in the re-
presentation of the country. (Cheers.) I do not
know how it happens that Mr. Horsman when he
comes here has always in his head the panic of a
war. (Laughter.) With regard to France, he told
us to beware of our ally, and to keep our powder
dry. If he thinks the American affair is likely to
be soon settled, I hope he is right. But I think he
might tell us how far he is prepared to go with the
Government on the question of Reform. (Cheers.)
I can only say if the Government will not give us
the franchise we must become mob orators,
and then I suppose we shall have some English
spies sent amongst us to listen to our sedition, and
then we shall get a couple of years for talking
seditious language. (Laughter.) I hope Mr.
Horsman will tell the non-electors how far he is
disposed to go with respect to the franchise, and
how many of us he considers competent to possess
t, (Cheers.)
Mr. HORSMAN—I have never been in the habit of
shirking any question. I was quite Iprepared for
the question of Mr. Wood, but before I answer it
--(cries of " Oh, oh")—There is no great hurry,
and you will have your answer before I sit down.
(Cheers and laughter.) I have expressed to you
very often my opinions with regard to the franchise
—(laughter)—and am quite prepared to express
them again. I think that universal suffrage would
be the destruction of this country—(cries of "no,
no," and "hear, hear")—and I think that an un-
checked and unbalanced £6 suffrage would lead to
universal suffrage. (No, no.) I have been told that
every word that I have said was against giving the
franchise to the non-electors. Now there was not a
syllable in my speech that in the mind of a rational
man could bear such an interpretation. (Loud laugh-
ter.) What I said was, that in America the whole
government is placed in the hands of one class, and
that the government being placed in the hands of
one class would ruin the country. (Hear, hear.) I
have always found amongst the non-electors a ra-
tional feeling, and although I have been accused of
injustice towards them, I have never taken such
liberties with them as their friend Mr. 'Wood has
done. The last time we were here some of you ex-
pressed some disapprobation whilst he was speaking.
And what was his reply ? He said he had never
been afraid of the hissing of a goose. (Laughter.)

Mr. WOOD—That was not to a non-elector, but to
an elector. (Laughter.)
Mr. HORSMAN—The interruption came from the
body of the room. (Hear, hear.) And to whom did
his remarks apply to-night ? Somebody in the cor-
ner of the room interrupted him. And what did he
say ? " You have been drinking too much beer."
(Laughter.) Now I never called you geese, and I
never called you drunkards ; but Satan, who re-
proves sin, calls you both geese and drunkards.
(Loud laughter.)

Mr. Woo D—l do not think you have any right
to make use of such an expression as that. (Cheers
and laughter.)

Mr. HORSMAN—When a man is interrupted,
and tells his interrupter " it would be better to fol-
low my example, and tako water, and not beer"—
A NON-ELECTOR—He said " more water."

Mr.HonsmAN—Well,." more water and less beer.
When a man comes into a room and says that, I
think the conclusion is that he is rather " beery "
himself. (Laughter.) If that is not the proper
conclusion, I confess that I do not understand logic.
(Continued laughter and cheers.) I have told you
my opinion of the franchise. (Oh, oh.) Would
you like me to repeat it. (Yes, yes.) I have stated
in this room, before the Palmerston and the Derby
reform bills were introduced, that there was no ar-
gument which any man could adduce in favour of
one uniform franchise of £6 which will not equally
avail the carrying of the franchise down to 63., and
eventually to 6d. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I say
that an unchecked, unbalanced suffrage of £6, either
rating or rental, is only universal suffrage at two
bites. (Cheers and laughter.) And I say that uni-
versal suffrage would lead us into the condition in
which America now finds herself—(hear, hear, and
oh, oh)--that it would place the whole government
of the country in the hands of the most uneducated
class, and I am strongly and resolutely opposed to
that change. (Hear, hear.) I want to recall to
your recollection what Mr. Wood seems to have for-
gotten—that I expressed the same opinion in the
same words before the last election, and the consti-
tuency of Stroud, knowing my opinions, re-elected
me, and therefore I am entitled to conclude that
my opinion is the opinion of the majority of my
constituents.
(Hear, hear.) It was on the ques-
tion of reform and Lord Derby's bill that I broke
awayafter twenty-five years
service,
mfi
yr s time,
pt
aty.
I came here and risked
for
fro them
everything—a seat, Popularity, and all that a re-
presentative could value—l expressed
result,presse Anddmy w opinions,hat
and said I would stand by the

did Mr. Wood and his friends do ? Did they meet`
me on the hustings; go to the poll, saying, "Your
opinions are wrong, and we will have a man who
represents our opinions correctly ?" No such thicg.
Mr. Wood slunk away. He was a coward at the
poll when a verdict was to be given by the consti-
tuency; but he is a great hero on tb.e platform,
when he thinks that on the question of universal suf-
frage he can get a majority against me. (Cheers.)
Allow me to call to your recollection some circum-
stances which it is most important you should bear
in mind. When I was invited to come here the
extreme Liberal party, of whom Mr. Wood was
one, were, and always have been, my most deter-
mined opponents. I was invited to come here,both
by the moderate and the extreme Liberals. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) I was invited by the head of
the Liberal party ; but I refused to come forward
on a private invitation, but said that if my name
was adopted at a public meeting I should be proud
to represent the borough. At that meeting, although
the extreme Liberals expressed every dissatisfac-
tion with my opinions, they acquiesced in my adop-
tion on three grounds: The first was that they had
had a tremendous licking and could not erect a
candidate of their own. (Laughter.) The next
was, that previous candidates had been brought
forward by private parties. The third was, that on
principle I had a great objection to canvassing at
elections, and they asked me whether I would pre-
sent myself at the close of each session, and give a
review of it to my constituents. I agreed to do so,
and the extreme party in the borough, although
disapproving of my opinions, said they would
acquiesce in my election. Now, what is the mean-
ing of a representative telling you that at the end of
every session he will present himself before you to
review it ? It means this—that the election at
which he was chosen is conclusive as to his
opinions at that election. (Hear, hear.) I have
come before you annually to review the events
of the session. But what has been the course pur-
sued by my opponents ? Why, at the last election
Mr. Barnard brought down a candidate and kept
him shut up in a cupboard for two days. (Laughter,
and cries oh, oh.) He told me himself that he kept
him in his house for two days.
A NON-ELECTOR-I wish he was here to expose
you.

Mr. HORSMAN—At the end of two days he found
that his candidate would have no chance, and then
he was sent back to London. (Laughter.) The po-
sition has been this. You have had year after year
a vote taken in this room upon the one question of
universal suffrage, and the vote has been carried
against me, and every one at a distance fancies I
am censured by my constituents. But I have been
four times elected without opposition, and yet I have
received perpetual votes of censure. And what does
this mean ? It means this ; that the party who is
too weak to meet me at the poll—

A NON-ELECTOR—You'II find it out the next
time. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. HoßsmAN—The party who have done every-
thing in their power to prevent my re-election have
raised the question of universal suffrage, on which
they ought to have taken judgment at the poll ;
but shrinking from that, they come upon this plat-
form on irregular occasions to raise a question which
has been already settled. (Cheers.) I know that last
you passed a vote which people at a distance do not
understand. They are simple-minded enough to
suppose that if you censure a man during the recess
you will not elect him when a dissolution takes
place. When I was censured last year, every one at
a distance did not know that it was done by the ex-
treme Radicals and Chartists—(oh, oh)—and they
said, " Your seat at Stroud has gone—you have
had a warning ;" and more than one constituency
somewhat larger than that of Stroud, and sup-
posed to be somewhat Liberal, was taken with
compassion, and they said, "We shall be glad
to give you a refuge as you are going to leave
Stroud." My answer was, "I am very much obliged
to you, but I am very comfortable at Stroud."
(Laughter.) And I:further said "I rather think that
I intend to remain there—(laughter and cheers)—
for although I have been four times censured at in-
tervals, I have been four times elected without op-
position." (Cheers.) When asked the meaning of
this, I said, " You must not be deceived by appear-
ances—there are two sections of the Liberal party,
so called, in Stroud—the one powerful on the plat-
form, the other very strong at the poll; when a
meeting is held the gentlemen who hold extreme
opinions appear on the platform and get the bile off
their stomachs, and after that they are in good
humour, and the moderate Liberals return me at
the poll. (Laughter.) So it has been in times past
—so I expect it will be in time to come. (Cheers.)
And, although I have no doubt the extreme Radicals
will meet me again and urge their objection, yet I
believe that when the next election comes I shall be
again returned without any contest at all, because
if they oppose me at the poll, to use the language of
our friends across the Atlantic, "they'll be whipped
into a cocked-hat." (Roars of laughter.)
A NON-ELECTOR—WiII you vote for the £5
franchise ?

Mr. HORSMAN—I have told you over and over
again that I will never give any pledge. As your
representative I will state to you my opinions, but
out of Parliament, whether representing this or any
other place, I am' determined to go perfectly un-
fettered. (Cheers.) I have answered all your ques-
tions about the franchise. As to the subject of re-
form, I tell you plainly that it has been a great
claptrap for years past, and that the time has
come when the Liberal party must for its own hon-
our fairly say whether it is prepared to face such
claptraps or yield to them. With respect to Lord
Derby's bill, I told you that if you did not get that
you would get no other for many years to come.
Am Ito be reproached because what I said has
come true ? I tell you plainly that the public in-
telligence of the country has condemned the ill-con-
sidered, ill-digested, agitation for reform of the last
few years, and as for Mr. Wood and the extreme
Radicals they may as well attempt to galvanise a
dead jackass as to resuscitate it. (Cheers and
laughter, and cries of "Oh, oh.")
Mr. PUMFREY—Mr. Horsman was asked a ques-
tion, and he made a speech to show how badly he
has been served. We want to know whether he is
in favour of any extension of the franchise ?
A NON-ELECTOR—Let him say "yes" or " no."

Mr. HORSMAN—That is an intelligible question,
to which I can give an intelligible answer, but it is
not an answer which any rational or honest man
will pretend to give in one sentence. Of course,
when we see an enormous mass of our fellow-coun-
trymen out of the pale of the electoral franchise,
many of them being fit for the franchise, every man
ofcommon sense would say that ho wishes to see them
in the enjoyment of the franchise. In the large ope-
rative class, which is advancing in education, but
amongst whom education is very unequally diffused,
there must be many who are unfit for the franchise
as well as many who are qualified for its exercise, and
it is a difficult task for any statesman to decide who
shall be admitted, without swamping those who now
enjoy it by those who are unfit for it. Every man
who cares at all for the good government of the
country and the contentment of the masses will de-
sire to embrace within the franchise every man that
can be safely admitted. The question is, how is
that to be done ? If you make every man an elector
upon the same qualification; if you place a man of
the highest intelligence exactly on a level with a
man of the lowest intelligence; if you make the
proprietor of half a county of precisely the same
value as his ploughman, if you give a large master
manufacturer precisely the same power as his poorest
operative, that is manifestly unjust, because it is
making an enfranchisement of individuals, and is
not a qualification of the intelligence, knowledge, or
judgment of the individuals. When lam asked if
I am in favour of an extension of the franchise, and
were to give a general affirmative answer, it would
be a claptrap answer which I should be ashamed to
give. (Hear, hear.) But I will tell you why I did
ttevfoot an
re
hedezwthenyslho:
ofH otuhsee of
franchise
a Commonsneh ise
wh
which
hd
hasno t
not
proposed. It is this—that a country which
has more to lose than gain by change must bo very
careful of change ; and I have seen no plan yet pro-
posed which would not make the present system
worse instead of better. There are three great ele-
ments of representation—property, education, and
numbers. You must give, AS far as you can, a fair