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

THE SUN, LONDON,' FRIDAY EVENING, IVLIRCH 25, 1859.

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

Mr. M. GIBSON—The right hon. gentleman said he
was desirous of making a few observations to the house upon
the measure which had been submitted to its judgment by
her Majesty's Government, and also upon the course which
they were invited to pursue by the noble lord the member for
London. They had had three speeches in support of the
measure by members of the Cabinet ; and be had been,
though admitting the great ability and eloquence of those
speeches, somewhat disappointed at. finding them deficient
in one important particular, namely--supposing Parliament
to adopt the change in the representative system recom.
mended to them by the Government, what ad vantage was
it predicted would be conferred upon the country, and what
improvement would be produced in the existing consti-
tuencies of England and Wales i (Hear.) He found in
the speech of the noble lord the Secretary for India a great
deal of close reasoning in a somewhat narrow field; but in
no part of that speech did the noble lord tell them what was
to be the probable result of a general election in reference to
the advantages to be produced, supposing the project of law
submitted to them was carried out. The right hon. baronet
the Secretary for the Colonies went at great length into the
Government project with eloquence and ability; but he
(Mr. Gibson) must say he thought the latter portion of his
speech would have led a stranger to suppose there was some
such question before the house as was formerly introduced
by the Duke of Richmond for universal suffrage, equal elec-
toral districts, and annual parliaments; he displayed before
them a phantom of democracy, by which he endeavoured to
show that the party of democracy were to rule education and
property. But that appeared to him (Mr. Gibson) a somewhat
artful diversion, intended to alarm them, and to withdraw
their attention from the question before the house, namely,
what was the character of theparticular measure submitted
to their notice, and what would be the effects of the changes
proposed to be made in the constituencies of England and
Wales. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gibson) had confined his
meditations upon this subject within a very limited area ;
and in the observations which he should make to the house
he wished to confine himself to the only question before
them, namely, the bill of the Government, of course, accom-
panied by the amendment of the noble lord the member for
London. The right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colo-
nies told them there were two preliminary considerations
which ought to be present to their minds before entering on
the merits of this measure of reform. The first consideration

X- he understood him, was, that they must consider that

his was a measure brought forward by a Conservative Go-
vernment, and it could not be expected that a Conservative
Government would bring forward a measure of reform
wholly at variance with the principles of the Conservative
party. The right hon. gentleman told them further, that
there was an instinct of party honour which should induce
the house to examine a measure of reform coming from a
Conservative Minister in an indulgent spirit. He (Mr. Gib-
son) admitted there was force in that appeal as far asrelatod
to the circumstances under which the Government were
placed ; but, as a member of Parliament, he must consider,
as paramount to all other matters in so grave a question as
Parliamentary reform, what would be the effects on the
country of the measure they were about to pass. (Hear,
hear.)- He should view the question of a Reform Bill
brought'in by the present Ministers without any prejudice
whatever, for he had seen them inclined to adapt them-
selves as far as possible to the circumstances and require-
ments of the day. (Hear, hear.) He did not know that
county members were to be assumed as alone capable of
supporting an anti-reform Administration, because he recol-
lected that in 1832 the main or a very considerable portion
of strength of the Minister of that day for carrying the
measure of 1832 was obtained from the county members ;
therefore he did not hold that county members were opposed
to the principle of fair and free representation. (Hear.)
Another point which her Majesty's Government thought
they should take into consideration was that of time. They
said that the reformers would lose the opportunity of get-
ting their bill passed this year—that they (the Government)
presented them that opportunity, so that, by agreeing to the
present bill, they would gain in time what they might lose
m quantity. (Hear, hear.) In reply to that argument he
would state that ho for one did not feel so particularly eager
upon the point that, for the sake of saving time, he would
concur in the passing of a measure which was in itself ob-
jectionable. (Hear, hear.) A great deal was said about
settling the reform question, but if that meant settling it'
without reform—(hear)—that was a settlement which would
not go beyond the walls of Parliament, and the country,
when the word settlement was made use of, expected a ra-
tional, sound, well-considered measure, that would extend
political rights to an increased number of British subjects
That was what they understood by the settlement of reform ;
and, with regard to the apathy he had heard spoken of, he
for one did not believe in it. There had been for a long time
back a settled conviction in men's minds that Parliamentary
reform was approaching, besides which public matters were
now discussed with greater quiet than used hitherto to be
the case, and that may have induced many to think that in
tranquillity they beheld apathy—(hear, hear)—but the
petitions which crowded the table of the house, and the
spontaneous meetings which took place throughout the
country when the Government proposed their bill, was a
convincing proof that the apathy was only apparent, and
that there was an earnest desire among the intelligent por-
tion of the community to see the question placed on a firm
and secure basis. Having disposed of these two points put
forward in defence of the bill—namely, its being the mea-
sure of a Conservative Government, and the necessity of
using the present opportunity—he should now proceed to
consider what it was Government proposed to effect. The
bill before them he could not call a Reform Bill. (Cheers.)
He would call it a• measure for the purpose of operating in
a peculiar and novel manner on the county and borough
constituencies, making little or no change in the extension
of political rights to the persons at present excluded from
them, but transferring voters from one to another electoral
area, and making little or no difference in the whole elec-
toral body of the United Kingdom. Now, he wanted Go-
vernment to toll the house what good was to come to the
country from the peculiar operation they advised. (Hear,
hear.) He might put the question in another way that
would lead to the consideration of the noble lord's amend-
ment. The Government proposed to extend the £lO occu-
pation franchise to counties, but on two conditions. The
first was, that there should be a withdrawal of a portion of
the freeholders from the counties, and that there should be
no reduction in the occupation franchise in boroughs.
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord was, as he (Mr. M. Gibson)
had been told, favourable to the £lO franchise in counties ;
but he said that. Government made it contingent on two
conditions, and, until those two conditions were disposed of,
it would be a waste of time to discuss tho bill. (Hear.)
If the house was adverse to those conditions it would be
useless to go into the provisions of the measure, for it all
hinged on that proposal and these conditions. He did not
profess to be very familiar with the rules of Parliament—
(a laugh)—but he had read the able work of Mr. May, and
he had come to the conclusion that abstract resolutions as
amendments to the second reading of a bill were frequently
very objectionable. (Hear, hear, and langhter.) But there
were special cases in which that mode of dealing with the
question was not only proper and Parliamentary, but was
the only effective way of doing so, and the present was an
occasion where it was strictly proper and Parliamentary.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the freeholders it was pro-
posed to withdraw them from the county and hand them
over to the borough constituencies by way of counterpoise, as
had been said by the noble lord the member for Stamford. But
if it was advantageous to add the £lO householders to the
county constituencies, why should the gain be counteracted
by a counterpoise like that proposed ? He for one did not
understand that mode of dealing with the question. With
Mr. Fox, he held that the greatest perfection of a consti-
tuency was its being able to bring into activity at elections
the greatest possible number of independent voters. The
present Prime Minister once stated publicly that if he was
to be told the names and politics of the principal families
in a county, he could tell the politics of the county
members. (Hear, hear.) Ho (Mr. Gibson) thought that
statement too sweeping; but if it was to any extent true
that the principal families could make the county represen-
tation nomination seats, then what a proposition was that
before the house, neutralising and counterpoising the in-
fusion of independence I (Hear, hear.) With regard to his
hon. friend the member for East Surrey, Government had
not, he thought, dealt handsomely with him. They had
adopted two of his proposals in the abolition of the pro•
perty qualification and the £lO occupation franchise in
counties, but what did they do with East Surrey itself?
They submitted it to what his noble friend the member for
Sandwich would call a surgical operation of a verycurious
kind. They had proposed to make Croydon, with new
boundaries to be settled by the Enclosure Commissioners,
a borough ; so that all the 40s. freeholders resident there, '
as 'well as those resident on the outskirts of Lambeth
and Southwark, would no longer be able to vote for
his hon. friend, but would have to vote for the
new borough member. On the whole, he thought
what they now proposed to do' to the county constitu-
encies would be injurious to them, and, as the matter now
stood, he for one should be no party to it. Now, as re-
garded the boroughs, it might be an old-fashioned opinion,
but lie thought that the maintenance of the distinctive
character of the borough constituencies was an important
element in the constitution. He knew that in the abstract
a great' deal might be said in favour of electoral districts,
but if the boroughs were once merged into the counties, and
had their distinctive character broken down, a valuable
portion of our representative, system would be lost. There
was something in a community residing together acting
together, and administering local self-government, which
turned their attention to the consideration of public affairs,
so that they became likely to return a valuable class of men
to the house—a more valuable class than could possibly
come from electoral districts. He would therefore main-
tain the distinctive character of the borough constituencies.
He did not like the idea of the creation of a set of non-re-
sident voters for the boroughs. (Hear.) They were told
that they had got a clause in the bill that resembled the old
splitting act, and that that would prevent the creation of
fictitious votes. But he remembered being on a committee
of that house which sat in the year 1846, and they had oc-
casion to go into the whole question of creation of fictitious
votes. A legal gentleman of great experience then told
them that it was quite impossible to prevent the creation of
these votes by any law that they might pass ; that the old
splitting act had beena delusion, and that it had been easily
evaded ; and one solicitor said that he would defy them to
pass a law which the dexterity of conveyancers could not
be able to evade in the creation of faggot votes. (Hear.)
This was an alarming proposition. The Carlton or Reform
Club, or any of these wealthy or powerful bodies, would be
able to create non-resident voters in boroughs, and thus
counteract the voice of the resident voters. (Cheers.) Were
they to be parties to such a measure as this, and that for
the sake of settling reform ? (Cheers.) This would not
settle reform ; it would produce universal dissatisfaction—
(cheer.4)—and he agreed with his hon. friend the member
for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) when he said, in one of his'
speeches on reform, that there was no bill so revolutionary
as a bad bill. (Loud cheers.) Therefore it behoved them
to hesitate before they gave their assent to this proposi-
tion. He would ask what was the doctrine of the right
honourable gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir
E. B. Lytton), when he claimed for himself and his friends
that they were the special guardians of the middle
classes ? (Laughter and cheers.) Friends of the middle
classes ! Not friends of the farmers, as they recollected
in old times. (Laughter and cheers.) Their cry now
was, "friends of the middle classes. Could they devise a
,cry rt orp. dangerous than that there was a party in the
State Wong ifsOf nplen the exclusion of the great mass of
the working classes? (Plieers.) He for ono disliked the
doctrine of being the friend 'Ofany 'Om." (gear,'hear.) He
wished to see a full and fair representation of the"peeple—
Amri hear—and he believed thdt u*s.p they were Fefarevl

to reduei the borough franchise, they could 'not admit
within the electoral pale any considerable(li portion of the
working classes of this country.
not right admit the working classes to
any hear.) i
f
share
of
poli-
tical to
power, let them say so; but do not mock them with
the delusion of £6O in a savings-bank. (Cheers Tell them that they were not fitted for the franchise—iaat the
time had not come for their admission ; but if that were not
their opinion, he knew of no other mode at present for ad-
mitting in any considerable number the industrious classes
in this country to the exercise of the electoral franchise than
by a reduction, of the franchise in boroughs and cities.
(Cheers.) Well, then, with these options, how ought a
member to vote? The bill was called a Reform Bill, and it
was said that they might amend it in committee. But it was
not said that when the material and essential amendments
were made the Government would adopt them. When the
ship was filled with valuable cargo, which his right hon.
friend the member for Stroud (Mr. 'foramen) would put into
it, then the captain and the crew would abandon it. (Laugh..
ter and cheers.) Where, then, was the use of trusting to
these amendments in committee ? If the matter stood in a
different position, he should be the last man to argue in
favour of any extreme course, and because the bill did not
contain everything that he approved, therefore it must be
rejected on the second reading. But this was a totally dif-
ferent question. A Reform Bill must be viewed as a whole
—(cheers).—as a scheme, a well-considered scheme, brought
in by a Government. They could not deal with a question
of that kind, affecting the interests of the whole nation, as
they would with a turnpike bill into which therwere to
introduce amendments upon every clause. (Hear, hear.)
Besides, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) would,
after all, destroy this bill by slow torture, while they would
save the time of the house by disposing of this essential
preliminary question by a division upon the resolution of
the noble lord. (Cheers.) This was the fairest course to
the Government. (Hear, hear.) This was the fairest to
the house. They would not then be placed under any mis-
apprehension. They knew what they had before them, and
what they were to do. If, on the other hand, they went
into committee, as had been recommended l o them, without
understanding what course was to be adopted by the Go-
vernment and carried through Parliament, then he main-
tained they would be taking the moat unparliamentary and
puerile course that was ever suggested upon any great
public measure. (Cheers.) It was not for him to answer
those invitations which had been made to them to submit
other schemes of reform, in order that new issues might be
raised, and their attention be drawn off from the subject
simply t
(Cheers.) He had confined his observations
simply to the bill and the amendment. He would riot travel
from the question. He would not shadow forth schemes of
reform that in his opinion might be desirable, nor would he
allude to other schemes of reform that other hon. members
had thought proper to put forward, Parliamentary reform
was essentially a question that must be dealt with by the
Ministers of the Crown, (Cheers.) Parliamentary reform
must be carried by a Government, if ever it was carried,
that had the confidence of Parliament—(cheers)—and his
desire was that they should live to see the day when, having
a good measure of Parliamentary reform, they should have
Governments which enjoyed the confidence of the House of
Commons, and a *House of Commons that enjoyed the con-
fidence of country. (Cheers.)
Mr. ADDERLEY was sure they all felt a personal grati-
fication that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat
down had at last expressed his sentiments on Parliamen-
tary Reform. For the last ten years the right hon. gen-
tleman kept a perfect silence on the subject, and a short
time ago, when at Manchester, he referred, with great dis-
cretion, his audience to the hon. member for Birmingham,
rather than express his own opinions. The right hon. gen-
tleman was a true exponent of the Manchester views, and
it was therefore important he should be placed before us,
that issue might be joined between them. The right hon.
gentleman in his address to the house criticised the various
features, or, as he called them, " the conditions of the bill."
The noble lord the member for the City of London called
them "principles," in contradistinction to "conditions."
The right hon. gentleman said the people wore misled by
the measure brought forward by the Governmentt, and
that he expected no good result from it. Now he (Mr.
Adderley) would leave it to the house whether, on any ques-
tion of electoral reform, so far, at least, as the extension of
the suffrage was concerned, there could be any principle at
issue except those two—first, that of extending the fran-
chise on the basis of property, and the other and antago-
nistic principle, which it is alleged is a matter of right—the
extension of it to numbers. The noble lord in his amend-
ment, and the observations which accompanied it, modified
his views between the two ; but he (Mr. Adderley) con-.
tended that, for consistency, he was bound to adopt the
whole principle. The question, in point of fact, was an old
one—it was that of numbers against property—the struggle
carried on between the patricians and plebeians of ancient
Rome. (Hear, hear.) There was, as ho said, nothing new
in it. The bill before the house was based on both. The
right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton-under-Lyne
adopted the principle of numbers ; while the noble lord the
member for the City of London did not, in point of fact,
take any of them. The noble lord, however, must rest his
case on either one or the other. If he adopted that of
numbers, let him not deceive the house or himself, be-
cause he must go to its extreme length. (Cries of "No.")
He may believe that resident suffrage would be the best,
but he must go the full length of universal suffrage, and
with it, as a concomitant, propose the Ballot likewise.
(Cries of "No, no.") He (Mr. Adderley) contended that
the noble lord opposed the bill of the Government on false
principles and was deceiving hon. gentlemen who sur-
rounded him. At one moment he made them believe he was
going with them ; that, to use a phrase which occurred
during the debate, he was "in the same boat with them,"
but in his speech he stated clearly and distinctly that in his
opinion the lower classes could not be trusted with the
franchise. The noble lord said "he defended Reform when
he was young, and would not desert it when he was old."
Did that mean that because he defended it when young, he,
and no one else, should defend it when he was old ? In his
(Mr. Adderley's) opinion he should have rather said, " I
defended Reform when I was young, and I defeated it when
I was old." What the noble lord meant by the sentiment
he thus expressed may be easily understood, for no sooner
was the bill of the Government introduced than he expressed
his dislike to it, and in a manner which seemed to say,
what have you to do with Reform ? as if it were a mono-
poly with him and his friends. (Hear.) The noble lord in
his amendment proposed that one portion of the borough
franchise—namely, that of occupation—should be £6 instead
of £lO. There was no difference, therefore, in principle, but
simply that between £6 and £10; but the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Ashton went farther, and would
probably adopt a rating, or an entirely universal suffrage
The question, as he said, between the Government and the
noble lord was only one of degree—the difference between
£6 and £lO, whereas the right hon. genleman, concealing.
his real sentiments, was for universal suffrage, and yet both
combine to resist the bill. Suppose they were in committee,
as. they ought to be—(a laugh)—he for one would prefer a
£lO franchise, and he would tell them why. Suppose all the
other franchises in .the bill were conceded, he would ask,
what man of industry and intelligence would be excluded ?
(Hear.) It would possibly amount to universal suffrage un-
der the mildest possible check of industry and intelligence.
No one would be excluded but those who wanted industry
and intelligence. (Hear.) Hon gentlemen.opposite assumed
that the working classes desired this great extension of
the suffrage, but that he totally denied. (Hear, hear,
from the Ministerial benches.) Even as matters now stood
there was a large number of them who might be placed on
the register, and did not choose to do so, and a number,
equally as numerous, who, though on the register, did not
take the trouble of voting. (Hear.) The hon.. member for
Birmingham, in a speech which he recently made to his
constituents at Birmingham, described a strong-minded
man as laying by a few pounds, and afterwards, through
the sickness of a child, or want of employment in a com-
mercial place, was reduced to destitution, and he added that
it would be better to give him bread than the suffrage.
(Hear.) But did not the hon. gentleman in his scheme pro-
pose to extend it to • that class altogether ? He (Mr. Ad-
derley) would rather encourage an industrious man to rise
to the suffrage, and obtain it by his own industry and intel-
ligence, instead of urging him on to demand it as a right
when he cared nothing for it. A great deal had been said
of the good conduct of the working classes. Now, it so
happened that he had a knowledge of and knew more about
them than even the hon. member for Birmingham, and he
should be glad to see such men as the artisans of Birming-
ham, for example, in possession of the franchise. Most of
them would possess it under the bill, and he cordially con-
curred in what fell from Lord Brougham last year, that
they were the most independent class of voters in the
kingdom. He was aware that they discussed the question
of Parliamentary Reform, and in Birmingham they had a
debating club, where all the great questions of the day were
criticised and commented on. Indeed, not long ago the
question was, " Did the hon. gentleman properly represent
them or not ?" and on a division he was informed that the
numbers for and against were equal. (A laugh.) In jus-
tice, however, to the hon. gentleman he was bound to say,
that from information he subsequently received he had a
majority of one. (Laughter.) The question was not whether
they should deprive the working classes of the franchise, but
whether they should, by making them bands of dema-
gogues, practically disfranchise all other classes in the com-
munity. The noble lord's first objection was, that the bill
disfranchised 45,000 voters, and that they violated in the
first place prescriptive right. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord (Lord John Russell) had quoted Blackstone to show
that the 40s. freeholders had a right to the county suffrage.
But that was the limit below which the suffrage was not to
descend, but the noble lord broke through that limit in
1832. It had been said by the right hon. Mr. Milner Gib-
son, that the bill would not add one vote to the country.
Now he (Mr. Adderley) would say that it would add
400,000 electors, or about 50 per cent. to the constituency
of England.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON, as we understood him (for he
spoke iri a very low tone of voice) said that, what he said
was, it would add to some extent.
Mr. ADDERLEY—That some extent was something.
Although it had been argued that there were many counties
under the influence of the landlords, there was not any
county entirely suburban in character. The neblelord had
shown himself very particular about the boroughs, but he
had not a word to say about the counties. Now, the same
thing that would swamp Rutland would not swamp Man-
chester. That was a game which, however, could be
played on both sides, and that would be played too. There
were modes of playing tricks under any system that had
been proposed, and it was idle to say that persons under the
£5 franchise would not be as open to trickery as the 40s.
freeholders. He knew Birmingham very well, and he
thought the game could be played there. The right hon.
gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) complained that uniformity of
suffrage would lead to electoral districts. He argued, that
when all were placed on the same level the inevitable result
would be their having electoral districts. Now, the noble
lord proposed an inequality of suffrage, which would be far
more intolerable than the one complained of. One-half of
the town of Birmingham was not in the borough, and by
the noble lord's proposal, one-half of the population of that
important town would have the £5 franchise, while the
other half would have the £lO franchise. As far as land-
lord influence was concerned he would take his own case.
He had a considerable property in Birmingham, and he
had a great respect for his representative, the hon. member
(Mr. Bright), but he (Mr. Adderley) had no influence
there whatever. If the Whig party were on the present
occasion going to support the Radical party, let them re-
collect that this was perhaps the last opportunity of stand-
ing on one of two principles—the ono a safe principle, the
other entirely antagonistic), from which it was now in their
power to save the country. If the Whigs who had for-
merly taken the lead in reform legislation were
handingaboutto
take the course imputed, to them,
over the country to wild and dapgebrousl
were legi
thrownslaa u
legislation,
oant.d
there would be great AgitAtion this bill
(Ministerial cheers,) In 1831-32 what got up the steam ?
Not the desire for the possession of the franchise, but the
agitation was the result of the efforts of wild and dan-
gerous men who got up. that agitation for their own pur-
poses. (Ministerial cries of " Hear, laeAr.,'l) He hoped
never to see such an agitation again; but the same men
eza Orajly agitation When any discontent pre-
vkaunleddgthetr hOrit cowl*, and let him warn the house
what the consequence would be when they hail arrived in
this cewitg tit *Tem' gawk Let them recollect

what consequences it had produced in Rome—it had dis-
solved the commonwealth, and made way for absolute
power. This country under universal suffrage would not
produce so good a result as it did in America, the old insti-
tutions in this country being so totally dissimilar to the in-
stitutions of America, and so unfitted for the introduction
of universal suffrage. it would have the effect of making
way for a vulgar party, and for strong ambition, by break-
ing down the barrier of the middle classes, and making way
for breaking down also the beneficial power of this popular
assembly. (Loud Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. HEADLAM rose, amid loud cries for Mr. Bernal
Osborne, and said they were beginning at last to see their
way in this question. He would have been better satisfied
if the right hon. gentleman who had last addressed them
had explained the object of the Government bill, instead
of discussing the value of the £5, or of the county franchise.
The Government had introduced a Reform Bill fettered
with conditions which the House of Commons could not
accept, and it had also to be recollected that these condi-
tions were so loathsome to the nation that the table of the
house had been covered with petitions against it. (Hear,
hear.) Strange to say, that, during all the agitation on the
subject, not one petition had been sent up in favour of the
proposed change in boroughs and counties, nor had one
newspaper spoken in its favour.. The present bill could not
be accepted, and he must say the Government had not
carried out the pledge they had given. The right way
would be to drop the present bill and bring in another, and
if they would strike out the objectionable portions he would
give it his support. (Hear, hear.) He could not, with any
respect for his constituents, consent to the second reading
of this bill until he had a clear understanding of its prin-
ciples. (Hear, hear.) He was perfectly satisfied of the wis-
dom and propriety of the resolution. It had the effect of a
motion that the bill be read a second time this day six
months, and it also gave a reason why it should not be read
a second time at all. He thought the course pursued by
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was fair and manly, and
deserving of the approbation of the house. He (Mr. Head-
lam) objected strongly to the principle of identity of suf-
frage. If many cases were known in which commercial men
attempted to snatch the representation from the rural dis-
tricts, that would justify a change. But there was no evi-
dence of anything of the kind. He thought that an increase
of the borough influence would tend to enlarge the sympa-
thies and widen the objects of the county members. He
objected to the bill because it also preserved the influence
of the small nomination boroughs, because it gave the
power of voting to persons at a distance, and enabled non-
resident proprietors to vote in the borough. He regretted
that the bill had been placed on the table of the house, be-
cause it placed the great country party in a false position,
and because the people at large would consider: that the
measure was not introduced to promote Reform, but
to serve the purposes of a party. (Opposition cheers.) He
thought the discord between town and country should be
forgotten. The interests of the manufactiver and the terri-
torial proprietor were bound up together, and nothing
should be done to sever them. (Hear, hear.) The bill had
a tendency to set one party against another, and therefore
he would give it his decided opposition. (Hear, hear, front
the Opposition.)
Mr. BENTINCK said his right hon. friend (Mr. M.
Gibson) had spoken for half-an-hour, and told the house
nothing. (Hear, hear.) He talked of the numerous spon-
taneous meetings which had taken place throughout the
country in favour of reform, and alleged that those
meetings were attended by men of education and intelli-
gence. Now, it just happened that the majority of those
meetings passed resolutions in favour of annual Parlia-
ments, vote by ballot, and universal suffrage. (No, no,
from the Opposition benches.) He would repeat that
this was the fact. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.)
He was, therefore, justified in assuming that the views of
the right hon. gentleman, and those who politically acted
with him, were in consonance with the decisions of
those meetings, and that those gentlemen would on-
deavour to give effect to those views whenever they
had the direction of political affairs. The discussion
of the Government Reform Bill at such a moment
would be really irrelevant to the question before them,
and it could not be discussed without the greatest of
all inconveniences—the consideration of two things at
once. The Reform Bill of 1832 was, in his judgment,
framed in a spirit of party, and not of justice, and he had
always been opposed to it, and to the hardships and ano-
malies it established. He was not prepared to say that
he was opposed to all reform therefore, nor could any
one say so who was an avowed supporter of the bill before
the house. He could also say, though he objected to many
of its details, that he could see. in those objections nothing
to justify him in opposing the second reading of the bill.
(Conservative cheers.) His chief objection to it Wits that
it did not grapple with. the existing injustice in the
county representation ; for no man would venture to deny,
unless he was prepared to contend against facts and figures,
that the rural districts in counties were not fairly repre-
sentekl. It appeared to him, however, that the time had
n6t yet come for dealing with that question. But as re-
garded that and other points connected with the general
subject, the noble lord the member for London interposed a
resolution which now called upon the house to discuss the
question, not of reform, but whether he and his political
friends were to be translated from their present places to the
Treasury benches. (Conservative cheers.) For that was
really the colour which thequestion had assumed. He con-
fessed he was much struck with the speech of the right hon.
gentleman the member for Stroud, which was conceived in
a manly and straightforward spirit, and was remarkable for
that which was too commonly deficient in that house, the
character of really conveying the thoughts of the speaker.
The point on which the rigbi. hon. gentleman chiefly dwelt
and in which he (Mr. Bentinck) quite concurred, was, that
it was the duty of the hcoise and of the country to see that
no impediment was thrown in the way of dealing with the
question of reform ; for no one could say in what temper
they might be called on hereafter to deal with the question.
But the right hon. gentleman pointed out, also, what would
be the position of hon. gentlemen opposite if the noble lord
succeeded by his resolution in ejecting the Government
from office. It was not often that he (Mr. Bentinck) agreed
with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, but he was
bound to say that he concurred in all that fell from the
hon. and learned gentleman on a recent occasion, when he
deprecated that the question of reform should be made a
battle-field of faction at a moment when the action of this
country in the political affairs of Europe was most desir-
able, and when an unhappy turn in the course of the ques-
tion in Parliament would deprive the country of the influ-
ence abroad which it might otherwise possess. If anything
could confirm the justness of that remark, it was the very
ominous fact which he saw stated in the papers of that
day, that some Austrian cavalry had crossed the river
which separated Austria from Piedmont, thereby commit-
ting an act of aggression on the Sardinian territory. The
hon. member for Stamford, in an able speech, truly said
that the question was not whether they would consent to
extend the franchise to the working classes, but -whether
they were prepared to transfer the whole representative
ppwer of the country to one particular class from all the
others? That was the real question at issue, and no bril-
liancy of oratory or ingenuity of sophistry could alter its
complexion. They had been told that the noble lord and the
hon. member for Birmingham would be found rowing in
the same boat, and the meaning of that had been explained
to them by the hon. member for Walsall to mean, that the
noble lord and the hon. gentleman would be found voting
in the same lobby. He thought, however, that the noble
lord would find himself not a little puzzled if his resolution
passed. The noble lord's boat was constructed on principles
different from those of the boat in which ho generally rowed,
and he apprehended that the race would be finished by the
noble lord catching a crab, and finding himself in the 'bot-
tom of the boat. (Great laughter.) Judging from the
character of the noble lord's crew, too, ho felt sure that
when once down they would not let him get up again.
(Renewed laughter.) But to pass on to realities, they ought
to know from the noble lord something more than he had
as yet communicated. They ought to be told who was to be
the coxswain of the boat—the noble lord himself, or the hon.
member for Birmingham; who was to steer her, and in
what direction; and if down stream, at what rate she was
to be propelled, (Cheers from the Coaservatives.) That
point had been very skilfully touched upon by the hon. and
learned gentleman the Solicitor-General; and the house
had a right to know who, in that new coalition, were to be
the leading men ; fcr they had it on the veracity of the hon.
member for Walsall, that the hon. member for Birmingham
and the noble lord were politically associated, and that was
not denied either by the noble lord or by the hon. member.
Lord J. RUSSELL—No.
Mr. BENTINCK was glad to hear the assertion contra-
dicted, but he felt assured that the coalition had been
formed, and had existed almost up to that moment, and ho
hoped that when the hon. member for 'Birmingham ad-
dressed the house with his commanding eloquence he would
tell them the same thing. Until the noble lord had fully
disclosed to the house what his intentions were on the sub-
ject of Reform, he had no right to throw an obstruction in
the way of a Reform Bill emanating from the Government,
though otherwise his right would be undisputed.
Mr. W. H. DENISON, who rose with about 12 other
members, receiving the call of the house, said he thought
that this was a question which, if undertaken at all, ought
to be settled. But was the measure before the house cal-
culated to accomelish that object ? Was it likely the
effect of the bill would be to put down agitation ? lie
thought it would not. (Hear, hear.) The authors of the
bill had not spoken so much in favour of the bill as they
had apologised for it. (Hear.) If the bill was favourably
received by the country, where were the petitions in its
favour ? Where were the public meetings in its favour ?
How otherwise were they to know whether the country
was favourable to the bill ? The truth was, the coun-
try was not in favour of the bill. It was said it
might be amended; but to do that, it was necessary
to strike out the inside of the bill, and leave little else than
the preamble. :That would be a discreditable mode of legis-
lation, and he should therefore support the resolution, and
oppose the second reading of the bill.
Mr. L. KING said that after the great concessions which
had been made by the Government to the principle for
which he had contended for some years—that of extending
the county franchise to £lO occupiers, he must admit they
might almost have expected him to vote in favour of the
bill. They had, however, so spoilt and mutilated the mea-
sure he had proposed—
(hear, hear)—having deprived it of
its very life and spirit, that he found it impossible to do so.
Hie bill was of a very simple nature, and merely proposed
to extend the franchise to a very deserving and intelligent
class of persons in counties, who did not now possess it.
His measure did not propose to disfranchise a single per-
son, nor did it profess to be in any respect a Reform Bill.
The Government measure was called a Reform Bill, and
one of its most objectionable features was that it proposed to
disfranchise, without their consent, a class of persons who
now possessed the franchise in counties. If they took the
amended clauses of the bill, it proposed that these persons
should not be disfranchised if they were at the trouble of
re-registering their votes, but it provided that their succes-
sors, heirs, and assigns, and all future purchasers of free-
holds in boroughs should be disqualified from voting
for counties. In the course of the debate some refe-
rence had been made to tho measure which lie had for seve-
ral years past submitted to the house, and the right hon.
member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), in his eloquent
speech the other night, had given what he was pleased to
call a history of that bill ; but as the right hon. gentleman's
account was not quite correct, he (Mr. L. King) might he
allowed testate what the facts really were. He first intro-
duced the County Franchise Bill in 1850, not in 1851, in
consequence of a speech made by the noble member for
the city of London, on a motion which was brought
forward annually by the late Mr. Hume, for the exten-
sion of the franchise. In opposing Mr. Hume's mo-
tion the noble lord said he would not oppose all measures of
reform ; but that the Government would be ready to consi-
der any reasonable proposition which was submitted to the
house. It was then late in the session ; but he (Mr. L. King)
took the first opportunity of proposing the measure, which,
if it had any fault, was too moderate. That motion was made

on the 9th July, 1850, and was rejected, principally on the
ground of the late period of the session, by 159 to 100. On
the 20th of February, 1851, he again brought forward his
motion, when the ayes were 100 and the noes 50. That had
been described—but he thought improperly—as a " snatch"
division, for he believed that a great number of hon. mem-
bers purposely stayed away from the house in order that the
motion might be carried. In the following year thiLoGrtinolvternby-
meat of Lord Derby was in power; and, on the 27th April,
manyhe brought
hot foar d
gentlemen
hiwshomadion,
previously which
wa
s votedsup it.
1 On that occasion the ayes were 149 and the noes 202. He re.
peated his motion in 1853, but withdrew it in consequence of
a promise made by the noble member for the city. The noble
lord fulfilled that promise in 1851, 'his bill embracing the
principle for which he (Mr. L. King) had contended. He did
of renew his motion in 1855 and 1856, on account of the
ar, but he again brought it forward on the 19th of February,
1857, when the ayes were 170 and the noes 192. Last year
he obtained leave to bring in the bill without a division,
but on the 10th of June a division took place on the second
reading, when the ayes were 226 and the noes 168. His
right hon. friend the memberfor South Wilts said he alluded

to circumstances because he wished to ascertain why
it was that the Government had assented to the adoption
of a £lO franchise. He (Mr. L. King) thought that in
deference to the will of the house considering that the
" ayes" in favour of his motion hadnever been below 100,
and that they had gradually increased to 149, 179, and 226, it
was quite impossible for the Government to do otherwise
th-- . . . _

uo otherwise
incorporate his proposition in their Reform Bill. The
principle he had advocated had made rapid progress in public favour, although he had never resorted to out of
door agitation to obtain its adoption, and had not even al-
luded to it on the hustings at his own election. The right
hon. gentleman had complained that the title of his bill had
been changed. He would tell the right hon. gentleman why
that change had taken place. The right hon. member fur
Carlisle proposed that part of the occupation should consist
of a dwelling-house, and a changein the title was therefore
necessary, but the principle of the bill—that of a £lO fran-
chise—remained the same. The sum was put in italics be-
cause that wes the usual course, unless it was included in
the title of the bill. It had been said that he had not pressed.
this bill last year, because, being a keen observer, he knew
the general feeling was against the measure. No such thing.
It could not be said, after such a division as had taken place,
that the feeling of the house was against his bill, but notice
was given of so many amendments on going into commit-
tee that he felt it would have been impossible to press the
measure last year. To one of the amendments which stood
in tne name of Mr. Bentinek he should not have objected.
It was—" That it be an instruction to the ccenreittee
to make provisions for the disfranchisement of small
boroughs." (Hear.) He was extremely sorry th•at he could
not give his support to the bill. He felt gratijul to hon.
gentlemen opposite for undertaking the thas.d.less task of
forming a Government when they were in It minority, and
on that side there was a powerful meiuri ty, happily for
'them, disunited, but ready to eject them fr om power when-
ever they could agree upon any question. (Ministerial
cheers.) His noble friend had said the. it was the duty of
the Government to propose a Reform He disagreed
from him. He did not think it the o.uty of a provisional
Government to propose any bill of the kind, still less of a
Tory Government, for the Liberal members felt that they
were touching the question with. Ivory unhallowed hands.
They felt a natural jealousy of n Tory Government med-
dling with it in any way. They felt that it was their pro-
vince, and regarded with suspicion anything which
proceeded from their opponents. •He must say that
these suspicions were not ill-founded, and that this bill,
which purported to be a Refovm Bill, was admirably framed
for keeping the present Government in office almost in per-
petuity. (Hear.) He could hardly expect much to be done
by gentlemen placed in their circumstances ; but he did
expect twat any Government which thought it right to
propose. a Reform Bill would have deemed it necessary at
all events to adopt some of the principles which were in the
Bill of 1832. He did expect that such indefensible absurdi-
ties as Caine and Arundel would be consigned to the same
toseb as Gatton and Sarum, and that boroughs, the names
of which would hardly be known if they did not send mem-
bers to Parliament, would not be preserved. In all the
elements of further reform the bill was wholly wanting. If
it passed it would settle nothing. There would be the same
grounds for agitation, and there would be annual motions
for further measures of reform. In 1832 the noble lord the
member for the. City of London said, that Schedule A and
the £lO borough franchise were the pillars of the Reform
Bill. He believed that an extension of the franchise in
boroughs and counties must be the pillars of a Reform Bill
now. (Hear, hear.) They could not expect from the &scene
dents of the, men who refused to give a member to Man-
chester and Sheffield that they would sweep away those
small boroughs which they, too, had found useful to them-
selves ' • but when they gave the £lO county franchise they
should not,
Startled at the sound themselves had made,",
have, at one fell swoop, detached from the county constitu-
encies the most liberal and independent portion of them.
(Hear, hear.) He was afraid there was some lurking feel-
ing of revenge in all this, as it was through the exertions of
those very freeholders the question of free-trade had won
its way into that house. He himself felt deeply grateful to
them, for it was they who secured his return for the county
he had the honour to represent. He thought, too, he saw
in the proposal the revival of a spirit of landlordism. This
shuffling of the cards, however, was not the proper way of
dealing with the question. The proper way was to find out
those boroughs in which a political capacity existed,
and disfranchise all the others ; for now, as in 1832, the
Reform Bill must rest on the pillars of schedule A, and a
lowered qualification to the privilege of the franchise.
There were four things to be considered—the disfranchise-
ment of some boroughs, the enfranchisement of others, the
extension of the sutfrago in boroughs, and the extension of
the franchise in counties ; and it was because the bill before
the house was defective in all four that he supported the
resolution. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUTTON said, he should vote against the amend-
ment of the nobe lord, not because he objected to the
principles of the resolution, for in those principles he en-
tirely agreed, but because he believed the proper time to
consider them was when the bill was in committee. (Hear.)
Mr. W. J. FOX said, thatthe hon. member who had just
sat down agreed with the amendment, and yet announced
his determination to vote against it. He dissented from the
principle of the bill, which was uniformity of suffrage, yet
he declared he should vote for the second reading. How
the hon. member reconciled these-views' and intentions it
was the hon. member's business to 'solve. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member said he would put his amendments into
the bill afte'r the second reading. But these amendments
went to the very heart and principle of the bill. The
Opposition offered the Government the opportunity of re-
moulding the bill, but they declared that if it were not done
they would reject it. He had listened very anxiously
throughout this debate to learn what were the great accuse-
..

tions against the working classes and these accusations
certainly ought to have been brought into greater promi-
nence. (Hear, hear.) They had heard strong laudations
of the middle classes. They were told that they really
governed the country, and they were praised for having
obtained the repeal of the corn laws, and the other great
and excellent measures passed since the Reform Act. He
had nothing to say against these praises, since he had been
in sympathy with the middle classes in supporting these
measures, but they came very oddly from the very party
by which all these measures had been opposed. (Cheers)
For a quarter of a century the middle classes had struggled
for certain principles, and now, hen. gentlemen oppo-
site, • who had fought tooth and nail against them,
were smitten with the deepest admiration of the
middle classes. (Hear.) He wished to remind theso
hon. gentlemen that the middle classes had at this moment
many objects still at heart. They were opposed to church
rates, yet hon. gentlemen opposite resisted the abolition of
church rates. The riddle classes were friendly to the bal-

lot. (" No, no," and " Hear, hear.") The middle classes
were solicitous that the working classes should be admitted
to the franchise, while hon. gentlemen opposite objected to
their admission. What then became of these magnificent
laudations of the middle classes as the ruling power of the
country ? (Hear.) The great objection to the admission
of the working classes was, that they were so numerous
that they would swamp the classes above them, and hon.
members opposite declared 'that the worst thing that could
happen to this country was, that it should be governed by
one great class. (Hear.) Well, but who wore the middle
classes? They were more numerous than the classes above
them. If the argument was worth anything, that the legis-
lation of the country ought not to be in the hands of a single
class, it applied as strongly to the present Government by the
middle class as to the Government by the working class, which
was more numerous still, and resembled the middle class in
being alike diversified in opinions and views. (Hear, hear.)
It appeared to him that the disapprobation of the bill
deepened as the debate proceeded. The people required a
Reform Bill for the emancipation of the working classes. It
was the great object to be accomplished. The working class
and the middle class carried the Reform Bill of 1832 by
their union and energy, with the distinct understanding
that as the working classes then with great magnanimity
forewent their own admission, and yet assisted in the agi-
tation, they were in their turn to be helped by the middle class.
For this they had waited year after year, and now a bribe wa
held out to the middle classes, who were praised, exalted,
petted, and rewarded, in order to reconcile them to a mea-
sure that excluded the working classes, and thus sought to
make the middle classes false and treacherous to their own
implied contract. (Hear.) He, for one, did not wish to
enfranchise the working classes by driblets. Parliament did
not so act in the emancipation of the negroes. It was pro-
claimed that they were all freed at once, and the effect
upon Europe and the world was much more propitious to
the cause of truth, justice, liberty, and freedom than any
gradual emancipation. The effect of the emancipation of
the working classes would be analogous, for they were, in
fact, a slave class. They had nothing to do with the laws
but to obey them. They paid taxes, but.they had no share
in the power that voted them. He knew how they felt at
this exclusion, for it was not till he was 40year5 old that he
himself had a vote, and he blew the sense of wrong and
even of bitterness engendered by the exclusion. Hon. gen-
tlemen talked of the qualifications that a voter ought to
Possess. According to them he must be acquainted with
home politics, with foreign politics, with political history,
with this, that, and the other, with so much in short that if
as many qualifications were required of a member of that
house it would be a marvel if a great portion of them got
through their examination. (A laugh, and hear, hear.)
Candidates upon the hustings were of two classes. The first
were men who had made politics a life-long study, who by
their speeches, writings, and deeds belonged to the country,
and who mighti properly be entrusted with its destiny. The
second class were men of high local standing, such as mer-
chants, manufacturers, and great land Owners, who were
looked up to in their localities, and who were returned as
representatives of the several interests with which they
were connected. Now, the working classes were judges of
both these classes, although they did not belong either to
one or the other. Now that newspapers were so common
and public men lived in houses of glass, men of national
reputation were as well*known to the inhabitants of any
particular district as people who had passed all their days
among them. Both in this case and in the case of local
men, the working classes might be fairly intrusted with
the work, not' of legislating. butoftry. selecting personswas
gssaid
who were fitted to govern the country.
that they were not great political economists ; but who
was ? Accurate knowledge on this point was not so
common that the working,e classes need
asneed reflectedhvinbaegvery much
upon
for wanting it. They Isere
impeded the operations of the Anti-Corn Law League ; but
as far back as 1815 working men had protested against the
corn laws, and in this way had shown that they were better
political economists than. even the great merchants of Man-
chester. Again, in 1832, it was they who generally antici-
pated that the reformed Parliament would abolish the corn
laws. True, they held aloof from the League, but they had
reasons for doing so, one of which was that they thought
Free Trade ought to be preceded by Parliamentary Reform.
But they only kept aloof for a time, and, if the working
classes made a mistake for a few years, he asked did not the
landowners and others make a still greater mistake, and
cling to protection still more closely? (Hear, hear.) Then
it was said that if the working classes had possessed power
in this house at the time the Ten Hours Bill passed, the
limitation of adult labour would have been included in the

provisions of the meeJOlre. He did not believe it. When
agitation on this subject was warmest he could not recol-
lect a single just "le-e in which the factory operatives peti-
tioned for the lin iitation of their own hours of labour. They
never went beyo ,ad the protection of women and children,
who certainly st ,rood in need of protection. (Hear, hear.)
Another argera ant brought forward was that the working
classes in a tar :ticular locality did not like boot-making ma-
chines, and „ ad struck in consequence. Well, certainly it
was a mistaz .e on their part to resist the introduction of new
machinery; but when one remembered how fiercely the
proctors hr ad.opposed an improvement in the law which af-
fected thr Jir interests, and how loudly they called for corn-
pens'atiem. in consequence, hon. gentlemen would perhaps
hwie more consideration for the operatives who fell into a
reiistake of this sort. (Hear, hear.) But, in point of fact,
machine-breaking, rick-burning, and all such violence had
passed away like a cloud, and mechanics' institutions had
spread abroad a much better spirit. (Hear.) The next argu-
ment advanced was, that though the working classes might
he wise, and honest, and loyal, still, whatever their qualifi-
cations were, it was to be feared that all power would pass
into their hands. Now, he took that to be one of the
greatest chimeras possible. Working men were divided
among themselves, like every other class, and they would
no more act in opposition to these above them in the social
scale than the middle classes had done. They would follow
various sets of leaders ; they would have in view various
objects ; and surely the history of the last twenty-five years
showed that a class might be intrusted with the influence
which the franchise conferred without making war upon
other classes, or seeking to destroy existing institutions.
(Hear, hear.) In listening to the able and eloquent speech
in which the bill had been introduced, and the very elo
quent speech delivered by the Colonial Secretary in its sup-
port, he could not help calling to mind that nearly thirty
years ago he had the honour of being introduced to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. baronet.
They met him with a unity of feeling, being among those
who went furthest in a conviction of the necessity of altering
the old exclusive Tory system which prevailed before 1832.
A great change had since come over both right hon. gentle-
men. He did not twit them on that score ' • he made no
accusation ; he freely conceded that they might both have
had clear and strong reasons for their change of opinion.
He did not say of them what Goldsmith said of Burke—
" Who, born for the universe narrowed his mind,
And to party gave up what was meant for mankind."
But he would say to these right hon. gentlemen, " Stand as
fairly acquitted as you may of the change in yourselves, but
make allowance for the unchanged working classes." (Hear.)
During all this time what had we seen in them to give rise
to feelings of condemnation rather than of sympathy, of
exclusion rather than of comprehension ? What crime could
we lay to their charge ? What was their behaviour when
all Europe was convulsed ? (Hear.) What had they been
in times of war and in times of pmee, in times of prosperity
and in times of privation ? Had they not borne all like
true and honest men, who well deserved the praises that
had been heaped upon the middle classes ? They had borne
with patience and with hope deferred the refusal of their
political rights. They had been put off with promise after
promise by Government after Government. They. had still
that
had the unextinguishable conviction in their mind
they deserved the franchise—the unextinguishable hope_
that they might one day obtain it. (Hear,
2i hear.)
trusted they would not only be included soon within _ p
of the constitution, but that they would be received with a
joyous and hearty welcome. (Cheers.)
Mr. B. HOPE said the hon. member who had just sat
down deserved great credit for having removed the debate
from the arena of party conflict, and for discussing the
question whether this measure was really a judicious bill
for amending the representation of the people. He could
speak with a clean breast and a clear conscience upon the
amendment now before the house, because, when the pre-
cedent upon which it was founded was established, he voted
for the abstract resolution which led to the fall of Lord Pal-
merston's Government, not because he approved of it, but
as negativing the second reading of the Conspiracy Bill.
He was one of the 99 who voted against the introduction of
that measure. The practice of introducing an abstract re-
solution, though useful at times, was quite out of place now,
as playing pitch and toss with the dignity of legislation.
He remembered, when he was at the university, attending
a debating club called the " Union," where the propositions
discussed were of an abstract nature. The questions de-
bated were amusing and exciting, and bets ran sometimes
high as to the results of the discussions. Now it was rather
hard that in the great council of the nation they should be
carried back to the system of their youth in settling a large
and important question by an abstract resolution. In his
opinion the bill before the house would enable both counties
and boroughs to be well represented ; it proposed a franchise
by which such a result could be obtained, and that being so,
the measure ought to be acceptable to the Parliament and
the country. It was clear, therefore, that this outcry
about the disfranchisement of freeholders in boroughs was a
sham and a delusion, and a mere got-up grievance he (Mr.
Hope) had never heard. It was merely a grievance upon
E:fem.re. gotsewasverynevier event,or of
harmless,
ee
and
desmtioenset broughtueng
meetings which had been held of late. He had found him-
self in the middle of one of those meetings the other day in
Hyde-park, which was one of the most absurd caricatures
of popular excitement he ever saw. A man was speaking,
some few were listening, others were laughing. He (Mr.
Hope) stood by a workman who had his ears a little more
open than the rest, and asked who it was that was speak-
ing. " I don't know," said the man, "it is only some
democrat." (Laughter.) Presently the democrat sat
down, whereupon some seven men cheered, and the cheers
were then taken up by a number of small boys, one of whom
candidly affirmed he did not know what were the senti-
ments he so ignorantly applauded. No doubt many meet-
ings which had been cried up by some a the morning
papers were not more formidable than this. Under all the
circumstances, he should give his vote for the second read-
ing of the bill, believing that it did not attempt to deal
theoretically but practically with the subject. It had been
said that the bill was a compromise, but, if it was, it was a
fair and honest compromise. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he could assure the hon. mem-
ber for Maidstone, who had just resumed his seat, that if he
did not attempt to follow his ingenious speculations in this
debate, it was from no disrespect to the hon. member; but
owing to the private and confidential nature of his (Mr.
Hope's) communications with the Treasury bench. It
was very difficult for any gentleman sitting on the Opposi-
tion side of the house to catch the gist of the hon. member's
argument; but he (Mr. Osborne) had heard sufficient to
assure him that when he canvassed the borough of Dun-
garvon about six years ago for the hon. gentleman, ho Was
very much mistaken in his estimation of his hon. friend,
who was not the reformer he then represented himself to
be. (Hear, hear.) This question of reform was in a very
anomalous position. They were told by gentlemen on the
Treasury bench that there was no one in the country who
cared about reform, and yet by a strange coincidence every-
body was anxious to carry a Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.)
He was not about to scan the motives of hon. members.
He thought her Majesty's Government had fully redeemed
the pledge which they gave last year in bringing in a Re-
form Bill, but he thought it might have been as well, if,
in touching this great and difficult subject, they had touched
it in a larger and moreliberal spirit, and given some earnest
of a fair and permanent settlement of the question—(hear)
—because, unless the house settled the question upon some
Permanent basis, it would have been better not to have
brought in a bill at all. (Hear, hear.) However, the Go-
vernment had done their duty, and it now remained for the
house to decide how far the bill was an improvement on
that of 1832, and how far it offered a permanent settlement
of the question. He might ask, why was any Reform Bill
called for at all ? The Act of 1832 had a candid acknow-
ledgment paid to its merits by the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who called it the greatest act
passed for 500 years. (Hear.) He believed the right hon.
gentleman to have been perfectly sincere, and he was ready
to acknowledge the fairness and ability which characterised
that great and statesmanlike speech. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman called it " that great act." Well, why
were they about to interfere with that act ? It no doubt
possessed great merits, for it gave a large share of power
to the middle classes, who had not hitherto been admitted
to act in the constitution. But it had great defects, be-
cause it totally excluded the working classes from any share
in the constitution of the country; and he took it, if they
were called to bring in a Reform Bill at all, it should be to
redress those 'grievances which had escaped notice in the
Act of 1832. (Hear.) Did this bill propose to do that ? If
there were doubt on the subject that must have been dis-
pelled by the speech of the right hon. the Secretary for the
Colonies. The right hon. gentleman told them that he had
great respect for the working man, whether in the town or in
the country, whether in a fustian jacket or a smock frock ;
that he thought him rather a good fellow than not ;
but at the same time he declined to admit the working
man to any share of power. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman, in beautiful and eloquent language, had in-
scribed "No surrender" on the colours which he had re-
cently hoisted in the Conservative camp. The right hon.
gentleman had twitted his right hon. friend upon the sub-
ject of the ballot, and the views he had advocated during
the debates on the appropriation clause. He (Mr. Osborne)
thought he would turn to the history of that day, and he
found that the right hon. baronet had spoken and voted in
favour of the appropriation clause and for the ballot. When
the right hon. gentleman talked of the consistency of his
opinions, he (Mr. Osborne) regretted thatwhilst he imitated
Burke in the splendour of his sentiments and eloquence of
his periods, he excelled Burke in having deserted the princi-
ples which animated him in the early part of his career.
(Cheers.) The literary Whig had become the Conservative
philosopher—(laughter)--and he was employed now in dis-
franchising the working classes whom he had been so elo-
quent in defending. But the right hon. gentleman had at-
tempted to mislead the house and raise a false issue on the
subject under discussion. He brought forward the old story
of the dissolution of the French Ministry and the fate of the
French. Monarchy. He (Mr. Osborne) asked the right hon.
gentleman, who had read history to so much purpose, what
was the cause of the fate of the French monarchy ? Was
it not by carrying into action the very principles which the
right hon. gentleman had so eloquently expressed, of " No
surrender" to the people? (Cheers.) At least such was his
(Mr. Osborne's) reading ; and, if the right hon. gentleman
should ever write a history of France, he (Mr. Osborne)
hoped he would lay down different principles from those he
had now enunciated. (Laughter.) But the right hon. gen-
tleman went further. Carrying out his parallel of Francehe
forgot, in the subsequent calamities of the French people,
that denial of suffrage was the very thing that brought
France into revolution. What was the consequence? There
was a broad line of demarcation drawn betiteen the rich and
the Poor, and 100,000 voters was the whole number thought
fit to 1:e entrusted with the franchise. (Hear, hear.)
Of course that ‘• ugly rush" occurred which had been so
often alluded to, and the French monarchy and the French
constiution fell, he needed not tell the house how. What
did the French Government do ? They attempted to raise
a war of classes. They called on the middle classes to stand
by them, and what was the conduct of those classes ? They
did not stand by their own order in that day. The Minister
who relied on them had a faith in them which he (Mr.
Osborne) hoped never to see relied upon in this country.
18.0 much for the principle of identity of suffrage, which he
held to be most dangerous and revolutionary. But he
wished to know, when the right hon. gentleman the present
Conservative philosopher talked of the "deplorable rub-
bish" which had been spoken on the question, whether he
forgot what was spoken by Lord Derby in 18,54 upremarkon the
subject? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) might
that this was a subject which had been carefully avoided
by the Government. (Hear, hear.) That noble lord dis-
tinctly laid down that the true and only principle upon
which a Reform Bill ought to be brought in was the keep..
ing up of a distinction between the suffrage in the counties
and in the boroughs. Lord Derby, for what reason he (Mr.
Osborne) could not tell, had altered his opinions on that
point, Jab (Ur, Chibfatvis) mai4objectia tQ this bill IN

founded on the same reason which had induced two right '
hon. gentlemen to think it consistent with their duty to
leave the Government. (Loud cheers.) If he might give
some advice to the Treasury bench, he would sa , " Get
rid of this mischievous principle, and get back those two
good excellent men—(cheers)—who gave strength and sta -
bility to your Government." (Repeated cheers.) Let those
right hon. gentlemen bring in a Reform Bill, and he would
take upon himself to say they would obtain a greater sup-
port than was accorded to the Government on the present
occasion. (Cheers.) So much for the principle of the bill.
Now let the house consider how this bill proposed to benefit
the working man. It so happened that in the bill the
working classes wese never recognised, except when they
were to be disfranchised—(cheers)—under the head
of dockyard labourers. (Laughter.) And the right hon.
gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who had such a
respect for the "cultivated intelligence" of those mechanics
—who was so anxious to elevate them in the social scale—
proposed to disfranchise the " cultivated intelligence" of
the mechanics in the dockyards. That might have been well
in 1852, when the dockyard committee sat, and the agitation
which prevailed among them was so great ; but a very dif-
ferent state of things existed at the present time. In 1856
all patronage was taken out of the hands of the Admiralty
and given to the superintendents of the yards, and that was
done mainly that the labourer should have a fair chalice of
voting without being liable to pressure from the Admiralty.
But what did the Government now do ? Had they revoked
that order g Was the patronage now in the hands of the
Admiralty ? (Cheers.) If not, how could they reconcile this
—that they were about to disfranchise these voters, so dis-
tinguished for their "cultivated intelligence ?" (Cheers
and laughter.) He (Mr. Osborne) must say that he per-
fectly agreed with the hon. member for Birmingham, and
he supposed it was a sign of revoluion to agree with him—
(laughter)—that these fancy franchises were not the thing
for the people of England. (Cheers.) They were the mere
political millinery of Downing-street. (Laughter.) What
they really wanted was a broad and simple test—variety of
suffrage, if they liked—but still the test must be broad and
simple. He candidly confessed that he was in favour of a
property test, though it might be an imperfect one. (Hear,
hear.) Therefore let them have none of these fancy fran-
chises. Take, for instance, the lodging-house franchise,
which was supposed to be sucha great boon to those gentle-
men in smock-frocks and fustian Jackets for whom the right
hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had such a
profound respect. He found on inquiry that the wages of an
intelligent mechanic formed about one-tenth of his earnings.
(Great laughter arose from the hon. member using
the word "wages" by mistake for "lodgings.") Well
they proposed to give the franchise to a man who paid
Bs. a week for his lodging. Taking his (Mr.
Osborne's) calculations that would not admit any
mechanic to the franchise. That would only admit a class
of men who had £lOO a year and upwards. Why, this bill
would keep the lodging classes out of the franchise. It was
a complete delusion, for such a franchise would depend upon
a scolding landlord, or a smoky chimney. (Laughter.) The
savings bank franchise was perhaps better, but it was ex-
tremely questionable whether it would apply to working
men, although it might include some small capitalists. He
would not go into the cases of Government pensioners, or
certified schoolmasters (for none other were to be enfran-
chised), nor would he mention the doctors or the lawyers,
who had got the franchise already; but he would ask
whether under any one of those fancy franchises the work-
ing man would get a vote ? (Hear, hear.) He challenged
any occupant of the Treasury bench to show in what way
the workmg classes were to be enfranchised under this bill?
But the noble lord the President of the India board quoted
Mr. Holyoake as an authority to show that working men
did not want the franchise. The house might not probably
know who Mr. Holyoake was. Hon. gentlemen no doubt
took him for the eldest son of the respected Northampton-
shire baronet of the same name. (Laughter.) But did they
know who he was ? Well, be was a very clever political lec-
turer of very freethinking opinions. (Laughter.) The hon.
member for North Warwickshire shook his head gravely,
end he (Mr. Osborne) did not wonder at it, for the noble lord
the President of the India board had been quoting the senti-.

ments, not'of the working men of England,-but of an infidel
lecturer. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. Holyoake was no
authority on this point, and was not regarded as such by the
working men of England. Then, again, the bill sought to
disfranchise the 40s. freeholders. Was this, he asked, on
the ground that any accusations had been brought against
their honour or independence ? None had been brought,
but an attempt had been made to assimilate them with the
40s. freeholders in counties, and they were obnoxious because
they were independent. (Hear, hear.) The bill was in
fact to be to them a political Procrustes, which was to
clip their wings and dismember them in the boroughs,
and stretch them in the counties, in order to carry out a
mistaken principle of uniformity of franchise, which was to
reduce everything to a dead level. (Hear, hear.) If the
bill contained no other objectionable clause but the disfran-
chisement, or rather, to use the language of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the " transference' of these voters, he
hoped the House of Commons had sufficient reverence for
mere custom and tradition than to disfranchise this noble
and creditable body. (Cheers.) Then, again, see how the
bill deals with small boroughs. The right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a Parliamentary
borough should have a constituency " large enough to be in-
dependent, and select enough to be responsible." Be it so.
He agreed with him in that definition, but his objection to
small boroughs was not because they were small, but be-
cause they were under the influence of a patron. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. gentleman had instanced the case of
Arundel, and said, " Look at Arundel ; it is a small borough,

but it represents the feelings and wishes of 900,000 of the
Roman Catholics of England." He confessed he was sur-
prised to hear that sentiment, for what were the facts with
regard to the borough of Arundel? Why, previously to

1832 it returned two members to Parliament. The consti-
tuency since that period had dwindled down from 400 to
198, and how had Lord Arundel and Surrey, when sitting
for it, represented the interests of his 900,000 Roman
Catholic fellow-subjects in England ? In the year 18,51
the unfortunate measure called the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill
was introduced. (Hear, hear.) He remembered it well,
and he always regretted that such a bill had been intro-
duced. (Hear, hear.) Ho voted against it, and so did the
Earl of Arundel and Surrey. (Hear, hear.) But what
was the penalty the noble earl paid for his vote ? What
became of the 900,000 Roman Catholics? Why, he got a
hint from the proprietor of the borough—he had to leave
his seat and take refuge in the town of Limerick. (A voice,
" The city of Limerick.") Oh, he begged pardon of his
hon. friend the member for the city of Limerick—the orbs

intacta—he blew it well. (Cheers.) The noble earl was
obliged to take refuge in the city of Limerick, and
from that capital of an Irish county he represented the in-
terests of 960,000 Roman Catholics in England I (Cheers
and laughter.) Could that house have a better illustration
of the rottenness of this beau ideal of boroughs than that
presented in the case of Arundel ? Now what, he asked,.
were the reasons assigned for voting against the resolution
of the noble lord the member for the City of London. Seve-
ral strange reasons had been assigned by hon. gentlemen
sitting on either side of the house; but the strangest appeared
to come from his (Mr. Osborne's) side. There was first and
foremost the reasons assigned by the right hon. gentleman
the member for Stroud. (Hear.) That right hon. gentleman
was rather a dyspeptic politician. (Roars of laughter.) He
gave some reasons, and very peculiar reasons, for voting
against the resolution. They were peculiar but not original,
for who had not read the letter commencing "My dear
Elcho ?" (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman seemed
content to open his mouth, shut his eyes, and see what
would turn up. (Laughter.) " Give all you can and let me
dream the rest" was the sentiment of the right hon. gentle-
man, and then with a refinement of cruelty he exclaimed
" The Ministry is kick unto death. I once voted against Sir
Robert Peel and I am very sorry for it—(laughter)—the
Ministry is sick, but don't, I beseech you, put an end to
their sufferings, but come with me into committee and we
will torture them to death." (Great laughter.) He then
made some dark mysterious hints about the drawing up of
the resolution. He asked whose superscription it was, of
course inferring it had sprung from the right hon. gentle-
man the membr for Ashton-under-Lyne, the author of all
mischief. (Laughter.) But it would seem that the right hon.
gentleman had nothing to say to it, and had not been con-
sulted on the subject. He confessed it filled him with sur-
prise that the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud,
representing as he did a constituency containing so many
working men, could propose to treat a measure like this as
he would a turnpike bill, and vote against the resolution
of the noble lord the member for London. The hon. and

learned gentleman the Solicitor-General had made an in-
genious speech from the other side of the house, and, for-
getful of the deep obligations he was under to the hon. gen-
tleman the member for Birmingham, criticised him, and
put him in the same boat with the noble lord the member

for London ; but did the hon. and learned gentleman forget
that if he had not been in tho same boat with the hon.
member for Birmingham he would not now be pulling the
stroke oar of the Ministerial boat. (Laughter.) No doubt
the hon. and learned member for Belfast felt uncomfortable.
(" No, no," from the Ministerial benches.) He did not feel
uncomfortable—he was perfectly resigned to his fate. He
appeared so the other night—(laughter)—but he (Mr. Os-
borne) asked him how dare he ascribe motives to the noble

lord the member for London how dare he say that the noble
lord was actuated by personal motives—by motives of "poll.
ticalaggrandisement and private advantage." (Loud cheers.)
What would the hon. and learned gentleman say if it were
whispered that he had visions of the woolsack floating be-
fore his eyes ? (Hear, hear.) He came into the house as a
professional man, and he was fairly entitled to look forward
to such honours ; but he was not entitled to impute motives
of personal advantage to any hon. member. (Hear, hear.)
How, he would ask, had the hon. and learned gentleman
kept his own pledges to his constituency at Belfast ? (Hear,
hear.) He told his constituents that there two points
likely to come before Parliament—one involving a question
of expediency, and another of principle. The question of
reform, he said, was one of expediency ; but the emancipa-
tion of the Jews was one of principle, which ought never
to be abandoned. (Hear, hear.) But had he abandoned it ?
(Hear, hear.) Had he voted for the admission of the Jews
to Parliament ? The hon. and learned gentleman had
quoted an extract from a former speech of the noble lord
the member for London, to the effect that the members for
Manchester were men of "narrow minds ;" but he (Mr.
Osborne) would give the house the opinion of the head of
the present Administration by a gentleman whose name he
would disclose to the house by and bye. It was pronounced
&e:rlCh.ection with the Appropriation Clause of the Irish
This gentleman, warming with declamatory elo-
quence, and fired with impassioned ardour, said—" Will no
experience warn you ? If you resist theprinciple of a small
orm, beware how you
now procrastinate and irritate the
public dhotio point when even a large reform can do
little more
from revolution." Mark how he
dealt largely with revolutions.]
—" For his own (Laughter. And again
_part, he did not look very favourably on
the suggestion of one whose very abilities had only served
to render more conspicuous the great
his unrivalled powers as a debater andhis
unrivalled in his capacity of a legislator—Lord Stanley."
less
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) These were the opinions
held
by the Colonial Secretary in 183e.:-o,ear h.
ham) —and yet
he taunted the noble lord the member for London with
changing his opinions. The hon. and learned gentleman
had better in future look at home, and read the debates, be-
fore he ventured to make accusations in that house. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the right hon. gentleman the leader
of the house, he was willing to give himthe greatest credit.
He was a man of great talent, and had a noble ambition.
(Hear, hear.) He had had a difficult task to perform hi
pulling the omnibus full of country gentlemen up the hill,
and he had done it well. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If
there were any consistency in the party they owed it to
him. He brought forward the bill for the emancipation of
the Jews, which was so revolting to the principles of the
hon. and learned gentleman the member for Belfast. (A
laugh.) He gave the right hon. gentleman great credit
for that and for other measures. He only lamented that,
with his great intelligence, his undoubted ability, and, he
believed, his excellent motives, the right hon. gentleman
had consented to separatehimself from those two right hon.
gentlemen on the third bench [Messrs. Walpole and Hen-
ley]—(hear, hear)—and initiated a bill which in the bottom
of his heart he believed to be an act of spoliation and in-
justice—a bill which was change without progress, and in-
novation without improvement. (Hear, hear.) Se feeling
he had no hesitation m giving his hearty vote for the reso-
lution of the noble lord. (Cheers.)
Sir S. NORTIWOrE and Mr. WALPOLE rose simultane.
°wily% The foram advauce4 towards the table, but the

shouts for Mr. Walpole became so vociferous that the Se-
cretary to the Treasury resumed his seat.
Mr. WALPOLE was received with loud cheering. He
addressed the house as follows :—The more he had listened
to the debate the more ho became convinced of concurrence
of argument upon all sides of the house that they were now
placed in a position of considerable difficulty and embarrass..
went—a state of difficulty and embarrassment from which
the speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down,
powerful as it was and humorous as it was, failed to extri-
cate them on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) On the one
hand they had a Reform Bill, which unfortunately, he
thought, would not and could not be acceptable to the house
or to the country. (Hear, from the Opposition.) On the
other hand, he felt in common with many hon. members
who had spoken, and with the hon. gentleman who had just
sat down, that it was desirable, without continuing agitation,
that they should, if possible, come to a settlement of this
question, and not hang it up for a longer period of time.
He was placed in a position of considerable difficulty, and
the embarrassment he felt had been increased since the de-
bate had commenced. The hon. member for Dorsetshire
(Mr. Eer Seymer) who had made a speech which made it
matter of regret that he did not oftener address the house, I
had told them so clearly the reasons he entertained against
the bill, that he (Mr. Walpole) only wondered that he said
he would vote in favour of it. The right hon. member for
Stroud (Mr. Horsman) who had been paid off by the hon.
member for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne) with such ingenuity
and ability, said in his speech that he could not agree to the
first 18 lines of the bill, which contained more or less the
principles of the bill, but, nevertheless, he would vote for
the second reading of the bill, without having had any
assurance of improvements being introduced into it.
(Hear, hear.) He would, with the permission of the house,
submit his views of the measure, and of the resolution
of the noble lord, and then, if he could, he would draw
a conclusion as to the best mode of dealing with this bill.
He would make this observation regarding the measure. It
had always struck him that when they were discussing the
first principles of a bill, and making material alterations in
the Constitution, their first duty was to see what were the
acknowledged grievances, and what were the deficiencies to
be supplied. He wished to bring this matter to a practical
test. In remedying grievances and supplying deficiencies,
they should see that the changes they made were such as
would harmonise with their institutions. As had been said
by the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies
(Sir B. Lytton), they should endeavour to elevate by the
change, and not to depress the character of the house. That
was the way the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) proceeded in
1832 to remedy acknowledged grievances, and to apply prac-
tical remedies. (Hear.) More grievances had to be dealt
with then than now. Birmingham, for instance, had no
member. Small boroughs had fallen into decay, and could
barely be assigned more than a nominal existence, and towns
were represented where votes were confined to close corpo-
rations, which required expansion, so that the inhabitants
might have a voice in the choice of representatives. The
elections then extended over 14 days, spreading turmoil,
extravagance, corruption, and violence, and they wanted to
prevent bribery at elections, and also to prevent delay All
these things were remedied, not by deviating from any
principle, but by supplying to them a practical remedy.
They were now, however, in a different position. There was,
no doubt, in the present measure much that was good and
capable of being turned to excellent account. They had in
one or two parts much that was good, and other parts that
required alteration. The inconveniences now existing might
be classed under three heads—first, the right of voting was
not extended to those persons who, by intelligence and in-
dependence, should have it. That was the main grievance at
present, and was one which should be altered. The second
was of a smaller kind; that there were still some places not
represented, or not adequately represented, in commercial,
agricultural, or manufacturing places, and which ought to
have representatives ; and then there was the inconveni-
ence of not giving to all electors facilities for voting. He
wished to take the questions fairly—first, the necessity of
giving facilities to the electors to vote. He did not expect
to meet the wishes of those who sat below the gangway on
the Opposition side, and who would answer this point by
one short word—the ballot. (Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr.
Walpole) was not alarmed at the ballot because it would in-
jure his party. He was not alarmed at it because he thought
you should put a screen on those who wanted to intimidate
and corrupt electors ; but he objected for reasons which had
not been answered, namely, that if they had secret voting,
and that corruption and fraud and personation took place,
they would not then have the means of detecting them.
(Hear, hear.) He objected to it, in the second place, on this
ground, that he was of opinion that in till their institutions,
if they wished to have purity, they must bring every one
to the open bar of public opinion, and make him answer-
able for his acts. He gave credit to the Government for the
manner in which it had dealt with this part of the question.
There were many on the opposite aide who objected to vot-
ing papers. But he (Mr. Walpole) would support the Go-
vernment on that point, because he thought it a good one.
What was the principle adopted to guard them from being
employed for a fraudulent purpose ? The principle was
this, that instead of carrying electors to the poll, they
brought the poll to the electors. The system would lessen
the expense of elections by not carrying electors to the poll,
and would prevent intimidation and violence, which at pre •
sent prevented the better classes of electors going to vote,
and would enable manufacturers and others to give their
votes without trouble. The consequence of that would be,
that you would increase the number of electors, and enabie
them calmly to give their vote without being subjected to
popular clamour. It might be said that system would
lead to personation and fraud, and would also lead to
bribery. These were defects in the voting papers which
could be easily remedied. The voting papers were to be
sent to the electors to be filled in before two witnesses, one
of them to be a householder, and then to be sent to the
public officer. But why only one householder ? Both the
witnesses he considered should be householders, and resi-
dent in the place, and the declaration made before a public
officer. That mode would prevent personation and fraud,
and they would have evidence to refer to if fraud should be
practised. There was a remarkable passage in the great
Roman historian, when public voting was turned into secret
voting. He said : " When the voting took place in the
public view, aloud, and the conduct of the person was ex-
posed to the eyes and the ears of his friends and country,
the aspect of the grave magistrate was a long lesson to the
multitude ; but the system of secret voting abolished the
infliction of fear and shame, when interest and the absence
of freedom had accelerated the progress of anarchy and
despotism." That was a passage in " Gibbon's Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire." Now, if they had the
declaration in the voting papers made before a public officer,
they had a security against personation and fraud. But
then, as to bribery. They all knew that generally bribery
took place in the last two or three hours of an election, but
these voting papers would meet that difficulty. Then, as
to the second point, giving members to those places not re-
presented. Government proposed to withdraw members
from 15 boroughs—one each to be gis en to certain borough
towns, and to certain divisions of counties. (Hear.) But
how were they to do this ? The hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Dover evidently means the small boroughs.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—No no ; I said nomination boroughs.
Mr. WALPOLE—WeII, then, perhaps the hon. gentle-
man would give him leave to ask how be would define them ?
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Midhurst. (Loud laughter and
cheers from the Opposition, in which Mr. Walpole heartily
j oined .)
Mr. WALPOLE—He was obliged to the hon. gen-
tleman for having referred to a borough in illus-
tration of his views, because it was a borough
which was, fortunate enough, better able to an-
swer his illustration than any other that he might have
referred to. (Hear, hear.) This was not a small borough
returning two members to Parliament from qualifications
arising from two old buildings. (Hear, hear.) It was a
Whig borough, with Whig proprietors all around it, and it
was not disfranchised at the time of the Reform Bill. (Loud
cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The borough was
extended in its area, and was now almost as large as a small
county. (Hear.) There lived in that borough the ally
of the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr Cobden), and he
would tell the hon. member it was not a nomination borough.
The present peer, whom they thought had the borough in
his hands, had not, he believed, 50 tenants there—indeed
not 40, but it was an agricultural borough—(hear, hear,
from Mr. Bright)—with proprietors all round it of Conser-
vative principles, and one lived in the immediate neighbour.
hood. Still, there was as much independence there as there
was in the town of Dover. (Laughter and Ministerial cheers.)
That borough had returned members to that house who had
become ornaments in that house as orators and statesmen;
and the noble lord the member for London knew well that
when Mr. Fox was only 19, he was returned to Parliament
by that nomination borough, and he sat in that house for
the great Whig patron, through whom he obtained that
great name which be had left behind him. (Hear, hear.)
He hoped the Whigs would not now disfranchise that
borough which had returned to Parliament someof the most
eloquent lawyers that ever spoke in that house. (Loud
cheers.) He had to apologise to the house for this inter-
ruption, and he would now proceed with his argument in
reply to the hon. gentleman's observations on nomination
boroughs. The hon. gentleman would do away with nomi-
nation boroughs. But this class of boroughs stood upon
the ground of prescriptive right ; and the principle upon
which these boroughs claimed the right of representa-
tion was admirable, and eloquently advocated by the
right honourable gentleman the member for Kiddermin-
ster, in his speech to the electors of that borough last year.
He told them that the moment they destroyed the ties that
bound up the constituencies with the prescriptive rights of
these boroughs, they would do that which would go far to
destroy the constitutional stability of the country. (Hear.
Let them prove that these boroughs were corrupt, he would
then disfranchise them • but if that was not proved, and it
was only shown that they were small nomination boroughs,
then he would adopt the argument of his right hon. friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and say, vary the bo-
roughs and the constituents in them. Let them look both
to the smaller boroughs as well as to the larger towns, if
they desired to see men in that house of moderate views and
cultivated minds ; men who would devote themselves to the
public business of the country—men who could give advice
when Government failed and men of position faltered.
(Cheers.) Again he would say he cordially approved of
the measure brought in by the Government in that respect,
and he thought the Government was deserving of the
thanks of the country for not giving way to a mere theore-
tical cry, by means of which they might have obtained a
little more popularity, but the result of which would be
possibly no improvement to the character of that house.
(Cheers.) He had now to approach a more difficult task.
and one of which he should have to speak partly with plea-
sure and partly with pain. The other practical inconveni-
ence which they had to deal with, was in giving to certain
persons the power and means of acquiring the franchise,
and upon that part of the case he did not differ very mate-
rially from the hon. member, but he could not find from
him or any one else what specific description of alteration
they required. (Loud cheers.) He would now refer to
that part of the bill to which he could not give his assent,
unless they gave a guarantee that the whole question to
which he was going to refer would be fairly open to consi-
deration in committee, and that any alteration which might
be proposed, and fairly accepted by the house, should be
adopted by the Government. (Hear.) This part of the
question had been entered into by the noble lord the mem-
ber for London, but not fully so. All the old franchises, in
connexion with the counties, as carried by the Reform Bill,
had been altered, and altered for the worse. There was
first the old 40s. freehold franchise. That, however, he
would leave with the noble lord the member for London to
deal with. There was, however the uestion of the lease-
hold for years, that relating to copyhold, and the £5O occu-
endnos them.
pation clause. All these were altered. In respect to these
different classes of the franchise, they had the security that
there must be a franchise over and above ,the rent and
charges. But trheeTfehqrru:
waoirotg t
roefl at ht
ne g rentTtho occupation, isw
aos
franchisenow
as they excluded
fre
wasreodcould appearede ethe
t not°cinllaul°ssay, unless
Reform Bill, were wholly left out, why,
h unless the term " tenement" was a legal
difficulty. The object of the Reform Bill was to give a resi-
dent franchise ; but by the wording of the present bill in